Part of I-40 in western NC to open by March; more federal support for Helene Recovery
ASHEVILLE, N.C. (WNCN) — On Monday, North Carolina Governor Josh Stein announced that Interstate 40 in the western part of the state will reopen two lanes by March 1.
This announcement comes after a visit by the U.S. Department of Transportation Secretary Sean Duffy surveyed Helene Recovery in the area.
'Today, I am pleased to announce that we will reopen two lanes of I-40 by March 1,' Governor Stein said in the statement, 'I am proud of NCDOT's focus on this challenge and the roadworkers who have worked tirelessly to reopen roads and keep people safe. Reopening these lanes will help reconnect North Carolina and Tennessee and allow us to welcome back visitors to bolster the economy.'
During Secretary Duffy's visit, he announced that the USDOT and U.S. Forest Services have partnered their efforts to help USDOT obtain a 'special use' permit to use rock from Forest Service land to extract materials.
This partnership will allow the N.C. Department of Transportation to get construction materials from nearby rivers in western N.C. instead of transporting them from 20 to 50 miles away. This permit is a commonsense solution to reduce the time it would take to rebuild the highway and significantly cut down on costs
'President Trump directed me to build infrastructure faster, better, and more affordably,' said U.S. Transportation Secretary Sean Duffy. 'That is why, when we recently identified a path to reduce I-40's construction costs and timeline by as much as two-thirds of the original Biden-era estimate, I immediately asked my team what we could do to help. Today's announcement will help ensure we deliver this critical project more efficiently for the American people. Too often, the federal government creates obstacles that slow recovery and drive up costs. This time, we're cutting through those burdensome barriers to get the job done, ensuring USDOT's full support for our state partner's success every step of the way throughout this project.'
The federal government will continue to work alongside state and local officials to provide resources and aid to help the western N.C. community recover.
Copyright 2025 Nexstar Media, Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Newsweek
26 minutes ago
- Newsweek
How Could Strait of Hormuz Closure Impact Americans?
Based on facts, either observed and verified firsthand by the reporter, or reported and verified from knowledgeable sources. Newsweek AI is in beta. Translations may contain inaccuracies—please refer to the original content. Iranian lawmakers have voted to support closing the Strait of Hormuz—a vital route for global oil and gas shipments—in response to U.S. airstrikes on three of the country's nuclear sites on Saturday, a move that if agreed upon by the Supreme Leader, could disrupt energy markets and drive up prices worldwide and stateside. Why It Matters Following U.S. strikes on three Iranian nuclear sites, Isfahan, Fordow, and Natanz, the world waits as Iran considers its response. The Strait of Hormuz is a narrow, yet incredibly strategic waterway connecting the Persian Gulf to the Gulf of Oman and the Arabian Sea. At its narrowest point, the strait is about 21 miles wide, with two shipping lanes that are 2 miles wide in each direction. Around 20 percent of global oil trade passes through the Strait, with any closure likely to spike global prices. What To Know In the first fiscal quarter of 2025, the U.S. Energy Information Agency (EIA) noted that just under 15 million barrels of crude oil and condensate, and about 8 million barrels of petroleum products were transported through the Strait. There are very few alternative routes for the large volume of oil that passes through the chokepoint. The average 20 million barrels of oil products that pass through make up around 20 percent of the global consumption. The price of Brent crude oil was already climbing ahead of the U.S. strikes, increasing from $69 per barrel on June 12 to $74 per barrel on June 13. While the EIA estimates that a large majority, around 80 percent, of the oil-based product moving through the Strait go to Asian markets, around 2 million barrels a day end up in the U.S. Stena Impero being seized and detained between July 19 and July 21, 2019 in Bandar Abbas, Iran as it passed through the Strait of Hormuz, a vital regional shipping channel. Stena Impero being seized and detained between July 19 and July 21, 2019 in Bandar Abbas, Iran as it passed through the Strait of Hormuz, a vital regional shipping channel. Tasnim/Getty Images If the Iranian government following the lead of the parliament, decides to close the Strait, Asian markets are expected to be most hit, but American markets will be too. Despite influence over the Strait, Iran doesn't supply the most oil that transports through it, Saudi Arabia does. Some experts have said that if Iran were to cut off access to the Strait, it could spike oil prices by 30 to 50 percent immediately, with gas prices likewise rising. "Oil prices would likely double, to well above $100. The extent to which that price shock would be sustainable is unclear," Marko Papic, chief strategist at BCA Research, told Newsweek in an email Sunday. He also noted that due to the overwhelming pressure campaign the country would face over its closure "the price shock would be of limited duration." "However," he continued, "it could impact confidence domestically, impact capex [capital expenditure] intentions by corporates, and thus trickle into the animal spirits [psychological factors that influence economic behavior] that affects not just stocks, but also the labor market." Fears that Iran could attack U.S. oil infrastructure in the region and levy its power over the Straits of Hormuz could "combine to make prices and speculation rise about the security and dependability of supply," Greg Kennedy, director of the Economic Conflict and Competition Research Group at King's College London, previously told Newsweek. "Lack of clarity of how long this condition will last will also lead to hoarding or preemptive purchasing by other nations, so there are competition supply fears that will drive up prices," he added. Iran has been reluctant to close to Strait, even during times of intense conflict during the heat of the Iran-Iraq war. Infographic with map of the Gulf showing maritime tanker traffic in September 2024 through the Strait of Hormuz. Infographic with map of the Gulf showing maritime tanker traffic in September 2024 through the Strait of Hormuz. NALINI LEPETIT-CHELLA,OMAR KAMAL/AFP via Getty Images) What People Are Saying Greg Kennedy, director of the Economic Conflict and Competition Research Group at King's College London, told Newsweek: "This is not an act that just stays in the Gulf region, it has wider global strategic ripples." Spencer Hakimian, founder of Tolou Capital Management, wrote on X, formerly Twitter, on Saturday: "There are close to 50 large oil tankers scrambling to leave the Strait of Hormuz right now. Looks like the oil industry is expecting the Strait to be blockaded in the coming days." President Donald Trump wrote on Truth Social on Saturday evening: "ANY RETALIATION BY IRAN AGAINST THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA WILL BE MET WITH FORCE FAR GREATER THAN WHAT WAS WITNESSED TONIGHT. THANK YOU! DONALD J. TRUMP, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES." Brian Krassenstein, who has over 900,000 followers on X wrote on Sunday if the Strait is closed, people can expect: "U.S. Gas Prices likely Skyrocket. Potential $5–$7/gallon range depending on duration. Military Escalation Risk. U.S. Navy and allies likely to respond. Tanker delays affect oil, LNG, and related goods." What Happens Next? Any final decision on Iran's response, whether negotiation or closing the Strait or other, however, will largely rest with the country's leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei. The parliament vote to close the Strait merely advises him of the option to pursue.
UPI
an hour ago
- UPI
Iran, Israel exchange airstrikes as US officials divided over bombing
1 of 3 | Israeli security stands in front of a residential building hit by an Iranian ballistic missile in Tel Aviv early Sunday morning, June 22, 2025. Iran launched two waves of missiles at Israel following the American bombing of its nuclear sites. Photo by Debbie Hill/ UPI | License Photo June 22 (UPI) -- Iran and Israel exchanged targeted airstrikes Sunday after President Donald Trump ordered the bombing of nuclear sites in Iran, leaving his administration and lawmakers divided over U.S. involvement. "We're not at war with Iran. We're at war with Iran's nuclear program," Vice President JD Vance said in an interview with NBC News' "Meet the Press" on Sunday. It marked the first major official rhetoric that the United States is indeed "at war." Vance declined to confirm that Iran's nuclear sites were completely destroyed, saying that the U.S. has "substantially delayed" Iran's ability to develop a nuclear weapon. His comments come after Russia said Sunday that other countries could provide Iran with nuclear weapons. The strike by the Trump administration has divided his supporters. Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene, for example, criticized what she called "neocon warmongers" in a post on social media Sunday afternoon. "America is $37 TRILLION in debt and all of these foreign wars have cost Americans TRILLIONS AND TRILLIONS of dollars that never benefited any American," the lawmaker wrote in her post. "American troops have been killed and forever torn apart physically and mentally for regime change, foreign wars, and for military-industrial base profits. I'm sick of it. I can easily say I support nuclear-armed Israel's right to defend themselves and also say at the same time I don't want to fight or fund nuclear armed Israel's wars." Rep. Thomas Massie, another Republican, went as far to call the strike on Iran "not Constitutional" in his own post. He later criticized fellow Republican House Speaker Mike Johnson for stating that Trump "made the right call" with the airstrike. "Why didn't you call us back from vacation to vote on military action if there was a serious threat to our country?" Massie said in his remarks to Johnson. He reiterated that point Sunday in an interview with CBS News' "Face the Nation." Massie was joined on "Face the Nation" by fellow lawmaker Rep. Ro Khanna, a Democrat, with whom he worked last week to introduce a war powers resolution to prohibit U.S. forces from striking Iran without authorization from Congress. Khanna said in the interview that Secretary of State Marco Rubio expressed a desire for Iran to enrich uranium for peaceful purposes but the lawmaker noted that Iran had already been under a nuclear deal that the United States withdrew from. According to Khanna, under the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action, or JCPOA, which was negotiated by Iran, the United States and the European Union in 2015, the International Atomic Energy Agency did not find a single violation. "In the first Iraq war, the second Iraq war and the war in Afghanistan, Congress first got the briefings. Congress met and debated. It should have been declarations of war, but at least they did an authorization of use of military force," Massie added. "We haven't had that." The Israeli Defense Forces said in a statement Sunday that the Israeli Air Force used 30 fighter jets to attack dozens of military targets across Iran. "As part of the wave of attacks, fighter jets first attacked the 'Imam Hussein' strategic missile headquarters in the Yazd region, where long-range Khoramshahr missiles were stored," the IDF said. "From this headquarters, approximately 60 missiles were launched towards the State of Israel." The IDF added that it also hit missile launchers and military sites for the production of air defense batteries, and a drone warehouse in Isfahan, Bushehr and Ahvaz. Air raid sirens sounded across most of Israel on Sunday as Israeli Police acknowledged impacts from Iranian missiles on Sunday, including a strike in Tel Aviv that left at least six people with minor injuries, while videos shared on social media purportedly showed damage in Haifa. Meanwhile, Iranian state media reported Sunday that the Houthis -- formally known as Ansarullah -- expressed support for Iran after the U.S. strikes and would "stand by any Arab or Islamic country against U.S. aggression."
Yahoo
an hour ago
- Yahoo
Washington tells Trump after Iran strikes: No more ‘forever war'
The trauma of America's post-9/11 conflicts in Iraq and Afghanistan was evident in Washington on Sunday as Americans reckoned with the implications of Donald Trump's decision to launch strikes on three Iranian nuclear facilities. Across the political spectrum, varying factions unified under the banner of opposition to the kind of nation-building ground assault that defined America's two wars launched by the Bush administration. It is the only area of agreement between a faction of progressives and pro-Trump paleoconservatives who opposed the U.S. becoming involved in what up until now had been an Israeli military campaign and their opponents, a waning neoconservative faction in Washington which has called for further escalation in the form of strikes against other facilities and targeted assassinations of Iranian political and military leadership. Sunday morning, the Trump administration publicly leaned towards the former group. Three top administration officials, Trump's vice president, Defense Secretary and Secretary of State, spoke to journalists and urged Iranian leaders to choose against responding to the U.S. strike. Pledging that the U.S. was not seeking to topple Iran's government, the trio left open an off-ramp as Vance claimed: 'We're not at war with Iran. We're at war with Iran's nuclear program.' But both Democrats and Republican opponents of military force against Iran were smarting after Saturday night's attacks, and many cast doubt on the U.S.'s ability to avoid what Senator Jim Risch, one of the administration's defenders, said would be another 'forever war'. A number of Democrats urged more of their party to sign on to a resolution aimed at reining in the president's war powers. The resolution's lone Republican supporter, Rep. Thomas Massie, called on his party to do the same while condemning the influence of AIPAC, the pro-Israel lobby in Washington, in a pair of interviews. 'MAGA should drop this pathetic LOSER,' wrote Trump on Truth Social, in a lengthy post against Massie. But for Democrats, the bombing of Iran represented an issue where common ground could be found. 'This is a defining moment for the Democratic party. We need to stand against war with Iran,' warned one of the resolution's co-sponsors, Rep. Ro Khanna. Rep. Adam Smith, one of the party's more centrist members who voted for the Iraq War in 2002, released a lengthy statement on Saturday for Trump's refusal to seek congressional authorization for the strikes. He also warned against the kind of Iraq-style intervention he once supported: 'The path that the President has chosen risks unleashing a wider war in the region that is both incredibly unpredictable and treacherous.' The effort to rein in Trump's military powers gained Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer's support on Saturday as well. A strong supporter of Israel, Schumer nonetheless accused the administration of making 'erratic threats' and having 'no strategy'. 'The danger of wider, longer, and more devastating war has now increased,' added the Senate Democratic leader. On the right, conservative supporters of the president who opposed Israel's sudden military strikes — which occurred during the first U.S-Iran talks in years — were furious and worried about the future of the White House's domestic agenda. Former congressman Matt Gaetz, speaking with . Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene on his OANN show, accused Israel of seeking 'regime change' in Iran. He also tore into the Netanyahu government, accusing the prime minister of trying to avoid his own electoral defeat by getting the U.S. involved in his war and attacked Israel over the alleged existence of its own nuclear weapons program. Steve Bannon, writing on Gettr, derided Vice President JD Vance and Secretary of State Marco Rubio for claiming Sunday that the U.S. still sought peace with Iran. 'Guys, please run this by [Benjamin] Netanyahu,' he quipped. Curt Mills, executive director of the American Conservative, warned that it was now going to be extremely difficult for Trump to back the U.S. out of what it had started. 'Goal posts. Instantly moved,' Mills wrote as he reacted to calls for further strikes reportedly made on Israeli media. 'They're going to keep asking Trump to do much more, forever, until he or another American president Says No.' 'The goal posts will be moved until morale collapses,' he added: 'Every drop of juice is squeezed from Trump's political capital.' Even those who defended the administration's involvement in the Israeli military campaign were hesitant to endorse the kind of foreign military footprint that America sustained during the so-called War on Terror. Risch, who chairs the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, praised the president's 'decisive action' in his own statement after previously writing in May that the administration should insist on 'full dismantlement of the Iranian nuclear program', including civilian enrichment, during now-scuttled negotiations. 'This is Israel's war not our war,' the senator said. 'This is not the start of a forever war. There will not be American boots on the ground in Iran.'
