The city of Charlotte got a huge win on Wednesday.
After five years of little progress on a new transportation plan, the state House transportation committee unanimously approved Republican State Rep. Tricia Cotham’s bill to possibly increase the sales tax in Mecklenburg County by one percentage point for more roads, rail transit and buses.
County voters could vote on the sales tax increase in November, if the bill becomes law.
And if voters say yes, transit improvements could start in the back half of 2026. Construction on the Red Line train to Lake Norman could begin in a few years.
But this week’s legislative victory should be put in perspective: Cotham’s original transportation bill from April was arguably superior to her substitute bill passed Wednesday.
Here’s why:
Cotham’s original bill — known as the PAVE Act — called for 40% of sales tax money to be spent on roads and 60% on transit, with no strings attached.
It offered more flexibility than Republican State Sen. Vickie Sawyer’s bill, which mandated spending 40% for roads, no more than 40% on rail transit and 20% on buses and new, on-demand microtransit. Sawyer’s bill was identical to what Mecklenburg leaders agreed to a year ago.
The new Cotham bill that passed committee Wednesday now mirrors Sawyer’s bill, with the transit authority required to spend 20% of the tax revenue on buses and other non-rail transit.
Two obvious losers in the new 40-40-20 split are Matthews and east Charlotte, which have seen the full Silver Line light rail become even more of a remote possibility because there’s less money for trains.
What does the Black community want?
In the last year, Matthews Mayor John Higdon has been the squeakiest wheel when talking about (complaining about) the transit plan.
But as the plan advances, some Black activists in Charlotte have raised questions about the bill, such as Colette Forest and Bobby Drakeford. They have asked why more light rail isn’t being built in predominantly Black communities.
Robert Dawkins with Action NC is also a skeptic of the plan, but he likes the new Cotham bill better than the old one.
He said he told city officials and state lawmakers that the transit bill needed a guarantee of 20% of the tax money going to the bus system. Bus ridership is predominately Black, and he said he believes bus service would be cut to pay for trains in the future.
“That’s why we need a guarantee of 20%,” he said.
Dawkins added that he’s still not sure he will support the bill. But without the guarantee, “there’s no way I’d vote for it.”
Will 20% bus mandate be effective?
Charlotte Area Transit System’s bus operations have seen a massive decline in ridership. It’s down more than 60% since a 2013 peak, and it’s down 40% since before the pandemic.
Ridership is still recovering, but it’s starting to level off. There’s no sign of anything close to a full recovery.
Some of the decline is because of service reductions: CATS offers 16% fewer bus-hours than it did in 2013.
But it’s also due to societal and technological changes. Rideshare companies, for instance, have eaten away at CATS’ customer base. And more people are working from home.
If you look at data from the Federal Transit Administration, CATS operates one of the least efficient bus systems in the nation. That’s a fancy way of saying CATS buses are emptier than buses in most other cities.
The transit system says that the “Better Bus” program will fix that by offering more frequent service and more amenities for passengers, such as bus shelters.
Better Bus will improve the experience of existing riders. But it could also mean tens of millions of dollars spent on new services that will draw few new bus riders.
In other words, more nearly empty buses.
If Better Bus doesn’t work, CATS will still be mandated — by law — to spend 20% of the tax money on buses.
CATS is also planning to invest heavily in a new “microtransit” service — a fleet of cars that take passengers door-to-door for the price of a bus or train ticket, which is $2.20.
The transit system launched CATS Micro in north Mecklenburg County in late February, and plans to have 18 more zones across the county, should the tax pass.
CATS is pleased with the service so far. But having been open only three full months, it’s too early to declare definitively how microtransit is performing.
But let’s look at the early numbers:
CATS has budgeted $2.3 million for the north Mecklenburg micro program for the year.
Through the end of May, CATS had carried 7,000 passenger trips. The ridership trend is going up, with an average of 123 weekday trips in May.
At the moment, that’s an expensive service for taxpayers: Assuming monthly ridership of 3,700 trips, a one-way micro trip costs taxpayers about $50 per person — a round-trip to the grocery store costs $100.
(CATS spent an average of about $182,000 a month to operate microtransit. If ridership is 3,700 monthly trips, that works out to $49 a trip.)
And remember: Micro is not restricted by income. Rich and poor pay the same $2.20 fare and are subsidized the same.
No roads $$ guarantee
Republican legislative leaders have called for Charlotte to have a “roads first” plan. That’s why 40% of the sales tax money must go for roads, even though Charlotte originally wanted to spend far less — possibly as low as a single-digit percentage.
But despite the new roads first pledge, City Manager Marcus Jones has said he plans to replace some of today’s road money (paid for with bonds and property taxes) with road money from the sales tax.
“What’s important about the sales tax for transportation … is that (money) can go directly into our debt service bucket. It gives us more capacity to take some of the property tax and put back in the general fund budget, and that pays salaries for police officers, for firefighters,” he said.
He added: “While it’s all about mobility, it provides some relief on the general fund and the property tax.”
The city said it has no intention to “zero-out” existing roads money. But what about in five years? Ten years?
There is a solution to that potential problem: Mandating the city of Charlotte (and possibly the Mecklenburg towns) provide a so-called “Maintenance of Effort” for roads.
That would mean they would still be required to spend a certain amount from the general fund, in addition to having the roads money from the sales tax.
Neither Cotham’s nor Sawyer’s bills require that.
