The House Committee on Transportation, Infrastructure and Funding Subcommittee on Friday heard Senate Bill 1131, introduced by Senator Perry, a bill that would ask local governments in Planning District 8 to consider discontinuing instead of abandoning certain non-primary, non-secondary rural roads.

"All this bill does is ask that local governments consider discontinuing instead of abandoning a road when that process comes up," Senator Perry said, adding that discontinuing would allow a road to "remain a public right away" and could allow incorporation into trail systems or green space for "bikers, walkers, and questions." She told the committee she represents parts of Loudoun and Fauquier counties and said constituents value more than "over 250 miles of unpaved rural roads."

The bill does not require localities to discontinue roads and applies only to Planning District 8, Perry said.

Joanne Baxeville, speaking for Virginia Department of Transportation (VDOT) staff, told the committee the central legal and operational distinction: "When a road is discontinued as opposed to abandoned, when it's abandoned, no public use, there's no maintenance responsibility, etcetera, and it's no longer used for the public. When a road is discontinued... the road will still exist for public use but VDOT would not maintain it." Ms. Baxeville said discontinuance reflects a VDOT finding that there is not sufficient public need for continued VDOT maintenance.

Committee members asked several clarifying questions about maintenance, liability and ownership. Delegate Reed asked whether discontinuance would remove the road from VDOT's maintenance responsibility; Ms. Baxeville and other VDOT staff answered that both abandonment and discontinuance generally would end VDOT maintenance, but discontinuance preserves public access. Questions about liability for failing bridges or washed-out sections were raised; the record shows no definitive answer about which party would assume long-term liability after discontinuance.

The committee also discussed implications for right of way. VDOT staff summarized: for prescriptive right of way tied strictly to road use, "if the road ... is no longer used for a road, I'm not sure that it would necessarily remain in the public domain"; when fee ownership exists, it typically reverts to the owning governmental entity (county or VDOT) depending on whether the road was primary or secondary. Committee members and VDOT staff clarified that the bill's language is drawn to existing statutes that govern abandonment of primary and secondary roads and that municipal (city) streets generally are not covered by the bill as drafted.

No members of the public registered opposition; no amendments were recorded. The subcommittee moved to report the bill, and the clerk announced the report vote as 8 to 0 in favor.

The measure as presented does not change maintenance obligations, does not mandate discontinuance, and applies only to counties in Planning District 8. Further legal questions — including long-term liability for bridges and other structures after discontinuance — were discussed but left unresolved in the hearing record.

SB 1131 now moves from the subcommittee with a favorable report to the next House committee for additional consideration.