The Northern Virginia Transportation Authority voted Oct. 9 to ask the Metropolitan Washington Council of Governments’ Transportation Planning Board (TPB) to delay final consideration of the I‑495/I‑95 Southside express lanes project until April so technical questions and interjurisdictional concerns can be further addressed.

Authority member John McKay moved that the chief executive officer modify a previously circulated draft letter so that the authority requests “a delay action by the TPB until April” to allow additional analysis and for the incoming gubernatorial administration to engage with Maryland and project partners. Chair Jefferson put the motion before the body and the motion passed; one member recorded an abstention.

Why it matters: McKay and other members said removing the project from TPB’s long‑range plan now would effectively halt work on the corridor for several years. “If this is not included in the long range plan, it is 5 years before it could be considered again,” McKay said, arguing that continued analytical work is needed to answer outstanding technical questions and to give the next administration time to participate in negotiations.

Discussion and process: The chair initially flagged the agenda item and said staff would circulate the prior draft letter. McKay reviewed the history: a prior vote on a letter in the previous meeting failed after multiple abstentions. He said he had since consulted with TPB members and VDOT and that TPB staff expect to advance their long‑range plan but defer inclusion of this project for reconsideration in the first quarter of next year. Several members asked to review the modified letter by email before the authority transmits it; the chair agreed to circulate the revised text for members' review.

Separately, some authority members emphasized that the motion does not constitute a substantive endorsement of the project. As McKay put it, the letter seeks only to “keep [the project] on life support” so unanswered jurisdictional and technical issues can be resolved and re‑considered.

Votes and next steps: The authority directed staff to prepare the modified letter and circulate it to members before sending it to TPB. The motion passed with one abstention; the authority did not record a roll‑call vote in the meeting minutes provided.

Context: Authority members referenced outstanding concerns raised by multiple jurisdictions, including negotiations with Maryland and technical clarifications that proponents say cannot be resolved unless the project continues in an analytical phase. Several members also noted that TPB’s decision will be final for the long‑range plan cycle unless the TPB itself elects to re‑open consideration in early 2026.