Could Dallas land Amazon HQ '2'?

[Waldozer]

I’m thinking Atlanta. Boston is my second pick.

[tanzoak]

I am glad to know that my coming of age period coincided with a cultural phenomenon ("Hipsters") so powerful that its ghost apparently will live on for years after it has ceased to be a thing, kind of like "Hippies".

[joshua.dodd]

I actually think Dallas has a good chance of landing the Amazon headquarters. The fact that many companies in Silicon Valley have actually relocated to the Dallas Fort Worth area in the past five years, and the fact that about 500,000 people have left California to Texas is another good indication. (Compare that to the merely 27,000 who have left Texas to California) Most out-of-staters in Dallas came from Los Angeles and New York City. Also, consider the very friendly business environment in Texas that has attracted many firms to our cities. California has extremely high taxes on businesses and is so over regulated that it has made for a very unfriendly environment for businesses. I think Dallas has a really good chance. In fact, I am confident that Dallas is on the top five list of choices for Amazon.

[HarryMoto]

Good piece in the Houston Chronicle on Houston's bid. They concede it's a long shot, especially competing against Austin though they don't mention Dallas:

http://www.houstonchronicle.com/busines ... 300652.php

[I45Tex]

Rather than look at tech labor pool capacity, Bezos' or his lieutenants' prerogatives, real estate relationships, or the offered incentive amounts, I would be weighing what kind of company they want to become. Different cities instill different values. Austin may be past its intriguing prime, but I don't think North Texas has much to offer philosophically unless Amazon leaders aspire to be a next generation Wal-Mart.

[Tucy]

^es la verdad

UT is in Austin, TA&M is in College Station, both are in the Dallas Trading Area. Things are spread out, especially compared to the North East, but the much of the South Central US, probably more than half, still funnels through Dallas.

While I tend to agree that DFW is in pretty good shape on the university aspect of the competition, I'm pretty sure TA&M is not in the Dallas Trading Area.

Thanks Tucy, it does belong in Houston, according to Rand McNally, how I goofed that one is a mystery, well, maybe not so much.

It's been a while, and according to wiki https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_B ... ding_Areas, Austin is still in Dallas Trading Area, but San Antonio is it's own trading area. hum, that's new.

Not new. San Antonio has been it's own major trading area for at least 25 years. Seems odd that Austin doesn't have it's own major trading area. That is probably overdue for revision.

[tamtagon]

Rather than look at tech labor pool capacity, Bezos' or his lieutenants' prerogatives, real estate relationships, or the offered incentive amounts, I would be weighing what kind of company they want to become. Different cities instill different values. Austin may be past its intriguing prime, but I don't think North Texas has much to offer philosophically unless Amazon leaders aspire to be a next generation Wal-Mart.

Dallas is a philosophical tabula rasa...

As Los Angeles gained on Chicago during the last century, the town was chided, dismissed and consistently described as a no where place, big and growing bigger; no worthwhile society and no future shaping America culture until of course it did. Now, Los Angeles is generally regarded as an equally influential place as Chicago, and the clock is ticking until the second city becomes the third city.

Dallas in on track to challenge Chicago within a generation. This giant retail headquarter landing in the CBD would be fantastic step forward in the evolution city living in Dallas.

[Tivo_Kenevil]

I just don't think Atlanta or Dallas offer what Amazon wants. Their indifference to Transit and underwhelming Urban Fabric just doesn't seem like a good fit for what Amazon seems to prefer. They offer great business environments but is it significantly better than what Philly is offering? Perhaps, but considering that Philly already has the transit, already has the schools and Not to mention they have affordable home prices for an East coast city. And on top of that lots of millennials are moving to "city" there.

The political climate of Georgia / Texas isn't exactly aligned w Amazon as well. To me Atlanta and Texas (Dallas & Austin) are nothing more than leverage during negotiations.

[tamtagon]

^I appreciate the advantages Philly and Boston offer over Sunbelt candidates.... and if Amazon is looking for better access to Europe, the eastern timezone comes that positive.

I choosing to believe Amazon is looking for a North American and Western Hemisphere HQ with a retail kicker, that gives Dallas a significant advantage. Especially with the existing and educated bilingual workforce.

[2535]

Rather than look at tech labor pool capacity, Bezos' or his lieutenants' prerogatives, real estate relationships, or the offered incentive amounts, I would be weighing what kind of company they want to become. Different cities instill different values. Austin may be past its intriguing prime, but I don't think North Texas has much to offer philosophically unless Amazon leaders aspire to be a next generation Wal-Mart.

A thought worth exploring, and one that I don't think has been given a lot of attention. North Texas just doesn't seem to have the romance of Boston or the stellar-and-only-increasing reputation of Toronto. I would hope we beat out Atlanta for "Best less-interesting city" however! How could Amazon change the city, and how could the city change Amazon?

As a life-long resident and proponent of North Texas, I would still be shocked beyond all measure if Amazon picked Dallas. It's just too damn hot here.

[Cord1936]

I am choosing to believe Amazon is looking for a North American and Western Hemisphere HQ with a retail kicker, that gives Dallas a significant advantage. Especially with the existing and educated bilingual workforce.

^^^^^^^
Word!

Dallas and the Dallas area is either number one or in the top two or three in just about every metric that matters:

* 4th largest metro in nation
* # 1 in population growth
* # 1 in overall job growth, and projected to be at forefront of office jobs creation between 2017-2019
* 40,310 tech jobs created in last 5 years with Dallas area known as Silicon Prairie
* # 5 in nation in overall tech labor pool with 161,150 tech jobs, and growing
* # 1 in nation for attracting skilled talent (see article link below)
* # 1 in growth percentage in number of tech degrees being granted
* # 1 in residential construction (multi-family & single family)
* # 2 in office space construction, and projected to be at forefront of worldwide office construction boom between 2017-2019
* # 1 in net office space absorption, first nine months of 2017
* in 2016 jumped to #4 in the nation in GDP (leapfrogging both Washington D.C. & Houston in one year)
* in 2016 jumped to #1 in Texas as largest concentration of Fortune 500 headquarters with 22
* as of 2016 the undisputed financial and economic center of the entire South and Southwest (see above)
* ranks among the lowest in cost of living among all major metros in nation
* home to the largest light rail transit system in nation, and adding second major Downtown subway line
* with DFW - home to a major international airport, and growing in global importance annually
* with Love Field - home to a second major national airport, that is close-in to city center, and growing
* major national logistics hub with 4 interstates converging in city and a 5th interstate loop around the city
* home to a major medical district with UT Southwestern, growing bigger and more important every year
* equi-distant from East and West coasts and equi-distant from Canada to Mexico/Central America

So Dallas doesn't have the "coolness" factor of a Boston or Philadelphia, or an Austin or Seattle ... yet we have everything else in spades.

I don't think Bezos became the near richest man in the world basing his business decisions on anything but compelling business data that will enrich him and his company.

He will be a fool not to pay attention to the above metrics when making his HQ2 decision ... just my opinion.

In the recent analysis of which cities attract the most skilled talent there is a very interesting interactive graphic in the article that shows where all major cities in the U.S. fall as far as their ability to attract skilled talent.

Boston is ranked # 60.
Philadelphia is ranked # 104.
Dallas is ranked # 1.

The company, Emsi, models jobs data on practically every existing job in the nation with a staggering amount of data points they analyze to reach their conclusions.

Which Metros Are Hubs for Skilled Talent?
June 16, 2017 by Joshua Wright, Emsi

Large Metros (500K+ Pop.)

Dallas-Fort Worth-Arlington ranks as the top metro for talent attraction based on its strong growth in jobs, migration, and educational attainment. The metroplex is closely followed by Denver-Aurora-Lakewood and San Francisco-Oakland-Hayward.

Dallas, Denver, and San Francisco are hubs for skilled talent, both in their city cores and surrounding suburbs.

Article: http://www.economicmodeling.com/2017/06/16/which-metro-areas-attract-the-most-talent/

[Waldozer]

Awful lot of groan-inducing pablum in that list. I’ll just highlight the one I groaned the loudest at: “home to the largest light rail”

As this recent article makes evident, the DART is useless for most people, especially the ones that need it the most.

https://www.dmagazine.com/frontburner/2 ... nadequacy/

I also like how in their rankings from last year, Dallas - in particular the city - doesn’t make a blip.

http://www.economicmodeling.com/wp-cont ... recard.pdf

[Cord1936]

Awful lot of groan-inducing pablum in that list. I’ll just highlight the one I groaned the loudest at: “home to the largest light rail”

As this recent article makes evident, the DART is useless for most people, especially the ones that need it the most.

https://www.dmagazine.com/frontburner/2 ... nadequacy/

I also like how in their rankings from last year, Dallas - in particular the city - doesn’t make a blip.

http://www.economicmodeling.com/wp-cont ... recard.pdf

I didn't say that DART is the most efficient or effective, I said it is the largest. And it is in fact the largest light rail transit in the nation. There are things that can be done to help make it more efficient and effective and adding D2 will be a key step in that direction. Obviously other things need to be done but you cannot dispute my point that it is the largest in the nation.

And your link to Emsi where you're naysaying the city of Dallas is a link to a 2016 Emsi analysis for counties, not cities, counties! Of course city of Dallas will not appear in a county ranking!

The Emsi link I provided is their 2017 analysis of MSA's and Emsi's data and conclusion is for the Dallas area/metro, not the city of Dallas itself. I didn't put words in Emsi's mouth concerning Dallas being number one in the nation for attracting skilled talent ... those are Emsi's own words.

[Tivo_Kenevil]

...if anything just know Dallas has a good shot. Will it win?... I don't like to get my hopes for winning the lotto... But I will say this..if in fact Dallas gets it. It will be redemption for Boeing. The investments city leaders made to the core would be validated overnight...

[joshua.dodd]

Their indifference to Transit and underwhelming Urban Fabric

This is a rather unfair assertion that is further from the truth. Compared to east coast cities like New York and Philadelphia, Dallas is a very young city. The city itself is no more than 170 years old. It's an evolving city, and so is its mass transit system, which is still growing and expanding. But that takes time. It's false to claim they are indifferent to mass transit.

[Jay9398]

That scathing D Magazine article about DART, and the UTA study it cites are about DART failing the city as a whole, with a focus on those who need transit and can't afford it or get to it.

I live and work downtown, and as an experienced IT professional, I am probably in the demographic that Amazon would be interested in for HQ2. I use transit all the time. A substantial cohort of my office also uses transit to come to work downtown every day from Carrollton, from Rowlett, from Plano, from Richardson.

I know that's purely anecdotal, but in my opinion, that is what Amazon means when they say they want transit. They won't care if a low wage worker can take transit to their job in a transit desert like West Plano. I care, and DART should certainly care. But I doubt Amazon does.

For whatever it's worth, I have also lived in both Seattle and Boston and used transit to commute. While their systems are unequivocally better than Dallas', it's still no piece of cake to commute in or out from the suburbs. Their systems are very much focused on getting around the core.

[muncien]

That scathing D Magazine article about DART, and the UTA study it cites are about DART failing the city as a whole, with a focus on those who need transit and can't afford it or get to it.

I live and work downtown, and as an experienced IT professional, I am probably in the demographic that Amazon would be interested in for HQ2. I use transit all the time. A substantial cohort of my office also uses transit to come to work downtown every day from Carrollton, from Rowlett, from Plano, from Richardson.

I know that's purely anecdotal, but in my opinion, that is what Amazon means when they say they want transit. They won't care if a low wage worker can take transit to their job in a transit desert like West Plano. I care, and DART should certainly care. But I doubt Amazon does.

For whatever it's worth, I have also lived in both Seattle and Boston and used transit to commute. While their systems are unequivocally better than Dallas', it's still no piece of cake to commute in or out from the suburbs. Their systems are very much focused on getting around the core.

This echo's precisely what I have stated previously. Depending on where you are, DART is either awful, or awesome. When it comes HQ2 proposals, the downtown area is extremely well served by transit. Where it fails are areas like Legacy, Midtown, even Trinity Groves and Fair Park to a degree... But from downtown, you have access to nearly all regions by a single train ride.
That is magnitudes ahead of proposed sites with 'proposed' rail, or even 'proposed stations'.

[Waldozer]

I really like the attempts to build up DART. But sunbelt cities don’t compete on the transit. They are built for cars and Dallas especially. That the light rail is large just shows how sprawling the metroplex is, not how great dart is. Anecdotes about taking the DART are most often about how slow it is and how infrequently it makes stops and how scary it is to use at night or outside of rush hour. No review of metros I’ve seen has listed Dallas as favorable on transit. The number of professionals working in cbd who use dart is minuscule.

https://factfinder.census.gov/faces/tab ... Type=table

https://www.dmagazine.com/frontburner/2 ... azons-hq2/

While dallas may be a city, it is also a county (named for different people). And dallas city is in dallas county, which does not show up at all on the 2016 study. Collin county does but if people are hoping for amazon to move to frisco or Plano then the arguments they are making about transit in and out of dallas cbd fly out the window, or would fly out if dart went that fast.

[tanzoak]

For whatever it's worth, I have also lived in both Seattle and Boston and used transit to commute. While their systems are unequivocally better than Dallas', it's still no piece of cake to commute in or out from the suburbs. Their systems are very much focused on getting around the core.

This is true for Seattle, which has a great bus system but (currently) limited rail. Boston, though.. MBTA commuter rail serves 125,000 a day, and the core has waaaay more people, making the T more relevant. Also, I wouldn't say the T is about getting people *around* the core, it's still extremely hub-and-spoke: getting people into and out of downtown Boston. Traveling between Allston and Somerville, say, is a hassle and a half.

[tamtagon]

Well, within the crappy set of rules constricting DART and The T, mass transit has been pieced together. The framework is pretty well in place or identified as it will exist for another generation at least, so that's 'Phase One, Complete' and now we're on 'Phase Two, Begin' fix it for the people who use it, improve it for the people who would use it but dont.

TxDoT absolutely should pay for upgrades. With streetcars and bus lanes, the light rail stations should be braided into the neighborhoods, non-stop capabilities should be added to rail, the incredible highways framing the Metroplex must become more efficient with BRT. The state denied obligation so long, it's almost criminal.

[Waldozer]

They probably meant in and out of the core. Boston is a completely different beast for sure. The T was my bread and butter for four years. Frequent stops, always busy, always felt safe, but damned if it didn’t stop running way too early at night. Here, even thought it’d be nice to take drat more often, it’s an hour between Las Colinas and my work at energy square, and it only stops every twenty or thirty minutes. If I miss it I’m done for. Meanwhile, it takes twenty five minutes, no more than 40 to drive. My wife is at Ut southwestern and her drive is never more than twenty minutes, usually fifteen. On dart, it’s half an hour.

[DPatel304]

This site is taking bets on where Amazon will place their HQ2. I really can't understand why Austin is so high. I think I posted an article in this thread which had it at the top too, and my father had also said he heard Austin was the most likely candidate:
http://www.paddypower.com/bet?action=go ... adquarters?

[cowboyeagle05]

I will say that I live in the Dallas Gaybourhood and I ride the bus to work and home every day. Yesterday I didn't want to wait for a bus in Downtown so I instead decided I would walk the bus route and catch it when it caught up with me. Well, it never caught up with me it seems and it took me an hour to walk home. Being that the weather is so nice and I had the right shoes I enjoyed the walk except where the city has no sidewalks and that's a lot of places in Uptown/Turtle Creek. I love my bus ride it's not too crowded and its quicker than driving my car downtown.

Where things fall apart for me is if I decide to go to Sprouts in East Dallas for example. Since that is a cross-town direction the ease of getting a bus that gets me close by that picks up near me is a journey all on its own. Getting to Downtown because DART is set up to funnel bus routes that way is easy and a breeze but moving in sideways and diagonals routes in a city that isn't a grid make for a complicated convoluted mess.

Mind you I am used to driving to places and living under those "limitless" boundaries associated with that lifestyle. I work in commercial property management but I also work in visual design in the tech sector so I feel like I am in the target market for DART transit. I prefer riding the bus over the car because I like the time to myself I get from riding in a public bus in the morning and evening.

[Tivo_Kenevil]

Their indifference to Transit and underwhelming Urban Fabric

This is a rather unfair assertion that is further from the truth. Compared to east coast cities like New York and Philadelphia, Dallas is a very young city. The city itself is no more than 170 years old. It's an evolving city, and so is its mass transit system, which is still growing and expanding. But that takes time. It's false to claim they are indifferent to mass transit.

Seattle, Portland, Minneapolis are equally as young and have better transit. So I disagree.

As a annual DART pass holder, I have come to question what DART stands for. To me it's seen more as an economic boon, "put a rail here, and maybe we can catch a development!" Seems to be the state of mind of agency. They do not improve the customer experience ...What does that have to with how long they've been around? That should be agency's top priority.. improving transit. DART is in constant expansion mode and that just makes the system more and more inefficient..they've done very little to improve what is currently in place.

They're indifferent to improving transit... 10 years to fix buses when cities equally as young can get it done overnight, is proof.

They're not interested transit they're interested in real estate speculation.

Until recently, has Dallas put pressure on DART to get it right. If I'm Amazon I have to look at Cities like Atlanta, Dallas and Austin and question their ability to get effective transit in place before they open their HQ possibly in their town.

Dallas should be further along in it's transit than where it is. Doesn't matter if you're on the east coast or not. The fact is, you, as a city, haven't shown the ability to implement effective, reliable bus routes in your city. That is a huge miss for Dallas.

[Cbdallas]

I am pretty sure we just lost our chance at Amazon as this guy will be replaced with a tote the hard core republican religious element that will push through social issues that drive away big business.

Ugh.

https://www.nbcdfw.com/news/politics/Te ... 68413.html

[cowboyeagle05]

This site is taking bets on where Amazon will place their HQ2. I really can't understand why Austin is so high. I think I posted an article in this thread which had it at the top too, and my father had also said he heard Austin was the most likely candidate:
http://www.paddypower.com/bet?action=go ... adquarters?

Austin has a lot of cache with the Tech crowd so I am not surprised people keep saying Austin despite the facts against it. If you watched or listened to any podcasts since 2005 you would see and hear a constant Austin this Austin that from the San Francisco crowd that frequents startups and tech companies. I know a friend that got a job at the Apple Campus down there and the gay dating app I work for on the side also just opened its US office there. I get it but Amazon is different in some ways they never moved their HQ to California they opened one somewhere else. They are big dog where they are. I think people are confusing a popularity contest with the facts that Amazon has clearly laid out on paper. Plus from Dallas you can get to Austin easily and still have access to the destination Austin has become for the California tech crowd.

[tamtagon]

Austin also has the retail kicker, Wholefoods, so there's that.

[Tucy]

Their indifference to Transit and underwhelming Urban Fabric

This is a rather unfair assertion that is further from the truth. Compared to east coast cities like New York and Philadelphia, Dallas is a very young city. The city itself is no more than 170 years old. It's an evolving city, and so is its mass transit system, which is still growing and expanding. But that takes time. It's false to claim they are indifferent to mass transit.

The fact that only 1.35% (and dropping) of workers in DFW use mass transit to get to work suggests that "indifferent" is not a false claim, except that it may be too generous.

Of the 20 largest metros in the country, only Riverside/San Bernadino CA and Tampa/St. Pete FL have lower transit usage.

[muncien]

I read an interesting article the other day that question the 'transit' requirement on the RFP altogether. The thought being... with shared rides, ride hailing, and autonomous vehicles, is traditional transit something even worth considering when building out an HQ ten years from now. Not totally sure I agree with that, but I do see where they are coming from.

[Tivo_Kenevil]

I read an interesting article the other day that question the 'transit' requirement on the RFP altogether. The thought being... with shared rides, ride hailing, and autonomous vehicles, is traditional transit something even worth considering when building out an HQ ten years from now. Not totally sure I agree with that, but I do see where they are coming from.

My understanding that Autonomous can reduce congestion, given that the demand remains constant. However, if our roads become less congested it's is expected that we see more vehicles on the road. Induced demand. And we're back to square 1.

I don't see traditional transit going away.

Here is a quote from a researcher Working on Autonomous Vehicles:

"I don't know the answer," he says. "If the road is less congested, more people are going to be attracted to that road, and so basically it will become congested because it's supply and demand."

If traffic does improve, more cars and trucks are likely to use the roads, and we could be back where we started.


http://www.npr.org/sections/alltechcons ... ke-a-while

But if you're Amazon, I think theyre not dismissing the value of having more mobility options; cities with traditional transit become more valuable if not many have transit.

[joshua.dodd]

Seattle, Portland, Minneapolis are equally as young and have better transit. So I disagree...They're indifferent to improving transit... 10 years to fix buses when cities equally as young can get it done overnight, is proof.

Do not forget the dynamic that most commuters who work in Downtown live in the suburbs of its outer rings. And consider the vast difference in land area when comparing these cities to Dallas. Minneapolis is a better comparison than Seattle and Portland, because it has a large metro of 7000 square miles compared to DFW's 9000 square miles of metro, which is mostly not connected to the transit system and is greatly spread. The vast overwhelming majority of commuters who work in downtown live outside the city. I do agree that mentioned cities run their transit better. Sure. But their rail systems are much more concentrated and much smaller than the DART system. Seattle's is only 21 miles of track. Portland's rail system only has 18 miles of rail and Minneapolis' has 40 miles of track. For Seattle and Portland, the concentration plays a large role in its efficiency. People live so close to the city center. That's not the case for Dallas. DART has over 93 miles of track which barely connects to Dallas' spread of suburbia, and this is the primary reason why most commuters in Dallas choose the freeway over transit. Sprawl and wide spread. That does not even include the TRE and DCTA tracks, and the DCTA ridership has had fair ridership numbers since its debut.

The system can definitely be run better. I do agree with that. But that's also the point behind the D2 project, to improve movement. DART most definitely needs to improve its bus service. Absolutely. But there are so many dynamics you're not considering here.

They're not interested transit they're interested in real estate speculation.

There is truth to this. But development has also spurred along the DART line as well. The Irving Convention Center area is booming. Just look at the Farmer's Branch office campus. It has definitely shown positive effect in that regard.

Dallas should be further along in it's transit than where it is...you, as a city, haven't shown the ability to implement effective, reliable bus routes in your city. That is a huge miss for Dallas.

Yes, you are right about the bus transit issue. I won't argue with that. However, I will say that the nation's largest system light rail system that connects DFW to Downtown, and also has the addition of DCTA and TRE commuter service, all in the span of 20 years, is doing a hell of a lot. Dallas is light years further than most.

[joshua.dodd]

Their indifference to Transit and underwhelming Urban Fabric

This is a rather unfair assertion that is further from the truth. Compared to east coast cities like New York and Philadelphia, Dallas is a very young city. The city itself is no more than 170 years old. It's an evolving city, and so is its mass transit system, which is still growing and expanding. But that takes time. It's false to claim they are indifferent to mass transit.

The fact that only 1.35% (and dropping) of workers in DFW use mass transit to get to work suggests that "indifferent" is not a false claim, except that it may be too generous.

Of the 20 largest metros in the country, only Riverside/San Bernadino CA and Tampa/St. Pete FL have lower transit usage.

Again, the dynamics are different. Dallas/San Bernadino and Tampa are not as concentrated as New York or Seattle, where workers live in a concentrated are in the city. The majority of workers in Dallas, unlike said cities, live in said sprawl. That makes for a mighty dynamic difference. Supply and demand is not going to be the same.

[Tucy]

This is a rather unfair assertion that is further from the truth. Compared to east coast cities like New York and Philadelphia, Dallas is a very young city. The city itself is no more than 170 years old. It's an evolving city, and so is its mass transit system, which is still growing and expanding. But that takes time. It's false to claim they are indifferent to mass transit.

The fact that only 1.35% (and dropping) of workers in DFW use mass transit to get to work suggests that "indifferent" is not a false claim, except that it may be too generous.

Of the 20 largest metros in the country, only Riverside/San Bernadino CA and Tampa/St. Pete FL have lower transit usage.

Again, the dynamics are different. Dallas/San Bernadino and Tampa are not as concentrated as New York or Seattle, where workers live in a concentrated are in the city. The majority of workers in Dallas, unlike said cities, live in said sprawl. That makes for a mighty dynamic difference. Supply and demand is not going to be the same.

Yes, but the top 20 metros also includes the likes of St. Louis, Denver, San Diego, Minneapolis, Phoenix, Atlanta, Miami, and Houston, all of which also have higher transit usage than DFW.

[Cbdallas]

If we put 150,000 more employees working out of downtown areabusinesses then DART would have very different numbers. It was built and planned as the hub being downtown with everyone filtering into to work there. The real question is why can't we get more large business to move downtown. Dallas may need to find better ways to incent that going forward if it is going to grow. We have done a great job of getting more people to live in the urban core and some business (uptown / Victory area) but it still isn't even close to being the type of density to make our rail lines packed on a daily basis. It is still too easy to live in Victory and get in your Audi to go to the West Village instead of using DART to do even that.

[ForumFollowsFunction]

It is still too easy to live in Victory and get in your Audi to go to the West Village instead of using DART to do even that.

As a person who lives near VP and regularly goes to West Village, I can tell you that taking the DART rail there makes no sense whatsoever. It's way easier to walk approximately the same distance to the streetcar, which has the added benefit of being free.

That being said, I think that focusing on expanding services like the streetcar make way more sense for increasing the appeal of transit in the urban core as opposed to trying to figure out a way to make the commuter rail serve a purpose that it was never built for.

In a city like Melbourne Australia, they have commuter rail that brings people in from the suburbs, but the transit that does the heavy lifting in the CBD is their tram system, which is the largest in the world.

[mdg109]

^True. I live near West Village by North Dallas HS, and I end up walking 45 min to get to Victory Park. Of course, this is only possible on the weekends when I have extra down time. What kind of wait times do cities like Melbourne have for their tram system? Waiting even 20 min for the trolley feels too long when I can just drive.

[PonyUp13]

Live in WV and go to VP reasonably often. If an Uber is 7 min and $5.50 why would I take 30 min to save $2.50 with DART?

I wish DART was something else, but it's for commuters to downtown and not much else.

[joshua.dodd]

The fact that only 1.35% (and dropping) of workers in DFW use mass transit to get to work suggests that "indifferent" is not a false claim, except that it may be too generous.

Of the 20 largest metros in the country, only Riverside/San Bernadino CA and Tampa/St. Pete FL have lower transit usage.

Again, the dynamics are different. Dallas/San Bernadino and Tampa are not as concentrated as New York or Seattle, where workers live in a concentrated are in the city. The majority of workers in Dallas, unlike said cities, live in said sprawl. That makes for a mighty dynamic difference. Supply and demand is not going to be the same.

Yes, but the top 20 metros also includes the likes of St. Louis, Denver, San Diego, Minneapolis, Phoenix, Atlanta, Miami, and Houston, all of which also have higher transit usage than DFW.

Again, their transit--and I am speaking in terms of light rail--is much more concentrated than Dallas' DART light rail system. That's what makes the big difference here.

San Diego does have a higher usage rate than Dallas at 38,068,600 annual ridership rate. So too does Portland at a 40,240,300 annual ridership rate. Dallas comes in at 29,619,500 annually. But that still ranks DART as number 6 in top ridership rates for light rail transit systems in the United States. Boston ranks number one, Los Angeles number 2, San Francisco number 3, Portland number 4 and San Diego at number 5. So with that considered, DART is still an invaluable system that DOES serve its purpose and functions very healthy light rail system.

[tamtagon]

Winning the competition for HQ2 will add an important block of support from the Usual Movers & Shakers (Dallas Citizens Council) to expedite the transformation of DART.

Losing the competition for HQ2 could do the same. Keeping the need (and cost benefit) of better mass transit in the face of municipal decision makers is critical.

[DPatel304]

Winning the competition for HQ2 will add an important block of support from the Usual Movers & Shakers (Dallas Citizens Council) to expedite the transformation of DART.

Losing the competition for HQ2 could do the same. Keeping the need (and cost benefit) of better mass transit in the face of municipal decision makers is critical.

This is how I see it as well. Whether we win or lose, it will have a positive impact on the city. We don't NEED amazon to succeed, we are doing a pretty damn good job so far, but, if they do choose somewhere else (which they most likely will), it will, hopefully, be an eye-opener for the city and make us realize what we are lacking.

[Tucy]

Again, the dynamics are different. Dallas/San Bernadino and Tampa are not as concentrated as New York or Seattle, where workers live in a concentrated are in the city. The majority of workers in Dallas, unlike said cities, live in said sprawl. That makes for a mighty dynamic difference. Supply and demand is not going to be the same.

Yes, but the top 20 metros also includes the likes of St. Louis, Denver, San Diego, Minneapolis, Phoenix, Atlanta, Miami, and Houston, all of which also have higher transit usage than DFW.

Again, their transit--and I am speaking in terms of light rail--is much more concentrated than Dallas' DART light rail system. That's what makes the big difference here.

San Diego does have a higher usage rate than Dallas at 38,068,600 annual ridership rate. So too does Portland at a 40,240,300 annual ridership rate. Dallas comes in at 29,619,500 annually. But that still ranks DART as number 6 in top ridership rates for light rail transit systems in the United States. Boston ranks number one, Los Angeles number 2, San Francisco number 3, Portland number 4 and San Diego at number 5. So with that considered, DART is still an invaluable system that DOES serve its purpose and functions very healthy light rail system.

That might be the problem... The conversation (and Amazon's rfp factor) was about transit and you are talking about light rail. Transit (and DART) consists of a lot more than just light rail. And even with that glorious, nation's-longest, light rail system, DFW has one of the very lowest transit usage rates of all major cities... Below Phoenix and comparable to Des Moines.

[Tivo_Kenevil]

Winning the competition for HQ2 will add an important block of support from the Usual Movers & Shakers (Dallas Citizens Council) to expedite the transformation of DART.

Losing the competition for HQ2 could do the same. Keeping the need (and cost benefit) of better mass transit in the face of municipal decision makers is critical.

No doubt.

[ForumFollowsFunction]

Interesting article from Seattle Times website that rejects Austin and Atlanta in favor of Dallas (and Denver)

https://www.seattletimes.com/business/e ... mazon-hq2/

[R1070]

Interesting and yes those things in Atlanta do hurt it. Plus where would they even build the Amazon buildings? Central Dallas has a lot of space to build and build and build.

[Tivo_Kenevil]

Study names New York No. 1 contender for Amazon HQ2, with San Francisco and Seattle close behind


"The study looked at data on public transportation, cost of living and doing business, quality of life amenities, the size of the tech workforce, access to higher education and tax policies to form its ranking. Based on the data, the top five were New York City, San Francisco, Washington D.C., Seattle and San Jose."

https://www.geekwire.com/2017/study-nam ... se-behind/


LOL if SF or NYC gets it. Amazon's presence will not transform these cities.

[muncien]

"The study looked at.... cost of living..."

Uh... Have you seen those results? I'm not so sure they did.... lol

FWIW... They have Chicago listed as Neutral on cost of living. Also, without knowing exactly what Amazon is looking for, all these studies pretty much weight each criteria how every they wish, and therefore ten different studies could easily come up with ten different results. Without knowing Amazon's criteria definitively, these exercises are all quite trivial.

[joshua.dodd]

Study names New York No. 1 contender for Amazon HQ2, with San Francisco and Seattle close behind


"The study looked at data on public transportation, cost of living and doing business, quality of life amenities, the size of the tech workforce, access to higher education and tax policies to form its ranking. Based on the data, the top five were New York City, San Francisco, Washington D.C., Seattle and San Jose."

https://www.geekwire.com/2017/study-nam ... se-behind/


LOL if SF or NYC gets it. Amazon's presence will not transform these cities.

Cost of living is outrageously high in New York and San Francisco. Not to mention California is one of the most unfriendly business states due to stringent over-regulations. Tax policies for both cities are also much higher than Dallas'. The only thing they have that Dallas doesn't is efficient public transportation and a large tech workforce pool.

[tanzoak]

It's funny to me when I head California described as not "business-friendly." Somehow 3 of the 4 largest companies in the world managed to be born there, 2 of which in the last 20 years. Plus, developing the center of innovation that presumably drives future growth. Sounds pretty business-friendly to me.

The most business-unfriendly regulations they have are all the ones preventing development, which drives up their rent and labor costs. Not that that's a minor thing (it's been what's been causing the relos we've seen), but on net CA seems pretty conducive to business. At least high-end businesses like Amazon, that is. Low-end and heavily-industrial businesses likely have a different experience.

[utgf]

Tivo_Kenevil wrote:
Study names New York No. 1 contender for Amazon HQ2, with San Francisco and Seattle close behind

My point of view from San Francisco: No Thanks. We are over capacity in all aspects already. Move along!

[tanzoak]

Tivo_Kenevil wrote:
Study names New York No. 1 contender for Amazon HQ2, with San Francisco and Seattle close behind

My point of view from San Francisco: No Thanks. We are over capacity in all aspects already. Move along!

Don't worry, they're not coming here. But it's a shame that our political situation is so disfunctional to create those capacity constraints. Upzone the western neighborhoods (and make it as of right)! Times 100 for Palo Alto and the peninsula. Send rail down Geary (not to mention a second tube). Sigh.