House Bill 363 would expand the operating authority of a regional public transportation authority, specifically by allowing it to run buspool service more than 10 miles beyond its territorial jurisdiction. The bill amends the statutes governing regional transit authorities to change references from “territorial jurisdiction” to “service area” in several places and to clarify that public transportation includes carpool, buspool, and vanpool service. It also updates the authority’s general powers to reflect that broader service-area concept and preserves the existing rule that most transit service outside the authority’s boundaries generally remains limited, except for the new buspool-related exception.
The bill also makes conforming changes to the definition of “public transportation” so that it expressly includes buspool and related shared-ride services, while excluding charter, tour, and sightseeing service. The act would take effect July 1, 2025. In practical terms, the measure gives regional transit authorities more flexibility to provide commuter-oriented shared transportation across longer distances, which could affect service planning, interlocal agreements, and transit operations in areas where riders travel beyond the authority’s core jurisdiction.
HB363 would amend Chapter 160A provisions governing regional public transportation authorities, especially G.S. 160A-610 and G.S. 160A-601, by replacing certain references to “territorial jurisdiction” with “service area” and by authorizing buspool service beyond the usual 10-mile outside-jurisdiction limit. The bill does not broadly eliminate geographic limits on transit operations; rather, it creates a targeted exception for buspool service while leaving the general outside-service restrictions in place for other public transportation operations. It would affect regional transit authorities, local governments that interact with them, and riders using commuter-oriented shared-ride services.
The available record shows no committee transcript and no recorded votes, so there is no documented debate or formal vote history to indicate support or opposition. Based on the bill’s text, the measure appears policy-focused and technical, aimed at expanding transit flexibility rather than making a controversial structural change. The absence of recorded opposition or amendments in the provided materials suggests the bill had not yet generated notable public controversy at the time of the last action.
The main policy issue is the scope of transit authority power outside its normal boundaries. Supporters would likely favor the bill because it allows regional authorities to better serve commuters and coordinate shared-ride transportation across longer distances. Potential concerns could come from local governments or transit operators worried about service overlap, jurisdictional control, or the precedent of allowing public transit operations beyond the standard mileage cap. The bill narrows the exception to buspool service, which may reduce contention compared with a broader expansion, but the underlying question of regional authority reach remains the central point of possible disagreement.