Category: Northern Virginia Transportation Authority (Page 1 of 3)

Nine NoVA Advocacy Groups Seek Better Active Mobility Funding

October 1, 2025 / Allen Muchnick

“Regional Active Transportation Stakeholder Meeting” at the NVTA office on July 31, 2025 (Photo courtesy of NVTA)

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

Active Mobility & The Northern Virginia Transportation Authority

January 11, 2025 / Allen Muchnick

Active Prince William Co-Chair Allen Muchnick delivered the statement below at the Northern Virginia Transportation Authority’s annual public hearing on January 9, 2025.

Northern Virginia Transportation Authority’s Annual Public Hearing, January 9, 2025, Statement by Allen Muchnick, City of Manassas Resident

Good evening. I’m Allen Muchnick, a City of Manassas resident.

NVTA proclaims multimodality and “core values” of equity, safety, and sustainability, but it takes effective policies and performance measures to rise above empty buzzwords and greenwashing.

For instance, NVTA still lacks any Complete Streets policy, and it doesn’t track and report the greenhouse gas emissions generated by its funded projects. When counting the active mobility lane miles funded by NVTA (see the presentation under Agenda Item #5), it’s greenwashing to combine the 30% and 70% projects or to count the replacement active mobility facilities in road-widening projects.

Do we advance equity, safety, and sustainability by building–and perpetuating–wide and fast commercial roadways that injure or kill hundreds of pedestrians annually, increase vehicle miles traveled, and promote more auto-dependent sprawl?

Is it equitable, sustainable, or cost-effective to spend sales tax and other non-motoring revenue to expand roads in the outer NoVA counties so more people who work in NoVA or DC can commute in single-occupant vehicles from localities beyond NoVA?

VDOT’s NoVA District office has recently estimated that it would cost roughly $14 Billion (in current, year-2022 dollars) to build the active mobility facilities already described in adopted NoVA-locality plans and not part of a larger transportation project now under development.

Yet, according to NVTA’s NoVA Gateway project-tracking website, during 16 fiscal years, NVTA has so far awarded only about 3.5% ($131.4 million) out of $3.8 Billion in regional funds to 11 standalone active mobility projects (and of that amount $39.1 million has been set aside for a single project, the CC2DCA connector). Of the 105 projects that have so far actually received NVTA regional money, less than 2.3% ($54.4 million) of the $2.4 billion allocated has flowed to a mere 7 standalone active mobility projects.

Thus, at NVTA’s historic rate of allocating its regional funds for standalone active mobility projects, it would take roughly 1700 years (at $8.2 million/year) to fully fund NoVA’s already planned active mobility facilities.

NVTA could receive more equitable, safe, and sustainable projects to evaluate for funding if the Authority were to require each locality or agency to hold an advertised public hearing before the relevant governing body endorses any project for NVTA-related funding, including from the federal CMAQ and RSTP programs.

Presently, in localities without a transportation advisory commission, such project funding submissions are often developed behind closed doors and simply placed on the governing body’s consent agenda. Requiring advertised public hearings well before governing body endorsement could alter the mix of submitted projects—such as more standalone active mobility projects—as well as modify or expand the scope of the multimodal project submissions in light of the early public input.

Finally, NVTA should increase transparency and public trust by posting all proceedings of its Regional Jurisdiction and Agency Coordinating Committee on its website.

Thank you for this public comment opportunity.

Our Comments at the NoVA Joint Transportation Meeting, December 2, 2024

December 9, 2024 / Allen Muchnick

On December 2, 2024, Active Prince William’s co-chairs, Allen Muchnick and Mark Scheufler, separately delivered public statements at Northern Virginia’s joint annual transportation public meeting, before senior representatives of the six regional and state transportation agencies identified above

Our statements are posted below. As indicated in the announcement for this meeting, written comments related to any of the information presented at this meeting may be emailed or mailed through December 31, 2024.

Northern Virginia Joint Transportation Public Meeting

December 2, 2024

Statement of Allen Muchnick, Member

Virginia Bicycling Federation

and Active Prince William Boards of Directors

Good evening. I’m Allen Muchnick, a City of Manassas resident and a long-time board member of the advocacy groups Active Prince William and the Virginia Bicycling Federation.

For more than seven decades, our region has repeatedly expanded major roadways in a futile quest to fix traffic congestion. The result is a fiscally and environmentally unsustainable highway network, dysfunctional and ugly suburban sprawl, and inequitable and life-threatening mobility challenges, especially for households without multiple personal vehicles.

It’s time for Virginia’s transportation agencies to embrace the three guiding principles for transportation infrastructure investment articulated by the national advocacy group Transportation for America:

Design for safety over speed
Fix it first, and
Invest in the rest

Designing for safety over speed is essential to reduce Virginia’s unacceptable epidemic of traffic violence. In 2023, Virginia traffic crashes killed 907 people, including 133 pedestrians, and injured nearly 64,000 people, including nearly 1700 pedestrians. It’s past time to aggressively retrofit all of Northern Virginia’s multilane commercial arterial roadways to establish more survivable design speeds, as part of a comprehensive Vision Zero strategy.

Fixing our mobility infrastructure requires much better maintenance of Virginia’s pedestrian and bicycle facilities. VDOT’s 2004 Policy for Integrating Bicycle and Pedestrian Accommodations states, in part:

VDOT will maintain bicycle and pedestrian accommodations as necessary to keep the accommodations usable and accessible …..
For sidewalks, shared use paths, and bicycle paths built within department right-of-way, built to department standards, and accepted for maintenance, VDOT will maintain these bicycle and pedestrian accommodations through replacement and repair.

However, VDOT still performs little maintenance and repair of its shared-use paths and sidewalks, except in response to reported complaints. After construction, the pavement is left to deteriorate for decades and is fixed only after repeated complaints. VDOT still has no annual budget or established policies and procedures to adequately and proactively assess and maintain its active mobility assets.

Thank you for this opportunity to comment. We urge VDOT to better support active mobility in the years ahead.

Statement of Mark Scheufler, Active Prince William Co-Chair

Thank you for the opportunity to speak tonight. I’m Mark Scheufler, Prince William County resident and 16-year VRE rider.

With the recent purchase of the Manassas Line and the planned completion of the Long Bridge in 2030, I strongly recommend VRE, region and state partner to support adding 2^nd Platforms to the Manassas Park, Burke Centre, Rolling Road and Backlick Road stations to the near term Capital Improvement Plan. This will allow for the Manassas Line to move to an all-day, all-week clock face schedule, with a few commuter train slots during peak-of-peak time frames. The schedule along with 4-5 Amtrak trains per day will significantly increase ridership and lower capital costs due to the reduced train equipment needs that a high peak-of-peak commuter schedule requires.

More VRE service is vital for the region to take advantage of the VPRA multi-billion investment in the corridor and make better use of the VRE equipment that already carries high fixed costs regardless of the amount of service provided. I-95 and I-66 are not getting any more capacity for the next 50 years. VRE has the greatest ability to add significant mobility capacity in the region.

Boston/MBTA is an example of a rail system reworked their schedule to better serve people traveling in the middle of the day, in the evening and on weekends with the goal of transforming service from commuter rail to regional rail. Their rail ridership is near pre-pandemic levels while VRE is still near 40%.

Existing plans do not go far enough to handle service disruptions with a higher frequency schedule especially with Amtrak trains and freight trains mixed in. As a regular rider, service disruptions are a major hindrance when using the system.

I strongly recommend the 2^nd platform project be submitted for future Northern Virginia Transportation Authority regional funding.

But most importantly transportation agencies need to work with the localities/state to integrate projects such as the 2^nd platform project/all day service with land use changes to increase mixed-use/residential density adjacent to stations to draw more ridership. (This is especially needed in Fairfax County). This only works if all-day all-week service is planned. We have a major housing shortage in the region. Planning housing/services adjacent to high capacity transit service is a solution.

With the completion of the I-66 and I-95 Express Lane projects, competitive bus schedules during peak periods will limit future VRE growth in some segments of the catchment area. We need to start planning land use density improvements next to stations and 2nd platforms now to support high frequency service on the Manassas Line to begin when the Long Bridge opens.

Thank you for considering this testimony .

Promote Public Input on New Transportation Funding Requests BEFORE the Local Governing Body’s Endorsement

February 19, 2024 / Allen Muchnick

Active Prince William believes that early and proactive community involvement in the development of significant transportation improvement and planning projects would better integrate the community’s needs and preferences into the selection and scope of those projects.

Presently, however, the Prince William Board of County Supervisors (and the local governing bodies for greater Prince William’s cities and towns) routinely endorse staff recommendations for non-local transportation funding requests with minimal public notice or opportunities for citizen comment.

Typically, the public first learns of such funding requests for new transportation projects by discovering them on a Consent Agenda for an upcoming governing body meeting, held before any public comment period. This lack of transparent decision-making, limited public notice, and precluded public comment effectively deprives the public of any opportunity to meaningfully influence the nature and scope of the transportation projects that are advanced for funding.

In the Fall of 2023, we included the following question in our survey for all Prince William Board of County Supervisor candidates:

Question 1: Do you support requiring the PWC [Prince William County] Department of Transportation to hold advertised public hearings before the Board of County Supervisors [BOCS] is scheduled to endorse any future applications for regional (e.g., NVTA, NVTC Commuter Choice), state, or federal transportation improvement funds?

Four of the current BOCS members (Andrea Bailey, Deshundra Jefferson, Bob Weir, and Margaret Franklin) responded “Yes”, three others (Victor Angry, Tom Gordy, and Kenny Boddye) selected “Need more information”, and nobody selected “No”.

To not burden the already-crowded BOCS meeting agendas, this public comment on the County’s proposed new transportation funding requests could be solicited at standalone public meetings or at a scheduled meeting of an appropriate advisory body, such as the Prince William County Planning Commission. Ideally, however, 1) public input would also be solicited online, 2) any staff presentation and advertised public hearing would include a virtual meeting component, and 3) the PWC Department of Transportation would be required to provide both a written summary of the public comments received and a written response to those public comments.

Since non-local transportation funding programs typically have an annual or biennial schedule for new project submissions that is announced many months in advance, the Prince William County Department of Transportation should be able to present all their proposals for new transportation projects being considered in the coming months at one or two consolidated advertised public hearings each year.

We call on the Prince William Board of County Supervisors to issue a directive to the Prince William County Executive with the following components:

Require the Prince William County Department of Transportation (PWC DOT) to present–for public comment at an advertised public hearing–any proposed first-time request for regional, state, or federal funding for a new transportation or trail capital project or planning activity, in advance of bringing that funding request to the Board of County Supervisors for its endorsement.
Cite all applicable non-local funding programs, including the Northern Virginia Transportation Authority’s (NVTA) 70% and 30% funds; federal RSTP or CMAQ allocations which are endorsed by the NVTA; the Northern Virginia Transportation Commission’s (NVTC) I-66 and I-95/I-395 Commuter Choice programs; National Capital Region Transportation Planning Board (TPB) technical assistance grants (e.g., Transportation-Land Use Connections, Transit within Reach, Regional Roadway Safety Program); Transportation Alternatives Set-Aside requests submitted to either the TPB or VDOT; VDOT’s SMART SCALE, Revenue Sharing, and HSIP programs; the Virginia Department of Conservation and Recreation’s Recreational Trails Program; USDOT discretionary grant programs (e.g., RAISE, SS4A); Congressional earmark requests; and the Federal Transit Administration’s Enhanced Mobility Program.
Allow the PWC DOT to conduct these public hearings at any appropriate venue that includes online viewing and public comment submission components, including at scheduled Planning Commission meetings.
Specify that the public hearing must be held at least 30 to 60 days before the endorsement request is scheduled to be placed on the BOCS agenda.
Require the PWC DOT to compile a written summary of–and response to–the public comments received and include that summary with the other BOCS meeting materials when they present their funding request for BOCS approval.

We believe that the process outlined above would provide valuable community input–near the very beginning of the project development process–for both the PWC Department of Transportation and the Board of County Supervisors.

The Rte 234/Brentsville Rd Interchange Needs Better Bike & Ped Access to and from Bus. Rte 234/Dumfries Rd

February 11, 2024 / Allen Muchnick

Routing for bicyclists and pedestrians in the approved Route 234/Brentsville Road Interchange Project design

In early February 2024, Active Prince William asked the Prince William County Department of Transportation to improve pedestrian and bicycle access and safety between the Business Route 234/Dumfries Road corridor in the vicinity of Godwin Drive and the Route 234/Brentsville Road Interchange project, which is nearing the end of its construction. County staff replied that they will look into our request but did not commit to any action. Our written request is copied below.

Potomac Local’s recent update on the Route 234/Brentsville Road Interchange project reported that this $55 million project is currently $2 million under budget.

We are inquiring about the County’s plans for safe and convenient pedestrian and bicycle access along the Business Route 234/Dumfries Road corridor between the new interchange and the City of Manassas. From previous correspondence, Mr. Belita indicated a ten-foot wide shared use path will be built along the west side of Business Route 234/Dumfries Road between the Bradley Cemetery Way area and Godwin Drive.

We firmly believe that 10-foot wide shared use paths are needed along both sides of Business Route 234 to provide reasonable and much-needed pedestrian and bicycle access to and from this Interchange.

Along the west side of Business Route 234, the shared-use path between at least Godwin Drive and the Bradley Cemetery Way area will provide safe foot and bicycle access to and from Godwin Drive heading west (including to the adjacent Mayfield Trace community) and could also connect to a future northwestern extension of the regionally significant shared-use path along the Prince William Parkway leading from the Brentsville Road Interchange. In addition, the nearest shared-use path within the City of Manassas is along the west side of Business Route 234, between Hastings Drive and Donner Drive.

Along the east side of Business Route 234, a shared-use path from the Bradley Cemetery Way area would provide optimal access to the shared-use paths being built within this Interchange project that a) head south to cross over Route 234 to reach both Brentsville Rd heading south and the existing regional path along southbound Route 234 and that b) meander east through the Interchange to reach Liberia Avenue Extended/Route 294 toward Manassas.

A shared-use path along the east side of Business Route 234 would optimally connect to the existing Bradley Square townhome development and the proposed Bradley South (REZ2003-00027) development. From Bradley Manor Place, the existing Bradley Square subdivision streets readily lead to South Grant Avenue in the City of Manassas, a pleasant, existing low-traffic route for bicycling and walking that connects to Wellington Road (and from there to downtown Manassas via multiple routes).

We are disappointed that the current Bradley South rezoning proposal is rather inhospitable for bicycling and walking. Business Route 234/Dumfries Road would have a 50 MPH design speed and a 45 MPH posted speed limit, and the developer of Bradley South would only be required to proffer a sidewalk along the east side of Dumfries Rd. By contrast, the connecting segment of Dumfries Road at the south end of the City of Manassas has only a 35 MPH posted speed limit (which is better but also too high in our opinion).

Furthermore, with continued residential, commercial, and mixed-use development along the Business Route 234/Dumfries Road corridor (including the Prince William County Fairgrounds), just south of the Manassas City Limits, the density of development will be comparable to that planned along Centreville Road (Route 28) in Yorkshire.

We ask that the budget surplus from this project and proffers from the Bradley South rezoning be used to provide a 10-foot wide shared-use path along the east side of that roadway (Dumfries Rd), from the Bradley Cemetery Way area to at least Bradley Manor Place.

Beyond that, to the extent feasible, the Interchange Project budget should also provide much-needed pedestrian infrastructure for crossing Business Route 234/Dumfries Road at Godwin Drive, including high-visibility crosswalks, at least one raised pedestrian crossing refuge within the roadway median, and either a pedestrian-activated crossing beacon (e.g., HAWK signal) or a conventional traffic signal with full pedestrian crossing components for at least two of the existing intersection legs.

Please let us know how the Route 234/Brentsville Road Interchange Project will suitably accommodate active mobility to and from the already well populated Business Route 234/Dumfries Road corridor.

Without safe and convenient foot and bike connections to the new Interchange from Business Route 234, the new Interchange will degrade active mobility to and from that populated corridor, and the new active transportation infrastructure within the interchange will be very underutilized. Waiting five or more years for possible future rezonings along Business Route 234/Dumfries Road is not acceptable to complete these critical sections.

If the surplus funds from the Interchange project cannot be tapped to build either another shared-use path or a signalized pedestrian crossing of Business Route 234/Dumfries Road at Godwin Drive, we believe that low-cost or no-cost alternative interim improvements could readily be implemented along the east side of Business Route 234/Dumfries Road that would still substantially improve pedestrian and bicycle access and safety between the Bradley Cemetery Way area and Bradley Manor Place.

Google Street View shows that–before the Interchange was constructed–the paved width of Business Route 234/Dumfries Road was already about four or five lanes wide (i..e., 48 to 60 feet of asphalt pavement) for most of the distance between Bradley Cemetery Way and Bradley Manor Place. There appears to be only a short stretch between Godwin Drive and the south end of Bradley Square where the pavement narrows to about 36 feet, but only two lanes are presently needed for vehicular travel along that segment.

Thus, the restriping of that roadway segment (with or without any asphalt resurfacing) should allow for at least a continuous 10-foot or wider northbound paved shoulder area leading up to the long right-turn-only lane approaching Bradley Manor Place. That shoulder area could be protected from roadway traffic with some sort of hard physical barrier to serve as an interim shared-use path along the east side of Business Route 234/Dumfries Road between the Bradley Cemetery Way area and Bradley Manor Place.

This recent photo (below) of northbound Route 234 Business/Dumfries Road near Bradley Cemetery Way shows that a wide paved shoulder is already present at that location. While less wide than optimal, that existing paved shoulder could serve as an interim two-way shared-use path if it’s protected from the roadway traffic with a suitable hard barrier.

Northbound Business Route 234/Dumfries Road just north of the Interchange on February5, 2024

In addition, a striped conventional bike lane in each direction may also be feasible. In the southbound direction, a striped on-road bike lane would be especially useful, from the Manassas City Line to Godwin Drive, for the dozens of bicyclists who participate in Bull Run Bicycles Tuesday Evening Shop Ride, almost every Tuesday evening during daylight saving time. South of Godwin Drive, a southbound bike lane should not be needed because a new shared-use path will be located along that segment.

Finally, we again request that whatever pedestrian and bicycling improvements cannot be accomplished under the current Interchange project become required proffers as part of the Bradley South rezoning.