Residents, designers press NCDOT on I-26 connector flyover and call for alternatives

Residents, neighborhood activists and urban-design advocates used the Asheville City Council's public-comment period to press the council and North Carolina Department of Transportation (NCDOT) for changes to the proposed I-26 connector plan, particularly a flyover alternative that commenters said would worsen environmental and civic impacts.

William Warner, a Cortland Place resident, told council the new right-of-way could require the city to take homes by eminent domain and harm younger families in his neighborhood. "The flyover ' it is a far worse proposal than the one we were left with in 2018," Warner said. "I urge you, please, to influence the Department of Transportation any way you can to amend and come up with a better plan than what they've got." Sonia Marcus of the 5 Points neighborhood thanked council for amplifying community concerns and asked city staff to add community members to the rapid-response team and to accelerate reconvening the aesthetics committee.

Urban design critics and technical experts also weighed in. Joe Minicozzi, an urban-design consultant and owner of Urban3, said DOT's recent materials assert there are no additional impacts and therefore no new National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) is required; Minicozzi argued the agency had not completed required EIS analysis for the flyover and that DOT has previously agreed to alternatives keeping the interstate under Patton Avenue. "Not only is this worse to have the highway up in the air, they also went against our agreements," Minicozzi said, asserting DOT's earlier commitments in 2009 and 2008 supported keeping the highway below grade.

Why it matters: The configuration of the I-26 connector will shape land-take, traffic flows, neighborhood continuity and development patterns in central Asheville. Residents and design advocates said the proposed aerial section would impose environmental harms, reduce property values and sever neighborhoods unless the city and NCDOT revisit design choices and conduct broader aesthetic and multidisciplinary review.

Community requests and next steps

Speakers urged the council to: press NCDOT to reconsider the flyover design; restore commitments to keep the corridor under Patton Avenue where possible; include community members on the city's rapid-response team for the project; accelerate appointments to an aesthetics/design committee; and ensure multidisciplinary review teams (including designers and landscape professionals) are part of decision-making. Commenters invited councilmembers to attend upcoming community design charrettes with NCDOT and local partners.

Claims and responses

Minicozzi and others asserted procedural and legal concerns, saying DOT's environmental review and public-involvement steps were incomplete or inconsistent with past agreements. Those claims were presented as statements of opinion and interpretation by the speakers; the council did not render a legal finding during the meeting and did not take a formal vote on project design changes.

Ending

Council members acknowledged the public concern, asked staff to coordinate further engagement, and several attendees said they would continue organizing community design sessions and a public charrette scheduled that weekend. The council did not adopt any ordinance or formal directive at the meeting.