Salt Lake City TRAX light rail is kind of both "monocentric" and "polycentric"

In Cities in Full, Steve Belmont argues for center city centralization and in his discussion about transit, he contrasts the SF MUNI system, which is completely within the city, but complemented by the subway-commuter rail BART, which serves the Greater Bay Area, and the WMATA Metrorail system in Greater DC.

What I figured out that he didn't is that the Metrorail system functions as two different systems, a polycentric commuter rail system reaching out as far as 32 miles into the suburbs (Metro Center to Ashburn on the Silver Line), and a monocentric heavy rail subway system in the core of DC proper.  

WMATA/Metrorail core system in DC.

Full system graphic.

The smallest circle is the core of DC.  From Cities in Full.

Most every station catchment area in the DC core has revitalized, while many out-city station areas remain poorly developed ("Transit oriented development station typology revisited," "Welcome to the loneliest Metro stop," Washington Post).

I was arguing with New Urbanists about a "new urban development" in the Daybreak community of South Jordan ("Downtown Daybreak opens, a mixed-use city core," CNU), stating that an itty bit of urbanism, 200 acres, in the midst of hundreds of miles of sprawl is but a wee bit forward.

One of the counter points was that Daybreak "has light rail."  It will, but at 20 miles from the core of Salt Lake City, it's almost exurban ("Transit oriented development station typology revisited"), and research finds that the best ROI from transit is within the first 10 miles of the system.

TRAX came about because of the 2002 Winter Olympics and I think it functions pretty well within its transit shed ("Updating the mobilityshed / mobility shed concept" and "Manhattan Institute misses the point about the value of light rail transit connections to airports | Utility and the network effect: the transit network as a platform").  It's just that the State Legislature has been more focused on far suburban extensions of the system, rather than more intensive additions in the core of the system.

I wouldn't say TRAX in the core is exactly monocentric, but complemented by a decent enough bus system, if you live within one half mile to one mile of a station, it works pretty well.  The main core line, on 400 South in Salt Lake, hasn't seen the kind of more intense development and urban re-design that is necessary to adequately leverage the transit infrastructure, but for a city of its size--210,000 people--it does reasonably well.

I was skeptical of the proposal for the new Orange Line ("Utah Agency Picks Preferred Route for $400M Salt Lake City Light Rail Expansion," Engineering News-Record), because it is mostly duplicative of the existing transit shed, but it does add some stations in the Central Business-Residential District as well as a couple on or near the University of Utah campus, and proposes TOD at one of the stations on the campus also.

The favored route would include 2.8 miles of new track. Map courtesy Utah Transit Authority

Interestingly, this would move TRAX a couple stations towards Foothill Avenue, which is the main arterial in my neighborhood, leading to I-215.  

The new stadium station would provide a different route from the current station at 1300 East, which is at the bottom of the stadium/park and ride lot.

The blue line on the map is I-215.  On the northeast end, it runs into Foothill Drive, about two miles from the University of Utah campus.

To my way of thinking, the best intensification effort would be to have a line on I-215, either light rail or commuter rail to the University campus and research park (the Frontrunner train is also decent, a single line though, within its catchment area).  

And then separately with a light rail along Foothill and down to Sugar House to connect to the S-Line streetcar and back to the light rail, in an orbital route.

Of course, such line extensions could happen but beyond my life time.

I sound like a broken record even to me when it comes to a preference for broad-based planning

According to a DDOT press release, "DC Circulator Launches Planning Study: Six Month Project Will Map System’s Future," they have convened a transportation study to:

guide the expansion of the DC Circulator over the next five to ten years. This comprehensive study will enlist the help of riders and other stakeholders to evaluate the current system and identify future corridors for new service.

What's frustrating about this is that is too narrowly construed, and is independent of a broad planning effort for transit services in the District.

Sure there's the Transportation Element in the Comprehensive Plan + the recent DDOT Action Plan, but what's necessary is a comprehensive transportation plan which places the Circulator within a broad framework of services.

The framework as promoted in this display board (below) at various public meeting is more idiosyncratic than systematic.


What the Circulator bus system offers is a legible service (the buses have a nice graphic treatment and the bus stop information systems are better than for traditional Metrobus services) that is frequent--every 10 minutes.

However, generally to run a bus line with that frequency you need a fair amount of ridership, I'd estimate, at least 10,000 riders/day, and most of the newer Circulator bus services don't meet that standard.

The thing that needs to be done is the creation of an overt high frequency surface transit system. We have the makings of it with certain services, but bus prioritization hasn't occurred in the places where it is needed, primarily downtown.

And high frequency bus services, other than the Circulator, aren't marketed or differentiated from other service. This needs to change.

These questions don't get addressed because of people being more enthralled with the type of bus, the graphics, and the allied information systems. Instead, quality of the bus, the graphic identity, and the allied information systems need to be improved overall. (This is happening in terms of the quality of the bus, as Metrobus has pretty much replaced the old buses with new ones.)

The other thing is that the city needs to address providing intra-neighborhood transit services in a cost-effective but comprehensive manner. Likely that doesn't mean service every 10 minutes, but there is likely a reasonable position between no service and service every 10 minutes that it cost-effective.

Providing service frequency for buses that are mostly empty (such as the Capitol Hill-Navy Yard Circulator) does not do us any favors.

The Union Station-Navy Yard DC Circulator uses 30 foot buses.

(Also see this blog entry: Metropolitan Mass Transit Planning presentation.)