In August of 2025, Iryna Zarutska was murdered on a light rail train operated by the Charlotte Area Transit System (CATS). Writing about the murder at the time, I noted that Zarutska’s killer, Decarlos Brown Jr., had boarded the train without a ticket, and I suggested that “preventing fare evasion on public transit” was one of several things that ought to be done to prevent such tragedies in the future. A year later, everyone seems to agree about that. There is no agreement, however, about how to go about it.
The North Carolina Office of the State Auditor (OSA) made its position clear last month in a report evaluating “the adequacy and effectiveness of CATS’s safety and security operations.” The report makes several recommendations, one of which is highlighted in boldface type:
Above all, CATS should install gates or turnstiles to deter non-ticketed passengers, especially at light rail stations.
There’s a lot to be said for that approach. According to multiple reports, most crimes on public transit systems are committed by fare evaders, and transit systems that have installed effective systems for excluding fare evaders have repeatedly reported declines in crime. If CATS had had an effective fare gate system in place last year, Brown might not have been on that train, and Zarutska might still be alive.
An effective fare gate system would benefit CATS in other ways as well. The OSA report cites CATS’ own research finding that 60% of light rail riders fail to pay and that the system loses between $5 million and 6.5 million every year due to fare evasion. Installing a fare gate system could help CATS could recover some of that lost revenue, and that’s not all. Ridership declined sharply after the death of Iryna Zarutska. By reducing the level of crime and disorder, a fare gate system would encourage more people to use public transit, which would generate even more revenue and help CATS achieve its ridership goals.
All those considerations notwithstanding, CATS appears to have rejected OSA’s recommendation. CATS’ Interim CEO Brent Cagle recently told WSOC-TV that installing turnstiles and enclosures at every station “is not feasible,” while Metropolitan Public Transportation Authority Chairman David Howard said, “It’s not something we’re looking at right now.” The problem is that CATS’ light rail system was designed and constructed as an open system with stations at street level instead of inside buildings or underground. Retrofitting turnstiles and enclosures on such a system is expensive. Like CATS’ light rail system, St. Louis’s Metro was designed and built with open, surface level stations. In response to security concerns, the Metro is currently being retrofitted with barriers and gates at an estimated cost of $52 million. CATS has fewer stations than the St. Louis Metro, and there are no doubt many other differences between the two systems. Nevertheless, it’s safe to say that retrofitting the Charlotte system with barriers and gates would cost tens of millions of dollars.
That is why CATS is focusing on enhanced fare enforcement instead. It has already begun hiring off-duty police officers to patrol bus and train stations and installing electronic “fare validators” on platforms; it has contracted with a private company to provide fare-inspection “ambassadors” who will check proof of payment on trains and platforms; and it is considering ways to make more effective use of the thousands of surveillance cameras that are already in place by using AI face-recognition and by connecting them directly to the Charlotte-Mecklenburg Police Department (CMPD).
There’s nothing inherently wrong that approach, and the deployment of off-duty police officers and fare inspectors on trains and platforms seems like a particularly good idea. The CMPD reports that there has already been a substantial decline in transit crime since off-duty officers began patrolling the system, and the deployment of fare inspectors should help as well. There is a large and growing body of evidence showing that police presence deters crime, and it seems likely that the presence of private fare inspectors will have a similar effect. The use of AI enabled surveillance cameras may also help.
Of course, these things also cost money. CATS’ budget for 2027 includes $10 million for off-duty police officers and fair inspectors along, and presumably the other measure mentioned above will push the cost of enforcement even higher. Without a formal feasibility study, it’s impossible to say whether the fare gate approach recommended by SOA or the enhanced fare enforcement approach adopted by CATS would be most cost-effective. In terms of public safety, the ideal would be to implement both approaches at the same time, and it’s conceivable that that would be the most cost-effective approach of all. CATS has made its choice. Let us hope it works well enought to make public transit in Charlotte safe and popular.
For more information see:
