A BILL to amend and reenact § 2.2-229 of the Code of Virginia and to amend the Code of Virginia by adding a section numbered 33.2-353.1, relating to certain primary highways; review of designation or classification for certain purposes by Office of Intermodal Planning and Investment; request of a locality.
HB737 would expand the duties of the Office of Intermodal Planning and Investment (OIPI) within the Secretary of Transportation’s office and create a new process for localities to ask the state to review the designation or classification of a primary highway within their borders. The bill directs OIPI to continue supporting statewide transportation planning, prioritization, budgeting, performance measurement, and coordination across highway, transit, rail, and toll-related programs, while also adding a specific responsibility to provide technical assistance to local governments on highway assessments and related planning issues.
The new section added by the bill would allow a locality’s governing body to petition OIPI to review a primary highway for a possible change in designation or classification for planning, prioritization, or funding purposes, including whether it should be treated as a corridor of statewide significance or part of a regional network. The locality may submit supporting information such as traffic volumes, commuter data, and economic impacts. OIPI must assess the request and decide whether a different designation is appropriate; if it denies the change, it must provide the locality a written explanation within 10 days describing why the highway does not qualify for the requested designation.
The bill would amend § 2.2-229 and add § 33.2-353.1 to the Code of Virginia, thereby formalizing OIPI’s role in transportation planning and creating a new locality-driven review mechanism for primary highways. In practice, it could affect how certain highways are classified in the Statewide Transportation Plan and how they are considered for prioritization or funding, potentially influencing future transportation investments, corridor planning, and local-state coordination. It would also increase OIPI’s administrative workload by requiring assessments and written determinations on petitioned highway reviews.
The available record shows no committee transcript, votes, or recorded debate, so there is no documented public sentiment from the legislative process in the materials provided. Based on the bill text alone, the measure appears to be framed as a planning and transparency improvement, with an emphasis on giving local governments a formal avenue to request review of highway classifications. Its referral to the Transportation Committee and subsequent leaving in committee suggest it did not advance, but the reason for that outcome is not provided.
The main potential point of contention is the balance between state-level transportation planning authority and local control. Supporters would likely view the bill as giving localities a meaningful way to raise concerns about highway designations that affect economic development, commuter patterns, and funding priorities. Opponents or skeptics might worry that the petition process could add administrative burden, create pressure to alter statewide planning decisions, or complicate existing prioritization frameworks by allowing local requests to influence corridor and network classifications. Because there is no committee discussion in the record, specific arguments from legislators or stakeholders are not available.