You don't appreciate a good bus stop until it rains; GoDurham holds public meeting tonight
May 04, 2016
Who is to congratulate for installing this bus stop book swap? Photo by Lisa Sorg
The city’s best bus stop is in front of the Durham Co-op on West Chapel Hill Street, on the No. 6 line that runs from downtown into Duke West Campus and all the way to Sparger Road. Enclosed in glass, the stop has a roof to protect riders from the rain. And it features a book swap. Akin to Little Free Libraries, bus stop book swaps can be found worldwide. What better way to pass the time on a bus than by reading? (Unless you’re like me, and books + buses = motion sickness.)
Bus stops — their number, location, safety, and condition — are the topic of a GoDurham public meeting tonight from 6:30 to 8 p.m., at the Durham Transportation Center, 515 W. Pettigrew St. You can also comment online.
The GoDurham system has 1,058 bus stops, the conditions of which vary widely. Some are forlorn outposts in grass on the side of highways; others are near the city center, and where, despite a large trash can, people still throw their losing lottery tickets on the ground. (I’m looking at you, Morehead Avenue.) One, on Rigsbee Avenue near Durham Central Park, even has a solar-powered, real-time departure and arrival board.
Here are some bus stop statistics, provided by GoDurham:
- 137 stops are sheltered
- 37 additional stops have benches only
- 705 bus stops are located on a sidewalk
- 61 percent of all GoDurham boardings are at stops with shelters
- An additional 3 percent of boardings are at stops with just benches
- 84 percent of all GoDurham boardings are at stops located on a sidewalk
According to GoTriangle/GoDurham figures, a single shelter costs $8,000–$10,000, plus several thousand dollars in installation costs. Installing a single bus stop can cost as little as $500 if, for example, the City can include a concrete waiting pad as part of a larger sidewalk project. However, if the location is more complicated — along an N.C. Department of Transportation right-of-way, such as along Highway 54 or even Durham-Chapel Hill Boulevard, and on private property — the cost can exceed $25,000 even before construction.
GoDurham is proposing to the city to add 10 new bus stops a year, with 200 over the next decade. Some of the improvements will be made with money generated by the transit tax that voters approved in 2011.
So now you know. You're ready for the meeting.
I'm a frequent driver on a stretch of road in South Durham well traveled by buses, Hwy 54, specifically between Hwy 55 and Fayetteville Road. It's 2.5 miles and while in a car it typically takes around 6 minutes, it is much longer to traverse as a pedestrian who rides the bus. I have seen people walking to bus stops on small muddy dirt paths because there is no sidewalk, including people on motorized wheelchairs, people toting groceries, people pushing babies in strollers, and when they do reach the bus stop it doesn't get easier. By my count there are 12 stops on this short section of road. Of those 12, only 2 stops have a trash can. And only one has a bench and a shelter. This is unacceptable and you can see it in their faces as they wait in the rain, inches from the highway, splashed by passing rush hour traffic. This is a highly trafficked route and these people deserve more. I hope they can find a way - and the funding - to improve their stops.
Posted by: Kat | May 04, 2016 at 07:14 PM
I was the project manager for Kent Corner, where Durham Co-op Market is. We chose to build a bus shelter because it was one small way that we could serve the West End. It was designed and built by our team at our expense.
Anyway, Durham deserves to have so many more shelters. Thanks for writing about this.
Posted by: Micah Kordsmeier | May 05, 2016 at 07:46 AM
Michah, Thanks so much for that bus shelter; it really is the best one in the city. I didn't know it had been built with private funds. Again, thanks for your work.
Posted by: Lisa Sorg | May 05, 2016 at 08:37 AM
I agree with adding shelters. As always it is allocating funds.
Posted by: James Kempski | May 05, 2016 at 09:16 AM
Thanks for writing this, Lisa! I take the GoTriangle bus to RTP frequently for work, so I make it a point to attend any transit-related public meetings that I can. The presentation and maps were very informative as a snapshot of how the shelters and benches are allocated across the city. Attendees were provided a certain amount of "dollars" to spend on shelters, benches or real-time arrival boards as they saw fit based on the where the data showed that the most boardings took place.
Posted by: Andy | May 05, 2016 at 09:18 AM
are we sure a top down approach is best? consider the co-op info and what Athens GA has allowed (google their bus stop/Images) maybe a little neighborhood rivalry/arts approach, church/boy scout projects then fill in the rest with 'money as the highest aesthetic' municipal fix?
Posted by: root | May 05, 2016 at 11:37 AM
I agree we need more bus shelters. However, one on N. Miami Blvd was becoming a hang-out for the day-drinkers. Folks actually waiting for the bus were standing far to the side as there was no room in the shelter. To help deter this GoDurham removed the bench. No problem. The day-drinkers brought their own milk crates. Then GoDurham removed the three enclosed sides. Now there is only shelter from the rain and the day-drinkers have found another hang-out spot. At least the folks boarding the bus have shelter from the rain.
Posted by: Nancy | May 05, 2016 at 11:40 AM
Thanks for or highlighting this issue Lisa and informing people about this public meeting. All of our bus stops should be comfortable, safe and attractive places for citizens. There is huge potential for bus stops to add to our aesthetic environment in Durham as public art and as vehicles for public history, public information and public benefit (as we see with the book swap initiative!) I would love to see a collaborative, creative and visionary effort come together with stakeholders such as the Durham artist community, the Durham History Museum, the Durham Public Library, NCSU Design School students, Durham Area Designers, the Durham business and development community among others to partner with GoTriangle and come with a plan of how to create bus stops that enhance public transit for our citizens and also add to our built environment. Bus stops as innovative public art/sculpture/architecture? There are lots of examples of this all over the world and we do have few bus shelters in downtown Durham highlighting our local history. A program where businesses or other entities can help finance and sponsor a bus stop and commission the construction is a model I hope we will explore. With more than 1,000 bus stops in Durham and only 137 sheltered and the number of bus stops increasing with expanded future bus service as we improve our transit system, there is the potential to do something really great in Durham to tackle this need.
Posted by: Wendy Jacobs | May 05, 2016 at 11:53 AM
I wonder how many shelters could have been built for what it cost to rebrand "DATA" as "GoDurham".
Posted by: Brian Hawkins | May 05, 2016 at 12:07 PM
The bus stop for BullCity Connector on the corner of Broad and Main lacks just about every feature described, except for a trashcan. Yet, that is the bus stop where I consistently see people waiting for a bus (typically crouching under a tree). It is the worst highly volume bus stop in the city, I think.
Posted by: Oleg Kobelev | May 05, 2016 at 01:04 PM
Oleg, you're right in that the Broad/Main bus stop is high volume and lacking in amenities. I can only imagine the mud bath occurring there right now during this rainstorm.
And as to Kat's point about the NC 54 stops between NC 55 and Fayetteville, those are also atrocious. I was down that way today on a quest to look at the city's sidewalk priorities, and was stunned by the long grass and lack of highway shoulders to stand on, especially on the south side of the highway.
Wendy, I would love to see your idea come to fruition. There is so much potential — and a lot of human capital — to make this happen.
Posted by: Lisa Sorg | May 05, 2016 at 01:15 PM
It's this issue that makes one have to ask, Is Durham ready for light rail when we can't even get our act together for buses? How many white collar workers dressed to the nines will take buses when they don't have shelters and sidewalks? So, did they present a plan for an effective, comprehensive, quality bus transit system? $1.5 billion for light rail is about right, but $10,000 for a bus shelter is extravagant?
Posted by: Will Wilson | May 05, 2016 at 05:05 PM
I suppose the first rule of PR is to never stop saying it.
Rail will only be successful if it's alignment evolves the critical corridors. This would be the old 54 including a complete erasure of the road from just past the I40 exit 273 until just before the 751 intersection (helping to clean Jordan lake) , and certainly a transformation of the section between 55 and Fayetteville.
I'm inclined to think that it is a mistake to consider these 'sidewalk' or 'bus shelter' issues.
Posted by: root | May 06, 2016 at 08:01 AM
It doesn't really matter if the LRT line is the absolutely most perfect thing in the world...if we continue to treat bus transit like crumbs to the po' folk instead of making it an efficient, clean, fast, adaptable mode of transportation for everyone, then we're never going to have a quality transit system, and it makes no sense to invest billions in LRT. IMHO.
Posted by: Will Wilson | May 06, 2016 at 09:26 AM
I see, make riding the bus sexy. How about rebranding to GoGo Durham and get a couple of Victoria's Secret ads on the side?
Posted by: root | May 06, 2016 at 11:43 AM
@root, try this:
http://www.fastcoexist.com/1680552/the-sexiest-most-fun-bus-youll-ever-see
That'll do.
Posted by: Dukie02 | May 06, 2016 at 02:06 PM
I spent several weeks last month without the use of a car. When my old car died, I decided to take my time replacing it, reasoning that I could make do with the bus since I live near downtown. This was far from my first experience on Durham's buses, but this time I would be dependent on Durham's bus system.
Despite my prior exposure to our bus service, I was shocked by how shoddy our services are. Durham's bus system is a humiliating last resort offered to those unfortunates who are too poor or too infirm to own an automobile. I have traveled in developing nations that had better bus service. It's great to think about improving our bus shelters as a "Yay Durham!" civic art project, but when we reach the day when the vast majority of stops have shelters, we'll only be catching up to the minimum standard for a civilized public transport system.
In addition to the horrendous conditions of the bus stops, other glaring shortcomings are infrequent service and inadequate coverage of the city. Just try taking the bus on a Sunday afternoon to run errands at the North Pointe Drive stores. We did. What would have taken an hour to accomplish with a car took four hours, much of which was spent waiting at stops for once-an-hour service, and walking to other stops when we discovered the bus wasn't coming to this particular stop.
In concurrence with Will Wilson's sentiments above, the fact that we have not been able to provide quality bus service makes me impatient with those who are eager to spend billions on a shiny new rail service of debatable utility.
Posted by: David Fellerath | May 07, 2016 at 06:53 AM
sunday service is a problem.
so is the absurd use of the electronic scroll signs saying 'thank you for riding' (even after sunday service has ceased for the day!!-not informing riders that service will begin a 515am the following day) or instead of being linked to the app showing real time ETA's.
if our civic design was better we wouldn't need bus shelters every quarter to half mile along routes, but they would be integrated into the destinations.
Posted by: root | May 09, 2016 at 08:09 AM
Presuming you also consider peoples homes as destinations. The issue with the shelters is that local residential bus stops are often in areas without cover either because there is no shelter or the shelter has been neglected or vandalized. So what is important is not only where people work and shop where there is cover, but where do people live?
The other consideration is how traffic is fed and managed in the system and how those patterns change hour to hour. It should not take 2 hours and 2 transfers to go 15 or 20 miles as it does in some cases now.
Taking the lion's share of regressive transit dollars for a system that will be obsoleted for the "choice" riders very quickly is just bad public policy.
Posted by: plurimus | May 09, 2016 at 10:38 AM
blaming buses for all those problems and expecting them to solve them isn't an argument against rails ability to do so.
Posted by: root | May 09, 2016 at 11:01 AM
Who said it was? Arguments against LRT stand alone and are persuasive in the national context.
The argument against DOLRT specifically is self evident; regressive taxation to spend the lions share of available transit dollars on an outmoded transit trophy that is being built to server the transit choice riders.
Posted by: plurimus | May 09, 2016 at 05:31 PM
plurimus-
I wish it were self evident because then I wouldn't have to invest in responding to your posts. trains are not outmoded, or at least you need to convince the Japanese, the Europeans, New Yorkers and quite a few South Americans.
The currently proposed alignment would however, doom it to failure.
Posted by: root | May 10, 2016 at 07:57 AM
@root
You like to paint me as anti-rail. I am not. You also conflate different types of rail which have different purposes and different economic models. You likely would not have to respond if you understood this.
I never said trains were outmoded, only LRT. Big rail, including commuter rail is very much alive although freight is what makes money.
Existing LRT probably have so much sunk costs that they cannot be abandoned and continue to be a jobs program for transit planners, My first point is and always has been that disruptive transit strategies and technologies will largely replace DOLRT before it is ever completed reducing it to a anachronistic costly amusement ride.
My second point is that the taxes being collected for DOLRT are regressive, and m a public policy point of view, the harm a regressive tax can be mitigated the most by reinvesting that money in places where the proportional tax takes the most bite. DOLRT does exactly the opposite.
I do agree about the alignment as well, but that is tertiary to my first and second points.
Wasting so much money when the area has so many gaps its its already rickety transit system is unconscionable.
Posted by: plurimus | May 10, 2016 at 09:37 AM
I'm glad you approve of commuter rail but don't think you realize how it could benefit those without cars indirectly in offering a non-road/car dependent alternative building 'economic model,' to adopt your phrase. The 'rickety transit system' is due to the burden automobiles impose. And the techno fantasy of driverless cars I believe I've heard you excited about, can you help me understand how they'll solve the issues of traffic congestion and parking?
Also, could you clarify "reinvesting that money in places where the proportional tax takes the most bite" -wasn't the 'regressive' tax voted on?
Posted by: root | May 10, 2016 at 11:17 AM
First non-sequitur; a regressive tax that was voted on is no less regressive. The vote was held during an mid-term election which is not not permitted. Furthermore the referendum was for transit and not light rail specifically. The vote would not pass today
Second driver less cars will reduce individual ownership, decrease road miles and traffic congestion. Driver less buses will permit buses tobe even more flexible than they are today, which is orders of magnitude more flexible than LRT.
The rickety transit system is due to under funding and transit monies being siphoned off for economic development like DOLRT as well as mismanagement by GoTriangle and TTA before them. Ask GoTriangle how much they have spent "studying" DOLRT over the years.
Commuter rail would solve some problems but lets face it TTA can't even fill the buses now.
Posted by: plurimus | May 10, 2016 at 07:48 PM
@plurimus - You have dropped several hints that you live near the proposed light rail maintenance facility. Is that the case? . . . Be honest!
Posted by: chris98 | May 10, 2016 at 09:21 PM
I appreciate the reply. I think you're wrong.
'Regressive' is fine but if you consider automobiles as a luxury item you might reconsider?
Posted by: root | May 11, 2016 at 07:22 AM
@Chris,
As I have indicated before I live no where near the proposed DOLRT. Totally honest. Lived in Woodcroft for +20 years, but moved out to the county +10 years ago. As a rtax paying resident, my objection is the absurd misuse of tax dollars at the expense of the people who really need public transportation. So, no your NIMBY accusation does not work on me. BTW I tend to think local concern is a valuable thing, because those are the people who have enough skin in the game question the glib assumptions.
Durham and GoTriange under fund the transportation for those that need it. This has recently been documented on BCR. You seem to want to justify spending 1.8 billion of badly needed transportation funds on an economic development plan for the well off. Stunning. Just stunning.
Worse, this is just the beginning, based on cost overruns on similar lines GoTriangle have under estimated the cost by a third or more and seem to have over estimated the ridership. Pay no attention to the man behind the curtain.
@root
Automobiles are both a luxury item and for many an absolute necessity. I agree, that is a problem. We differ in the ultimate solution set.
Think of it this way; if you own an automobile you pay 24/7/365 to own/lease, maintain, insure, and store it. If you are a family you likely pay twice that. Now; how much time do you actually USE that car? For most, it's a small percentage of the time you actually own it. Worse its a depreciating asset and driving being the single largest form of deregulated transportation, is dangerous too.
Now, think of a model where autonomous cars are owned by fleets. They are used on demand and only pay for use. How much personal or family capital would that free up for other things? How much safer would it be? how much more productive time would be available to you? How would this change public transportation?
Major car companies and many upstarts are working on this feverishly, buying and partnering with technology companies. Technology companies are leveraging their expertise in geo-location, mapping and automation to venture into transportation because they see it as the next great disruption. Make no mistake the pace of change is accelerating. Google alone has over 1.5 million miles driven autonomously.
AT&T and Google are currently deploying very dense fibre optic networks in the greater triangle which will enable intravehicular communication, reducing the potential for traffic jams and increasing safety, as well as the available real estate on roads and parking facilities.
Of course the well off will be the first to enjoy this technology, but yep, you guessed it that exactly the target ridership of DOLRT. As the model migrates to "on demand" it is so much more efficient than DOLRT which will effectively run empty most of the time. Many that ride DOLRT will still need to own a car to get to the measly 17 mile DOLRT.
This disruption will not happen overnight but will likely happen in exactly the areas where GoTriange is spending over one and a half billion dollars on DOLRT. How could that money be spent better on real transportation?
http://www.mckinsey.com/industries/automotive-and-assembly/our-insights/ten-ways-autonomous-driving-could-redefine-the-automotive-world
Posted by: plurimus | May 11, 2016 at 10:36 AM
I forego a point by point rebuttal and appreciate your analysis, but your argument against dolrt is erroneous.
Posted by: root | May 11, 2016 at 11:03 AM
@root
Heh, OK. From that I conclude you work for GoTriangle.
Posted by: plurimus | May 11, 2016 at 02:07 PM
you've made numerous errors in your assumptions throughout the thread
Posted by: root | May 11, 2016 at 02:25 PM
Please enlighten me:
23,000 projected passengers (in 2040) / 150 trains / 17 miles = 9 passengers per vehicle mile. Less than 2% utilization of 500 DOLRT capacity. So for every one train at capacity, you will have 50 trains running empty.
Posted by: plurimus | May 11, 2016 at 04:13 PM
I'm going to go ahead and wait until you correct your previous errors.
Posted by: root | May 11, 2016 at 05:15 PM
@plurimus - When you say that you "moved out to the county +10 years ago", do you mean Durham County or Orange County? You post some pretty detailed stuff about Chapel Hill politics, and I'm just trying to gauge the authenticity of your concern for poor people in Durham.
Also, on a separate note, what the hell is "intravehicular communication?" Isn't that just talking to somebody else in the car? Not sure why I need a fiber optic network for that.
Posted by: chris98 | May 11, 2016 at 07:41 PM
@root. Do your own analysis and show your work. I'll wait until you back up your assertions with facts.
@chris98 none of your business. My concern for people and for government waste is not bounded by location. As I recall you live in VA and *used* to live in Durham, perhaps still owning property here. Sorry for the typo, meant intervehicular, - many to many communication between vehicles and extravehicular communication communication with infrastructure and environment.
Posted by: plurimus | May 11, 2016 at 08:48 PM
plurimus- you are the one who has made assertions about technology, disruptions, and driverless cars making the project 'obsolete', (or whatever term you used-outmoded?) without 'showing your work'
anyway, it's good you're involved, I think Go Triangle is asking for input and you should definitely share your concerns. The plan needs a lot of work.
Posted by: root | May 12, 2016 at 07:03 AM
@root I know you folks at GoTriange wish that I was the only one making these assertions, however it is the industry making these assertions. Google self driving cars are road legal in 9 states. Nissan has had a road legal version in Japan since 2013.
DOLRT is an expensive technological dinosaur. GoTriange is not only wasting 1.8 billion in tax money, but much more in opportunity costs. Don't get stuck on stupid.
Posted by: plurimus | May 12, 2016 at 07:37 AM
you're misinterpreting the data, that is, what you have of it. they need the roads because they don't make anything profitable except the dinosaurs of algorithms which tell you what you want to hear.
you need to step outside.
Posted by: root | May 12, 2016 at 07:55 AM
I wonder if we can get BCR to do a detailed financial breakdown of Gotriangle and GoDurham like they did for the Durham Public Schools.
I'm not a transit expert and I'm not a financial expert but the numbers they show in their annual report, if I'm reading them correctly, paint a bleak picture in terms of efficiency.
Gotriangle total riders 1,843,735
GoTriangle Operating expenditures $32,144,502
GoTriangle Capital expenditures $17,416,133
That's over $25 a ride.
I must be missing something.
Posted by: Jeff Bakalchuck | May 13, 2016 at 02:02 PM
Why do we need established bus stops? I took public transportation frequently when I lived in Champaign, IL--and as I recall, there you could catch a bus at any corner along the bus route. I understand why you might want formal stops at larger sites like a shopping center or a hospital or large employer (Duke, RTP sites, etc). But if a bus route runs down Hillsborough Road, or Main Street or Club Blvd or Chapel Hill Street, why couldn't people just catch it at the corners along the route?
I realize this doesn't address the need for shelters--and you might still want to identify large stops with shelters. But it would offer real convenience and an incentive to live along & near bus routes.
Posted by: Kelly | May 14, 2016 at 08:43 AM