Summary: City staff will present a proposed redesign of Asheville’s bus network that could improve reliability, increase frequency on important corridors, and expand the number of jobs an average low-income resident can reach by approximately 15%. It would also eliminate direct service to several destinations, including ABCCM’s Transformation Village, MAHEC, the Social Security office, and West Haywood. Staff recommends the draft network, but Council is not expected to take final action until August. Before that vote, the City should explain why it continues to recommend the proposal despite overwhelmingly negative community feedback, clearly identify what – if anything – changed in response to that feedback, and develop equitable solutions for riders who would lose essential bus access.

The facts: Staff says the draft network would:

• Improve schedules and on-time performance.
• Coordinate transfers more effectively at the ART station.
• Provide 15-minute service between downtown, Hillcrest, and the River Arts District.
• Improve frequency in several higher-growth areas.
• End 90-minute routes.
• Increase the number of jobs an average low-income resident can reach by approximately 15%.
• Maintain or improve service to Housing Authority communities.

The proposal would discontinue direct service to:

• The Outlet Mall, Brevard Road, and Transformation Village — approximately 40 average daily riders.
• MAHEC — approximately 11 average daily riders.
• The Social Security office — approximately eight average daily riders.
• West Haywood — approximately 34 average daily riders.
• The Omni Grove Park Inn.

Staff presented alternatives for restoring some service, but each would reduce frequency, create irregular schedules, or weaken service elsewhere.

The Planning, Economic Development and Environment Committee did not recommend any particular modification to the proposed network. It asked staff to bring the proposal to Council for further discussion and recommended that the eventual Council decision include direction to identify additional, sustainable sources of transit funding.

Staff recommends approving the draft network as proposed. The presentation anticipates final Council action on August 25. You can see the presentation here, see the City’s explanation of proposed changes here, read the full report here, and read the full community engagement report here.

Our Assessment: The systemwide benefits to this plan appear meaningful, but those benefits come with concentrated losses that have not been fully resolved. We are also troubled by the stark disconnect between the community feedback the City received on this plan and staff’s recommendation to approve it without modification.

Survey respondents were not merely divided. They rejected the proposal by wide margins:

• Among all respondents, 52% disagreed or strongly disagreed that the draft network would be better for them, while only 25% agreed or strongly agreed.
• Fifty-nine percent disagreed or strongly disagreed that it would be better for people they know, compared with 24% who agreed.
• Fifty-seven percent disagreed or strongly disagreed that it would be better for the region overall, compared with 28% who agreed.
• Among frequent ART riders – the people with the most direct experience of the system — 60% disagreed or strongly disagreed that the proposal would be better for them. Only 27% agreed.

The survey was self-selected and does not necessarily represent every Asheville resident or rider. But 1,350 people participated, including 429 frequent riders. The results are too substantial and too consistently negative to treat as incidental opposition.

Staff’s presentation identifies the public’s principal concerns, including the loss of access to Transformation Village, MAHEC, the Social Security office, West Haywood, and other destinations. Yet staff continues to recommend the draft network as proposed. The presentation does not clearly identify any significant network changes made in response to the overwhelmingly negative feedback.

Frequency, reliability, timed transfers, and increased job access are important equity benefits. But averages can conceal concentrated hardship. A relatively small number of riders may depend upon a particular stop to reach housing, health care, public benefits, or employment. Riders with disabilities, older adults, and people without flexible schedules may have no realistic substitute when bus service disappears.

Before asking Council to approve the network, staff should:

• Clearly identify what, if anything, changed in response to public feedback
• Explain why the principal concerns raised by riders were not incorporated into the recommendation
• Directly engage the riders who would lose service and assess the effects of longer walks, terrain, disability, safety, and weather
• Present equitable alternatives for preserving access to essential destinations.
• Explain what additional funding would be required to avoid forcing one group of riders to bear the cost of improving service for another.

The City should not conduct extensive public engagement and then proceed with its original recommendation without clearly explaining how that feedback influenced — or failed to influence — the result. Council should use the period before the anticipated August vote to require that explanation and seek modifications that preserve the proposal’s broader benefits without abandoning riders who depend on the connections it would eliminate.

Things to do: No immediate action is requested; GAP will gather community perspectives and prepare an advocacy plan before City Council’s anticipated August vote.

Report Back

Coming Soon!