N.C. Department of Transportation declines to carry Asheville Design Center I‑26 alternative forward; draft EIS will proceed

The N.C. Department of Transportation told the Asheville City Council it will not carry the Asheville Design Center (ADC) alignment for the I‑26 connector forward for detailed study, citing design, operational and environmental concerns, and will complete a draft environmental impact statement (EIS) on the project.

NCDOT preconstruction director Debbie Barber told the council the department reviewed the ADC concept with NCDOT engineers and two private consulting firms and “we're not recommending, that the alternative be carried forward for further study in the draft environmental impact statement.” Federal Highway Administration staff emphasized that interstate projects must meet national design standards, including looking 20 years into future traffic demands.

Why it matters: the I‑26 connector is a regional project that will shape traffic patterns, land use and development in Asheville. Council members and community groups have championed the ADC proposal as a way to preserve developable land and produce a more compact, community‑oriented solution; DOT and its consultants say the ADC alignment, as developed for review, produces grades, weaving distances and environmental impacts that conflict with minimum interstate standards and permit requirements.

DOT and FHWA role and timeline

Debbie Barber and Federal Highway Administration assistant division administrator Don Volker described the approvals process for a federally assisted state highway project. Volker said FHWA’s role is to ensure federal rules and design standards are met before federal funds are provided. NCDOT staff said they are completing a draft EIS with a target to finish this fall and expect a public hearing soon after the draft is issued, with a goal of selecting a preferred alternative in the winter (council discussion referenced a January–February target). NCDOT staff said the project is currently funded for right‑of‑way acquisition and construction in the agency’s programming, with right‑of‑way acquisition beginning in early fiscal years cited by staff and construction slated in later program years.

DOT’s technical findings on the ADC alignment

TGS Engineers’ Charlie Flow presented a functional design based on the ADC conceptual alignment. He said the consultant team “tried to cast it in the most favorable light we possibly could” but that meeting federal interstate minimums required spreading and separating lanes, adding shoulders, and changing vertical profiles. Flow said the westbound tie‑in produced grades “nearly 8%,” exceeding allowable gradients used in the review, and that short ramp lengths would create short weaving distances and stacking problems at connections with Patton Avenue and other local streets. He also noted potential encroachment into Riverside Drive and Riverside Cemetery and required bridging over floodplain and Smith Mill Creek to meet permitting requirements.

Flow and NCDOT staff identified environmental and community impacts, including increases in traffic, noise and air pollution through the Montford Historic District. Flow said NCDOT alternate 4 would carry about 37,200 vehicles per day in the design year through Montford, while the ADC alternate as evaluated would route I‑26 and US‑1923 traffic through the same area and increase traffic to about 100,400 vehicles per day — a figure he presented as part of his comparative analysis. Flow reported a preliminary construction‑only cost estimate for the ADC alternate of about $260,000,000, placing it between other DOT alternatives on his cost ranking; he and other presenters emphasized those figures excluded right‑of‑way costs for the purpose of “apples‑to‑apples” construction comparisons.

ADC and community response

A representative of the Asheville Design Center told the council the ADC alignment “is doable with more engineering” and urged further study of specific engineering solutions. ADC speakers proposed lowering the deck‑to‑deck height of a double‑deck bridge by using alternate bridge types (for example, truss, arch or cable‑stay) to reduce ramp grades and improve weaving distances and suggested the ADC alignment would preserve roughly 100 acres of developable land and open the possibility of an urban‑village style redevelopment along Patton Avenue.

Council discussion and next steps

Councilmembers pressed DOT for clarity about whether the ADC concept is “fatally flawed” or salvageable. NCDOT and FHWA officials replied that their review found design, operational and environmental concerns significant enough that NCDOT does not recommend carrying the ADC alternative forward for further detailed study, but they said the ADC plan will be documented in the draft EIS and that NCDOT will consider any alternatives submitted during the NEPA process. Volker of FHWA said his office expects the selected alternative to meet federal interstate standards.

Several councilmembers and ADC supporters asked the city to fund additional engineering work to refine the ADC scheme and resolve DOT’s listed concerns. NCDOT staff warned that any alternative added now would have to be developed to the same level of detail as the four existing alternatives to be considered alongside them in the EIS, and that doing so could delay the DEIS schedule and add cost. Council directed staff to return with options for how the city might finance limited engineering work and to identify partners; council members noted that any work the city funds would need to be accepted and evaluated as part of the NEPA process.

What was decided

No formal vote was taken. NCDOT presented its recommendation to proceed with completion of the draft environmental impact statement and not to carry the Asheville Design Center alternative forward for detailed study; the council asked staff to report back with options for funding further engineering review of the ADC proposal. NCDOT said it will document its review of the ADC alignment in the draft EIS and hold a public hearing after the draft is issued.

Ending

NCDOT and FHWA officials reiterated the need to follow federal design standards and permit processes; ADC and community speakers urged more time and resources to refine a locally preferred alignment. The council left the meeting with two parallel tracks: DOT will proceed with the draft EIS on the existing alternatives, and city staff will prepare options for limited city‑funded engineering to test whether the ADC concept can be modified to address the technical and environmental objections raised by DOT and FHWA.