Durham leaders vow to keep GoDurham fare free while staff outline $10M-plus transit shortfall
Get AI-powered insights, summaries, and transcripts
Subscribe
Summary
City staff told council the GoDurham transit fund faces a structural deficit—driven by higher paratransit costs, contract wage increases and repair needs—and proposed options including eligibility changes, service cuts, tax increases or more county funding; council signaled no appetite to end fare-free service and asked for more analyses and regional talks.
Director Egan and the city manager told Durham City Council during a budget retreat that the GoDurham transit fund is projected to begin FY27 with a more than $10 million deficit and could grow to nearly $12 million by 2030 if current assumptions hold.
The presentation identified several contributors: a newly awarded ACCESS paratransit contract with step-up operator pay in 2025–2027, rising personnel costs and pandemic-related ridership declines that raised cost-per-trip. Staff said ADA paratransit trips taken outside the federal 3/4-mile eligibility zone represent about 16% of city-funded ADA trips with an associated cost near $1,350,000 annually. Other potential savings staff flagged included ending off-duty Durham Police coverage at Durham Station (estimated $1,200,000) and discontinuing a regional call center (about $350,000).
The city manager outlined four broad options for closing the gap: raise the tax rate; smaller tax changes combined with program cuts; find roughly $10.1 million in the general fund; or pursue more revenue from the Durham County transit tax and convene regional partners (GoTriangle and Triangle West) for governance negotiations. He urged using the next year to negotiate with the county and regional partners rather than making immediate deep cuts.
Council members uniformly emphasized equity and the local economic strain. Members repeatedly noted that 87% of GoDurham riders report household incomes below $35,000 and that many riders already qualify for carve-outs that would make them exempt from fares. That combination, they said, makes returning to a fare model politically and practically difficult. One council member who chairs the regional TPO said governance studies are already under way and offered to lead or participate in intergovernmental talks.
Staff also described the limits of the county funding model: the county’s transit-plan formula is governed by three parties and staff said Durham County commissioners told them the plan lacks discretionary capacity to fund recurring operating requests at the scale Durham asked. Staff said the city requested $2,200,000 annually from the Durham County Transit Plan for FY27 support; county staff presented the requests to their board and the commission directed staff to decline most new recurring operating asks because the model showed little capacity.
Council did not take a final vote but clearly signaled they do not want fare-free status changed as an assumption for FY27. The manager said he would include any concrete budget proposals in his proposed budget and provide the council with more detailed analyses, including: a breakdown of who would remain eligible under a return-to-fare scenario, the dollar impact of carve-outs for low-income riders, updated ridership and revenue projections, and options for negotiating additional county support or institutional contributions.
What happens next: staff will return with requested data and options. The manager urged a one-year strategy to buy time for governance negotiations with the county and regional partners and for the council to identify priorities for internal savings that could be considered if needed.