What the city should have said is: “with this new system, we will be able to take out the cutbacks that are currently in place”. They really should choose their words carefully. Besides what is so bad about buses running after 6PM?

In response to a criticism I heard from a fellow bus rider yesterday — that KCATA has already decided what it wants to do and these forums are just for show — I believe they are definitely in listening mode, and that they will be responsive to concerns raised by riders.

It’s important to keep in mind, however, that KCATA won’t be able to respond to every single rider concern. Part of the purpose of the Comprehensive Service Analysis is to enable the transit system to serve more riders without increasing cost.

Please reconside having the smaller bus operating in the summer and a normal size bus in the winter, because this route is sorely needed.

Thank you,

High-speed rail across Missouri is appealing as an alternative to driving or flying, but it could be a long time coming. In the interim, we need to increase service and build demand (i.e., ridership).

Here are some of my suggestions for what to ask for as you attend the public meetings or participate online:
+ Increase state and federal investment in rail because rail is more energy-efficient
Continue state and federal support for passenger rail (Amtrak) because it is growing in popularity
+ Add a third daily round trip between Kansas City and St. Louis via Amtrak Missouri River Runner trains
+ Increase speed of passenger rail service between Kansas City and St. Louis
+ Improve connections between urban and rural transit service and passenger rail
+ Improve connections and coordination between Amtrak and inter-city motor coach services (Greyhound, Jefferson Lines, Megabus, etc)
+ Require involvement of the railroads in regional transportation planning (e.g., MARC long-range transportaton plan) as a condition for state and/or federal funding

Link to the online survey:
http://www.surveymonkey.com/s/LMQV3GR

The local meeting is 5:30 to 7:00 pm on Wednesday, November 2, at Sermon Center, 201 North Dodgion Street, just southeast of Truman Road and Noland Road and a short walk from the Independence MetroCenter. Last KCATA Route 24 bus back to Kansas City leaves at 6:05 pm.

Congress approved the need to seek competition with the assurance that the location – whichever 1 was successful – would remain in Kansas congressional district 3. The deal struck between Bob Dole and Kit Bond in the 1980′s, to keep FAA in Missouri and EPA in Kansas, was always going to prevent GSA from looking for space in Missouri. Besides that, I doubt that vacant space in the Kansas City, Missouri Central Business District exists that would have been both, the right size and appropriate for an Executive Branch agency Regional Headquarters building such as EPA’s.

Your emphasis on what you consider to be sustainable and on preserving the status quo for employees commutes is indefensible when you consider 1) how many taxpayer dollars will be saved at the new location; 2) the fact that the new location is much more sustainable from a LEED standpoint than the old location (centrality isn’t everything as you would like us to believe); and 3) more employees will be closer to work than will be further away.

Do you have any idea how many EPA employees only go to the office 2-3 times per week because they telework or work out in 1 of the 4 states they cover? The idea that being in the urban core is somehow morally superior is indefensible garbage. For every one of the employees that you can point to that will increase their commute, I can point to 2 others that will reduce theirs. So your argument is self defeating.

You also should consider the people paying the bills. Taxpayers don’t give a damn about your version of sustainability; we want fiscal responsibility and that’s what we will be getting at the new location. No one forces you to pay $100 to your hair stylist when you might be satisfied with a $20 trim. You should have the same consideration for us; it is our money after all.

As I said before, the public transportation will follow the need. It happens all the time in cities all over the country. If the route to downtown Kansas City, Kansas is no longer needed but there is a need for one to Lenexa, the carriers will adjust but only if there is a bona fide need. The van pools will also adjust or be replaced and EPA will increase telecommuting like all other agencies are doing now.

Finally, it is not that, “so many people that find this new location objectionable,” as you put it; rather it is a very small and ill-educated minority of people who aren’t thinking it through very well (and probably don’t care to). EPA was on board with the move because it was the best alternative to meeting their mission needs and it provided fiscal accountability, unlike the downtown location.

TAN’s objection to the move is that the GSA should have to follow the government’s goals and principles for federal facilities being located in sustainable locations in sustainable communities with good access to transit. You can download the most recent Presidential Executive Order13514 dealing with sustainability issues from that post. When the new “Recommendations for Siting Federal Facilities” are implemented and GSA has to include these concepts into their solicitations, like it currently does with Leed certification, I doubt if this Lenexa location would even qualify to bid under the new circumstances since is so deficient in sustainable location factors.

Although this location appeals to you since it is close to home, it is creating a significant burden for other employees. At least KCK was centrally located so it was a fair commuting distance for everyone. So many employees have complained about the new location that the EPA is considering expanding its telecommuting program so people don’t have to go way out there so often. EPA is also investigating starting a new vanpool program since the 75 employees currently using this KCATA public transportation program will lose their vans since this location is so far out of the service area.

You obviously aren’t aware of the difference between KCATA, a full service bus company in Missouri and Wyandotte County, that does not service Lenexa, and Johnson County Transit (JCT), which is mainly a commuter service into downtown KCMO. JCT does not provide viable transit to this Lenexa location so it is wrong to say that riders will continue to take the bus. There is so little transit in Johnson County that it was the main reason the Kansas City region came out 90 of 100 in the Brookings Institute recent report on job accessibility.

A TAN advocate that currently lives in KCMO has a 5.5 mile return commute and often rides transit will now have a 46 mile round trip and won’t use transit since it is not viable to this location. Another TAN advocate lives north at Lake Wakomis and has always taken transit to work and has chosen to be a one car family. This move requires him purchasing a car. Please don’t represent this move as making everyone so happy. About 15% of the EPA employees use some type of public transportation and they will lose these option at the Lenexa location.

These large isolated corporate parks dominated by parking lots were popular for a while but companies are increasingly rejecting them in favor of robust, vibrant city centers. Of course that maybe why this location is less expensive. If this were only a corporate move TAN would not have commented. However we hold the federal government to a higher standard and based on the President’s Executive Order, so does he.

I understand that not everyone shares the goals and aspirations of their employers, after all this is a job, but after you read the latest Presidential Executive Order on sustainability (they started with Nixon) please consider speaking with the EPA Region 7 Sustainable Communities coordinator to better understand the goals, principles and mission of the EPA and the federal government. Then you might understand why so many people find this new location objectionable and see it as undermining the very essence of the work done by the EPA.