The $20 million George Snyder Trail has been in Fairfax City’s plans for more than a decade and was approved by City Council more than a year ago. Spanning almost two miles – and including asphalt and concrete boardwalks – this shared-use path would join Chain Bridge Road to the Wilcoxon Trail at Draper Drive, south of Fairfax Boulevard.
It would also connect to VDOT’s shared-use path being built along Route 123 as part of the I-66 Outside the Beltway improvements. Doing so would enable Snyder Trail users to travel east some 33 miles to Washington, D.C., or west about 20 miles to Haymarket along the I-66 corridor. (See plan sidebar for more specific details).
But the five new members on the six-person Council have greatly differing opinions about the trail than the previous Council that approved it. And by the end of their March 11 work session, they leaned toward only constructing the west side of it.
First, though, Transportation Director Wendy Sanford and the City’s urban forester, Anna Safford, presented details about the project. Sanford also gave Council three options: 1. Continue with the project as proposed; 2. Cancel it; or 3. Just build the western half, as designed, and leave the eastern half (from Fair Woods Parkway to Draper Drive) alone.
If the project’s canceled, Fairfax would have to repay from its General Fund some or all of $3.7 million it’s already spent on design, environmental review and right-of-way acquisition. It’s received $20.6 million total for this $20 million trail from outside sources, but unused money can’t be shifted to a different City project. Sanford also warned that cancellation will impact the City’s reputation and ability to receive funding for its future projects.
“VDOT suggested Option Three to us last year, in response to the adverse reactions [from residents opposing the trail],” said Sanford. “The trail would go from Chain Bridge Road in the west to Fair Woods Parkway in the east. VDOT constructed a trail parallel to I-66, and one spur connects to Chain Bridge Road and a new traffic-signal there.”
Option Three would entail building 8/10 of a mile of trail vs. 1.78 miles and one bridge instead of four. Since the terrain on that side is gentler than on the east side, less grading and fill dirt would be needed. The trail would also cause less tree, soil and root disturbance. It also preserves more than half of the impacted trees, removes fewer trees in good or excellent condition, and preserves the mature oak/hickory forest on the east side.
But the project would also require all-new plan reviews at the 30-percent and 60-percent design stages and couldn’t be readvertised for official authorization for one year. Furthermore, any of the unused $13.6 million concessionaire funding received from VDOT would return to VDOT and wouldn’t be available if the City decides to construct the eastern section at a later date. However, it wouldn’t have to repay the $3.7 million it’s already spent.
Starting the discussion, Mayor Catherine Read, said, “I sit on the NVTA [Northern Virginia Transportation Authority] and vote on the funding for projects for the region. On Jan. 23, 2024, I broke the Council’s tie vote to keep this project going. In November 2024, I was reelected and the two councilmembers not in favor of it weren’t.
“When we received this money, we made a commitment to spend it – and it meant other regions didn’t get funds for their projects. If we don’t go ahead with it, it would be reneging on our commitment to NVTA and to VDOT.” She also stressed that walkable greenways – shared-use paths separated from roads – have been on the City’s plan since 1992.
Councilmember Tom Peterson asked if another trail alignment could be studied for the half-trail option, but Sanford said other alignments were already examined before the final one was brought to Council. Besides, she said, “I asked VDOT if they’d wait two years while we looked at an on-road trail, instead, and a different alignment.
“The concessionaire funding was for projects expected to be open when the improved I-66 was done, and there’s no assurance that our revised alignment would even be approved. And VDOT said we’ve already gone past the time when it could be flexible about waiting any longer. We would have had to decide to do this prior to the right-of-way purchases.”
Councilmember Stacey Hardy-Chandler said it’s important that a path has wheelchair and stroller access. She then asked what would be done to replace the trees removed, and Sanford replied, “We’ve identified re-planting locations, techniques and invasives mitigation. And we’ve also implemented strong, tree-protection measures.” Public Works Director David Summers also stressed that, of the total 90 acres the trail would span, only 6.18 acres would be impacted.
“How long would it take for the [new] trees to regrow?” asked Councilmember Stacy Hall. Safford said trees in the eastern part would take 80-100 years because it’s “old-growth” forest. Those in the western portion would take 20-40 years.
Councilmember Anthony Amos asked what the recurring, annual, maintenance costs for the trail would be. Summers said it would be about $25,000/year for maintenance, the first five years, increasing to $50,000/year afterward for the whole trail.
“I’ve received emails from residents on both sides of this issue,” said Amos. “Considering the fiscal impacts, the schools, potential tax increase, tariffs and the federal situation, I’m leaning between Options Two and Three.”
“I’m not against trails,” said Hall. “I’m against roads in the woods – which I think this is. From a fiscally responsible standpoint, I support only the west half. From an environmentally responsible standpoint, I’m struggling with this and don’t support a full build at all.”
However, Hardy-Chandler said, “I believe cancellation of this project would be irresponsible. This is a multiyear project, and we have to move forward with decisions made by previous councils. From a policy standpoint, it would be a disturbing precedent to question [their actions]. So Option One is my preference; but I’d consider Option Three, with more information.”
Councilwoman Rachel McQuillen asked about this project’s public engagement and was told about past public hearings on it. “Prior to the past few years, there was not as much concern about the trees,” said Sanford. “The project was moving along smoothly.”
“It’s clear from the testimony of residents and experts that this project would cause an increase in stormwater runoff and trail-maintenance costs, plus a huge environmental impact,” said McQuillen. “I oppose it.”
“There’s a lot of conjecture about who’s opposing this trail,” said Read. “In my neighborhood, most people don’t even know about the George Snyder Trail. [But] everyone with expertise is trying to help us make the best decision possible.”
Noting that the NEPA study done for this project said there was no environmental impact or public opposition – and none was anticipated – Peterson said, “Both statements are clearly wrong. I find it very troubling. Council needs a new process for decision-making, going forward.”
Advocating for an on-road trail instead, McQuillen said, “I’ve ridden bikes and pushed strollers on our sidewalks, where the speed limit on the [adjacent] road is 35 mph, and I felt safe.”
Councilmember Billy Bates, though, favored a trail in the woods vs. a narrower on-road path. “Having an 8-12-foot-wide shared-use path accommodates all the uses on a path – runners, bicyclists, pedestrians, etc.,” he explained. “Forcing a bicyclist onto a 5-foot-wide sidewalk – and having him swerve to avoid a rock or a pedestrian – could throw him into traffic and cause a tragedy. I can’t, in good conscience, put people in a situation like that.”
“I fully favor doing only the western half,” he continued. “And I’ve heard from several people that they support the trail but have been afraid to come to Council meetings and say that because of other people in their neighborhood who oppose it.”
If Council eventually decides to only do half the project, it must make a formal resolution stating its intention. Then Sanford would talk to VDOT about it and there’d be opportunities for public engagement. But she warned Council that any change would still need the Commonwealth Transportation Board’s (CTB) blessing. Summers also noted that it would cost the City about $50,000 to redo its plan and start again at the 30-percent design stage.
“And if we cancel the trail and have to repay the $3.7 million, that would affect our budget,” stressed Read. “In 18 months and one week, early voting will start for Mayor, Council and School Board. And if we start this project again, we’ll be leaving what we did for the next Council.”
“I don’t support dragging this out beyond May,” said Amos. “So many of us on the Council are new, so we need more time.” Hardy-Chandler then said having more information about Option Three would help them decide.
Acting City Manager Bryan Foster said Read would have to contact the CTB’s Northern Virginia representative about any proposed changes, and she agreed to do so. Amos then said Council could discuss the matter further in April.
But any change to the original plan comes with a huge risk. The bottom line, said Read afterward, is that “We signed a contract with VDOT to build the whole thing, not just half, because of that trail’s importance to the region. If we change it and they don’t agree, we’d lose the trail and all the money to build any of it.”