Amazon HQ2 thread

[iheartthed]

Originally Posted by SteveD

The OP posted some traffic stats, and that's what I was backing up with my own personal experience. If you are maintaining that it's easier to drive around Chicago, or NYC, or Boston, or DC, or LA, than Atlanta, I'll simply say that that has not been my own experience, at all. Or, if you've saying you've driven in all those cities, and Atlanta is the worst, I'd just say I have a hard time believing that. Due to the work I do, rapid transit is not an option when I'm traveling for work. I'm always having to rent a car and drive. Even for my NYC jobs, I have to rent a car.

I have been to Chicago, Boston, and D.C., many, many times. I have never needed to rent a car in those cities. I always needed to rent a car when I was traveling to Atlanta, and that needs to be considered in any discussion of which city is "worse."

In terms of driving, Atlanta is worse than LA, IMO. But driving in ATL is fresher in my memory so I will admit potential bias on that. Atlanta is the only place I've traveled for work where I had a lot of trouble predicting how much time I should allot to get to and from the airport. Every single week I would get stuck in a traffic jam longer than I anticipated and would nearly miss my flight as a result. My entire team of well-traveled consultants would constantly complain about the traffic and probably agree with me on where ATL ranks.

[mrnyc]

it would be an interesting pick if miami got it. its kind of an out of left field choice, but se florida could certainly absorb it well and has everything they are probably looking for.

of course there is plenty good about the weather, but the devastating hurricanes might be an issue. or you know, the noseeums.

[SteveD]

Originally Posted by iheartthed

I have been to Chicago, Boston, and D.C., many, many times. I have never needed to rent a car in those cities. I always needed to rent a car when I was traveling to Atlanta, and that needs to be considered in any discussion of which city is "worse."

In terms of driving, Atlanta is worse than LA, IMO. But driving in ATL is fresher in my memory so I will admit potential bias on that. Atlanta is the only place I've traveled for work where I had a lot of trouble predicting how much time I should allot to get to and from the airport. Every single week I would get stuck in a traffic jam longer than I anticipated and would nearly miss my flight as a result. My entire team of well-traveled consultants would constantly complain about the traffic and probably agree with me on where ATL ranks.

OK...so we're talking apples and oranges. You're talking about places where you get around relatively easily without a car, and I'm talking about my experience driving in all them, in rental cars. Let's leave it at that. As I said, the kind of work I do doesn't afford me the option of using rapid transit, so, I'm always having to drive a rental car. Almost 2 hrs from O'Hare to downtown Chicago last week. TWO. HOURS. Let's not even talk about NYC.

[iheartthed]

Originally Posted by SteveD

OK...so we're talking apples and oranges. You're talking about places where you get around relatively easily without a car, and I'm talking about my experience driving in all them, in rental cars. Let's leave it at that. As I said, the kind of work I do doesn't afford me the option of using rapid transit, so, I'm always having to drive a rental car. Almost 2 hrs from O'Hare to downtown Chicago last week. TWO. HOURS. Let's not even talk about NYC.

You're a special case. Most people (including Amazon workers) would be using transit.

[10023]

Originally Posted by SteveD

OK...so we're talking apples and oranges. You're talking about places where you get around relatively easily without a car, and I'm talking about my experience driving in all them, in rental cars. Let's leave it at that. As I said, the kind of work I do doesn't afford me the option of using rapid transit, so, I'm always having to drive a rental car. Almost 2 hrs from O'Hare to downtown Chicago last week. TWO. HOURS. Let's not even talk about NYC.

Ok. But like 75% of Amazon employees in, say, the West Loop, would be taking the train to work.

[mhays]

The current HQ is about 20% non-motorized (says Amazon). Between parking volumes and neighborhood (not-company-specific) stats, I'd guess about half use transit...higher than that in the Denny Triangle which is basically part of the CBD, lower in South Lake Union. They probably average one parking space for every five workers, again averaging those two areas which have different upper limits on parking.

[skyscraperpage17]

Atlanta's free flow of traffic does suck, because of its poor secondary road network.

But in terms of actual traffic delays, it's nowhere near the worst (not even the top 5).

Also, Atlanta's traffic is not evenly distributed like it is in other cities either. Most of its population is on the north side of town, thus it has disproportionately worse traffic than the far less developed parts of the city.

[jd3189]

Nobody seems to be talking about MARTA, Atlanta's mass transit/commuter rail system.


MARTA by Silvana Rees, on Flickr


It has connections between downtown (where Amazon's HQ would be) and the airport. It has decent ridership and there are plans for expansion as the traffic situation gets worse.

[jd3189]

Originally Posted by mrnyc

it would be an interesting pick if miami got it. its kind of an out of left field choice, but se florida could certainly absorb it well and has everything they are probably looking for.

of course there is plenty good about the weather, but the devastating hurricanes might be an issue. or you know, the noseeums.

It would be a nice economic boost to the area. I don't mind if other cities like NYC, Boston, or Chicago gets it, but they all have HQs of several Fortune 500 companies already. Atlanta too, with Coca-Cola, Turner, and some others.

We can build against hurricanes, just like Seattle and other west coast cities build against earthquakes. But we unfortunately can't help against the noseeums. They're just a part of life down here.

[C.]

Originally Posted by iheartthed

You're a special case. Most people (including Amazon workers) would be using transit.

The RFP has so many preferences, but one of the "core" site requirements is for transit at site: Direct access to rail, train, subway/metro, and bus routes. When you consider that every Amazon job will create at least one more job due to the economic multiplier effect. The only way this works is for a good portion of workers take transit or live short distances to work.

If you think traffic is bad now. Just wait until Amazon comes to town. Transit will be the most viable method of transportation in the host city, IMO.

Part of what makes Newark so attractive (aside from the obscene billions in tax incentives) is the strong transportation network and the ability to be in Manhattan anytime of day or night in 20 minutes via NJ Transit or the PATH train. Newark has the housing stock, but I fear for the hyper gentrification that would follow. It would be like another Brooklyn if they land Amazon. I still have Philly in my top stop, followed by the DC tri-state. The RFP says Amazon may pick more than one site. I could easily see Amazon picking all 3 in the DC metro and planning something off a WMATA station. Even though Miami has things going in the transit area by Florida standards, there's no way they can compete against the transit accessibility offered by cities in the NE or midwest.

[SteveD]

Originally Posted by jd3189

Nobody seems to be talking about MARTA, Atlanta's mass transit/commuter rail system.


MARTA by Silvana Rees, on Flickr


It has connections between downtown (where Amazon's HQ would be) and the airport. It has decent ridership and there are plans for expansion as the traffic situation gets worse.

Correct. It even "punches above it's weight", believe it or not, since it's 8th highest ridership in the US for heavy rail, and Atlanta is not the 8th largest metro.

[mhays]

....But very low overall transit commute share.

[JManc]

Originally Posted by mhays

....But very low overall transit commute share.

Compared to who? New York? Atlanta probably fares well among comparable cities, not cities with a long history of mass transit and dense urban areas. I'm talking cities like Charlotte, Houston, Dallas, etc. These cities can spend all the money in the world on transit and cars will always dominate.

[Steely Dan]

Originally Posted by SteveD

It even "punches above it's weight", believe it or not, since it's 8th highest ridership in the US for heavy rail, and Atlanta is not the 8th largest metro.

yes, MARTA's ridership is respectable, especially for a sunbelt city, but it's also important to remember that there are only 11 US metros that even have heavy rail rapid transit systems to begin with.


US metros ranked by heavy rail rapid transit ridership (2016):

1. NYC (including PATH & SIR) - 2,837,711,900
2. Chicago ------------------------- 238,645,800
3. DC ------------------------------ 234,232,100
4. Boston -------------------------- 172,105,800
5. San Francisco ------------------- 135,310,700
6. Philly (including PATCO) ------- 104,862,600
7. Atlanta --------------------------- 68,678,700
8. LA -------------------------------- 45,863,900*
9. Miami ---------------------------- 21,095,500
10. Baltimore ----------------------- 11,241,200
11. Cleveland ------------------------ 6,419,400

source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_United_States_rapid_transit_systems_by_ridership


(*) like several other cities, LA has a hybrid light/heavy/commuter rail network. if you combine all rail ridership numbers, LA would far surpass atlanta.

[iheartthed]

Originally Posted by Steely Dan

yes, MARTA's ridership is respectable, especially for a sunbelt city, but it's also important to remember that there are only 11 US metros that even have heavy rail rapid transit systems to begin with.


US metros ranked by heavy rail rapid transit ridership (2016):

1. NYC (including PATH & SIR) - 2,837,711,900
2. Chicago ------------------------- 238,645,800
3. DC ------------------------------ 234,232,100
4. Boston -------------------------- 172,105,800
5. San Francisco ------------------- 135,310,700
6. Philly (including PATCO) ------- 104,862,600
7. Atlanta --------------------------- 68,678,700
8. LA -------------------------------- 45,863,900*
9. Miami ---------------------------- 21,095,500
10. Baltimore ----------------------- 11,241,200
11. Cleveland ------------------------ 6,419,400

source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_United_States_rapid_transit_systems_by_ridership


(*) LA has a hybrid light/heavy/commuter rail network. if you combine all rail ridership numbers, LA would far surpass atlanta.

If you ordered that per-capita, seems that Atlanta would come in second to last, right? LA excluded.

[sukwoo]

Originally Posted by jd3189

It would be a nice economic boost to the area. I don't mind if other cities like NYC, Boston, or Chicago gets it, but they all have HQs of several Fortune 500 companies already. Atlanta too, with Coca-Cola, Turner, and some others.

We can build against hurricanes, just like Seattle and other west coast cities build against earthquakes. But we unfortunately can't help against the noseeums. They're just a part of life down here.

Can you build against rising sea levels?

[SteveD]

Originally Posted by iheartthed

If you ordered that per-capita, seems that Atlanta would come in second to last, right? LA excluded.

Let's beat a dead horse. Atlanta's in town traffic is better than it's nationwide reputation, and better than most larger metros in town traffic in the US, even those with much more expansive rapid transit. Atlanta has respectable mass transit, with a promise for much more, especially among it's sunbelt peers.

Also, don't forget that the "plane train" at Hartsfield Jackson, isn't a train at all!
It's actually the busiest bus rapid transit system in the world!

[Shawn]

Originally Posted by iheartthed

If you ordered that per-capita, seems that Atlanta would come in second to last, right? LA excluded.

You'd also want to add light rail numbers to get a more accurate picture. I'm pretty sure those SF numbers don't count BART and the Boston numbers don't count the Green Line, which has the highest daily ridership out of any Boston line (about 260,000 daily, which is more than MARTA sees on all lines combined).

It's not just existing transit infrastructure Amazon will look at - it's planned expansions and just as importantly the state political environment which could either promote or hamper transit expansion. For Atlanta's sake, I hope the Georgia legislature can pretend to be united on this. But red states don't like public transit.

[jd3189]

Originally Posted by sukwoo

Can you build against rising sea levels?

There are plans to lift up the streets of South Beach to prevent flooding and other developments will potentially come in the future.

Either way, sea levels are going to affect a few more cities beside Miami on that list. The Northeast for instance.

If we want our coastal cities to keep existing, we will do all we can to make that happen, unfortunately when we really need to do it.

[10023]

Originally Posted by Steely Dan

yes, MARTA's ridership is respectable, especially for a sunbelt city, but it's also important to remember that there are only 11 US metros that even have heavy rail rapid transit systems to begin with.

That's an insane statistic.