Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Transit topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Asheville council hears hours of testimony on proposed transit network overhaul
Summary
Staff and a consultant outlined a draft transit network that shifts service from coverage to higher‑frequency corridors; residents and employers filled the room to oppose cuts to specific routes and urged more funding or alternative solutions. Council will revisit the plan Aug. 25 for potential action.
Get email alerts on the Transit topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Asheville City transportation staff and consultants presented a draft Comprehensive Operational Analysis (COA) that would reallocate existing bus resources to increase frequency on several key corridors while reducing or eliminating service on lower‑ridership segments.
“More frequent service in the densest places is the formula to make transit the most useful,” consultant Ricky Engada told council, citing national examples in which increasing frequency to 15‑minute headways raised ridership; staff emphasized the draft network would move the city from a roughly 50/50 coverage‑ridership split toward more ridership‑focused service. Staff said the draft network would add 15‑minute service on corridors including Hillcrest‑downtown‑River Arts and Biltmore‑McDowell toward Biltmore Village and noted tradeoffs that could leave some riders (an estimated ~93 daily riders on the top 4 affected routes) without a nearby stop.
The presentation prompted lengthy council questions on paratransit obligations (staff said paratransit is required within 0.75 miles of fixed routes and the city currently provides citywide paratransit), how future land‑use approvals were handled in modeling (they were not included), and whether the county’s separate transit study should be coordinated with Asheville’s work. Staff said they will return Aug. 25 with a final plan for council action after further stakeholder engagement.
“Fifteen minutes is the goal,” Engada said of the frequent‑service corridors, while staff stressed that any changes would be made using the same total fleet and budget, so gains in frequency require service reductions elsewhere. The council received public comment specific to the transit proposal (see separate articles) and asked staff to return with options and more detail on partnerships and paratransit before formally voting.

