Amazon HQ2

[Novacek]

"We have no meaningful public transit here and those systems are items that you can’t quickly scale."

Again, you don't think that maybe, just maybe we could scale it up sometime in the next 10 years?

And I take severe issue with "no meaningful public transit system". CapMetro has over 100k boardings per day. Does Pittsburgh have more, sure about twice as many*. But if we have nothing they have barely more than nothing.


*It's even a bit closer than that, on a per-capita basis, since they're larger. 400k more in the UZA

https://www.transit.dot.gov/ntd/data...t/2016-metrics

[urbancore]

Originally Posted by Novacek

"We have no meaningful public transit here and those systems are items that you can’t quickly scale."

Again, you don't think that maybe, just maybe we could scale it up sometime in the next 10 years?

And I take severe issue with "no meaningful public transit system". CapMetro has over 100k boardings per day. Does Pittsburgh have more, sure about twice as many*. But if we have nothing they have barely more than nothing.


*It's even a bit closer than that, on a per-capita basis, since they're larger. 400k more in the UZA

https://www.transit.dot.gov/ntd/data...t/2016-metrics

All great points. Thanks Nova

[freerover]

Originally Posted by Novacek

"We have no meaningful public transit here and those systems are items that you can’t quickly scale."

Again, you don't think that maybe, just maybe we could scale it up sometime in the next 10 years?

Yea, and when we do then we'll be in play for a project like this. That's the point. The city can't promise to do anything that would clearly require voter approved bonds which would be necessary for a system that is being described.

Originally Posted by Novacek

And I take severe issue with "no meaningful public transit system". CapMetro has over 100k boardings per day. Does Pittsburgh have more, sure about twice as many*. But if we have nothing they have barely more than nothing.

Austin's public transit system in infamous among residents and visitors. You can debate the definition of "meaningful" but it's certainly below average for a metropolitan area.


I mean, it's insane that you are trying to close the gap on our mass transit system and Pittsburgh. They have 25 miles of light rail with their own right of way and a lot of bus rapid transit which have their own lanes with some even elevated above the roadway. You can isolate on a specific metric that you're also adjusting because of population but that is just not a good way to evaluate the systems.


That's why building the Guadalupe plan NOW is important. Continuing to extend the bus only lanes in Austin is extremely important.

[Novacek]

Originally Posted by freerover

Yea, and when we do then we'll be in play for a project like this. That's the point. The city can't promise to do anything that would clearly require voter approved bonds which would be necessary for a system that is being described.

We've already got voter approved bonds. $720M of them, $480 of which could make significant transit improvements well before Amazon starts putting in major buildings.

Originally Posted by freerover

that is being described.

what description?

Originally Posted by freerover

Austin's public transit system in infamous among residents and visitors.

Because it's the devil they know.

As far as transit systems in the US go. There's NY and then everyone else. Everyone's transit system runs on buses. Over 80% of the ridership of Pittsburgh is on buses.

Originally Posted by freerover

You can debate the definition of "meaningful" but it's certainly below average for a metropolitan area.

Not by any quantifiable measure. It's average, not below average.

Heck, we've got higher per-capita ridership than Dallas, which shows you that just having a "light rail" bullet point doesn't necessarily get you anything.

Originally Posted by freerover

I mean, it's insane that you are trying to close the gap on our mass transit system and Pittsburgh. They have 25 miles of light rail with their own right of way

Which averages about 1000 riders a mile. That's anemic for a light rail system. Heck, that's barely more than our metrorapid.

Originally Posted by freerover

That's why building the Guadalupe plan NOW is important. Continuing to extend the bus only lanes in Austin is extremely important.

Agreed and agreed.

[Novacek]

Originally Posted by freerover

The city can't promise to do anything that would clearly require voter approved bonds which would be necessary for a system that is being described.

It cuts the other way as well. A city (eg Pittsburgh) can't promise the transit system will still be there in 10 years either.

http://www.post-gazette.com/news/tra...s/201709110177

I wasn't able to find any follow up as to whether those cuts happened (which makes me think they didn't, this time), but being reliant on an annual appropriation from the state legislature makes it vulnerable in the future.

All you can do is look a the trajectories. Austin: an average but growing transit system, with hundreds of millions of dollars of improvements already paid for and ongoing or planned (metrorail expansion, Guadalupe improvements). Pittsburgh: ?

[freerover]

Originally Posted by Novacek

We've already got voter approved bonds. $720M of them, $480 of which could make significant transit improvements well before Amazon starts putting in major buildings.

You know as well as I do that 480 million is going to only cover %20-%35 of all recommendations for the 10 or so corridors in the city. That isn't remotely close to addressing the problem of a lack of a real citywide transit system. We'll still have most of the existing studies to fund as well as the 10 or so more corridor studies that are ongoing but not eligible for funding from the 2016 bond.

Originally Posted by Novacek

what description?

“We have no meaningful public transit here and those systems are items that you can’t quickly scale. The business community continues to see that as the city’s number one priority.”

Originally Posted by Novacek

As far as transit systems in the US go. There's NY and then everyone else. Everyone's transit system runs on buses. Over 80% of the ridership of Pittsburgh is on buses.

As I said, they have an extensive system of bus only lanes and they have even invested in elevated lanes. We have downtown and maybe adding another 1/2 on Guadalupe if that can survive politically from the car activists. To say that they have buses and we have buses is really disingenuous.

Also, I don't know how you can lump in Austin's mass transit system with the rest of the country except for new york. I mean, I don't even know where to begin. That's insane.

Originally Posted by Novacek

Not by any quantifiable measure. It's average, not below average.

This is just categorically false. Can you find any study that puts Austin in the top 15 mass transit systems? top 20? top 30?

[freerover]

There is a new ranking out that looks good for Austin which is nice but (along with some other rankings) I think it's a bit of a superficial evaluation but maybe not. Again, I really do hope Austin gets it.

They relied on sources like betting websites and interviews with shipping experts, investors and people familiar with Amazon. Here is their ranking: https://www.inc.com/zoe-henry/6-citi...dquarters.html


Here is an ABJ article about the ranking:

https://www.bizjournals.com/austin/n...der-for-5.html

Speculation is intentifying as Amazon.com Inc. decides where to build its second headquarters — a $5 billion project with as many as 50,000 jobs expected to come with it.

Some observers say Austin is attractive to the online giant. Others suggest Austin's shortcomings in areas such as mass transit will drive Amazon elsewhere.

Time to add another voice to the mix, this time in the former category, now that Inc. has ranked the six cities most likely to land HQ2. The entrepreneur-focused publication relied on sources like betting websites and interviews with shipping experts, investors and people familiar with Amazon.

Atlanta was crowned the most likely winner because of its network of technical talent, comparatively low cost of living, available real estate and other factors. Chicago came in second because of its central location and network of existing businesses. Austin ranks third, and is high on the list in part due to Amazon's acquisition of Whole Foods Market Inc. Read ABJ's recent cover story on how Amazon is quietly ramping up operations in Central Texas.

"With success stories including Whole Foods emerging from the Texas hub, it's not surprising that analysts are bullish on Austin's chances," according to Inc., which also highlighted a "friendly regulatory environment."

Matt McIlwain, managing director of the Seattle-based Madrona Venture Group investment firm, told Inc. that Austin could be attractive for Amazon as it experiments with grocery delivery services.

The report notes that Irish bookmaker Paddy Power put Austin's odds at 7-to-1. By comparison, Paddy Power put Atlanta's odds at 3-to-1 and Chicago's at 16-to-1. Back in October, Paddy Power put Austin's odds at 3-to-1.

Inc. ranked Philadelphia, Boston and Washington, D.C., behind Austin.

Other lists have been more pessimistic about the Texas capital's prospects. A Wall Street Journal analysis found that Dallas, not Austin, was likely to land HQ2. And a study by real estate firm Reis Inc. didn't even include Austin in its top 25.

Amazon has said it will announce the HQ2 site in 2018 and speculation has swirled about when its shortlist of finalists will be crafted.

The Austin Chamber of Commerce, which coordinated the bid for the region, has been tight-lipped about details of potential HQ2 sites in Central Texas, of which more than 50 considered. Some have come out in the earnings reports of publicly traded companies — Brandywine Realty Trust offered its Broadmoor site near The Domain — while others have been revealed through public records requests, such as The Presidio in Cedar Park.

Check out the gallery below to see how 230-plus metros across the country have pitched Amazon for HQ2.

[Novacek]

Originally Posted by freerover

This is just categorically false. Can you find any study that puts Austin in the top 15 mass transit systems? top 20? top 30?

Austin's ridership is enough to put it within the top 30 of this list:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_o...s_by_ridership


Austin apparently isn't on the list directly as we just miss the cutoff on number of buses run.

Or if you want to look across all modes, all the data is here.

http://www.apta.com/resources/statis...rship-APTA.pdf

Austin is average, we have about the ridership you'd expect given our population (31st largest metro).

[freerover]

Originally Posted by Novacek

Austin's ridership is enough to put it within the top 30 of this list:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_o...s_by_ridership

Nope.

Originally Posted by Novacek

Austin apparently isn't on the list directly as we just miss the cutoff on number of buses run.

Uh huh.

Originally Posted by Novacek

Austin is average, we have about the ridership you'd expect given our population (31st largest metro).

I don't know why Austin's metro population matters since our public transit barley serves a metro population outside a few buses. It also does it very poorly.

You're grasping as straws here and using a very specific criterion that still doesn't suggest Austin has a very good transit system relative to most other cities of similar or larger size. I can understand on pushback of some of the other shortcomings that I have highlighted for Austin but to pushback like this on our Transit system which has almost universal disapproval really calls into question your objectivity.

Anyone want to back him up here?

[Novacek]

Originally Posted by freerover

Nope.

Care to enlighten us then, as to how you know better than basic math (where CapMetro with ~90k rides /day isn't > 74k ?

Originally Posted by freerover

I don't know why Austin's metro population matters since our public transit barley serves a metro population outside a few buses. It also does it very poorly.

you do realize that only _helps_ my argument? If you don't look at the total metro population, but an even smaller population in the CapMetro service area. Then CapMetro punches above its weight.

Originally Posted by freerover

You're grasping as straws here and using a very specific criterion that still doesn't suggest Austin has a very good transit system relative to most other cities of similar or larger size.

Okay, so similar size. How does our transit compare to Kansas City, Cleveland, Columbus, Indianapolis (cities of a similar size)?

[freerover]

Originally Posted by Novacek

Care to enlighten us then, as to how you know better than basic math (where CapMetro with ~90k rides /day isn't > 74k ?

I was commenting that you said Austin was on this list and they clearly weren't. The statement itself was false. You had to go dig in a database to suggest that they would be if the information you found was used but you didn't cross check all the other cities with this database to see if they would also have higher numbers if you updated all of the data with the source you were using for Austin. No one would do that because it's insane but you would have to if you wanted to make the argument you're making. That's why you are reaching for straws and if Austin had a reasonable transit system, you would be able to find studies that rank transit systems that show them on there.

Originally Posted by Novacek

you do realize that only _helps_ my argument? If you don't look at the total metro population, but an even smaller population in the CapMetro service area. Then CapMetro punches above its weight.

Not when you compare it to the numbers of other cities if you do the exact same thing because then Austin would be 11th with a far lower ranking of per capita ridership.

Originally Posted by Novacek

Okay, so similar size. How does our transit compare to Kansas City, Cleveland, Columbus, Indianapolis (cities of a similar size)?

Dude, I'm not wasting my time trying to show that Austin has a bad public transit system. There are about a million rankings and comprehensive studies out there and most of them don't have austin anywhere on it. If they did then you wouldn't be isolating random and extremely specific metrics. If you think that means you win this argument then that's fine but I have a very hard time that people who live and even visit Austin agree with you.

[Austin_ez_wider]

Are we sure we want these guys conducting business here?

Amazon drivers 'are asked to deliver up to 200 parcels a day for less than the minimum wage and they even have to urinate into bottles to keep pace'

By Kelly Mclaughlin For Mailonline
06:56 EST 10 Dec 2017, updated 09:29 EST 10 Dec 2017

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...onditions.html

[the Genral]

https://youtu.be/ZgMPV0v_Q1E
As long as they don't use empty beer bottles.

[The ATX]

And there's that disgusting viral video of the Amazon driver taking a dump after delivering a package earlier this month. The best part is that an Amazon supervisor came to pick up the shit after the customer complained.

http://www.worldstarhiphop.com/video...960vqWi0WR3X5i

[the Genral]

So if you want to be an Amazon driver, you should lay off the coffee and burritos.

[Geckos_Rule]

Originally Posted by Austin_ez_wider

Are we sure we want these guys conducting business here?

Amazon drivers 'are asked to deliver up to 200 parcels a day for less than the minimum wage and they even have to urinate into bottles to keep pace'

By Kelly Mclaughlin For Mailonline
06:56 EST 10 Dec 2017, updated 09:29 EST 10 Dec 2017

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...onditions.html

Amazon already conducts business here, considering everyone here buys amazon packages that are delivered by their drivers. Corporate HQ wouldn't affect that at all...

[atxsnail]

Originally Posted by Austin_ez_wider

Are we sure we want these guys conducting business here?

Amazon drivers 'are asked to deliver up to 200 parcels a day for less than the minimum wage and they even have to urinate into bottles to keep pace'

By Kelly Mclaughlin For Mailonline
06:56 EST 10 Dec 2017, updated 09:29 EST 10 Dec 2017

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...onditions.html

i don't doubt for a second that amazon is really tough on its front line employees, but the daily mail is notoriously sensationalist. even if you like your news to be of a heavy editorial slant, there are much more reasonable sources out there.

i doubt the HQ2 workers would feel the same type of direct pressure, perhaps i'm wrong. i've only ever seen articles about the distribution workers.

also never thought i'd see WSHH links on this forum. lol

[We vs us]

This guy's a great follow on Twitter. Lots of good little nugs about DT and Domain development.




PS. sorry for the size of the pics -- still working with my new imgur acct.

[freerover]

Originally Posted by We vs us

This guy's a great follow on Twitter. Lots of good little nugs about DT and Domain development.



PS. sorry for the size of the pics -- still working with my new imgur acct.

Thanks for the post. It certainly looks interesting but the Amazon interest is odd since they are looking for more than 8 million square feet to grow into but it would function for their 2019 "Phase 1" goal. It just seems clear that the are looking for a campus to develop and not a building or two. Hopefully this won't drag too far into the new year.

[We vs us]

Originally Posted by freerover

Thanks for the post. It certainly looks interesting but the Amazon interest is odd since they are looking for more than 8 million square feet to grow into but it would function for their 2019 "Phase 1" goal. It just seems clear that the are looking for a campus to develop and not a building or two. Hopefully this won't drag too far into the new year.

That's why I thought it was interesting. While I feel like we (on this forum) have mostly jettisoned the idea of DT as a viable choice for Amazon, a guy who would obviously be in the know is hinting at something else entirely.