Category: Active Prince William (Page 1 of 8)

In March 2025, the Virginia House and Senate Transportation Committee Chairs asked the Northern Virginia Transportation Authority (NVTA) to review the findings from the Virginia Department of Transportation’s (VDOT) 2024 Northern Virginia Bicycle and Pedestrian Network Study and recommend regional funding strategies for infrastructure identified in the study. VDOT’s study identified nearly 5,000 miles of planned but unfunded active transportation infrastructure throughout Northern Virginia.

In July and August 2025, NVTA, with the aid of a consultant, convened two “Regional Stakeholder Meetings” for this study, to solicit the input of local and regional transportation agency staff and local, regional, and statewide active mobility advocacy organizations.  In reaction to the content and format of those two exploratory meetings, the nine active mobility advocacy organizations identified below sent the following joint letter to the Northern Virginia Transportation Authority, to recommend a more ambitious and comprehensive study scope. 

The October 2025 draft of this study report was later released for public comment through October 22. Feedback on that draft report can be submitted to NVTA on this Google form.

September 25, 2025

Ms. Monica Blackmon, CEO
Northern Virginia Transportation Authority
2600 Park Tower Dr, Suite 601
Vienna, VA 22180

Re: A Regional Approach to Funding Northern Virginia’s Bicycle and Pedestrian Infrastructure

Dear Ms. Backmon:

We, the undersigned advocates and community members invited to participate in recent regional coordination meetings organized by the Northern Virginia Transportation Authority (NVTA) to study and discuss ways to expand funding for bicycle and pedestrian infrastructure in Northern Virginia, are writing to provide general comments on the process thus far. In summary, we underscore the need and opportunity for a broader study scope than what has been presented and further work to ensure a successful outcome.

We appreciate this timely and regionally important study

Firstly, we are deeply appreciative of the opportunity to share our perspectives as bicyclists, smart growth advocates, and users and supporters of the region’s active transportation network and to contribute to NVTA’s important work. As with regional transit funding, identifying and securing sufficient, stable, and sustainable funding to support continued active transportation investments is a critical challenge as our region faces the growing pressures of congestion, unsafe roads, and climate change. We are confronted by the shortcomings in our current built environment every time we walk out of our homes or destinations—sometimes quite literally, in the form of incomplete sidewalks and impossible-to-cross corridors. And the consequences go beyond time lost and productivity, with death and serious injury all too common in our transportation headlines.

We have long championed a safer and more efficient alternative transportation vision centered on walking, biking, and transit, and are therefore encouraged by NVTA and affiliated agencies taking meaningful steps in support, including with this study. To wit, we recognize the growing number of member applications for Six-Year Program (SYP) funding for pedestrian and bicyclist projects—almost half of the applications submitted this past summer and one fifth of the total funds requested.

Proposed study scope of funding options needs to be broadened…but still focused on local empowerment

We are, however, disappointed by the narrow scope of NVTA’s study, particularly its apparent sole focus on exploring and expanding locally-controlled funding sources. The Virginia Department of Transportation’s (VDOT) Northern Virginia Bicycle and Pedestrian Network Study Report identified nearly 5,000 miles of planned and unfunded bicycle and pedestrian facilities estimated to cost between $9.2B and $30.8B to build; these eye-popping figures will most certainly require a funding paradigm that goes beyond tapping or expanding local general funds. We therefore strongly encourage NVTA via this study and forthcoming report to, at a minimum, contemplate those mechanisms outside its direct control but nonetheless crucial to achieving its mission.

As one example, this study could explore and expound on the feasibility of Senator Scott Surovell’s proposal to establish an annual local tax on privately owned parking spaces that could be dedicated to expanding active transportation infrastructure.

It should be noted that unlike transit investments—the scope of which befits a coordinated, regional approach—active transportation investments are best managed by localities able to adapt designs to fit local contexts. So even as we look to regional, state, and even federal sources for funding, the end goal should be to effectively and efficiently funnel such resources to empower our counties and cities.

Include existing statewide funding sources that can contribute more to active transportation

We also believe NVTA is particularly well-positioned to comment on major statewide funding programs, including Virginia’s SMART SCALE and HSIP; it could well utilize its expertise to provide insight to its constituent jurisdictions and elected leaders on how those mechanisms might be modified administratively or legislatively to better deliver on our active transportation priorities. VDOT has large sums of federal funding at its disposal (about $4 billion in highway capital expenditures every year), much of which could be flexed to better prioritize critical safety needs and underfunded travel modes.

Identify ways that localities can flexibly apply and manage funding

NVTA should also look internally at ways to continue to adjust how it solicits, evaluates, scores, allocates, and tracks project submissions for NVTA, CMAQ, and RSTP funds—and improve transparency around such processes—to better deliver on these shared priorities. Key to that is viewing active transportation not as a separate category of project but as an integral part of the overall transportation network, with meaningful consideration of layering walking and bicycling into every transportation project big or small. Development, adoption, and implementation of an NVTA Complete Streets policy and program would be an impactful first step.

Include maintenance, roadway reconfiguration and quick-build projects

This study should also consider the need for VDOT to adequately and proactively maintain its existing active mobility assets and how VDOT’s annual roadway surfacing program—a critical but underused mechanism to expand active mobility infrastructure through roadway reconfigurations and quick-build projects—might be more effectively and widely utilized. The high per-mile network cost estimates in VDOT’s Bicycle and Pedestrian Network Study Report were predicated on exclusive implementation via standalone construction projects rather than a more realistic (and far less costly) mix of implementation strategies including improvements as part of ongoing upkeep.

Establish a regional mechanism to track needs and progress

Last but not least, a key outcome of this study should be to identify an effective regional mechanism that complements or builds on NVTA’s nascent efforts to continuously and comprehensively track and annually report on the actual implementation of active transportation infrastructure, via all funding sources, throughout Northern Virginia. Without such a mechanism, our region can’t reliably track its progress toward an effective active transportation network. For example, if the region is found to expand active mobility infrastructure at an average annual rate of 50 lane-miles, it should take roughly a century to complete the currently identified network.

Conclusion

While we acknowledge that it may not be NVTA’s role in policy or practice to offer explicit recommendations—particularly regarding legislation—or to upend established norms, this study should be an opportunity to introduce as broad a universe of ideas as possible to constituent jurisdictions and elected leaders for their careful consideration.

The core question undergirding this study—how to begin chipping away at a $10B+ backlog of needed investments—is challenging. Narrowing the focus may therefore seem sensible on its face, but our collective concern is that a limited study will inevitably leave us under-equipped to develop the robust policies and strategies needed to implement needed active transportation infrastructure and safety improvements. Therefore we encourage you once more to seize the opportunity presented by this study to explore broadly and deeply, to make full use of the gathered agency staff and advocates, for the benefit of our Northern Virginia communities now and into the future.

Respectfully submitted,

Elizabeth Kiker, Washington Area Bicyclist Association
Allen Muchnick, Active Prince William
Stewart Schwartz, Coalition for Smarter Growth
Ken Notis, Alexandria Bicycle & Pedestrian Advisory Committee
Jim Durham, Virginia Bicycling Federation
Lisa Campbell, Bike Loudoun
Joy Faunce, Fairfax Alliance for Better Bicycling
Andrew Olesen, Bike Falls Church
Chris Slatt, Sustainable Mobility for Arlington County