Diverging Vision for the Fall Line Trail Route Through the City of Richmond
Welcome to What's Next, Richmond? (WNR), a newsletter that highlights upcoming improvements to the transportation system in Richmond, Virginia. This week we dive into the Fall Line Trail
The Fall Line Trail began as a dream from the Richmond organization Sports Backers, an advocacy group that seeks to promote active lifestyles in the Richmond Metro area. The original idea has since grown into an active construction project in nearly all of the localities along the 43 mile path between Ashland and Petersburg. Like the Capital Trail, the Fall Line Trail will be a continuous multi-use paved path that provides a car-free alternative for walkers, hikers, and bikers alike.
The general path of the Fall Line Trail has been established for several years as evidenced by this 2021 map from the Friends of the Fall Line Trail. In October of 2024, however, the City of Richmond published a post on the website for the Office of Equitable Transit and Mobility (OETM) which traced a new route. This new route takes a different path through downtown Richmond as well as through much of the Northside. In this week’s issue we will dive into these changes, discuss how they relate to development in the city, and look at ways in which Richmond is behind schedule compared to the surrounding counties on this transformative infrastructure project.
A Bit of Background
A brief summary of the path and purpose of the Fall Line Trail
When completed, the Fall Line Trail will provide a single, car-free 43 mile path that will allow users to travel all the way from Ashland to Petersburg. It will serve as a destination for walkers, bikers, and hikers who want to make this trip, and will also provide communities along the trail a new way to commute or travel to different parts of the city.
As an example: the Fall Line Trail will provide a continuous walking/ biking path from homes in Richmond’s Northside to Brown’s Island on the James River, making it much easier to access the river or, say, the new riverfront amphitheater without the use of a car. It’s important to note that the Fall Line Trail will pass over Brown’s Island on the Manchester Bridge rather than through the destination. Wouldn’t it be great if there were a way that Fall Line Trail users could directly access Brown’s Island, though?
In 2024, Sports Backers and a group called Toole Design released the Fall Line Trail Vision Plan. This 94 page document reviews each section of the trail, defines unified design elements for the trail, and reviews case studies of other similar trails in different parts of the country.
The Vision Plan discusses the extent to which similar trails have been economic booms to the area within the immediate premises of the trail. The Plan claims, for example, that “property values within 500 feet of the [Minneapolis Midtown] Greenway have increased by $1.8 billion and $30 million in property taxes were collected in the Greenway area in 2021.” (Fall Line Trail Vision Plan p. 23). This means that the path of the trail could be a significant economic benefit to homeowners along the route as well as to the City in general.
The Vision Plan also talks about “Trail Oriented Development” (a nod to the commonly used phrase Transit Oriented Development), anticipating growth in business and services along the route of the trail due to the increased foot traffic that the trail will provide. According to the Vision Plan, the Fall Line Trail will become a spine trail on which spurs will be built to access more parts of the City, leading to an enhanced car-free transportation network.
For those who are less familiar with the Fall Line Trail project, you can click through this interactive map to see the path of the trail. You should note, however, that the sections of Richmond City’s Northside and Downtown are different in this map than the most recent information posted by the City of Richmond Department of Public Works (DPW).
The Diverging Pathway
The two rival pathways for the Fall Line Trail
As previously alluded, it is currently unclear what the “official” path the Fall Line Trail is through the City of Richmond. Nearly every single document for the past 3 years has indicated a single consensus on a route through the City. That consensus changed in October when Richmond’s Department of Public Works (DPW) published a map showing a contradictory path for the Fall Line Trail.
Here are the two diverging paths superimposed on each other in a custom google map:
The green line shows the new route indicated by Richmond’s DPW, and the blue line shows the “consensus” path according to virtually every other previous document about the Fall Line Trail.
You’ll notice that the points of discord between the two routes are in Downtown Richmond as well as in the City’s Northside. The DPW route (green) in downtown travels along 1st Street and Franklin Street, both of which already have existing two-way cycle tracks along the right of way. This will likely make it easier to re-designate the space for the Fall Line Trail without having to remove car travel lanes like they would along the original path.
The consensus route (blue), by comparison, would require removing travel lanes, sidewalk space, or parking along major sections of the City on 7th Street.
In the Northside, the major difference between the two paths is that the original consensus route (blue) travels along Brookland Parkway to reach Hermitage Road, whereas the DPW route (green) passes through the future Diamond District by turning onto Overbrook Avenue to reach Hermitage Road at a more Southern point.
As recently as May of 2024 the DPW was still in agreement with the consensus route (blue) based on the renderings that they displayed at the Spring Speed Symposium at Main Street Station. The Fall Line Trail Vision Plan that was released in February of 2024 also showed this same original consensus route.
Something happened in the planning process between May and July of 2024. In July, the Diamond District’s Design and Public Realm Standards document showed a rendering of the Fall Line Trail passing through the Diamond District (which was not part of the original route).
Three months later in October of 2024 the Department of Public Works published a post on their website showing a new path for the Fall Line Trail that corroborated the idea that the trail would now pass through the Diamond District instead of Sherwood Park by way of Brookland Parkway. The post did not acknowledge that this was a change from the previously stated route.
Here are the two routes side by side for comparison along with a list of sources that corroborate the given route.
When I reached out to the DPW about this change in the route, a representative from the Office of Equitable Transit and Mobility told me that
“The different potential paths will all be included in the city of Richmond’s enhanced bicycle network. The Office of Equitable Transit and Mobility (OETM) is in the process of scheduling public outreach and engagement opportunities to identify the most accommodating path to designate as the official ‘Fall Line Trail’.”
That is to say, both of the paths will eventually be built. Despite this consolation, there’s more than just the “namesake” in being the official Fall Line Trail. There are many different entities contributing to the funding for the this trail, including the Central Virginia Transit Authority and the Virginia Department of Transportation. The designation of the “Fall Line Trail” comes with a significant amount of existing funding and momentum from the Greater Richmond Area. A path without this designation could be built on a considerably later timescale and without as many features such as crossing signals or wayfinding markers that make the trail safer and more pleasant to use.
How Does Richmond City Compare on This Project?
Richmond City’s progress compared to other localities along the Fall Line Trail in terms of completion of the Fall Line Trail.
On the same timeline in which the City of Richmond was shifting the planned route of the Fall Line Trail, other localities were engineering and breaking ground on their sections of the Trail.
According to a May 2024 article from WTVR, Henrico County, Hanover County, and the town of Ashland will all have completed their portions of the Fall Line Trail by 2026. Chesterfield County and the cities of Petersburg and Colonial Heights are about to break ground on a 9 mile section of the trail. For comparison, the entire length of the Fall Line Trail that passes through Richmond City is 13 miles.
Though Richmond has begun work on the section of the Fall Line Trail through Bryan Park, there is not a clear “next step” for the city. The Capital Improvement Project (CIP) section of the most recent City budget (FY2025) only mentions two small sections of the Fall Line Trail. This is significant because the CIP section of the budget covers the next four years of capital expenditures. The two sections in the CIP budget are the section that connects to Chesterfield County, and one small section on Commerce Road that about a mile long (split into phases 1 and 2 each 0.5 miles). Neither of these sections will even receive full funding until 2027 or later, according to the budget. Here are the two sections on the City’s CIP Dashboard:
This means that by 2029, Richmond will have built a total of 4.5 miles of the Fall Line Trail within the City Limits. Put another way, 3 years after a majority of the localities will have completed their sections of the trail, Richmond City will have only built 35% of the sections under their responsibility.
A Bit of Commentary To Close
Personally, I have a slight preference for the version of the Fall Line Trail that the Department of Public Works has most recently posted on their website (though I feel like the way they’ve introduced it is a bit lacking in terms of transparency). Assuming the Diamond District partners don’t sue each other into oblivion, the ability to integrate this major economic development into the trail would be a big win (not to mention it would be so great to be able to safely bike with the whole family to Flying Squirrels games).
Across from the Diamond District will also be the VCU Athletic Village, which VCU have vowed to keep open to the public. Building the Fall Line Trail between these two major pieces of development seems like a no-brainer to me. It would both improve non-car access to these locations as well as showcase a cool new part of the City to those passing through on the Fall Line Trail. I also like how the DPW’s newest route would improve the experience passing underneath I-64/95 to move between the Diamond District and the Northside, as the current set up leaves a lot to be desired.
Greater than my preference for the latest route of the Fall Line Trail, however, is my concern that the City is still figuring out the most basic details about the Fall Line Trail, such as its route, while other localities are planning and building their sections. Based on the evidence in the Fall Line Vision plan, the trail will provide an increase in tax revenue for the City (remember when we cancelled the plan to demolish the derelict coliseum this May because there wasn’t enough money for the schools?).
We are also a Vision Zero city committed to reducing road related deaths to zero. Providing a safe path through the City for pedestrians and bikers seems like a major tool to achieve that goal. I believe that this project should be a much higher priority for the City, and I’d love to see that priority reflected in how the City of Richmond is allocating funds and resources towards this goal.
As always, thanks for reading!
Don’t forget to:
A few significant details are in order here.
First, the genesis of this project grew out of the Ahland Trolley Line Trail concept that had been slowly gaining traction over more than a decade, having been conceived and pushed by stakeholders exclusive of those now getting credit for the FLT (consisting of the northern half of the route). That is rarely acknowledged. Second, there was never consensus over the routing and it has been a political football since the beginning and was rushed through via the initial VDOT concept plan (when it was known as the Ashland to Petersburg Trail). It changed through Richmond even more as politicians, various city staff, and advocates pushed for their respective desired route, often without consideration for feasibility. Those were some of the least transparent diversions from the original route. The counties also impacted the alignment since they drove considerations as to where they wanted their alignments, thus that drove to a great extent where it entered the city both at the north and the south.
And as an aside, public input is good, but two considerations are warranted; first, the original alignment involved very little public engagement, especially at the more micro level where significant impacts would be seen (e.g. the initial plans to remove all of the mature trees on one side of Hermitage Ave), and secondly complex decisions in a fluid environment over several years are not something you leave to public opinion, especially since such engagement typically involves a very small percentage of the community. Consideration yes, but Richmond loves to bend to the voices of a few vocal people.
As for the City not keeping up with the counties; a little critical thinking is warranted. All but a few short segments of the Hanover and Henrico alignment follow the old trolley line which is now a Dominion power line. Chesterfield County likewise has the luxury of an alignment that is largely outside of roadway right of way, and where it does parallel roads, it is mostly along undeveloped roads with lots of space to work with. Compare that to the fact that the City's alignment must follow road right of way the entire length with the exception of the short section where it enters at Bryan Park (a little over half a mile). That means finding nearly 12 miles of streets that can accommodate threading a continuous route through the entire city, through historic neighborhoods, through the central business district, and over an existing river crossing, while also being fluid in the planning to maximize the benefit of the FLT by aligning it with cornerstone redevelopment efforts in multiple parts of the city. Never mind that any change to any street engenders pushback from people that feel like they own the street they live on. And lastly consider that Richmond is the only locality whose alignment will be able to serve as a viable transportation option as opposed to largely recreational in the counties.
Don't mistake this as an overt defense of the city. Richmond could screw up a two-car funeral procession and constantly under-delivers on projects and promises. But if we are talking about transparency, then these details need to be acknowledged as opposed to the constant refrain of the City falling behind the counties on this project.
Interesting post. In my view, the city has a slower pace for Fall Line construction because the situation there is much more complicated. A large portion of the Fall Line sections in Henrico and Chesterfield are on former rail lines. A dedicated right of way, without competing interests for that space, greatly simplifies the project development process as there are almost zero trade offs. Since these sections are simpler, they can move quicker and VDOT chose to prioritize them.
A second complication for the city is that the original Fall Line environmental work chose to use a shared use path for the entire length, including the city. A shared use path is appropriate for rural, suburban, and park like settings but not dense urban street settings. You will not find shared use paths parallel to urban streets in Europe or New York City as high volumes of bicycles and pedestrians need to be separated.
Because of the shared use path only mentality there are numerous portions in the city that need further study. The shared use path on Brookland Parkway as originally designed would have taken right of way from people’s front yards via eminent domain and caused the removal of hundreds of mature street trees all while an 8 foot buffered bike lane and set back sidewalk already exist. One could argue a raised bike lane in the existing footprint would accomplish the same goal without removing trees or taking right of way. In order to not take right of way or remove street trees on Hermitage an entire travel lane would need to be removed. While that may be worth it, it is a trade off and requires a lot of study.
A similar situation, further south on Route 1 is even more constrained. The original study proposed turning the 11’ 6” foot sidewalk right of way into a shared use path which is far too narrow to meet standards and conflicts with the existing bus shelters there. It’s slow because it’s complicated and there are a lot more trade offs.