EPA moving to Lenexa from downtown KCK

[Highlander]

That's right, I forgot, Obama came out against pubic transportation and infrastructure.

What has he done for it?  I understood that there would far more federal money for cities to build this kind of infrastructure but I've seen no benefit.  Funding rebates for electric cars is an expensive and ridiculous distraction (1 million coal-powered cars is 7.5 billion dollars in rebates).  It's not what he is for or against that matters or what he will remembered for, it's what he gets accomplished that counts and so far that amounts to nothing.    

[aknowledgeableperson]

Why should anyone conserve when the a regional head of the EPA doesn't even attempt to do so by his personal actions?

As one earlier pointed out this is a position that politically appointed, not a merit system job.  In other words, short term.  Of course this is a great market to sell a house so why not sell it.  Family reasons could be the main reason.  Wife has job in Lawrence so either her or him have a long commute.  Kids in high school.  Other commitments.  There are many.

I would bet "setting an example" is not one of the requirements of the job.

Anyway, since the lease is a long-term lease and his job is short-term I doubt he had much, and in all likelyhood, no influence in the decision to move to Lenexa.  

[grovester]

What has he done for it?  I understood that there would far more federal money for cities to build this kind of infrastructure but I've seen no benefit.  Funding rebates for electric cars is an expensive and ridiculous distraction.  It's not what he is for or against that matters or what he will remembered for, it's what he gets accomplished that counts and so far that amounts to nothing.    

Crikey, follow the budget negotiations.  Obama allots funds for hsr, tea party govs decline the funds, house repubs force cuts.  Wake up!  Do I really have to go find some links?  How about the transportation thread in this forum?

[Highlander]

Crikey, follow the budget negotiations.  Obama allots funds for hsr, tea party govs decline the funds, house repubs force cuts.  Wake up!  Do I really have to go find some links?  How about the transportation thread in this forum?

I figured you would mention high speed rail and I've avoided that thread because I am a huge skeptic as to its value.  I want to concentrate on intra-city public transportation, the day in, day out travel between home and work.  That is where the bulk of transportation energy is consumed.  The HSR that has been put on the table is all or mostly intercity.  While I think it would be fun and nice to have, it's utility is, in a practical and market sense, pretty limited to a few places in the US. 

Forumers eat this stuff up but nobody stops to consider how it would be accepted by the public at large.  I think it will have an extremely tough time competing with car and air travel at this time in all but a few markets around the US.  I'd rather see the emphasis on urban transportation and find intercity rail investment at this point at time as another distraction.     

[aknowledgeableperson]

Obama allots funds for hsr, tea party govs decline the funds, house repubs force cuts. 

And the Big O signs off on the cuts.

[KCMax]

Crikey, follow the budget negotiations.  Obama allots funds for hsr, tea party govs decline the funds, house repubs force cuts.  Wake up!  Do I really have to go find some links?  How about the transportation thread in this forum?

In fairness, he did have a Dem House not long ago.

[FangKC]

While Obama is wasting taxpayer money on electric car (actually coal powered car) rebates that benefit nobody but Detroit car manufacturers, he should be investing in public transportation and other infrastructure items that would actually do some good.   

I agree that we should be investing in public transportation.  However, Obama can't force Republicans or Congress to fund his goals.  Republicans are always calling for us to reduce our dependence on imported oil; however they do nothing to help accomplish this goal.

Electric cars are one way to reduce the need for oil imports.  Yes, they do run on coal-powered electricity right now, but that may change.  About 26% of all new electric generating capacity in the USA comes from wind.  The nation is on track to produce 20 percent of electricity with wind by 2030.  The great plains is considered the Saudi Arabia of wind.

http://www.bizjournals.com/kansascity/n ... a=e_du_pub

Electric cars are the future, and in that future, it might be possible to run cars off electricity mostly provided by solar, wind, and nuclear power. The goal of using electric cars is more than just reducing carbon emissions.  It also includes improving air quality in large cities; reducing the need for importing foreign oil; and sending our wealth overseas--sometimes to unfriendly nations. In the future, it might help reduce the need to provide defense to foreign oil-producing nations. It creates some jobs here at home installing the infastructure.

The tax credits are also designed to help stimulate demand for electric cars and get consumers to adopt them so that a long-term market can be built.  And yes, the rebates do benefit Detroit automakers and other USA auto companies. But remember, the government had to take over two automakers, so it's in everyone's interest that they do well so that the taxpayers can get most of their money back, and jobs at home can be preserved.

[FangKC]

I figured you would mention high speed rail and I've avoided that thread because I am a huge skeptic as to its value.  I want to concentrate on intra-city public transportation, the day in, day out travel between home and work.  That is where the bulk of transportation energy is consumed.  The HSR that has been put on the table is all or mostly intercity.  While I think it would be fun and nice to have, it's utility is, in a practical and market sense, pretty limited to a few places in the US. 

Forumers eat this stuff up but nobody stops to consider how it would be accepted by the public at large.  I think it will have an extremely tough time competing with car and air travel at this time in all but a few markets around the US.   I'd rather see the emphasis on urban transportation and find intercity rail investment at this point at time as another distraction.     

Granted, high-speed rail has limited applications for most of the nation. However, it is important to develop it in some places as an alternative to air and car travel in certain corridors.

Airports in some markets are at high-capacity, and you can only have so many planes landing and taking off at a time. Wait times are increasing, and most airplanes never leave the airport at the stated time. Others circle the city waiting to land. In some markets, high-speed rail might actually be faster than taking a plane. Say NYC to Philadelphia, Baltimore, or Washington DC; or LA to San Diego.  Especially if you factor in travel to the airport, waiting time, security checks, delays, etc.

In some cities, traffic on highways is exceeding capacity, and states and cities are having to rebuild or expand highways.  Ask anyone who travels on the Long Island Expressway (I-495, or State Highway 27) from NYC to the Hamptons.

[grovester]

I figured you would mention high speed rail and I've avoided that thread because I am a huge skeptic as to its value.  I want to concentrate on intra-city public transportation, the day in, day out travel between home and work.  That is where the bulk of transportation energy is consumed.  The HSR that has been put on the table is all or mostly intercity.  While I think it would be fun and nice to have, it's utility is, in a practical and market sense, pretty limited to a few places in the US. 

Forumers eat this stuff up but nobody stops to consider how it would be accepted by the public at large.  I think it will have an extremely tough time competing with car and air travel at this time in all but a few markets around the US.   I'd rather see the emphasis on urban transportation and find intercity rail investment at this point at time as another distraction.     

I would like to see more municipal projects as well, but I think the onus has been put on the cities to come up with a plan and sell it to their populace.  Funds were/are there and I would imagine they have been continued and probably increased since 2008.  It's not like we've been in a boom era where everything can happen.  Frankly, I'm impressed he can get any funding in this environment.

[KCPowercat]

Probably getting off topic....

[GRID]

What is the new building under construction just north of the existing EPA building on google earth?

[mean]

http://www.childrenscampusofkansascity.org/

[GRID]

What is the new building under construction just north of the existing EPA building on google earth?

Thanks, looks like a nice project.  It also looks like another gov building was recently built northeast of the new(ish) hilton.  That hotel will take a serious hit with the loss of the EPA.  I wouldn't be surprised to see it be downgraded to clarion or something.

It's really too bad the EPA is pulling out.  I have a bad feeling that building will probably be backfilled by some other gov entity from KCMO.  I just don't see it getting leased by the private sector and the gov won't pass it up next time they need space.

[KCPowercat]

Grid you seem to be turning into debbie downer as if late.

[GRID]

Grid you seem to be turning into debbie downer as if late.

What do you want me to say?  I'm not sure my opinion here is any different than anybody else's.

I think the EPA pulling out of KCK is a terrible move.

Maybe Cerner will fill it back up.

[KCMax]

GSA defends EPA move; protests planned

The GSA submitted a briefing explaining the decision the General Accounting Office (GAO) Monday.
The details of the motives however, remain secret. A GSA spokesperson says a redacted version of the GSA reasons may be released in the summer when the deadline is reached in late July.

The KCK location was built to suit the EPA Region 7 needs in 1999. The 10-year lease had expired, but the landlords and the GSA were negotiating an extension. Several people close to the situation have said the lease negotiations between the government and the landlord were difficult.
Mayor Reardon, however, says the lease negotiations were not as open as they should have been..

[Highlander]

GSA defends EPA move; protests planned

Who is actually going to protest and who would really care in the government.  This HQ should have never been moved to KCK in the first place and it's a waste of the area's employment base to stick 700 people in a place where no critical mass exists or ever will exist.  I'd protest it not moving back to KCMO, but Lenexa vs KCK is irrelevant. 

[ignatius]

Some say GSA + EPA will be consolidating to KCMO E Village - and that this will be the Mayor announcement tomorrow.

[mean]

I'd protest it not moving back to KCMO, but Lenexa vs KCK is irrelevant. 

I don't know about irrelevant. I mean, yeah, it isn't technically in downtown KCMO, but it is less than five minutes away. Employees have quick access to downtown for lunch meetings, happy hour, or whatever. When folks fly in from DC or RTP, which is fairly routine, they stay in downtown KCK or KCMO. And of course there are walkable amenities in downtown KCK, and what's more, transit access. All of this changes in Lenexa, so I don't think it is irrelevant.

[redperro]

its utter bullshit

those 2 buildings sit omenisly and will stand empty, for what....what the hell?!?

eh, more gubment bs, its the people that make the place anyway, go sumner sabres bro