Amazon HQ2

[ToryGattis]

New thought this morning: Amazon's rejection of Houston for HQ2 could have been as simple as bad PR optics: it just looks bad to squeeze a city for big incentives that just went through one of the most expensive natural disasters in history.  They probably imagined future nightmare stories in the media: "well, we would have spent all this money on new flood control infrastructure, but we had to give it to Amazon instead."

[BeerNut]

11 minutes ago, ToryGattis said:

I'm guessing they figured they'd build what they could (ridership be damned) and just keep pointing to the network hole hoping to get another round of funding and authorization to build it.

 

Were there any time limits on funding or validity of environmental studies that 'forced' them to build the Green and Purple lines?

[ToryGattis]

2 minutes ago, BeerNut said:

 

Were there any time limits on funding or validity of environmental studies that 'forced' them to build the Green and Purple lines?

 

Possibly. They had money, voter authorization, and contractors itching to build.  I understand why they did it.  And I suppose it's possible at the time they genuinely thought they'd have enough money to finish everything eventually (the cost overruns killed that fantasy).  But all logic would argue when you have limited resources, you should build your lines in order from highest to lowest projected ridership (the original Red line was the perfect first-route choice).  Can you imagine if 70 years ago TXDoT had said "we know everybody wants a freeway to Galveston from Houston, but that's got a few problems to overcome, so we're going to just go ahead and build 59 or 288 out to some sugar and rice paddies instead and circle back to 45S in a decade or two"?!

[HOUTEX]

Nm

[IronTiger]

 

12 hours ago, BeerNut said:

 

So the University line(or equivalent) is the only one we should consider building.  University line ridership would have been a more compelling argument for future rail than green and purple.

 

I'm sure I've heard the argument on this very website that the green and purple lines (along with the red line extension) were supposed to make the light rail really cook, and now it will be the University line that needs to be built. And if that's anything less than a massive success, when is the answer NOT "we need to build more rail"?

 

 

3 hours ago, ToryGattis said:

As far as myself, I've always argued *METRO* (not opponents) made a massive error of judgment when the used limited resources to build the green and purple lines when they should have prioritized the much more useful University line.  But when Culberson blocked them, I'm guessing they figured they'd build what they could (ridership be damned) and just keep pointing to the network hole hoping to get another round of funding and authorization to build it.

 

Possibly. They had money, voter authorization, and contractors itching to build.  I understand why they did it.  And I suppose it's possible at the time they genuinely thought they'd have enough money to finish everything eventually (the cost overruns killed that fantasy).  But all logic would argue when you have limited resources, you should build your lines in order from highest to lowest projected ridership (the original Red line was the perfect first-route choice).  Can you imagine if 70 years ago TXDoT had said "we know everybody wants a freeway to Galveston from Houston, but that's got a few problems to overcome, so we're going to just go ahead and build 59 or 288 out to some sugar and rice paddies instead and circle back to 45S in a decade or two"?!

 

That's the funny thing--if I recall correctly, all Culberson did was block federal funding for the University Line, not actually block it itself (arguably, Culberson deserves some credit for actually fighting for his Afton Oaks-area constituents, a rare but admirable trait for a politician). It was METRO's choice not to build it. From the maps I've seen, it would've required them to clear out a small strip center and build over 59, so it's probably one of the more expensive routes to build, but if it was really pressing transit-wise (debatable) then METRO should've pushed for it, and that's on them. 

[HOUTEX]

To say that any one length of line is going to make it work is simply unrealistic. A transit system, just as any transportation network, is only as good as the number of places it goes. The best scenario for Houston’s light rail would be to form a loop (i.e. more than one line) between Downtown and the Galleria, using Richmond and either Washington or I-10 as the northern stretch. 

 

You would connect the the two major employment center, high speed rail station and inner loop suburbs where it would actually be feasible to walk or bike to a rail station to get to work. 

[102IAHexpress]

More rail is a lose lose proposition in Houston. Even if you build out rail to the extent DFW has, it will only be used by a fraction of the population, cost billions of dollars and probably increase overall traffic congestion because of it sharing the street with cars. Secondly, if your hope is improving Houston's national image (assuming you think more rail = better national image) then that will not change any either with light rail. The national media will still view Houston as a concrete jungle. Heavy rail cities consider light rail in a totally lower league.

 

If we must throw away billions, then lets at least build a 20th century transportation system like maglev. Problem number one will remain unsolved, however, at least the image of public transportation in Houston will make some national headlines. Maglev triangle route with three stations; downtown, med center, galleria. Or even more national media attention can be acquired via a 21st century technology like a hpyerloop. But just more light rail will fail to serve the needs of the population and still won't improve or public transportation image, nationally. 

[Timoric]

-

[htownbro]

On 1/22/2018 at 0:56 PM, ToryGattis said:

 

But can you name any substantial companies that have relocated to either LA or NYC? (LA has almost no F500 HQs) Chicago has had some wins lately, but mostly executive HQ's for companies located in smaller towns in the Midwest (i.e. I feel like Chicago is the "winner" of the Midwest and consolidating HQs there into a regional capital, but they do seem more domestic in orientation rather than global, with the exception of Boeing). 

 

Houston has Dallas beat for global city, but you're right we're dependent on the energy industry for that, with stronger ups and downs than diversified Dallas.  I think Texas can support two global cities long-term, just as CA supports both LA and SF.  They have different niches.

 

Houston has medical field as well so doesn't that make it a global city.

[Mr.Clean19]

http://abc13.com/politics/documents-reveal-what-was-in-houstons-failed-amazon-bid/2988726/

 

Turner suggested future bids be controlled and run from city hall instead of other organizations, like the Houston Greater Partnership.

"Too many parts are controlling the whole," Turner said. "What has happened for too long and too many years is we have deferred. That time is no more."

Turner said he was forming a task force to figure out what went wrong and how to improve in the future.

[ToryGattis]

5 hours ago, htownbro said:

 

Houston has medical field as well so doesn't that make it a global city.

 

Well, most medical tends to be local, but we do have such highly reputable specialties that people come from all over the world - cancer treatment at MD Anderson, for example.

 

My thought has always been that the US only has 7 truly global cities: NYC, LA, SF, DC, Chicago, Miami, and Houston.  United's most recent investor presentation backs it up - see the chart on page 11, 12th slide in the pdf.

[dixiedean]

Pretty impressive for IAH to be in the same league as ORD, with only one airline rather than two.

[KinkaidAlum]

On 1/25/2018 at 4:11 PM, ToryGattis said:

 

Sorry, but ad hominem attacks on the arguer is a sign you know you can't win on the facts or logic.  Keep it respectful and argue on the merits, not personal attacks.

 

As far as myself, I've always argued *METRO* (not opponents) made a massive error of judgment when the used limited resources to build the green and purple lines when they should have prioritized the much more useful University line.  But when Culberson blocked them, I'm guessing they figured they'd build what they could (ridership be damned) and just keep pointing to the network hole hoping to get another round of funding and authorization to build it.

 

It isn't an ad hominem attack when it is true. Just like with Kotkin. Follow the money.

 

As for your second paragraph, nonsense. They built it because it was approved and had the funding. Culberson's crusade has cost tax payers millions. It's one of the reasons TX 7 might flip despite gerrymandering. 

[102IAHexpress]

From the abc 13 article:

 

The proposed sites were the former Humble Oil Building downtown, the Sears building at Wheeler Station, and property in East End, in addition to less specific other options.

http://abc13.com/politics/documents-reveal-what-was-in-houstons-failed-amazon-bid/2988726/

 

So most of the proposed Houston sites were on the light rail, and Amazon flat out rejected it. How many millions in tax revenue due to lost business and lost opportunities, has the stupid light rail cost Houston tax payers?

[Vy65]

In other discussions about media coverage of Houston's chances, chief development officer Andy Icken lamented the idea of using space around NRG Stadium, calling the area "a wasteland" and too far from urban areas.

Turner weighed in from time to time, suggesting that the city needed to include more areas around town, including the former KBR site in the East End, 300 acres owned by the University of Texas, near the Port of Houston, Sharpstown and Greenspoint Mall areas. For incentives, he asked about "unique and special" offers that could be made by the airport, Metro or Houston First that would "go beyond tax incentives."

 

COH personnel weren't even on the same page ... 

[IronTiger]

3 hours ago, KinkaidAlum said:

 

It isn't an ad hominem attack when it is true. Just like with Kotkin. Follow the money.

 

 

Just because someone has a different opinion than you doesn’t mean they were paid to do so. It’s like the accusation that there’s funding for people to get paid while posting negative things about President Trump, but even if that’s true (we’re not here to argue that) does that mean that every negative comment on the Internet about Trump is because someone paid to do? Of course not. I’ve noticed your opinions about Trump on this website, were you paid to write them? If yes, I don’t think TxDOT or a shadowy but well-funded anti-transit "think tank" has people paid to say negative things about mass transit, and if not (the most likely answer though I can never tell for sure), then he's probably not paid by anyone either.

[KinkaidAlum]

On 1/25/2018 at 4:42 PM, ToryGattis said:

 

Possibly. They had money, voter authorization, and contractors itching to build.  I understand why they did it.  And I suppose it's possible at the time they genuinely thought they'd have enough money to finish everything eventually (the cost overruns killed that fantasy).  But all logic would argue when you have limited resources, you should build your lines in order from highest to lowest projected ridership (the original Red line was the perfect first-route choice).  Can you imagine if 70 years ago TXDoT had said "we know everybody wants a freeway to Galveston from Houston, but that's got a few problems to overcome, so we're going to just go ahead and build 59 or 288 out to some sugar and rice paddies instead and circle back to 45S in a decade or two"?!

 

Could you imagine if 70 years ago a local Houston area politician wrote a rider into a bill to specifically block federal funds for building interstates in Harris/Galveston Counties but allowing that money to go to DFW, Portland, St Louis, etc...?

 

Funny that you left out that part of the story. But, typical for you. 

[ToryGattis]

3 minutes ago, KinkaidAlum said:

 

Could you imagine if 70 years ago a local Houston area politician wrote a rider into a bill to specifically block federal funds for building interstates in Harris/Galveston Counties but allowing that money to go to DFW, Portland, St Louis, etc...?

 

Funny that you left out that part of the story. But, typical for you. 

 

Again, the ad hominem is unnecessary.  Culberson is an elected rep, and did what he thought his constituents wanted, which was block that line. You may disagree, but that is what elected reps are supposed to do.  If constituents didn't want a freeway built or expanded, I would fully expect them to lobby their reps to block it.

[IronTiger]

9 minutes ago, KinkaidAlum said:

 

Could you imagine if 70 years ago a local Houston area politician wrote a rider into a bill to specifically block federal funds for building interstates in Harris/Galveston Counties but allowing that money to go to DFW, Portland, St Louis, etc...?

Comparing freeways to trains is a false equivalence, and even there was a equivalent, it would probably be to block, say, South Freeway from being built with federal funds (it was the last of the Houston freeways to be built). And even that's not entirely true, because Culberson didn't want rail going on Richmond and I think he even said something about being okay with METRO continuing to develop the light rail parallel to Westpark Tollway. But, METRO wanted Richmond because of better access and (projected) ridership numbers.

 

[JJxvi]

On 1/26/2018 at 9:27 PM, IronTiger said:

Comparing freeways to trains is a false equivalence, and even there was a equivalent, it would probably be to block, say, South Freeway from being built with federal funds (it was the last of the Houston freeways to be built). And even that's not entirely true, because Culberson didn't want rail going on Richmond and I think he even said something about being okay with METRO continuing to develop the light rail parallel to Westpark Tollway. But, METRO wanted Richmond because of better access and (projected) ridership numbers.

 

 

Except the route WAS on Westpark.  It was a line (one of an expansion of 6 that we voted yes to build, btw and it was always the most critical, your post earlier about people supposedly championing the green and purple lines is not true, this board had a thread with I dunno maybe thousands of posts about the University line over a span of years) from Wheeler Station to Westpark Transit center.

 

Now, I'm assuming you know...but if you don't Wheeler station is at Main St and RICHMOND.  Westpark DOES NOT EXIST at Main St and only begins at Kirby Dr.  Saying that Culberson was ok with it being on Westpark is meaningless. Culberson knows that it was going to be on Richmond for at least the 3 miles between Main and Kirby.  Beyond Kirby (as you mention above) the line did switch to Westpark in the final alignment.  Culberson absolutely worked to kill a project we all voted on, mainly to the benefit of Afton Oaks residents who werent even on the final line, and were irrelevant to the line anyway.

 

[IronTiger]

On 3/7/2018 at 11:04 AM, JJxvi said:

 

Except the route WAS on Westpark.  It was a line (one of an expansion of 6 that we voted yes to build, btw and it was always the most critical, your post earlier about people supposedly championing the green and purple lines is not true, this board had a thread with I dunno maybe thousands of posts about the University line over a span of years) from Wheeler Station to Westpark Transit center.

 

Now, I'm assuming you know...but if you don't Wheeler station is at Main St and RICHMOND.  Westpark DOES NOT EXIST at Main St and only begins at Kirby Dr.  Saying that Culberson was ok with it being on Westpark is meaningless. Culberson knows that it was going to be on Richmond for at least the 3 miles between Main and Kirby.  Beyond Kirby (as you mention above) the line did switch to Westpark in the final alignment.  Culberson absolutely worked to kill a project we all voted on, mainly to the benefit of Afton Oaks residents who werent even on the final line, and were irrelevant to the line anyway.

 

The "Westpark line" (which is often used to describe a former railroad ROW as it existed from downtown to Eagle Lake) is unusable east of Shepherd (the last customer on the line after much of the line was cut for US-59) short of a cap project for I-69 and putting the rail over it, which would be one of the most expensive options. However, the line crosses US-59 at Cummins, about a 1 and 2/3 miles of where the line COULD go in theory. However, the rail going down Cummins means it will have to go over the 300-feet wide US-59 entirely, and demolish the strip center at the other end, so including elevation points we're talking maybe a 1,700 feet bridge, which is absolutely the most expensive part of the line and probably why METRO has been dragging their feet on it. If the rail turned off at Shepherd/Greenbriar and split so it could use that right of way and go underneath ready-built bridges it would save a ton of money in building and demolition, and then traditional railroad crossings are added down to Westpark Drive, just as the railroad did prior to 2001, including an awkward crossing at Westpark and Edloe.

 

The big problem with that is that Greenway Plaza is now cut out of the plan, it really hurts the potential ridership of having that on the line (even if the convenience of having Kroger right on the line is added). It should also be noted that the 2003 referendum which I presume put the plans for the University Line to begin with was not on Richmond, specifically named the "Westpark Line" and paralleling US-59. You could argue that the Westpark right of way was a tentative plan (it was) but to claim that the plan sold to voters in 2003 was Richmond is false.

https://www.ridemetro.org/METROPDFs/AboutMETRO/Referendum/2003-Referendum.pdf

[Highrise Tower]

Off topic. Apple just hit a trillion dollar market cap but Amazon is still the most valuable company? 

 

Forbes is indicating Amazon has more “Enterprise Value” rather than cash on hand that Apple has. 

 

https://www.forbes.com/sites/alapshah/2018/08/02/apple-hits-1-trillion-but-its-still-not-the-most-valuable-company-in-the-world/#6a5f50dd2175

[LBC2HTX]

50 minutes ago, ekdrm2d1 said:

Off topic. Apple just hit a trillion dollar market cap but Amazon is still the most valuable company? 

 

Forbes is indicating Amazon has more “Enterprise Value” rather than cash on hand that Apple has. 

 

https://www.forbes.com/sites/alapshah/2018/08/02/apple-hits-1-trillion-but-its-still-not-the-most-valuable-company-in-the-world/#6a5f50dd2175

Enterprise Value is a function of market cap,  company debt and cash.

Enterprise Value  = market value of common stock + market value of preferred equity + market value of debt + minority interest - cash and investments.

The trillion dollar market cap is just input of Enterprise Value. 

 

[Mr.Clean19]

On 1/26/2018 at 11:39 AM, Mr.Clean19 said:

http://abc13.com/politics/documents-reveal-what-was-in-houstons-failed-amazon-bid/2988726/

 

Turner suggested future bids be controlled and run from city hall instead of other organizations, like the Houston Greater Partnership.

"Too many parts are controlling the whole," Turner said. "What has happened for too long and too many years is we have deferred. That time is no more."

Turner said he was forming a task force to figure out what went wrong and how to improve in the future.

Did this ever go anywhere? Or was it all hot air?

[H-Town Man]

nm

 

[Highrise Tower]

How easy would it be to transfer Amazon stock? Could it be transferred between the two parties at a local bank branch?

 

Mom wants me to feel included and is willing to give me a single share. Seems everyone except me has stock. My brother receives stock instead of salary increases when he gets a raise.

[UtterlyUrban]

13 hours ago, ekdrm2d1 said:

How easy would it be to transfer Amazon stock? Could it be transferred between the two parties at a local bank branch?

 

Mom wants me to feel included and is willing to give me a single share. Seems everyone except me has stock. My brother receives stock instead of salary increases when he gets a raise.

https://www.investopedia.com/ask/answers/07/giftofstock.asp

 

 

[harementire]

That would be a great idea.

[BeerNut]

Looks like this has been decided...  https://www.businessinsider.com/amazon-northern-virginia-second-headquarters-2018-11

[102IAHexpress]

If we would have known Amazon wanted split cities for HQ2 from the beginning, does anyone think a split Houston/Dallas HQ2 could have met the tech talent demand? Or still probably not enough available tech talent between the two?