Under the name “Yes For Meck,” the Charlotte Regional Business Alliance is in the home stretch of a campaign to persuade voters to approve an increase in the sales tax to pay for a multi-billion-dollar transportation plan.
Yes for Meck’s slogan is “Faster Commutes, Less Congestion.” The group’s website and yard signs feature a traffic light on green.
That’s symbolic: Green for progress, green for equity, green for economic growth.
But the traffic light is also meant to emphasize part of the plan that’s meant to improve roads: 40% of all new tax revenue must be spent on them, in addition to the 40% that can be spent on adding rail lines and 20% for buses and new micro-transit.
That’s about $8 billion for roads over 30 years. It’s a crucial part of an estimated $25 billion transit and transportation plan. In November, voters will weigh in on whether to support the plan by raising Mecklenburg’s sales tax from 7.25% to 8.25%. That increase would cost the typical household an additional $240 a year, the city estimates.
So where would all that road money go, and what would it be used for?
Unlike the money for rail and buses, which would go to a new 27-member authority that would work out the details, the road money would flow to the city of Charlotte and to Mecklenburg’s six towns, who would decide how it is spent.
The money would be doled out using a complex formula. The city of Charlotte expects to receive about $100 million a year. Mecklenburg’s six towns have estimated that they will receive somewhere between about $2 million and $12 million a year.
While the money is referred to in shorthand as “road money,” it doesn’t actually have to be spent on building or expanding roads with more lanes for cars. Under the legislation, the municipalities can use it for “costs associated with financing, constructing, operating, or maintaining roadway systems.”
The law says the money can be spent on: streetscapes and landscaping, pedestrian facilities, bicycle facilities, parking lots, curbs, gutters, storm drainage, bridges, overpasses, grade crossings, street lighting and traffic control devices; utility relocations, publicly accessible electric vehicle charging infrastructure [and several other uses].
Several of Mecklenburg’s towns indicated last year that they would spend money on widening roads or building new ones.
Charlotte, though, doesn’t seem to be planning much for roads — at least as most people think of them, as a way to move vehicles.
The city of Charlotte has a 100-page book titled “Blueprint For Charlotte Mobility Investment.” It’s the roadmap for how the city will spend its road money from the tax.
It details plans in 22 “strategic investment areas” throughout the city, and groups them by the seven City Council districts. The plan envisions 264 miles of “road widenings, complete streets, sidewalks and bicycle facilities” — though it doesn’t break down how many of those miles would be specifically for vehicles versus bike lanes.
It also calls for 43 miles of “new streets/street extensions,” plus 95 intersection improvements, 76 miles of street lighting, 41 new traffic signals, 239 “pedestrian/bike signal upgrades,” and 60 miles of shared-use paths (which are wider sidewalks).
Proponents say that the changes will improve safety for drivers, pedestrians and bicyclists. Although the plan is being touted as a way to reduce traffic congestion, many backers and transportation experts also believe that new roads and street widenings only encourage more cars — a concept known in the industry as “induced demand.”
The document doesn’t indicate any plan for what will be built first and has no cost estimates for individual projects, so it is hard to know how much of the plan could be built with the new money from the higher sales tax.
But the blueprint gives an indication of what kind of projects the city wants to build.
- The words “bike” or “bicycle” appear in the blueprint 835 times.
- The words “pedestrian” or “sidewalk” are mentioned 709 times.
- The term “Shared Use Path” is mentioned 241 times.
As for traditional road projects:
- The words “new street” are mentioned 25 times.
- “Vehicular capacity” shows up 16 times, and “road capacity” is mentioned once.
- “Travel lanes” appears 36 times, though most are qualified as being potential projects — not something that is guaranteed to be built.
- “Traffic signal” is mentioned 58 times.
- “Intersection improvements” are listed 123 times, though the blueprint is light on the details. Most are listed as “Scope TBD.” It’s unclear if that means new turn lanes or longer turn lanes.
- “Turn lanes” appears in the document two times.
The city’s mobility blueprint mentions potential “new travel lanes” for the following corridors/roads:
- Brookshire Boulevard
- WT Harris Boulevard
- Hucks Road
- Statesville Road
- Lakeview Road
- Beatties Ford Road
- Tyvola Road (west area)
- Carowinds Boulevard
- Research Drive
- Old Concord Road
- Pavilion Boulevard
- Grier Road
- Village Lake Drive
- Lawyers Road
- Harrisburg Road
A closer look at projects in specific City Council districts shows how the plan plays out.
In District 6, which covers much of south Charlotte, the only project for “new travel lanes” would be a potential widening of Village Lake Drive near Independence Boulevard. However, that would be a difficult road to widen because of the amount of development that’s been built close to the travel lanes.
As for “new streets,” there is one mentioned for District 6: “SouthPark Loop/New Street” between Ashley Park Lane and Piedmont Row Drive. The blueprint does not mention any new turn lanes in District 6.
In contrast, the list of eight “potential projects” in the Park Road/Woodlawn Road area includes two “complete street upgrades,” three “pedestrian/bike” connections or upgrades, adding streetlights on one street, establishing a “mobility hub,” and one project that is “TBD”:
One reason the blueprint is tilted to bike and sidewalks is that there are large parts of Charlotte where it’s practically impossible to expand roads. No one wants to chop down trees and bulldoze front yards to widen Providence Road, for example.
Although there is a heavy focus in the plan on bike lanes and sidewalks, much of the marketing behind the plan seems to suggest that roads will get more attention.
The website for Yes For Meck never mentions bike lanes and sidewalks. It has a graphic touting big money on roads, suggesting that would mean more lanes for vehicles.
A two-minute video narrated by former Charlotte Mayor Harvey Gantt has numerous shots of interstate highways — none of which will get money under the transportation plan. There are only two quick shots of children riding bicycles.
Although the city and Mecklenburg’s towns had earlier envisioned using some of the road money from the new tax to replace existing money spent on roads — which would free up money for other non-transportation projects — the final bill passed by the legislature requires the municipalities to continue spending the annual average of how much they spent on road money for the previous decade. That means that Charlotte can’t “zero out” existing road spending.
WFAE and Transit Time have asked the city how much it has spent on roads for the past 10 years. The city has not answered.
