Reston COVID-19 Case Rate is Better than the County, Much Worse than the State

While Fairfax County continues to refuse to provide data on the Coronavirus-19 outbreak on a ZIP code basis so neighborhoods and communities can understand their health situation, the Commonwealth of Virginia is now providing some of that information.  Here is the data available concerning Reston’s three ZIP codes provided by Virginia as of today (May 11, 2020):  

Reston Covid cases by ZIP Code, May 11, 2020

With an estimated 2016 population of 62,320, which means Reston is experiencing about 419 cases per 100,000 people.  On the other hand, Fairfax County data indicates that the county, with 5,973 covid cases and an estimated 1,167,000 population is running about 512 cases per 100,000 population, which means we are doing better than the county as a whole.  

Nonetheless, Reston is doing much more poorly than the state on a per capita basis (Reston at 419/100K and VA at only 253/100K) and only about consistent with the national average per capita case load.  This is somewhat surprising given the quality of health care and general wealth we have in our area.  WTOP explains this burgeoning county case burden:

The county, the largest in population in the state at an estimated 1.1 million people, said Thursday its pandemic curve is still in the exponential growth phase.  As of Wednesday night, Fairfax County has 5,045 cases, 832 hospitalized and 211 deaths from COVID-19 — each of those numbers is more than twice the total of the next highest county.

Fairfax County outlined the causes:

1. Significant community-wide transmission is happening in the Fairfax health district, which means more people are getting sick and, in turn, infecting others.
2. Commercial lab capacity continues to increase and more testing means more cases documented.
3. What is counted by public health as a COVID-19 case has changed.

All this provides good reason for Board of Supervisors Chairman Jim McKay to ask that Fairfax and other Northern Virginiacounties be exempted from the governor’s plan to begin re-opening the state next week.  

We will provide periodic updates on Reston’s situation.

Governor's comments on what government decisions should be considered an "emergency."

Comments from Governor Northam at his press conference last week. 

"We understand that while everyone is focused on this epidemic, the business of government must be able to continue. Attorney General Mark Herring has issued an opinion that says public bodies in Virginia may conduct business of meetings electronically if the purpose of the meeting is to address the emergency. That includes meeting to make decisions that must be made immediately and where failure to do so could result in unrevokable public harm." 

"General Herring's opinion makes clear that public bodies should ask themselves is the action we are taking truly essential? If not, they should defer it until they meet in person again. We're not throwing out public accountability and transparency measures because there is an emergency. Bad policies can happen that way. The regular features of public meetings remain critical including the need for public access, proper public notice, publicly available agendas, roll call votes and recorded minutes."

There is no reason to consider county land use decisions as "emergency" as described by former Planning Commission Vice Chair Jim Hart.

Developers may not have to pay for the burden their development places on Virginia communities, local governments.

Fairfax County state senator Richard Saslaw, a Democrat no less, is co-sponsoring a bill in the Virginia Assembly that would restrict local governments' ability to negotiate proffers with developers to build the infrastructure needed to support that construction according to an article in The Roanoke Times.  Here are some excerpts:

Bills that would limit proffers alarm local governments

Posted: Monday, February 1, 2016 4:06 pm

By Graham Moomaw Richmond Times-Dispatch

RICHMOND — Legislation working its way through the General Assembly would make it more difficult for local governments to force developers to pay for public infrastructure or change building plans, a prospect that has caused alarm among some local officials who fear it could limit sharply their ability to manage growth.

Bills have been introduced in both chambers to dramatically reshape the proffer system, which allows localities to extract cash payments and other concessions from home builders through the residential rezoning process.

The legislation would prohibit localities from making zoning decisions tied to “unreasonable” proffers; virtually eliminate localities’ ability to request changes to building materials or designs through the proffer system; and require more proof that new residents would strain services such as schools, roads or parks.

The legislation is backed by the Home Builders Association of Virginia, which says its aim is to restore fairness to a practice described by critics as “legalized extortion.” . . .

Under the legislation, localities would be able to require proffers only for schools, roads, parks and public-safety facilities such as police and fire stations. Parks were covered through an amendment to the bill, which would prevent localities from attempting to get developers to pay for museums, libraries and community centers.

The proposed law would allow proffers to be used only to cover costs “specifically attributable” to a development project, a higher bar than the “reasonably related” and “roughly proportional” standards currently in use.

“We think those terms are vague and loose and have been defined by the local governments to mean whatever they want them to mean,” Toalson said.

Henrico only uses architectural proffers, but other localities in the Richmond area have cash-proffer policies that bring in revenue to help in responding to growth. . . .

The full article is here.

From our perspective, developers' contributions to the communities in which they build fall far short of the offsetting the impact of their construction.  If they did, in fact, meet the full impact, we would not have congested roads nor overcrowded schools to start with. 

Even more weird from our perspective is why a Democratic Senator from Fairfax County would be sponsoring a bill that would make it more difficult for our financially-challenged County government to generate the revenues needed to make Fairfax a livable county.  Did Saslaw not get the word that Fairfax needs revenues?  Does he not realize that fewer proffers will likely mean higher property tax rates in the county?  Or does he just not care because he is so well financed by the developer community?

Apparently developers are just not making enough money and don't owe their communities anything for the opportunity to make their profits. 

The toll road troll gets his nose under the I-66 tent.

Yesterday, the Commonwealth Transportation Board (CTB) unanimously approved the tolling of I-66 inside the Beltway for one-passenger cars that are headed eastbound during morning rush.  About three hours of tolls for 40,000 autos out of the more than 400,000 that make that trip each workday.   

The tip of the toll road troll nose just barely got stuck under the I-66 tent as the result of some last minute maneuvering to allow toll-free driving in the opposite direction during afternoon rush.  The decision will actually add vehicles to the dreadfully congested I-66 route, especially in the absence of any plans to expand the highway. 

We have no objection to tolling a highway—any highway—for the purpose of providing revenues to maintain and improve the highway, but this plan, like most other tolling plans, is aimed at taxing drivers to provide revenues for other purposes.  In this case, any surplus funds—and the tolls will be high enough to make sure they generate surplus funds—will be used to provide public transit options generally in the inside the Beltway I-66 corridor.   The Washington Post says, “The state expects to generate $18 million in toll revenue in 2018, the first year in which tolls will be fully implemented. The money can be used to support mass transit options on the I-66 corridor, as well as the possible widening of eastbound I-66.”

Well, there are no plans to widen eastbound (or westbound) I-66 and it is unlikely that there will be any for years, if not decades.  Physically, it will be extremely difficult to add a third lane from Falls Church to the Roosevelt Bridge as anyone who has driven that route well knows.  And with that extreme difficulty goes tremendous expense.  Moreover, Arlington County almost violently opposes any widening of the highway into its various neighborhoods and has since the interstate was built decades ago.

We think it more likely that, within a few years, the new toll will be expanded to all users of I-66 inside the Beltway—possibly with the toll break for carpools--and possibly from just peak periods to 24-hours per day with rates varying with peak flow periods.  Once the toll gate spigot begins generating revenues, there is no stopping the expansion of its coverage and increases in the tolls.

Moreover, we expect that the use of the tolls will expand to public transit measures well beyond the Beltway.   In fact, we anticipate that tolling I-66 will expand well beyond the Beltway.  It is easy to foresee that, as Northern Virginia continues to grow, tolling will extend as far out as Gainesville, ostensibly to help sustain the interstate and constrain traffic flows.  Those tolls will, like Dulles Toll Road tolls, be used to extend Metrorail’s Orange Line as far as the tolls—to the Gainesville exit area.

Our state and local leaders see a massive potential revenue flow from these tolls to help offset the huge cost of transportation infrastructure construction and operation.  They may even see future opportunities to extend the use of those tolls to non-transportation uses.  All they have to do is to take one tiny step at a time in moving forward so as not to so upset their constituents that they all get thrown out of office.  The first step is to get the toll troll’s nose under the tent.  That box has now been checked. 

Virginia politicians react to E-ZPass Express Lane fines, KMSP-TV, Fox 5 News, Minneapolis, MN, February 2, 2015

By Emily Miller, FOX 5 Chief Investigative Reporter

RICHMOND, Va. - We have exposed tens of thousands of dollars in fines drivers have been hit with for accidentally missing tolls on their E-ZPass Express Lanes in Virginia. The company that operates those lanes, Transurban, responded to our story by capping the fines and fees at $2,500, but many commuters say that is still too much.

Almost everyone I have interviewed in this series of reports has asked me why the state lawmakers haven't stepped in to help them.

“You wonder if these lawmakers realize that they signed up for this type of extortion when they signed up with this partnership with this company,” said Lisa Stanglin. . .

So, why the silence in Richmond?

Could it be that Transurban has spent almost $2.5 billion to build the E-ZPass lanes on the Beltway and I-95?

Or is it because Transurban gives political money? Unlike federal campaign laws, Virginia allows corporations to give directly to candidates. Also, Virginia has no limits on donations from corporations.

The non-partisan Virginia Public Access Project tracks money in politics.

According to their reports, Transurban has given almost half of a million dollars -- $445,710 to state politicians in the last ten years. Sixty percent of the donations went to Republicans while 40 percent went to Democrats. The Republicans are in control of the state legislature. . . .

Click here to read the rest of this story and see the video--and others like it by the same investigative reporter.

Just one question:  Where are the scores of Washington-area reporters, especially the dozens in Northern Virginia?  This is a major issue begging for public--and legislative--attention that will make Transurban's outrageous extortion disappear.  Ideally, it will lead to state control over all tolling of publicly used roads, including the Greenway.

A "model" scheme, Thinking Highways, August 26, 2014

This article, which might be better titled "Take the money and run", highlights how state toll road public-private partnerships (P3s) are structured to leave the taxpayer paying the bill when they routinely default.  It focuses on Virginia's P3s under the last administration, but the lessons apply more broadly.

Here is an excerpt:

Virginia’s 1995 Public-Private Transportation Act is held up as the “model” by contractors and financiers, especially as it was implemented at break-neck speed during Governor Bob McDonnell’s administration.  In four years, the number of Virginia P3s skyrocketed to 22 and with the Commonwealth signing over US$6 billion in P3s during 2012 alone, Infrastructure Investor magazine named McDonnell “man of the year” and called the state’s legal consultant, Allen and Overy, the world’s best law firm twice. Does any magazine for investors venerate hard bargainers for taxpayers?

“A great deal of the media praising public private partnerships in transportation projects comes from sources that have a self-interest in promoting them,” says Jack Trammell, now a candidate for Virginia’ 7th Congressional District.  “A major factor motivating me to run for office is what I think should be a national concern about this trend away from transparency and toward greater taxpayer risk in such projects.”

In the past, even Virginia’s Commonwealth Transportation Board (CTB) never saw P3 contracts, only being allowed up-down votes on the total taxpayer bill, which consistently put 95+ per cent of all costs on state and federal taxpayers. The privates put up tiny bits of equity, though they imply more because they borrow dollars from Uncle Sam that they likely will not pay back and they sell bonds that Uncle Sam guarantees and which will cost taxpayers when the P3 goes bankrupt – as they almost inevitably do – about 15 years down the road.

It is a “win-win-win” for private money and contractors but for unaware taxpayers it could be the biggest scheme ever in Virginia – and potentially US – history.  Is getting a highway or other transportation infrastructure, which may or may not be needed, returned to we taxpayers just when it’s beginning to need maintenance worth the fact that we’ve left virtually all construction costs, all risk, all financing costs and 10-15 years of tolls to the next generation of taxpayers?

Click here to read extensive details on the way these deals are fashioned so companies win and you lose.  

Colin Mills: Virginia’s Building Code, Now More Accessible, RestonNow, November 21, 2013

by RCA President Colin Mills

 

RCA is a locally-focused organization.  Our primary goal, as our name suggests, is to improve the quality of life for the citizens of Reston.  As a result, our projects are usually Reston-specific.  Every once in a while, though, we have a chance to do something that benefits people beyond our community’s borders.  

 

One such effort has recently come to fruition for RCA’s Reston Accessibility Committee and its hard-working chair, Ken Fredgren.  For the last two years, Ken and others have been pushing for the adoption of changes to Virginia’s statewide building code to make it friendlier to people with disabilities. Those changes have now been adopted, and the people of Virginia, not just Reston, will benefit.

 

How did RAC get involved in changing statewide building codes?  As you might know, RAC works with Reston’s commercial property owners and managers to make their properties more accessible for people with disabilities.   In the course of doing this kind of work, they have naturally become familiar with the relevant laws and codes.  RAC felt that Virginia’s building codes could be improved to incorporate more language on accessibility.

 

To address this issue, in 2011 Reston’s delegate Ken Plum sponsored House Joint Resolution  648, which established a working group to recommend accessibility-related changes to Virginia’s building codes and laws.  And Ken Fredgren was tapped to serve on that working group.  This time, instead of helping property owners understand the accessibility regulations, Ken got to help write them.

 

One of the great things about the working group is the way developers, county and city permitting officials, and disability advocacy groups collaborated to develop their recommendations.  It was a fine example of the good that can happen when the private and public sectors work together for a common goal.

 

After a year’s effort, the working group emerged in 2012 with a total of 7 proposed changes to the building code and one General Assembly bill that would provide tax credits for businesses that made accessibility-related improvements.  Ken proudly presented the group’s products to RCA, and naturally we were in full support.  In October of that year, RCA and several co-sponsors held a community forum to discuss the changes and urge Restonians to call and email in support of their adoption.

 

I’m not sure if Ken knew quite what he was in for.  He had already been traveling back and forth to Richmond on a regular basis to meet with the working group, and over the following year, he made several more trips to present their proposals to the Board of Housing and Community Development (which makes changes to Virginia’s building code), then to discuss and make revisions to the proposals, and on and on.   These trips weren’t always easy for Ken, but he kept at it because of his commitment to the cause of accessibility.

 

The proposals went through several rounds of revision; some were dropped, others were modified.  It was a long and sometimes frustrating process.  But Ken persevered; he wrote letters to the Board, exchanged emails with staffers, and kept attending meetings.

 

In the end, the Board approved four of the working group’s proposals.  Together, these changes represent a huge step forward in the building code.  

 

Two of the changes are related to home construction.  One change will incorporate Universal Design standards, which makes buildings easier for older people and those with disabilities to use, for use in building new homes.  Another mandates wider interior doors on the main floor of new dwellings, so that people in wheelchairs or mobility devices can move from room to room.  That second change is important for people with and without disabilities.  Imagine if you invited a friend who uses a wheelchair to your house, only to discover she couldn’t use the bathroom because the door was too narrow.

 

The other two adopted changes relate to the number of accessible spaces required in parking lots.  Another increases the number of accessible parking spaces that must be constructed in large lots.  And the last one calls for additional accessible parking spaces in lots connected to medical facilities such as outpatient clinics and dentist’s offices.  A lot of RAC’s work involves adding or modifying accessible parking spaces, and I know that Ken is acutely aware of the challenge of finding accessible spaces in busy lots. 

 

Thanks to the efforts of Ken and the HJR 648 working group, our building code is friendlier to people with disabilities than it has ever been.  Almost 20% of Virginians have a disability, and I’m proud that my state’s building code is now working for them.  Parking lots, medical buildings, and homes are basic facilities, and people with disabilities should have the same ability to access them as people without. 

 

As our population ages, these changes will also help Virginia remain an appealing place to live.  If people with disabilities can’t find homes with Universal Design features or can’t find places to park where they shop, eat, or go to the doctor, they’re less likely to remain in Virginia and spend their money here.  Accessibility improvements aren’t just good for people with disabilities – they’re good for business.

 

I’m very proud of what Ken’s accomplished with the working group.  These building code modifications are lasting changes that will make life better for Virginians with disabilities, their families and friends, and all of us.

And don’t worry – just because Ken’s been working on this effort doesn’t mean that RAC has stopped making progress on projects here in Reston.  They’ve remained active on several projects all over our community, and I look forward to sharing the news once they’re successfully completed.

 

Most of the work we do at RCA primarily benefits Restonians, and that’s great.  But I’m really glad for this opportunity to do something that has a statewide impact.   Ken Fredgren is a model of hard work and dedication to service, and this example demonstrates how serving your community can have a bigger impact than you ever thought possible.

UPDATE: Ken Fredgren followed up to point out that the building code changes will need to receive written approval from the governor before they become law.  After the governor's approval, DHCD will have several months to implement them.

VDOT scorches Reston area transportation impact analysis.

Below is the text of the Virginia Department of Transportation's (VDOT's) assessment of the Fairfax County Traffic Impact Analysis (TIA) for the Dulles Corridor--Reston's Metrorail station areas and the Route 28 station area--in connection with the high-density development planned there.

Here is the summary of the VDOT assessment (p. 16) with our highlighting of key points:

Due to significant concerns with the cumulative impacts of other development within the region, deficiencies in the Synchro analyses, and trip making assumptions the VDOT does not believe that this report contains “sufficient information to evaluate the system of new and expanded transportation facilities” and suggests that the report be refined and resubmitted incorporating the comments within this letter to determine if the transportation facilities will indeed support the proposed development as required by 24VAC30-155-30. 

Furthermore, an inherent inconsistency is introduced in the proposed amendment by introducing a level of service standard of E, but not proposing mitigation measures to achieve this standard. If Fairfax County finds it necessary to stipulate a level of service standard the following methods should be considered: reduced intensity of development, an expanded transportation network, or a level of service standard of F. As noted in VDOT’s Traffic Impact Analysis Regulations Administrative Guidelines, “just identifying future transportation needs is not sufficient.”

The lack of any analysis of the DTR, the imbalance between development intensity and transportation capacity, and the failure to address level of service F situations are all significant concerns.  Without addressing these major items, if all development proposed by the Comprehensive Plan Amendment be approved and constructed, there may be failing levels of service many hours of the day with constrained/limited mobility for the movement of goods and people.

VDOT's concerns are all the same concerns RCA has voiced about the current draft plan text:  Lots of goals, no means to get there.  And, indeed, Reston's transit station areas could easily end up with a Level of Service "F"--or GRIDLOCK.  Indeed, the assessments we have seen suggest that is the likely outcome.

As VDOT says, the county needs "reduced intensity of development, an expanded transportation network, or a level of service standard of F."  We do not believe an LOS "F" is acceptable and the county may need to both reduce development intensity AND expand the transportation network to achieve a marginally higher LOS "E."

   Dulles Corridor Study Vdot Findings 09-16-13

MWAA's Proposed Use of $300MM Virginia Funding

Below are MWAA's potential reductions in Dulles Toll Road tolls stemming from Virginia's recent approval of $300 million more aid to reduce toll costs. 

In short, it shows a $.50 reduction in full toll rate growth beginning in 2015 that increases to $0.60 each year in 2023 and extending throughout the balance of the forecast period.  It suggests that this would result in a debt service (and toll cost) savings of $1 billion over the timeframe--out of more than $12 billion currently forecast--about an 8.3% reduction in toll costs now set to increase six-fold (609%) in the next 30 years.