Charlotte opposition to I-77 South toll refund bill grows

AMAZING AERIAL AGENCY

An amendment in a bill authored by state Sen. Vickie Sawyer would require Charlotte area municipalities to reimburse the North Carolina Department of Transportation for $60 million in design work on the scuttled I-77 South toll lane project. Under the bill, Charlotte, which has 41% of the vote on the Charlotte Regional Transportation Planning Organization, voted to rescind its support for the project.

The pushback against a bill that would force Charlotte and neighboring jurisdictions to repay the state for design work on the I-77 South toll project is growing.

HB 1094 sponsored by state Sen. Vickie Sawyer contains an amendment that would require members of the regional transportation organization to reimburse the North Carolina Department of Transportation $60 million for the project’s design phase. Sawyer, a Republican who represents Iredell County and north Mecklenburg, announced her opposition to the toll project, insists the amendment is to inform local governments of potential consequences for withdrawing their support.

Charlotte City Council voted 6-5 on May 11 to rescind support for a private contractor to build toll lanes. Based on the proportionality of the Charlotte Regional Transportation Planning Organization, the city would be responsible for 41% of the reimbursement. Mecklenburg County and the town of Matthews also voted to oppose the project. 

“I want to be very clear: the punitive provision in the amendment was not my idea,” Sawyer, who co-chairs of the Senate Transportation Committee, wrote in a June 17 email. “It is part of the broader budget agreement supported by legislative leadership. I included it in my amendment so that you and other stakeholders would have complete and transparent information as you plan for the future.

“Please also keep in mind that the Towns of Davidson and Cornelius, which are also in my district, stand to lose significant funding once the budget passes. My goal was to warn and inform our communities.”

Opponents of the toll project, however, see the bill as an unlawful attempt to force municipalities to reverse course under threat of sanctions that includes withholding future state and federal transportation funding until NCDOT is repaid.

“State transportation dollars are intended to serve the people of North Carolina, regardless of where they live or whether local leaders agree with state officials on every issue,” Sean Langley, president of the McCrorey Heights Neighborhood Association, wrote in an email to Sawyer. “Efforts to withhold funding from specific communities appear less like sound transportation policy and more like retaliation against municipalities whose elected leaders have taken positions you oppose.

“North Carolina's transportation system is a shared asset that supports economic growth, public safety, and mobility across the state. Funding decisions should be based on objective needs, established formulas, and the public interest—not political disagreements. What legitimate transportation purpose is served by denying taxpayers in Charlotte and other affected communities access to funds that they help generate and support?”

North Carolina Transportation Secretary Daniel Johnson notified Mayor Vi Lyles in a May 15 letter that withdrawing support for the initiative would prompt the state to remove Charlotte from the state’s long-term transportation plan, which would divert at least $600 million to other projects across the state.

“The proposal to require local governments to repay planning costs, prohibit the use of locally approved transportation revenues for that purpose, and withhold future state and federal transportation funding until repayment is made would establish a troubling precedent for North Carolina,” said Shannon Binns, executive director of Sustain Charlotte. “It would effectively penalize communities for participating in the transportation planning process and reaching conclusions that differ from those of state officials.

“If local governments can be punished for removing a transportation project today, they can be punished for modifying or removing any transportation project tomorrow. That should concern everyone, regardless of where they stand on the I-77 South project itself.”

Opponents of the toll project – especially in neighborhoods that would be directly impacted through the loss of property – argue transportation officials have been less than forthcoming in their presentation as well as seeking alternatives. State officials contend public-private collaboration is the only path to alleviating congestion on one of North Carolina’s busiest roads.

The toll initiative was criticized over concerns of a lack of transparency by NCDOT, in addition environmental impacts of elevated lanes and displacement in Charlotte’s historically Black neighborhoods. The Brooklyn community in Second Ward, for instance, was razed in the 1960s to make way for the I-277 loop. Portions of Historic West End neighborhoods were seized to accommodate interstate construction.

“That is why we have repeatedly called for an independent study of the available alternatives,” Langley wrote. “This request is not intended to obstruct progress but to ensure that decisions affecting thousands of residents and commuters are based on comprehensive, objective analysis. Before committing substantial taxpayer resources to a single course of action, the public deserves confidence that all viable options have been thoroughly evaluated and compared.

“At the same time, the communities most affected by this project have made clear that they want to see reconnection, not further division. An elevated toll-lane structure adjacent to historic neighborhoods and established communities is not an acceptable solution. This concern is grounded in longstanding analysis and public experience with managed toll lane projects, including the I-77 North toll lanes, which have been widely debated regarding their effectiveness in addressing congestion and safety outcomes. 

“Evaluating and implementing alternative transportation options should not come at the expense of neighborhoods that have already sacrificed so much in the name of infrastructure development.”

State Rep. Laura Budd, a Mecklenburg Democrat whose state House district includes South Charlotte, Ballantyne, and Pineville, said Budd’s amendment is a misguided attempt at circumventing municipalities’ independence.

“If we are committed to building and preserving the public’s trust in us as representatives of the State, elected or appointed, we must reject efforts to punish local governments for exercising their democratic authority,” she said in a statement. “Leadership requires us to defend the integrity of our democratic institutions, even if one disagrees with the decision they produce.”

Comments