Fairfax planners seek board input on consolidated Active Transportation and Trails Plan

Fairfax County Department of Transportation staff presented an update Dec. 2 to the Board of Supervisors Transportation Committee on a draft amendment that consolidates the county’s bicycle master plan and countywide trails plan into a single Active Transportation and Trails Plan.

The presentation, led by Nicole Winans of FCDOT, outlined the project’s multi‑phase history and said adoption is anticipated in spring 2026. "This plan builds on several years of work," Winans said, describing Phase 1 (2020) and Phase 2 (beginning 2022) and listing three principal goals: streamline planning guidance, revise a bikeway and trail network anchored to convenient travel routes and destinations, and align facility recommendations with current best practices to improve safety and accessibility.

Why it matters: staff said consolidating the plans helps keep priority corridors eligible for federal grants that often require facilities to be included in the comprehensive plan. "Those grants have certain requirements including that those facilities we are seeking funding for are included in the countywide trails plan or in the comprehensive plan in general," Winans said. Board members repeatedly raised outreach and cost questions, reflecting the plan’s local impacts on neighborhoods, development review and future capital projects.

Key details: staff described outreach this fall that included a public survey, two virtual meetings, pop‑up events and social media; the survey page was viewed nearly 3,800 times and generated 562 responses and 131 comments. The draft map groups routes into five topologies and the facility selection guidance was split into three tables: primary facility recommendations (commonly applied in private development), alternative facilities that typically require public capital projects, and crossing‑spacing guidance. The active transportation toolkit will be included by reference and staff said they will seek board endorsement of the toolkit in 2026.

Board reaction and requests: several supervisors praised the plan as visionary but urged more and better‑distributed public input. One committee member said, "I wish there were more than 66 participants," and asked staff to map respondents so the board can confirm geographic distribution. Supervisor Herrity and others emphasized the draft is fiscally unconstrained and warned against letting an aspirational list become a rigid requirement on developers and homeowners; Herrity said flexibility should be preserved so the plan’s refinements do not automatically translate into unavoidable costs for housing or projects.

Staff responses and follow‑up: Winans said some revisions were made in response to public feedback and that written comments (including those from Jim Klein) were incorporated where feasible; staff committed to providing a formal response to Klein. She also explained the asterisk on the plan map: federal funding programs sometimes require facilities to be recorded in the comprehensive plan or countywide trails plan for eligibility, and regional facilities in particular must be highlighted to remain eligible. Staff agreed to review proposed wording about avoiding environmentally sensitive areas (a supervisor requested language such as "avoid to the extent possible") and said route data will be published in JSON on the county’s open data portal to support GIS use and accessibility.

What’s next: staff requested board feedback by Dec. 30 on three items (network extent, facility and amenity recommendations in tables 1–3, and updates to Appendix 3). The committee did not take a formal vote on adoption at the meeting; staff will return with adoption‑stage materials and a toolkit endorsement in 2026.