@BlogKCYesterday the local office of the Environmental Protection Agency announced it was moving its Midwest office from Downtown KCK to an environmentally hostile location at 113th and Renner on the southwest fringe of the metro area.
While the EPA touts the new building’s green credentials of energy and water efficiency, it conveniently neglects to mention the environmental impacts of transportation and land use. Transportation is the number one source of pollution and green house gases in Kansas City. This building has virtually no transit service, no nearby bicycle lanes, and is beyond walking distance of any residential neighborhoods. The vast majority of EPA employees will now have to drive to work, a stark contrast from their current location with multiple transit options and the adjacent Riverfront Heritage Trail.
Over the last two years the federal government has worked hard to connect departments dealing with transportation, housing, land use, and the environment in order to make sure federal policies are promoting sustainable development and re-development. The local EPA just gave a big F.U. to all of that.
EPA’s official response: Do as I say, not as I do.
So do you have any data that says what percentage of employees are currently using buses, bicycles, or trails to get to work? Because if those are all options, but none are in use, then your argument lacks merit. I would suggest that many of the employees live in the suburbs, currently drive to work, and thus will likely be driving a shorter distance to work at the new location than they are now and will therefore reduce the amount of pollution and emissions produced.
I know that GSA employees are offered free bus passes to employees working downtown. I would presume the EPA does the same (if these aren’t already technically GSA workers). Working in an area well served by transit, and being offered free bus passes would lead to higher riderships than among the general population.
Anyway, even if many of the employees lived in suburbs, then moving the employment center to the outer edge of specific suburb is environmentally questionable, since it would increase the drive time from other areas in the city.
Finally, they’re only moving out of one building. The EPA will still have employees in the nearby lab, leading to additional wasted time driving to meetings, and filing expense reports for mileage. However, I assume that was taken into account in the cost/benefit analysis.
I can’t help but wonder why the landlord can’t drop the price a bit — especially in this economic climate. Good Grief.