The road

by David Forbes December 16, 2015

What’s the big deal about the I-26 project? It’s huge, incredibly controversial and could have major impacts — perhaps devastating ones – on Asheville for decades to come

Above: This postcard of the Smokey Park Bridge from the 1960s shows sidewalks on both sides of the bridge with connections on the east side to downtown.

You have perhaps, heard of the Interstate 26 connector project, a proposal to expand the interstate in and around Asheville. According to the state Department of Transportation, this is all necessary due to increased traffic, the so-called “malfunction junction” and the need to smoothly route things along an interstate that stretches from Tennessee to Charleston.

That is, as we’ll see, an incredibly controversial statement, with plenty asserting that the DoT either doesn’t know what it’s talking about or that its current plans will do far more damage than they’re worth.

What everyone does agree on is that, if it goes through, the seven-mile long I-26 connector will be one of the biggest changes the city’s seen in decades and will, one way or another, change Asheville for many, many years.

The idea of overhauling the interstate has been on the table for more than a quarter century, but it hit around the time that Asheville began to change drastically, fueling a major debate about the potential damage building a massive interstate through an active city and multiple communities. The fight over I-26 brings in issues of the environment, segregation, development and the shape of a rapidly-changing Asheville.

The topic can be complicated to understand sometimes, buried as it is in engineering jargon, multiple designs and different controversies over the years. But at the end of the day it boils down to some of the most ground-level issues there are: homes demolished, communities altered, economies changed and a city reshaped.

The Blade has covered, in-depth, the potential impact of the road on the Burton Street community and run an extensive analysis by planner Don Kostelec asserting that many of the DoT’s assumptions don’t hold water and will do major damage if implemented. Those both provide further context to the fight going on right now.

Right now the state DoT is taking public comment through today, though this is likely not the last Asheville will hear of this particular fight. If you’d like to weigh in, email them now.

Below we’ll try to sum up the key points about the I-26 proposal, both for those who still want to offer their public comments and for the potential battles about the road going forward.

It’s massive — and old

The Interstate 26 connector was first broached in the late ’80s as a way to update the existing ’60s -era interstate around Asheville. Interestingly, at the recent Dec. 8 Asheville City Council meeting, some locals proposed going back to the drawing board and building the interchange outside the city limits in an area that might have less impact. But Mayor Esther Manheimer noted that when some had broached that idea back in the initial stages of the I-26 planning, the city’s business leaders had specifically fought to have it go straight through town.

In the time since, proposals have focused on changing the specific ways it would plow through the city, and that’s what all the proposals assume now. Specifically, there are three sections: Section C around Smokey Park Highway, section A dealing with the intersection of I-240 and I-26 around Haywood, Amboy and Brevard Roads and the last, section B, affecting the Patton Avenue interchange and running the interstate north of the French Broad River. Section A would jump from four lanes to 10 and Section C would go from eight to 12 lanes.

The state is aiming to spend $600 to 800 million (though 80 percent is federal cash) depending on which proposal it adopts, to start buying up property in 2019. One part of the proposal, and one of the most criticized, calls for a large increase the number of lanes going through West Asheville. All in all, the project would occupy an area larger than the core of downtown once it’s finished.

The massive impact would extend to the number of homes, business and properties lost to the interstate if it’s built. The expansion in West Asheville — section A — would take out 81 homes, 17 businesses and a school. All told, depending on which plans are adopted, 192 to 227 homes and businesses (along with the aforementioned school and two parks and rec areas) will be gone.

In 2009, after another outbreak of local controversy, the Asheville Design Center offered some changes. This formed the basis for Alternative 4B, intended to better separate local and interstate traffic, result in less impact on Montford and Emma and improve access to several parts of the city.

In 2014, the city and county gave a tentative endorsement (so tentative that some of the officials involved didn’t even want to call it one) to plans going forward. Since then, the ball’s been rolling, though as local officials point out, their power is somewhat limited because of DoT’s ability to take action on this on its own.

It’s incredibly controversial

In Asheville the reaction to the DoT’s current proposal has largely been negative. Only a handful of responses were favorable to the DoT’s plans at the Nov. 16 hearing, for example. The rest in the hours-long hearing ranged from asserting the project needed massive changes to asserting they should scrap the thing entirely and go back to the drawing board.

Those homes and businesses would take out? Many of them are in the predominantly African-American Burton Street community. The area was designated “blighted” by racist government plans in the redlining era and has already been hard-hit by previous interstate expansions. While the DoT has dialed back its plans over the years (as recently as 2009 the proposed plans would have virtually wiped out the entire neighborhood), the area still faces the demolition of homes and a historic church while leaving the remainder facing a retaining wall.

It doesn’t end there, as the interstate is also slated to hit the Emma community, home to a sizable Latin American population. The impact has led to accusations that the DoT is furthering segregation and putting the impact of the interstate expansion on low-income and minority communities.

Further, the project was initially proposed (and importantly, the basic location chosen) in a very, very different time. Locals have expressed worries that the interstate project is something met for a different time, unsuited to a city where people like to use different modes of transportation besides their car. In some cases, there’s also fears that the project will make things more dangerous for pedestrians and cyclists in the areas it touches.

It’s not just Ashevillains either, a report last year from U.S. PIRG singled out the proposed eight lanes as one of the top “boondoggles in the country,” asserting that DoT’s traffic projections were mistaken and that: “A large part of this massive project includes widening a highway that does not have enough use to justify the expansion, in the process destroying homes and businesses in a mature livable neighborhood.” Analyses by locals like planner Joe Minicozzi (whose work figures prominently in the analysis we published here) reach a similar conclusion about the validity of the DoT’s predictions.

Asheville City Council member Julie Mayfield is the city’s point person on the issue and has also dealt with it in her position as the director of environmental nonprofit MountainTrue. Mayfield has asserted that there are real safety issues that necessitate some of the changes, but also that the current plans could be incredibly damaging and need major changes.

This is pretty much the basis of the current position taken by both city and county local governments. Meanwhile, some officials in other counties and the conservative CIBO business group have endorsed charging forward on the interstate, claiming that it needs to get built to save time for travelers going through Asheville and claiming it will boost the economy.

The city and county, meanwhile, along with some locals, are pushing for the adoption of alternative 4B, which they assert does a better job of separating local and interstate traffic and accommodating the city Asheville has become. While their proponents note that they still need improvement, they believe these alternatives provide a better way forward. However, those options are more expensive, which is one reason they’ve received a somewhat lukewarm reception from the DoT.

But some locals oppose those plans as well. Notably, the I-26 ConnectUs group, representing multiple neighborhoods and organizations affected by the interstate, declined to endorse them. Steve Rasmussen, speaking on the group’s behalf at the Dec. 8 Council meeting, noting “none yet represents what we want to see for Asheville.”

Also some Montford residents have asserted that some aspects of the 4 and 4b plans, including flyover bridges, will impact their neighborhood in particular negatively.

Public pressure is important

If you haven’t already weighed in and have opinions about this topic, email the DoT now. But if you’re reading this after Dec. 16, don’t despair.

Over the course of its long life, the I-26 proposal has already changed many times, and much of that due to public pressure or alternative plans pushed forward by locals. While the state and federal agencies have a great degree of power over what does and doesn’t get built, they also have limited resources. If — and how — the I-26 connector gets built is a story that’s still far from over, despite the recent push. Your voice — and your neighbors — still matters.

The Asheville Blade is entirely funded by its readers. If you like our work, donate directly to us on Patreon. Questions? Comments? Email us.