Those restrictions are broken, circumvented, and worked around on a fairly regular basis. Fort Worth spent the last 2 decades giving tax incentives for everything. Even bad developments. They found a way to give Cabelas tax breaks.
Amazon in search of 2nd headquarters
#202
Posted 06 October 2017 - 10:13 PM
It is angle that is being overlooked.
It is also seem that it does not bother some that incentives are given out so casually or that practice would be liked.
This is not your run of the mill, routine case. Incentives still must have some fundamental attachment to the Public Good; and the case that a private landholder, which is what many of the propose sites are, can make the case that selecting their particular site is in the Public Good may be something that you sloth off, but it is a matter of law. If your site is a skyscraper, how do you demonstrate that it is in the Public Good to get publicly funded incentives.
A lot of attention has been given to transit, workforce, but greater attention should be given to incentives. Incentives are going to be a real sticking point; who gets them, why and how will be anything but a routine matter. The Amazon Project will be three dimensional.
In the sweepstakes for Amazon, Panther Island should have a leg up because it is a less controversial and far less complicated choice for a company like Amazon who must decide first whether a private landholder can or will receive publicly funded incentives or whether a site like Panther Island/TRVA that already has public backing is the better choice.
Publicly owned sites have a built in advantage because there is no question about the availability of incentives.
I'm for Panther Island whose stated purpose is the Public Good. I'm not for private developers who have no obligation at all to the Public Good and instead have an obligation to making a profit and are hoping for public incentives to do so.
I'm for Panther Island first but support sites like it. No apology coming.
- JBB likes this
#203
Posted 06 October 2017 - 10:21 PM
Yeah, it's a matter of law that's ignored regularly. I've never heard of a local case of tax incentives being challenged on a legal basis. I doubt it happens with Amazon in any location.
I'm for Panther Island too (who's asking you to apologize for being a Panther Island cheerleader) and I agree that incentives are the difference maker since no one location is likely to be a perfect fit to all of the requirements.
- renamerusk likes this
#204
Posted 06 October 2017 - 10:48 PM
Public incentives always come with stipulations; that is how they are challenged. When an agreement is made to satisfy those stipulations, then the incentives are granted.
If a mall wants a tenant in its private mall, it does not seek or should it have means to public funds. If Sundance Square or Hillwood wants a tenant, Amazon, they should not seeking public funds; they should provide all of the incentives from their own resources or borrowing them.
Yeah, I'm a cheerleader for Fort Worth and Panther Island; but I am also a cheerleader for the taxpayer when it comes to corporate welfare and it being given out without any assurance that it will be in the Public Good.
None of privately held sites meet the qualifications to receive the incentives that they would seek and that Amazon expects; and these privately held sites have no guarantee that they will receive public incentives given that they do not exist for the Public Good. On the other hand, Fair Park/Dallas; Texas Stadium Site/Irving; and Panther Island/Fort Worth do have a guarantee as they exists for the Public Good or they exist as a result of prior public investments. The battle becomes one between publicly owned sites v. privately held sites.
JBB, your points are valid. I simply believe that the Amazon Project is like nothing that has come before and requires pointing out every advantage that Fort Worth has to sway Amazon to locate here.
"Incentives in hand are better than incentives in the bush".
#205
Posted 07 October 2017 - 08:35 AM
Panther Island is a strong candidate, but I'm more drawn to PI's heavily residential potential should Amazon move to town by the train stations and convention center. As the catalyst, HQ2 flanking the I-30 side of downtown would kick-off a dramatic residential growth along 7th-Lancaster to the Cultural District and Panther Island.
- renamerusk and rriojas71 like this
#206
Posted 07 October 2017 - 09:36 AM
Panther Island is a strong candidate, but I'm more drawn to PI's heavily residential potential should Amazon move to town by the train stations and convention center. As the catalyst, HQ2 flanking the I-30 side of downtown would kick-off a dramatic residential growth along 7th-Lancaster to the Cultural District and Panther Island.
How likely is it that Amazon will want to acquire land and all that that entails from a patchwork of private landowners? I think that Amazon will prefer a shovel ready site of 200+ acres that is already in the hands of one group.
Where ever Amazon decides to locate its 2HQ, there will be a catalyst throughout that tow; and for train stations and convention centers will benefit regardless.
- tamtagon likes this
#207
Posted 07 October 2017 - 11:02 AM
Anything is likely at this point in the game. Getting to Round 2 is all that matters right now.
I think Amazon could appreciate, even relish, the creativity that comes through a 10 year expansion of "city building" the HQ2 campus within the existing bones a town like Fort Worth.
...and if you're gonna spend $5 billion, building through the urban fabric versus building a self-contained campus spread might carry less than tertiary concern; a patchwork bidding process might even same money.
Trains to the airport (non-stop or not) as well as commuter trains to Irving and Dallas and SSW Fort Worth (?) add strengthen, but this bid picks up speed should The Cotton Belt to extend the reach of DTFW all the way to UTD.
- renamerusk and Austin55 like this
#208
Posted 07 October 2017 - 12:08 PM
I agree with the urgency to get to the Round 2.
I don't think that you can get to Round 2 when you don't have a firm site with ownership of the site in hand. The time it will take to bundle patches of land together or the possibility that ultimately you can not bundle the necessary space that Amazon is seeking will almost assuredly mean that your bid will not be competitive. I
I am hearing about a lot of pie in the sky scenarios based largely on "if and should" but it is in the best interest of Fort Worth, Dallas and Irving that they each submit their least complicated and most ready to go site for consideration. If sites like that near the ITC was available, you think that you would be hearing from its owner. Trains to the airport, commuter rail to suburbs and outlying neighborhoods is not what I take from the Amazon RFP. Instead, it is looking for a urban/downtownish site which is by the way its Seattle site is today. Think, if Amazon wanted a suburb or non-downtown location, it would simply move to the suburbs of Seattle. Downtown Fort Worth does not have large blocks of single ownership land available; and if it does, it is difficult to get. The years that it took Sundance Square to get the land that it needed to build the plaza should be instructive.
Amazon plans to invest $5B. It has almost certainly selected in own development and design team. Amazon can build a 100 story tower or it can build a campus. It seems like it has chosen to build itself a campus. It needs the room to do so; and it needs that room to be available now and without going through the long and painstaking process of purchasing bits of land from dozens of title holders.
Panther Island alone stands out as that room which has clear ownership and is ready today and does not require a ten year bundling process. It is less than 5 minutes travel time from it to ITC. It is also reasonable to either walk or bike to the ITC from P.I.
#209
Posted 08 October 2017 - 09:54 AM
How much un/under-developed land is Bass still holding onto in downtown? Is Panther Island the only CBD-ish acreage coming close to the RFP real estate "in general" parameter?
A million ways to approach the RFP, and the strong regional umbrella of possibilities sure seems like good way to place all corners of North Texas in the presumable quarter finals.... just like the half dozen peer metros will use.
As the process rolls on, North Texas siblings will have the opportunity to tweak each other, putting out the best. Getting out of the Sweet 16 will require creativity from Fort Worth, it's the Cinderella team, the dark horse. I think the Panther Island tabula rosa will need some sort of boost from within downtown... somehow.
- renamerusk likes this
#210
Posted 08 October 2017 - 10:18 PM
How much un/under-developed land is Bass still holding onto in downtown? Is Panther Island the only CBD-ish acreage coming close to the RFP real estate "in general" parameter?
A million ways to approach the RFP, and the strong regional umbrella of possibilities sure seems like good way to place all corners of North Texas in the presumable quarter finals.... just like the half dozen peer metros will use.
As the process rolls on, North Texas siblings will have the opportunity to tweak each other, putting out the best. Getting out of the Sweet 16 will require creativity from Fort Worth, it's the Cinderella team, the dark horse. I think the Panther Island tabula rosa will need some sort of boost from within downtown... somehow.
The exact amount of Bass' holding in Downtown is unknown by me; but outsiders tend to think that Bass is all there is about Downtown and Fort Worth. Like in Dallas, Downtown consists of blocks where ownership is held by individuals not associated with anyone but themselves. Besides, I don't believe that Sundance or Developers like it can make a winning argument for public incentives using the Public Good as their reasoning.
Yes. Panther Island is not only the CBD-ish acreage coming close to the RFP; it is the only acreage coming close to the RFP in North Texas and also which is under single ownership/control. It is qualitatively different from any other site in the region.
These features, size and ownership, makes it a favorite in the sweepstakes if you are handicapping.
#211
Posted 08 October 2017 - 10:37 PM
I believe the Bass Family owns several contiguous blocks on the northeast side of downtown. I can count at least 10 blocks, but I'm not sure how many they own.
- renamerusk likes this
#212
Posted 08 October 2017 - 10:46 PM
I believe the Bass Family owns several contiguous blocks on the northeast side of downtown. I can count at least 10 blocks, but I'm not sure how many they own.
Given that that is true, how does the Bass Family make a convincing argument that their potential windfall is in the Public Good? Wouldn't BF have to forego the public funded incentives to avoid the appearance of self aggrandizing? As a principal matter, all privately held developers will have face around of public scrutiny.
I have dropped in on several other metro areas take on the Amazon Project. It has been revalatory.
Editorial pieces are urging against several big league cities to not make a bid. There is too much cost to the taxpayer. There is too much growth to manage. There is too much infighting among neighbors. Some cities believe that they are actually doing fairly well without Amazon. It is a growing backlash against a company that is asking so much and pitting developers against developers while placing a city's leadership in the middle of the fight.
#213
Posted 09 October 2017 - 09:35 AM
https://www.bizjourn...ts-to-lure.html
The Walsh developers need to just sit down and be quiet. Fort Worth already has an up hill battle going...the last thing we need to spend energy on is a location another 15 miles further from EVERYTHING Amazon is asking for, and with even less of the things that we're already challenged on (ie mass transit). It's a bedroom community in the making and that's the opposite of what Amazon will be looking for
- RD Milhollin and renamerusk like this
#214
Posted 09 October 2017 - 09:56 AM
The Walsh developers need to just sit down and be quiet.....It's a bedroom community in the making and that's the opposite of what Amazon will be looking for
Agree. The City is being disingenous accepting bids from private developers like Walsh knowing that these bidders will find it impossible to demonstrate a Public Good which will necessary to qualify for publicly funded incentives.
The assumption is that the City is just acting in a way as to not ruffle these guys feathers.
#215
Posted 09 October 2017 - 12:43 PM
https://www.bizjourn...ts-to-lure.html
The Walsh developers need to just sit down and be quiet. Fort Worth already has an up hill battle going...the last thing we need to spend energy on is a location another 15 miles further from EVERYTHING Amazon is asking for, and with even less of the things that we're already challenged on (ie mass transit). It's a bedroom community in the making and that's the opposite of what Amazon will be looking for
This same reporter Candace Carlisle. Who wrote this story. Also wrote. Texas Rangers, Dallas Cowboys could allure Amazon HQ2 to Arlington. McKinney making its move for Amazon second Headquarters. Lewisville looks to lure HQ2 with two development sites. UT-Dallas tech centric vision makes room for Amazon HQ2 campus. Higher education hub in Denton being pitched for Amazon HQ2. And don't forget Frisco's cheesy video pitch.
This is getting ridiculous. I am a big fan of Amazon HQ2 moving to Fort Worth. But what some cities are saying that makes them think they have the upper hand is Crazy. Collin County has no major University yet they landed big corporations. Rangers and the Cowboys in Arlington makes them alluring ? I don't think I want to follow the logic on that one ? I can't wait till October 19th and this media circus is over. And in the hands of Amazon to decide.
- RD Milhollin and renamerusk like this
#217
Posted 09 October 2017 - 02:09 PM
I'd really only want HQ2 in downtown Fort Worth or Dallas; Las Colinas is a possibility, too, but would be my third choice. While the phenomenal employment growth in Collin County certainly makes a prideful North Texas booster like me gleeful, I do think it's time in North Texas for a majority of office employment growth to concentrate and centralize in town, rather than continue to expand the edge.
I've cottoned to the notion of downtown Fort Worth growing as a recreational destination rather than employment.
- renamerusk likes this
#218
Posted 09 October 2017 - 06:40 PM
I'd really only want HQ2 in downtown Fort Worth or Dallas; Las Colinas is a possibility, too, but would be my third choice. While the phenomenal employment growth in Collin County certainly makes a prideful North Texas booster like me gleeful, I do think it's time in North Texas for a majority of office employment growth to concentrate and centralize in town, rather than continue to expand the edge.
I've cottoned to the notion of downtown Fort Worth growing as a recreational destination rather than employment.
Agree.
The edges have had an edge too long.
I think the market has all but spoken about downtown employment tipping in favor of Downtown Dallas and its immediate environs. Downtown Fort Worth, sans Amazon, has a much brighter future as a tourist/hospitality/residential and convention destination which can be just as vibrant as a 9-5 cycle of employment.
#219
Posted 09 October 2017 - 10:30 PM
https://www.bizjourn...ts-to-lure.html
The Walsh developers need to just sit down and be quiet. Fort Worth already has an up hill battle going...the last thing we need to spend energy on is a location another 15 miles further from EVERYTHING Amazon is asking for, and with even less of the things that we're already challenged on (ie mass transit). It's a bedroom community in the making and that's the opposite of what Amazon will be looking for
This same reporter Candace Carlisle. Who wrote this story. Also wrote. Texas Rangers, Dallas Cowboys could allure Amazon HQ2 to Arlington. McKinney making its move for Amazon second Headquarters. Lewisville looks to lure HQ2 with two development sites. UT-Dallas tech centric vision makes room for Amazon HQ2 campus. Higher education hub in Denton being pitched for Amazon HQ2. And don't forget Frisco's cheesy video pitch.
This is getting ridiculous. I am a big fan of Amazon HQ2 moving to Fort Worth. But what some cities are saying that makes them think they have the upper hand is Crazy. Collin County has no major University yet they landed big corporations. Rangers and the Cowboys in Arlington makes them alluring ? I don't think I want to follow the logic on that one ? I can't wait till October 19th and this media circus is over. And in the hands of Amazon to decide.
NID... I read those other articles as well and I just had to laugh. It was also a head scratcher from places like McKinney, Lewisville & especially the area in Arlington.
Did these cities not read Amazon’s wishlist? Amazon stressed an urban environment, mass transit and a area with a variety of activities for it’s employees... None of which any of them can offer. McKinney is cute but far from Urban and it lacks in any sort of cultural things to do. (i.e. museums, sporting events, symphony), Lewisville is a stereotypical example of a satellite town that only sprang up due to urban sprawl with little to no redeeming qualities for a company like Amazon to build a corporate campus. Arlington’s site is in a sea of parking lots and the city has no plan and no desire for mass transit. So now we’re supposed to think that all of a sudden they have seen the light. None of those sites stand a chance and all they are doing is taking away from the 2 cities that I think have a small glimmer of hope to land HQ2.
- John T Roberts, RD Milhollin, renamerusk and 2 others like this
#220
Posted 10 October 2017 - 08:01 AM
I'd say most of the places making a run at Amazon know they dont meet the stated minimum requirements for HQ2, but they are trying to raise awareness among any/all entities following this game and scouting locations for expansion.
Super important for Fort Worth et al to have a strong answer for Amazon. Playing through to the quarter finals in the Amazon game could easily be the winning proposal for another. Regardless of the choice for HQ2, this exercise really needs to bring even sharper focus on the Fort Worth-DFW-Las Colinas-Dallas linear business district. It's the North Texas Triangle, if you will. haha
- rriojas71 likes this
#221
Posted 10 October 2017 - 10:24 AM
I'd say most of the places making a run at Amazon know they dont meet the stated minimum requirements for HQ2, but they are trying to raise awareness among any/all entities following this game and scouting locations for expansion.
Super important for Fort Worth et al to have a strong answer for Amazon. Playing through to the quarter finals in the Amazon game could easily be the winning proposal for another. Regardless of the choice for HQ2, this exercise really needs to bring even sharper focus on the Fort Worth-DFW-Las Colinas-Dallas linear business district. It's the North Texas Triangle, if you will. haha
Interesting phrase. It used to be called the "Golden Triangle," meaning Fort Worth-Denton-Dallas. I know this may sound offensive to some but this whole "bowing" to all-mighty Amazon across the country doesn't sit right with me.
- panthercity likes this
#222
Posted 10 October 2017 - 02:08 PM
....I know this may sound offensive to some but this whole "bowing" to all-mighty Amazon across the country doesn't sit right with me.
It isn't sitting right with me either. If you drop in and read the discussions underway now from metros all across the country, you will find that there is a growing backlash towards the way Amazon is pitting neighbors against neighbors; asking for incentives and suggesting that it will change the successful bidder into its culture.
#223
Posted 11 October 2017 - 08:52 AM
Well, only a matter of time before MSN would post a slideshow on the cities competing for the Amazon No. 2. Guess what (not surprising)? Fort Worth is not on the list. Of course our city's regional proxy, Dallas, is on the list.
http://www.msn.com/e...tandhp#image=12
- renamerusk likes this
#224
Posted 11 October 2017 - 03:13 PM
Minneapolis-St.Paul or Raleigh-Durham but never Fort Worth-Dallas. We live in a world of geographic morons. You would think that traveling to or through DFW would provide them with a clue.
MSN should be embarrassed airing this mindless material...[Dallas] "..its a shame that workers can't travel by horseback."
I do find Baltimore to be a very credible choice.
- Now in Denton likes this
#225
Posted 12 October 2017 - 01:16 PM
#227
Posted 13 October 2017 - 09:43 AM
"The Amazon Effect: How taxpayers are funding the disruption of the U.S. economy"
https://www.bizjourn...zon-effect.html
"As these cities can tell you, Amazon's benefits won't come cheap"
https://www.bizjourn...t-as-these.html
#228
Posted 13 October 2017 - 10:20 AM
Denver's approach emphasizing factors other than incentives and San Antonio saying they're not interested in offering incentives made me wonder if a private partner could emerge that would offer to front the costs of developing HQ2 under some sort of lease/buy back arrangement. There's probably some factors of that type of arrangement where it might be more appealing than public incentives.
I know it's common with any large corporation, but I've heard rumblings that Amazon is not the greatest employer at the distribution/fulfillment center level. They seem to regularly hire on a temp-to-full time arrangement with very few people making the jump to full time.
#229
Posted 14 October 2017 - 09:01 AM
I know it's common with any large corporation, but I've heard rumblings that Amazon is not the greatest employer at the distribution/fulfillment center level. They seem to regularly hire on a temp-to-full time arrangement with very few people making the jump to full time.
I know of a friend who can vouch for that statement and she said that it was a horrible work environment at those centers. She had to take the job because of an unforseen foreseen financial situation and she said it felt like it was a couple of rungs up from slave labor. They time you when you go to the bathroom and mark it against you if you are late or take multiple bathroom breaks. You are marked up for any sort of ridiculous reason and their turnover rate is off the charts. From what she described to me it sounded nightmarish.
#230
Posted 15 October 2017 - 10:26 AM
I've heard similar things about working for Google. I believe we're seeing foundation laid for the next phase of labor unions. The largest employers of unskilled and semi-skilled workers skirting responsibility through hiring and employment status classifications -- most retail workers are part-time and/or "gifted" part-time worker benefits, same with CSR, distribution, fulfillment positions... such that more than half the staff of large corporations work without normal benefits.
Continued automation, dwindling training, decision makers deciding fewer contributors deserve profit share, bonuses, fringe benefits.... boils down to the income inequity situation that's popular and strategic for some to talk about. Certainly interesting times, I'm looking forward to seeing how so much building pressure finds release.
It's easy to compare Amazon to Sears-Roebuck. The service is exactly the same, the technology is different. Just like mail order catalogs did not eliminate but thoroughly reshaped stores, online buying will not eliminate brick-and-mortar stores just evolve it. For sure, companies will go out of business if their employees cannot afford to buy anything!
#231
Posted 18 October 2017 - 10:42 AM
#232
Posted 18 October 2017 - 10:48 AM
Looks rather bland. I have seen other Dallas HQ2 renderings that looks much better. But as yet not seen any from Fort Worth ?
#233
Posted 19 October 2017 - 07:54 AM
An interesting negative take from an article on the NBC News website. But the disruptions in traffic and housing on account of a big construction project envisioned in this article are more realistic if Amazon were to locate in a small community. I doubt if either Fort Worth or Dallas would be materially affected in a negative way and would certainly benefit as a result of the increase in employment.
https://www.nbcnews....in-your-n811411
#235
Posted 19 October 2017 - 10:04 AM
Looks rather bland. I have seen other Dallas HQ2 renderings that looks much better. But as yet not seen any from Fort Worth ?
Well those aren't the final designs. The tallest tower would become the new tallest in Dallas, so there could be some additions.
#236
Posted 19 October 2017 - 12:02 PM
Looks rather bland. I have seen other Dallas HQ2 renderings that looks much better. But as yet not seen any from Fort Worth ?
With so many private developers wanting their own development to be the regional site, I think that this is just another developer throwing its hat into the fray. Color me skeptical about this and all the others.
#237
Posted 20 October 2017 - 11:39 AM
Moody's Analytics has conducted data-driven research to rank the HQ2 candidates, based upon Amazon's stated criteria and economic factors.
According to Moody's analysis, Fort Worth ranks 55th out of 65. Other Texas cities: Austin ranks first, San Antonio ranks 14th, Dallas ranks 34th, and Houston ranks 49th.
Analysis (free to read): https://www.economy....ters-Should-Go/
Full results (subscription required): https://www.economy....=economyFeature
#238
Posted 23 October 2017 - 06:59 PM
#239
Posted 03 November 2017 - 09:04 AM
So a New York real estate group puts out a ranking of the top candidates for relocation, and, shocker, DFW isn't on there but New York, Connecticut, etc. are represented? Color me surprised. Connecticut's economic situation is as bad as anything in the country right now...it's a complete disaster at the state level. There is literally zero chance that Amazon would move there. More here: https://www.bloomber...udget-in-crisis.
This is about the 5th "study" I've seen from East Coast groups that don't put any Texas location in the top 10. They WAY overweight mass transportation, underweight everything else and, voila.
I believe Amazon is forward-thinking enough that they realize where transportation is headed. In 15 years we will have self-driving car-share in every major city and it's going to be a game-changer. I'm starting to think more and more that new rail-based mass transportation is a bad idea in all but the densest of cities.
- JBB likes this
#241
Posted 03 November 2017 - 10:42 AM
Amazon built an entire campus around rail-based transit and funded improvements to that transit
Yes, they gave $5.5 million for streetcar improvements (basically a rounding error). There are also thousands of parking spots under those buildings.
I'm really talking about new billion dollar light and heavy rail projects here, not streetcars. It seems to me that, given the changes that are coming in automobile-based efficiencies over the next couple of decades, one day people are going to turn around and say "Why do we have all these trains running at 30% capacity? That's almost as dumb as the notion that people used to have unused cars parked everywhere." In the future cars will go where they're needed, when they're needed. Trains do not offer such flexibility.
- renamerusk likes this
#242
Posted 03 November 2017 - 02:39 PM
Will self-driving ride-share be more affordable than existing ride-share? Maybe a few dollars less if you currently tip.
Ride-share isn't affordable for everyday use unless you're wealthy.
-Dylan
#244
Posted 03 November 2017 - 04:02 PM
Will self-driving ride-share be more affordable than existing ride-share? Maybe a few dollars less if you currently tip.
Ride-share isn't affordable for everyday use unless you're wealthy.
Right now car owners pay for usage of that car 100% of the time, when in reality they might be using the car 5% of the time. Our automobile usage is probably the single most inefficient part of the U.S. economy, in terms of overall dollars. I'm not saying this is going to happen, but just imagine a scenario where every car on the road is self-driving, with an efficient system of taking each person where they need to go at that point in time. The efficiency gains would have to be 10x vs. the current system, at a minimum. That means the pricing would be roughly 10% of what it is now. It won't be just the rich that can afford it. In fact, I think it will be only the rich that will still be driving their own cars in 25 years.
Austin55, yes a 50 person vehicle moving from point A to point B will always be more efficient than a 4 person vehicle. Which is why I said "for all but the densest of cities" when saying that I don't think rail is the long-term answer. For New York, yes the subway is great. But I'm talking about a city like Fort Worth, where point A and point B are really more a matter of points A-Z.
Picture a train line and now think about how much wasted space there is at any given second because trains are only occupying a small portion of a given track. And that track only goes two directions. Now picture an ant mound and think about how the ants can efficiently move around each other seamlessly to get exactly where they want to go. This is the future of autonomous cars: no human error, perfect communication between vehicles, mass efficiency. People are willing to pay for convenience, and the reality is that walking (x) blocks to a train station is not as convenient as having a car pick you up exactly where you stand, and deposit you exactly at your destination. It eliminates bottlenecks like crowds as well. This all sounds like science fiction, but given how much advancement we've seen in the past decade, one would be unwise to discount how quickly these technologies will be employed. Companies like Google, Tesla, and Apple consider this the holy grail of transportation. They are going to make it happen.
#245
Posted 06 November 2017 - 10:29 AM
Will self-driving ride-share be more affordable than existing ride-share? Maybe a few dollars less if you currently tip.
Ride-share isn't affordable for everyday use unless you're wealthy.
Right now car owners pay for usage of that car 100% of the time, when in reality they might be using the car 5% of the time. Our automobile usage is probably the single most inefficient part of the U.S. economy, in terms of overall dollars. I'm not saying this is going to happen, but just imagine a scenario where every car on the road is self-driving, with an efficient system of taking each person where they need to go at that point in time. The efficiency gains would have to be 10x vs. the current system, at a minimum. That means the pricing would be roughly 10% of what it is now. It won't be just the rich that can afford it. In fact, I think it will be only the rich that will still be driving their own cars in 25 years.
Austin55, yes a 50 person vehicle moving from point A to point B will always be more efficient than a 4 person vehicle. Which is why I said "for all but the densest of cities" when saying that I don't think rail is the long-term answer. For New York, yes the subway is great. But I'm talking about a city like Fort Worth, where point A and point B are really more a matter of points A-Z.
Picture a train line and now think about how much wasted space there is at any given second because trains are only occupying a small portion of a given track. And that track only goes two directions. Now picture an ant mound and think about how the ants can efficiently move around each other seamlessly to get exactly where they want to go. This is the future of autonomous cars: no human error, perfect communication between vehicles, mass efficiency. People are willing to pay for convenience, and the reality is that walking (x) blocks to a train station is not as convenient as having a car pick you up exactly where you stand, and deposit you exactly at your destination. It eliminates bottlenecks like crowds as well. This all sounds like science fiction, but given how much advancement we've seen in the past decade, one would be unwise to discount how quickly these technologies will be employed. Companies like Google, Tesla, and Apple consider this the holy grail of transportation. They are going to make it happen.
#246
Posted 06 November 2017 - 01:59 PM
Will self-driving ride-share be more affordable than existing ride-share? Maybe a few dollars less if you currently tip.
Ride-share isn't affordable for everyday use unless you're wealthy.
Right now car owners pay for usage of that car 100% of the time, when in reality they might be using the car 5% of the time. Our automobile usage is probably the single most inefficient part of the U.S. economy, in terms of overall dollars. I'm not saying this is going to happen, but just imagine a scenario where every car on the road is self-driving, with an efficient system of taking each person where they need to go at that point in time. The efficiency gains would have to be 10x vs. the current system, at a minimum. That means the pricing would be roughly 10% of what it is now. It won't be just the rich that can afford it. In fact, I think it will be only the rich that will still be driving their own cars in 25 years.
Austin55, yes a 50 person vehicle moving from point A to point B will always be more efficient than a 4 person vehicle. Which is why I said "for all but the densest of cities" when saying that I don't think rail is the long-term answer. For New York, yes the subway is great. But I'm talking about a city like Fort Worth, where point A and point B are really more a matter of points A-Z.
Picture a train line and now think about how much wasted space there is at any given second because trains are only occupying a small portion of a given track. And that track only goes two directions. Now picture an ant mound and think about how the ants can efficiently move around each other seamlessly to get exactly where they want to go. This is the future of autonomous cars: no human error, perfect communication between vehicles, mass efficiency. People are willing to pay for convenience, and the reality is that walking (x) blocks to a train station is not as convenient as having a car pick you up exactly where you stand, and deposit you exactly at your destination. It eliminates bottlenecks like crowds as well. This all sounds like science fiction, but given how much advancement we've seen in the past decade, one would be unwise to discount how quickly these technologies will be employed. Companies like Google, Tesla, and Apple consider this the holy grail of transportation. They are going to make it happen.
Obviously there has to be a central system controlling all these SDCs, which would probably be administered by an organization like DART or the T.
I actually don't think that's the way it will go down...municipalities/governments won't be involved except to the extent that they regulate. The cars will talk to each other, and if anything the "central system" will be the software of the company or companies that are the winners.
#247
Posted 09 November 2017 - 09:02 AM
Obviously there has to be a central system controlling all these SDCs, which would probably be administered by an organization like DART or the T.
I actually don't think that's the way it will go down...municipalities/governments won't be involved except to the extent that they regulate. The cars will talk to each other, and if anything the "central system" will be the software of the company or companies that are the winners.
That's exactly what I'm saying -- though Google or another private entity would actually run the SDC networks, governments at any level (from federal to municipal or anywhere in between) would potentially be able to use the new technology to regulate who can and can't go where and when, which is an absolute non-starter.
#248
Posted 09 November 2017 - 09:40 AM
This is morphing into a transportation debate rather than the debate over Amazon 2nd Headquarters.
- Now in Denton likes this
#250
Posted 09 November 2017 - 10:25 AM
Clicking on the thread expecting to read about a topic and finding something unrelated instead....nope, it isn't okay.
Its like watching cats; you never know what to expect.
- Now in Denton likes this
0 user(s) are reading this topic
0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users