Amazon HQ2 thread

[bnk]

Originally Posted by IrishIllini

I think the point he's making, and I could be wrong, is that Chicago has the potential to move far more people on its current system than Seattle does.

And to a central location. This is where Metra shines.

Buses are not great from getting to a central down town location on buses. Metra can always add more train cars. They do it all of the time for large events in the City.


Buses are much slower and have less capacity than heavy rail. Buses are so slow because they lack express routes, at least here.



Not every employee will be without children and suburban schools are far superior than most of the Chicago Public School System, I'm not including private High Schools in Chicago that fair fine, some great, but can be rather expensive for a family with multiple children.

Graduation rates, test scores, and percentage of college bound HS students are much higher in the majority of suburban Public HS districts, esp West, Northwest, North and Southwest.

The southern suburbs and eastern suburbs have their problems much like the city due to demographics.

[skyscraper]

Originally Posted by skyscraperpage17

I can't speak for Dallas, but Atlanta's sites (especially The Gulch) are easily the bet fit for what Amazon's requested, outside of Chicago and Philly.

there's a pretty sharp dropoff after chicago and Philly.

[skyscraperpage17]

Originally Posted by skyscraper

there's a pretty sharp dropoff after chicago and Philly.

Perhaps.

But on balance with *ALL* of Amazon's criteria and preferences (business friendliness***, affordability, etc.), I still think Atlanta and Dallas are top contender alongside Philly and Chicago IMO and I wouldn't discount them.

[mhays]

Buses can be pretty fast in Seattle. There's a large network of HOV lanes and bus-only lanes. We even built a bus tunnel through Downtown, though it's now dual rail/bus and will soon be rail only.

The Census commute share stats from 2016 show Chicago and Seattle at almost exactly the same drive-alone rate for central city residents. Chicago had more transit share. Seattle made up for that with walking and biking share.

[10023]

Originally Posted by Doady

Chicago's transit ridership is very similar to Seattle's. Despite all that rail, Chicago's transit system isn't actually that great.

Urban Area Population Boardings    Per Capita (2017)
Chicago    9,140,000  589,351,900  64.48
Seattle    3,403,724  219,013,600  64.35

This says that Chicago’s transit system has over 2.5x as many riders as Seattle’s.

Per capita is not the rich way to look at things. Chicago is a geographically larger city and of course there are outlying parts of Chicago that are lower density, more suburban and less transit-friendly than the central part of the city. But the fact remains that Chicago has a much larger supply of urban, transit-friendly neighborhoods than Seattle. If Amazon wants their employees to be able to choose such a neighborhood, Chicago offers a greater supply of them.

Plus, I suspect that those numbers exclude Metra suburban trains.

[the urban politician]

Originally Posted by IrishIllini

I think the point he's making, and I could be wrong, is that Chicago has the potential to move far more people on its current system than Seattle does.

Exactly. I don’t think Amazon would give two shits about “per capita ridership”, all they want to know is, if we plop down our campus here, which cities can deliver hundreds of thousands of people efficiently to this address?

And to that question: Chicago was basically built to do just that.

[the urban politician]

Originally Posted by mhays

Buses can be pretty fast in Seattle. There's a large network of HOV lanes and bus-only lanes. We even built a bus tunnel through Downtown, though it's now dual rail/bus and will soon be rail only.

The Census commute share stats from 2016 show Chicago and Seattle at almost exactly the same drive-alone rate for central city residents. Chicago had more transit share. Seattle made up for that with walking and biking share.

But why would transit mode share matter? That may matter to demographers and city planners, but why would Amazon care?

Hell, Chicago could have half the transit mode share as Seattle but that still wouldn’t be an issue, simply because the infrastructure and capacity are there and ready to go, to move massive amounts of people to a central location.

[the urban politician]

Originally Posted by Doady

The stats I posted already include Metra and Pace for Chicago, as well as the suburban systems for Seattle. The only numbers missing are for Kenosha Transit, East Chicago Transit, Gary Public Transit Corporation, V-Line, and South Shore Line. I will add the South Shore Line to the numbers.

The article suggests Amazon wants to locate HQ2 in a city that has better transit than Seattle, and I am not convinced Chicago fits that criteria.

There is no way your numbers are even close to accurate. CTA weekday rail (NOT including bus) boardings alone are in the mid 600k - low 700k range:

https://data.cityofchicago.org/Transportation/CTA-Ridership-Daily-Boarding-Totals/6iiy-9s97

This is just the CTA. Metra and South Shore, as we all know, are whole other systems.

[Investing In Chicago]

Originally Posted by Doady

Chicago's transit ridership is very similar to Seattle's. Despite all that rail, Chicago's transit system isn't actually that great.

Urban Area Population Boardings    Per Capita (2017)
Chicago    9,140,000  589,351,900  64.48
Seattle    3,403,724  219,013,600  64.35

Chicago has the second largest public transit system in the entire country, it isn't obviously at NYC level, but when looking at the entire network (Heavy Rail, Commuter Rail, Buses, etc), there isn't a system, outside of NYC that is better.

- The EL served more annual rides than any city in the US outside NYC
-Metra is the busiest commuter rail in the Country outside NYC
-CTA Buses served more passengers than any city outside NYC and LA

Chicago transit is significantly better than Seattle's, Seattle is a great city, but not the same league as Chicago.

[hawainpanda]

Agreed, Seattle does not compare to Chicago in terms of transportation. I personally see Chicago, Philly, and DC as the top contenders. Boston a close 4th but cost of living makes me feel that Chicago and Philly would be more highly considered. Of all the cities I htink Chicago is probably the best fit for what Amazon wants, but its slight disadvantage is distance from the east coast.

[the urban politician]

Originally Posted by hawainpanda

Agreed, Seattle does not compare to Chicago in terms of transportation. I personally see Chicago, Philly, and DC as the top contenders. Boston a close 4th but cost of living makes me feel that Chicago and Philly would be more highly considered. Of all the cities I htink Chicago is probably the best fit for what Amazon wants, but its slight disadvantage is distance from the east coast.

I’ve heard the “proximity to the east coast” thing before, and I remain curious why this is important to anyone other than people who live on the east coast and want to feel warm and fuzzy on the inside?

Yes, I’m just poking a bit of fun, but I really think it’s a legit question. From Chicago you’re about a 1.5 or so hour flight to New York and other east coast cities, and those flights run every day, all day.

Metro Chicagoland has among the highest concentration of F1000 firms in the country, and Houston and Dallas are right up there too. None of them are on the east coast, yet those companies seem to be doing alright.

That argument just seems way overblown.

[Doady]

Originally Posted by the urban politician

There is no way your numbers are even close to accurate. CTA weekday rail (NOT including bus) boardings alone are in the mid 600k - low 700k range:

https://data.cityofchicago.org/Transportation/CTA-Ridership-Daily-Boarding-Totals/6iiy-9s97

This is just the CTA. Metra and South Shore, as we all know, are whole other systems.

I didn't post weekday boardings. I posted annual boardings.

[mhays]

True about capacity being key. Seattle's transit is bursting at the seams with riders, just as the roads are with cars. New capacity is all transit, but it's being added too slowly. That includes the $70 billion Sound Transit is working on, and a significant jump in bus service that Seattle (in-city) voters voted for on in-city routes.

That's probably a big reason for HQ2. Adding another 50,000 workers in greater Downtown would add to the capacity issue.

We're about to hit the 30,000-unit mark for greater-downtown housing starts since mid-2010. Much of that is people deciding not to commute.

[LouisVanDerWright]

^^^ That's the other strong suit of Chicago, it's geography puts it pretty much dead center in the Western Hemisphere for quick flights everywhere. Chicago is also far enough West and North that flights to Asia aren't unreasonable either. OHares position as the center of the domestic airline industry is the real kicker though. While it's great to have international options, the real bread and butter of Amazon's potential is understanding and innovating for the American consumer. Being a short flight to anywhere in North America with like ten direct flights a day to every major city on the continent would seem to be a big green check mark if dominating that consumer market is your goal.

[Doady]

Originally Posted by 10023

This says that Chicago’s transit system has over 2.5x as many riders as Seattle’s.

Per capita is not the rich way to look at things. Chicago is a geographically larger city and of course there are outlying parts of Chicago that are lower density, more suburban and less transit-friendly than the central part of the city. But the fact remains that Chicago has a much larger supply of urban, transit-friendly neighborhoods than Seattle. If Amazon wants their employees to be able to choose such a neighborhood, Chicago offers a greater supply of them.

If Chicago was really so transit-friendly, if it had so many transit-friendly neighbhourhoods everywhere, it would have more riders per capita. Simple as that. Like Montreal, NYC, Toronto, Vancouver have 3 times more ridership per capita than Chicago. Washington 2 times more.

Chicago's transit system, right now, is just very poor compared to most of its peers. I don't see how a system with such lackluster ridership could be a selling point for the city.

Chicago offers the memory or the promise of great transit, but in that way it's no different from Seattle.

Originally Posted by 10023

Plus, I suspect that those numbers exclude Metra suburban trains.

What possible reason could have I to lie to everyone? If you think I am liar, provide evidence, back up your statement. I provided hard statistics you have provided absolutely nothing.

CTA 479,435,200
Metra 70,923,300
Pace 35,537,600
South Shore Line 3,455,800

http://ti.org/pdfs/2017-Q4-Ridership-APTA.pdf

[Doady]

Originally Posted by Investing In Chicago

Chicago has the second largest public transit system in the entire country, it isn't obviously at NYC level, but when looking at the entire network (Heavy Rail, Commuter Rail, Buses, etc), there isn't a system, outside of NYC that is better.

- The EL served more annual rides than any city in the US outside NYC
-Metra is the busiest commuter rail in the Country outside NYC
-CTA Buses served more passengers than any city outside NYC and LA

Chicago transit is significantly better than Seattle's, Seattle is a great city, but not the same league as Chicago.

Chicago system served more riders simply because it has larger population, not because it performed better. Hence ridership per capita.

By your standard, LA also has one of the best transit systems in the country, with close to 500 million riders in 2017, beating Washington, Boston, San Francisco, Philadelphia and so on.

Los Angeles County MTA 397,489,400
Orange County TA 41,299,500
Long Beach Transit 24,418,400
Big Blue Bus 13,488,400
Foothill Transit 12,887,700
Torrance Transit System 3,775,300
Santa Clarita Transit 2,790,400

http://ti.org/pdfs/2017-Q4-Ridership-APTA.pdf

[dc_denizen]

Or maybe the Chicago transit system is pleasant compared to the hellish experience that is the overcrowded nyc subway?

[the urban politician]

..

[the urban politician]

..apologies—error

[the urban politician]

Originally Posted by Doady

If Chicago was really so transit-friendly, if it had so many transit-friendly neighbhourhoods everywhere, it would have more riders per capita. Simple as that. Like Montreal, NYC, Toronto, Vancouver have 3 times more ridership per capita than Chicago. Washington 2 times more.

Chicago's transit system, right now, is just very poor compared to most of its peers. I don't see how a system with such lackluster ridership could be a selling point for the city.

Chicago offers the memory or the promise of great transit, but in that way it's no different from Seattle.



What possible reason could have I to lie to everyone? If you think I am liar, provide evidence, back up your statement. I provided hard statistics you have provided absolutely nothing.

CTA 479,435,200
Metra 70,923,300
Pace 35,537,600
South Shore Line 3,455,800

http://ti.org/pdfs/2017-Q4-Ridership-APTA.pdf

Size does matter. Per capita ridership doesn’t—why on earth would Amazon care about this? If the rail system alone can deliver over a million rides per day, as Chicago’s does, you already have more than what you need. You seem to be cherry picking this point for no reason.