In defiance of the environmental values it supposedly stands for, the federal Environmental Protection Agency is moving its regional headquarters from a walkable, transit-rich, downtown Kansas City (Kansas) neighborhood to one of the worst examples of suburban sprawl it could have possibly found, some 20 miles from downtown. The result could nearly triple transportation carbon emissions associated with the facility.
In addition, around 600 federal and associated civilian employees will abandon a central city at a time when the agency’s own staff is writing reports suggesting that central cities in the US are making a comeback. Kansas City, Kansas (population 145,786) is much smaller than neighboring Kansas City, Missouri; the loss of 600 downtown jobs is a major blow to the city's efforts to strengthen its core.
This decision is horrible in so many ways that it's hard to know where to start. How the hell did EPA administrator Lisa Jackson sign off on this?
Let’s look at the facts. The satellite image above shows the location of the current Region 7 headquarters in downtown Kansas City, Kansas. It’s not perfect when viewed through a smart growth and sustainable communities lens, but it’s not bad.
Now consider the new location (just above), a low-rise “landscraper” of a building fronted by large parking lots outside of a suburb called Lenexa, Kansas and across the road from, among other things, a wheatfield.
Let's look at some analytical maps and data:
I ran the addresses for the current and new facilities through Walk Score and Abogo, the calculator developed by the Center for Neighborhood Technology that estimates carbon emissions (and household costs) from transportation by location. Above, EPA’s current headquarters location gets a Walk Score of 62, better than 81 percent of Kansas City as a whole (see top map of the two just above). You can see the locations of nearby amenities on the Walk Score map, which also identifies six bus transit lines within a quarter mile walk of the facility.
Abogo (the second map, just above) calculates that an average resident in the vicinity of the current EPA Region 7 headquarters emits 0.39 metric tons of carbon dioxide per month, slightly more than half the regional average of 0.74 tons per month.
Speaking of the EPA, I
Speaking of the EPA, I actually came across an article today that I think you may or may not have seen already, but it sheds a pretty good light on the current situation with the EPA and the “Haze Plan” that some seem to be pushing. Either way, it just came out in the Albuquerque Journal and is ranked as one of the top current articles regarding the EPA, so I thought I’d share it with you nonetheless. If you’re up for a glance, here’s a link http://www.pressdisplay.com/pressdisplay/showlink.aspx?bookmarkid=93P42T...
Have a good one!
This article is wrong on a
This article is wrong on a pretty major account -- the criticism is based on the premise that EPA had a voice in the siting of the facility, which it didn't. The federal General Services Administration (GSA) is the agency responsible for siting the new facility. Bashing EPA, and especially the hardworking folks at EPA Region 7, many of whom are opposed to the move, is a pretty low blow.
If Benfield had done his homework, he'd have aimed his ire at GSA and at the current landlord for trying to play hardball rather than bringing out his pitchforks and torches and going after EPA.
To Kaid - It is again
To Kaid - It is again interesting how a story can be manipulated to meet the author's agenda.
Why are your two maps showing the locations and the "analytical maps" showing food locations to scale? If you were to expand the map of the new GSA-leased building for the EPA to the same scale as you did for the current location, your services would become nearly equal. Having been in the Applebee's building, did you know there is a full service kitchen and restaurant within it? How's that for a zero footprint?
To Darron - The new building exists. It does NOT have to be built. As for public transport, go to http://www.thejo.com and look to see where bus routes 665 and 669 go - the bus for 665 practically turns around in the parking lot of the new location.
While I support trying to reuse existing building and making improvements, we should not twist the story to promote our agendas or blogs without expressing all of the facts.
Oops, Realistically Green.
Oops, Realistically Green. Lets do examine the facts. The plan is to build an extension to the building to accommodate EPA. Yes, there is a building there. Bus route 665 stops at 116th & Renner which is one mile from the new EPA location at 11201 Renner Blvd.
That closest bus station, almost one mile away brings people southbound to Sipada (116th & Renner) at 8:20A/8:45A/9:20A/9:50A and leaves to take people northbound at 2:40P/3:10P/3:37P/4:02P. This means if I come on the very first southbound bus at 8:20AM and depart on the very last northbound bus at 4:02P, I cannot work an eight-hour day and ride the bus. Not to mention the time it will take to walk to the building from the bus stop to the address at 11201 Renner Boulevard, Lenexa, Kansas. So yes, mass transit is available but it is somewhat useless for those that have to work an eight-hour day.
The 669I bus gets to 113th & Corporate, Lenexa, (just one-half mile away from the new EPA location) coming southbound to arrive at 7:55AM. Your options for leaving are 4:04PM and 5:11PM. So the only bus routes that make the eight-hour day (with 30 minute mandatory lunch) are to arrive at 7:55 AM, walk the half mile to the building in the morning ... walk the half mile to the bus stop in the evening and depart at 5:11 PM. That means people with an on-time bus in the morning and evening have the one option with 1:16 minuts to walk the half-mile to and from the bus stop. I will give it to you. There is one bus option.
Of course that would work only if you already live in Kansas City, Kan. at the building we are in right now. To ride the bus from other locations you are facing about 2 1/2 hours of bus rides and changes to the office and 2 1/2 hours home. Leaving at 5:30 a.m. and arriving home at 7:30 p.m. Not bad, a 14-hour work day. We won't even talk about raining, high heat or snow and ice. There is also a restaurant/lunch bar in the present building and I am not sure why having a full-service kitchen is a benefit in an office building.
Oh, by the way, the Advantage Vanpool program (used by about a dozen vanpools in EPA does not operate as far south as Lenexa. That option will not be available for upwards of 70 employees.
Keep them coming. I would love to hear your next rationalization.
1. The owner of EPA's
1. The owner of EPA's current building "Urban America" had exclusivie rights and ample opportunity to directly negotiate a new lease with the General Services Administration (GSA), the federal government's property manager. GSA extended the lease multiple times in order to continue negotiations for a new lease at market rates.
2. After more than a year of failed negotiation, the GSA put a request for proposal out for bid on the open market on the Kansas side of the Kansas City Metro area. Limiting the geographic area to the "urban core" of the Kansas side would have produced only one qualified bidder,the Wall Street firm "Urban America", the current owner. and a much higher cost to the government.
3. Expanding the bid area been expanded to the Missouri side, urban core would have required an agreement by the Congressional deleagations of the two states, as federal offices in the Kansas City area are distributed on both sides of the state line.
4. The Wall Strete firm and owner of the current building lost on an open bid competition. They have filed a bid protest. That process is underway, and so is their political campaign to overturn the competitive process, hiring the likes of Bob Dole and his DC law firm to lobby the White House.
5. The building that won out on the competition is a superior, ecisting facility designed by the local, award winning architectural firm, BNIM. http://www.bnim.com/ "With the support of our visionary clients, BNIM is working to redefine the realm of green planning and design. Our efforts are shaping the national and global agenda for progressive planning strategies, responsible architecture and design excellence."
6. The commuting distances for current Kansas City EPA employees, on balance will not change with the move to the new location, per an analysis done by that office.
Paying more federal dollars to a Wall Street firm for an "urban core" location is not always a sustainable choice for the Midwest.
This must be GSA's Charlie
This must be GSA's Charlie Cook. This explanation is just as asinine as what he says to the media. How do we know what the numbers were. You haven't let anyone see them. And, of course, there is the President's Executive Order that GSA ignored.
In October, 2009, President Obama signed Executive Order 13514, "Federal Leadership in Environmental, Energy, and Economic Performance," that, among other things, said the following:
Ensuring that planning for new Federal facilities or new leases includes consideration of sites that are pedestrian friendly, near existing employment centers, and accessible to public transit, and emphasizes existing central cities and, in rural communities, existing or planned town centers
So where are the numbers. If
So where are the numbers. If it is an open bid than wouldn't it be transparent and serve the public's interest to release information regarding what the difference was in bids. Several questions still exist:
1. Where is the access to public transit? A part of the bid process.
2. Why wasn't the Missouri side considered?
3. Why does a new building have to be built as part of the agreement?
4. Why did the bid include a huge discount in the first year rents and the remainder of the rents to be basically the same as the current building?
5. Were move costs considered in the process?
The EPA is not making the
The EPA is not making the decision to move to a different facility. The General Services Administration, Region 6, is responsible for leasing government facilities. They made the decision.