Passenger Trains > Does Amazon want rail to its HQ2 site?

Amazon has put out bid specs for a second HQ in "North America" and transportation is a significant item on their list. San Jose, one of the potential contenders, says it is not going to extend its existing services to one company, no matter how big. Other cities, like Atlanta, have significant properties close to rail, and close to a major airport. So does Toronto.

Mass transportation for its booming workforce (50,000 people at HQ2) is a page one item. Along with cold hard cash. GE got $150 million to move their HQ to Boston. An educated workforce is another element. Having a high quality computer tech school is a big deal, so Ann Arbor, Pittsburgh, Atlanta, San Jose, Austin, Boston make that notch. Brooklyn, San Francisco, Manhattan are too expensive for housing costs, which would also hammer Boston. Miami is a good choice for a link to South America, but workforce and lack of transportation could be a serious problem.

Some items may drop off if the other items are extremely attractive. Toronto avoids the nonsense of visa issues and restrictions on graduate students and professors, for example. Denver has an exceptional quality of life for young people, a vigorous high tech community, good rail transit, and plenty of land. The NY Times crunched the numbers, and saw Denver as the winner, edging out Atlanta and Austin, IIRC.

I thought there was some jabbering on the local news about Sacramento being in the running.

TJY

Locally here, Irvine, CA (Orange County) also had an announcement in the L A Times that they wanted to get it. No light rail, only pass-through Metrolink and Amtrak Surfliners.

icancmp193 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I thought there was some jabbering on the local
> news about Sacramento being in the running.
>
> TJY


Many cities are putting themselves in the running, even Trenton NJ did this week.

The big criteria seem to be a vibrant high tech culture, a metro of a million people, willingness to put a lot of money in the deal, place where young people want to come to work, urban-suburban walk friendly place with good mass transit. Flights to Seattle.

Lackawanna484 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> icancmp193 Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > I thought there was some jabbering on the local
> > news about Sacramento being in the running.
> >
> > TJY
>
>
> Many cities are putting themselves in the running,
> even Trenton NJ did this week.
>
> The big criteria seem to be a vibrant high tech
> culture, a metro of a million people, willingness
> to put a lot of money in the deal, place where
> young people want to come to work, urban-suburban
> walk friendly place with good mass transit.
> Flights to Seattle.

Isn't having a hot dating scene a factor?

Amazon workers won't have time for dating, based on what has been said about working there (office or warehouse.)

Posted from Android

I'd bet on Denver. I really enjoyed my time there, and it has what Amazon wants. A little pricey (and getting more Californiated all the time, but that probably doesn't matter), and probably more reasonable than the stratospheric cost of Seattle. Young techies like it there, too. I worked with them, many from elsewhere, and they loved it.

MC
Muskegon, Michigan

I read somewhere they wanted to be near a major port. Once certain cities get short-listed, it will come down to which will throw the most 'enhancements' at Amazon. Tax abatements, infrastructure, use of eminent domain if needed, etc. Whichever city gives the most gets HQ2. For example, yesterday the Wisconsin Senate approved $3 billion in cash payments to Chinese company Foxxcon to locate their flat screen production factory in the state. Amazon will be looking for the most they can wring out of a city to locate their HQ2. Time will tell if the Foxxcon deal raises the bar. As far as flights to Seattle, Alaska and Southwest will put on as many as needed. I'd bet on Irvine, CA



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 09/13/17 06:20 by PERichardson.

OK, my (utterly uninformed, but well-travelled) guesses:

1 Denver, for all the reasons already specified. If the site lacks rail transit, RTD is building stuff already, and will add whatever is necessary.

2 Toronto, again with the reasons spec'd out above. Immigration issues for foreign-born techies would be a big plus, I would think. Not sure about land availability, though, and Canada may still have quaint, antiquated labor laws that discourage working your employees to death without paying them. Either could be a deal killer.

I can't see Boston or anywhere in the NYC area meeting the open land needs. But I'll propose one, truly out there possibility.

Newburgh, NY maybe? Not the city itself, but open land to the south and west. Don't laugh, there's an up and coming airport (Stewart) nearby, a low density NJT commuter line (to Port Jervis) fairly close. Andrew Cuomo would probably run light rail over the Tappan Zee bridge (which was designed for it, and is already partially open for vehicles) if he thought it would seal the deal, improve access to Stewart, and thus improve his 2020 presidential prospects. As for the city of Newburgh itself, what appears to be a post industrial hell hole could also be looked at as an incredible reservoir of Civil War-era rowhouses, ripe for redevelopment by techies, kinda like Brooklyn was 20 years ago. The views of the River and the Hudson Highlands are gorgeous. The city government is dysfunctional and flat broke, and also resistant to gentrification, so they won't be playing a positive role in the decision. The burbs to the southwest might be a different story, though.

Mass transit   for  sure.

cutboy2 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Mass transit   for  sure.

Right. Maybe that is why they are also looking at Chicago?

march_hare Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> OK, my (utterly uninformed, but well-travelled)
> guesses:
>
> 1 Denver, for all the reasons already specified.
> If the site lacks rail transit, RTD is building
> stuff already, and will add whatever is
> necessary.
>
> 2 Toronto, again with the reasons spec'd out
> above. Immigration issues for foreign-born
> techies would be a big plus, I would think. Not
> sure about land availability, though, and Canada
> may still have quaint, antiquated labor laws that
> discourage working your employees to death without
> paying them. Either could be a deal killer.
>
> I can't see Boston or anywhere in the NYC area
> meeting the open land needs. But I'll propose
> one, truly out there possibility.

Philadelphia has the transit, open land, educated workforce, nice "scene", flight access, and willingness of PA to throw money at companies. I'm surprised no one is mentioning them. Continuing to place development in trendy growing areas like Denver, Atlanta, and Minneapolis is self-defeating if you want reasonable wages and development costs.

If they are thinking smaller scale for the city I'd keep an eye on Pittsburgh, Cleveland, and St. Louis as well. I also wouldn't count out Baltimore.

Philadelphia is indeed in the mix. It's been local news for a week or so about the attempt to attract.

Philly does have the space, the mass transit system, the port, the airport, the young techy population, multiple colleges to pull from and market jobs to and a very reasonable housing market, save for the immediate areas surrounding Center City which can be ridiculously over priced. It's proximity to NY, DC, Boston, etc., all make it a desirable area with less pricey land suitable for development.

I won't hold my breath, as Philly can be seen as the evil step child way too often, but it would be an awesome boon for the City.

Posted from Android

Many cities / regions have been beating the drum for their candidacy. Part of that may be to build enough enthusiasm for appropriating a few hundred million in incentives. Not unlike the need to build an even more lavish stadium or airport while the school system falls apart.

Several of the cities in the current round have enormous issues with school quality, infrastructure, crime, mass transportation, etc. It will be interesting to see how many make it into the serious consideration round.

(FWIW, I'd love to see Pittsburgh restore some of its light rail / trolley lines to boost its role as a serious contender in a final round of four or eight.)

Today's Post Gazette says the bill to bring Amazon to Pittsburgh could be a billion dollars.

Sounds like Boston got a bargain bringing GE for 15% of that.

Posted from Android

Lackawanna484 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
>
> (FWIW, I'd love to see Pittsburgh restore some of
> its light rail / trolley lines to boost its role
> as a serious contender in a final round of four or
> eight.)

I'd be interested to know where you think Pittsburgh would get the money for that. Right now, the Pennsylvania legislature is seriously considering a measure which would drastically cut funding for the state's transit systems.

inCHI Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Amazon workers won't have time for dating, based
> on what has been said about working there (office
> or warehouse.)
>
> Posted from Android

People can search the Internet. Never thought Karo-shi (dying from working too much) would happen in the U.S., but an Amazon warehouse guy did just that - happened in 2013.

If people know what Amazon's fastest growing business segment is, then Denver starts to make sense in terms of getting expertise in that field almost immediately. If NY Times is concluding Denver to be the winner, but hasn't stated the specific reason that I'm not disclosing (yet), then they are trying to "cheat" and trying to make themselves look like "successful" soothsayers. Typical financial media tactic.

Availability of young tech workers in the immediate area is secondary - they can always move to the second HQ after graduating college, or whatever - famous companies don't need to worry about moving to the workers. Amazon does need managers (who already have that expertise) to hire the right people, and I suspect most managers already have established a home (and a family) so they prefer not to move away from, say, Longmont.

Figure I offer a different perspective to the discussion, in addition to the transit-friendliness.

RuleG Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Lackawanna484 Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> >
> > (FWIW, I'd love to see Pittsburgh restore some
> of
> > its light rail / trolley lines to boost its
> role
> > as a serious contender in a final round of four
> or
> > eight.)
>
> I'd be interested to know where you think
> Pittsburgh would get the money for that. Right
> now, the Pennsylvania legislature is seriously
> considering a measure which would drastically cut
> funding for the state's transit systems.

Yesterday's PG has a write up on the excitement. I'm sure many of the other cities are seeing the same.

Posted from Android

Sacramento would not meet any of that criteria. My money is on Denver.

SanDiegan Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Sacramento would not meet any of that criteria. My
> money is on Denver.

But if the idea is to get geographic diversity and proximity to more of the US/Canada population, it would make no sense.