Gardner: Proposed $200M Intermodal Facility

[eliphar17]

I am confused enen though they voted no, can't this project still continue, i think i heard that somewhere or is that completly off.

The question was "Should a measure be adopted preventing Gardner from annexation?" And you are correct, the result was 'NO'. So Gardner can and will make the annexation to get the tax revenue from the facility.

[enough]

what's the status of this project?  i understand kdot is doing traffic studies related to a new interchange on i-35, but what else is happening?

the proposed intermodal facility and distribution park at gardner have been presented as one project, but it is really two projects. 

1 - the new intermodal facility -- which bnsf can build without much in the way of local approval since it's an integral part of their rail operation.

2 - the distribution park -- which is a real estate development located adjacent to the intermodal facility.  local jurisdictions do have power over that.

i think there's a common misconception that there will be little traffic impact from the two since they are located adjacent to one another.  actually, every load that comes in at the intermodal facility and goes over to a nearby distribution center will later leave that center by truck.

what's more, distribution facilities at gardner will receive loads from all over the country, and from other railroads' intermodal facilities located throughout the region, not just bnsf.  conversely, trailers and containers that come in at gardner will be trucked to distribution centers throughout the region.

another factor is "dreyage" -- local movement of truck trailers or containers between one railroad's intermodal facility and another's.  (yes, it's quicker to move a truck across the region by highway -- for example, 50 miles from bnsf at gardner to norfolk southern at birmingham -- than to move the train it arrived on across that same distance.)  that puts a lot more trucks on local highways.

the net result of moving the bnsf intermodal terminal from argentine to gardner is likely to be increased truck traffic on the region's highways, especially on i-35 in johnson county.

[DaveKCMO]

at a minimum KDOT should expand I-35 to three lanes between gardner and olathe (it's only two now?).

[FangKC]

http://kansascity.bizjournals.com/kansa ... tory1.html

Friday, February 1, 2008

Gardner seeks help with project's toll

City: It can't be only player in hub plans

Kansas City Business Journal
Jim Davis

Gardner city officials say they'll need help from other governments to finance as much as $65 million in new roads and other infrastructure the city will need to annex a giant distribution complex serving an intermodal center proposed by BNSF Railway Co.

"The city cannot be the only player because we don't have the financial depth," said Melissa Mundt, Gardner's assistant city administrator. "Though we can be a player, we can't be the only player."

[KCMax]

Kansas lawmakers asked to back financing for upgrades near proposed intermodal hub

[KCMax]

Sebelius veto stymies intermodal project, power plant

Gov. Kathleen Sebelius on Friday vetoed for the third time a bill that would have allowed a controversial $3.6 billion coal-fired power plant in Western Kansas, but this time the bill also included support for an intermodal project near Gardner.

House Bill 2412, a $6 billion economic stimulus package, in part would have provided state backing for infrastructure construction around a $716 million, 1,000-acre intermodal hub near Gardner. Because of its small budget, Gardner needs the state to guarantee $49 million in bonds to finance the infrastructure.

"Rather than working toward a compromise solution, legislative leaders recklessly chose to jeopardize important initiatives for businesses and communities across our state by combining them with energy legislation I have previously vetoed twice," Sebelius said in a Friday statement. "However, I remain very supportive of many provisions contained within HB 2412 and hope to work with the Legislature, businesses and communities in the future to pass these important measures."

[NDTeve]

thats good that Sebelius doesn't want a coal fired plant in her state. Meanwhile these are getting built every day in China. Anybody see a problem?

[GRID]

Good, we can build the warehouses and distribution centers by KCI and Richards Gebaur instead

[loftguy]

For those not aware, the Gardner Intermodal would be an extraordinary coup for metro KC.  It's not something to be replicated anywhere else in the metro for many reasons. It would make our region a significant inland "port" for goods from the pacific rim.

The comments by Sebelius give me hope that the bill will be resubmitted in a stand alone manner.

[WyCo]

thats good that Sebelius doesn't want a coal fired plant in her state. Meanwhile these are getting built every day in China. Anybody see a problem?

Since virtually all of the power generated will be sold to Colorado and they refused to let it be built in their state, I agree with her.  China has some of the dirtiest air in the world, I really don't think we need to look to them for progress.

[NDTeve]

not progress...just saying we're screwed anyways.

[phxcat]

What are the chances of this addition leading to an override?

[DaveKCMO]

not progress...just saying we're screwed anyways.

burning more fossil fuels is not progress.

[BSykes]

Economy stalls $735M Logistic Park Kansas City in Gardner

http://www.bizjournals.com/kansascity/s ... ily53.html

[phxcat]

Economy stalls $735M Logistic Park Kansas City in Gardner

http://www.bizjournals.com/kansascity/s ... ily53.html

Wouldn't this be a prime stimulus type project?

[FangKC]

Rail project will get $35 million tax incentive from Kansas

http://www.kansascity.com/2010/05/17/19 ... oject.html

[LenexatoKCMO]

http://www.kansascity.com/2010/10/18/23 ... -work.html
Ground breaking after the first of the year with expected completion in late 2013. 

[Big Sam]

I am confused enen though they voted no, can't this project still continue, i think i heard that somewhere or is that completly off.

Railroads hold a special legal place in the United States.  Due to efforts to link the nation together socially and economically, efforts were made to build track via tons of incentives (especially in the last half of the 1800s).  Out of that came the ability of a railroad to build where ever it pleases.

BNSF does not have to ask Gardner for permission to be honest.  They can build whatever they want where ever they want.  However, they are trying to be a good neighbor about the process (and to be honest, if public out cry were strong enough, they may have looked elsewhere - but at current the amount of support in the metro area out weighs those in Gardner).

Later,
Sam S.

[KCMax]

Court backs permit for BNSF rail hub in Edgerton

[Hurst]

Good - move this forward already!!