Amazon HQ2 RFP

[JumboBuc]

People have high hopes on whatever these car pods are.....
Hybrids have been on the market for almost 20 years at this point, and they have grabbed a whopping 3% of new car sales as far as market share.
I have a hard time thinking we're going to see drastic shifts in personal choices in half the time to a currently non-existent transportation mode.

50 years, ok. A decade, there will be plenty of parking structure in the city still, and people will still be filling them and paying ridiculous rates. The expansion of Massport parking is testament to this. They ain't building them for the next 10 years. Those are 50 year structures.

As long as we keep getting cheap oil, we'll keep driving cars in the USA. And, next time the oil prices rocket, there is viable options now to keep people in their SOV's. Tesla has shown the electric car is more viable than previously believed, and hybrids will surge if/when it happens.

Your pods and hyperloops, are real and coming, but not in a short period of time.

You're right in it being a temp solution, but 50 years is temporary in the grand scheme.

Hybrids have absolutely nothing to do with the future shmessy is predicting.

For a valid comparison, look to Uber/Lyft. Uber entered the Boston market in 2011 and Lyft in 2013, and in the few years since they've become significant players in our overall transportation picture. This model of transportation--in which you call for a ride instead of keeping your own car--is clearly growing, and it will decrease demand for downtown parking. Hybrid vs. gas vs. electric vs. whatever technology has nothing to do with this.

That being said, forecasts of the demand for downtown parking in the future should not figure into decisions regarding tax policy for today.

 

[SeamusMcFly]

Hybrids have absolutely nothing to do with the future shmessy is predicting.

For a valid comparison, look to Uber/Lyft. Uber entered the Boston market in 2011 and Lyft in 2013, and in the few years since they've become significant players in our overall transportation picture. This model of transportation--in which you call for a ride instead of keeping your own car--is clearly growing, and it will decrease demand for downtown parking. Hybrid vs. gas vs. electric vs. whatever technology has nothing to do with this.

I wouldn't have included them if they had nothing to do....Everyone is so insanely sure of things and state everything as facts... cripes it's difficult on here sometimes.

The point is, Americans don't change that swiftly. Despite the available options to us, as a whole we don't shift the needle that fast.That, and our government is not paying to upgrade our infrastructure to support whatever these pods are. The "pods" that exist are not driving people around city's like a JohnnyCab, they are mini mass transit with huge infracosts and space

Uber/Lyft are just a new version of cabs. This is no crazy shift in how Americans travel around the city. NYC has always looked very yellow from above based on all the cabs. That will drop as Uber/Lyft increase, but how much shift do we think that really has on people driving into the city, and around the city. The highways and city streets and full garages tell me that ain't changing so quick.

 

[JumboBuc]

I wouldn't have included them if they had nothing to do....Everyone is so insanely sure of things and state everything as facts... cripes it's difficult on here sometimes.

The point is, Americans don't change that swiftly. Despite the available options to us, as a whole we don't shift the needle that fast.That, and our government is not paying to upgrade our infrastructure to support whatever these pods are. The "pods" that exist are not driving people around city's like a JohnnyCab, they are mini mass transit with huge infracosts and space

Uber/Lyft are just a new version of cabs. This is no crazy shift in how Americans travel around the city. NYC has always looked very yellow from above based on all the cabs. That will drop as Uber/Lyft increase, but how much shift do we think that really has on people driving into the city, and around the city. The highways and city streets and full garages tell me that ain't changing so quick.

But the rapid rise of Uber and Lyft show that people are changing their model of transportation very quickly, and that the needle is moving quickly. I agree 100% that "driverless" is the distant future but not the near future. However, people "dial[ing] up their subscription service [...] which will drop them off, do more runs and then warehouse in Taunton overnight" is exactly the Uber/Lyft model, and it is growing like crazy. In a way, that's not as much the future as it is the present. All those cars you see on the highways and city streets are increasingly Ubers and Lyfts. I personally probably know close to 100 people who have six-figure household incomes, live in the city, don't own cars, and average around one Uber/Lyft trip per day. Many of those people would own their own cars if not for Uber/Lyft, but don't because of them. That's the change.

Fuel source is unrelated.

I agree. However, I think the criteria in determining whether there is a net benefit should be where the revenue to support those jobs is coming from not how much direct tax revenue is generated.

If the money to pay for those Massachusetts jobs is coming from revenue largely earned out of state then it is well worth the tax incentives.

If it is a Target or Walmart then the jobs "created" actually represent a net loss to the state in terms of revenue going to out of state owners to buy products made in China.

Likewise if the company has payroll equal to the revenue from Massachusetts based customers then there is no net benefit to the state economy regardless of how much taxes are siphoned off. No net loss either if we are just moving capital around to get people to do stuff.

If the Massachusetts payroll exceeds the revenue generated from Massachusetts customers then I think any company that meets that criteria should get the same per employee tax incentives as any other.

If that was made a law rather than something negotiated ad hoc with every prospective out of state company then the Massachusetts economy would see a net benefit or at least be more competitive.

Information on how much sales revenue Amazon makes in Massachusetts is hard to estimate (unless you are the state and Amazon is giving you that data). Amazon is hopefully in that category where the revenue generated from Massachusetts customers wouldn't usually support 50,000 or anything close to that number of jobs so there will be a net benefit to the Massachusetts economy if they locate tens of thousands of jobs here. Although, without hard numbers from the department of revenue it is likely that the state wouldn't see a net economic benefit for the first few thousand jobs located here... but at least we wouldn't see a loss on those jobs if they went elsewhere.

This is a severely over simplistic view of the way the economy works. Massachusetts faces no shortages of capital investment in the slightest. Massachusetts also faces no shortage of jobs that result in "net inflow" to the Commonwealth; see, e.g., pharma and biotech jobs. That isn't an issue here. If anything, what's missing from Massachusetts' labor picture is jobs for lower-skilled, lower-education workers. Those jobs are disproportionately represented in industries that are not Massachusetts-based, but it's still perfectly okay to encourage them.

In short, given the current state of our labor market, adding 100 low-skilled jobs to Massachusetts making $50k each is probably better for the overall health of our economy than adding 25 high-skilled jobs making $200k each, even if those $200k jobs derive their revenue from out of state.

 

[TheRifleman]

I think a better solution if you want so spur development would be to raise the taxes on parking garages and structures.

This sounds like the BID proposal for Downtown that Menino put in place. Just because your a successful business in Downtown the city needed to create BID tax to clean up the area.
Okay-- "what about the taxes I already pay what does that cover?"
Oh by the way we are giving all Tax breaks and incentives to the Seaport/Backbay area along with a certain DTX project:
Amazon
GE
Vertex
Liberty Mutual
JPM
Millennium Partners
Fallon Group
Seriously its to create jobs.
Well then why is the city double taxing the existing local businesses if they want job creation? We can expand also but you are doubling up on taxes.
So you hurt the local businesses to fund the billion dollar corporations and the CEO 50Million dollar salaries also drive up real estate costs for the average Bostonians that live around on fixed incomes. Not only that create a cluster-fuck of traffic without proper infrastructure being invested.

That makes senses for people that work for these corporate hacks & political machine that can't balance a budget. The Rise of fascism
YOU EITHER GIVE TAX BREAKS TO EVERYBODY or DON"T GIVE THEM OUT AT ALL--- Create an even playing field

The city of Boston politicians are basically creating unique tax structures for some groups but not others. Sounds like the Vladimir Putin Economics.

 

[FenwayResident]

I wouldn't have included them if they had nothing to do....Everyone is so insanely sure of things and state everything as facts... cripes it's difficult on here sometimes.

The point is, Americans don't change that swiftly. Despite the available options to us, as a whole we don't shift the needle that fast.That, and our government is not paying to upgrade our infrastructure to support whatever these pods are. The "pods" that exist are not driving people around city's like a JohnnyCab, they are mini mass transit with huge infracosts and space

People will switch modes of transport when the new mode is either 1) cheaper or 2) more convenient than their current mode.

Your hybrid vehicle argument is a non-sequitur because the problems hybrid vehicles faced are not the same problems that self-driving fleets will face. Therefore basing your argument off the lack of hybrid vehicle adoption does not really make sense.

For a long time hybrid vehicles were more expensive over the lifetime of the car due to higher purchase price, battery replacement costs, additional maintenance on electric motors, and cheap gasoline. Just now with cheaper and better battery technology are they becoming more affordable over the lifetime of the car. So for a long time they were neither cheaper nor were they more convenient, so the only people who were switching were those who wanted to lower their carbon emissions.

Compare that to self-driving fleets which will:

1) Be cheaper up front (no purchase price cost)
2) Pay as you go (if you don't drive much, it will be cheaper for you)
3) Have pooled maintenance (more convenient, no risk of large, unexpected maint. costs)
4) Have cheaper insurance (vs. human driven)
5) Be more convenient because you can get drunk, not worry about parking, etc.

The problems facing self-driving fleets are:

1) Rural wait times
2) Not great for frequent, short trips - waiting on the car takes a large portion of the total trip time

So people who use their car frequently and those who live in rural areas will be the last to adopt the self-driving mode. It's perfect for those in urban environments and good for many situations in a suburban environment.

 

[tangent]

This is a severely over simplistic view of the way the economy works.

Yup, but simpler models are often more useful. And more importantly the Department of Revenue has visibility into the revenue and payrolls of Massachusetts companies so if you were going to choose metrics to use in order to determine a net benefit to the economy then the balance between revenue and payroll would be the numbers to go off of for determining some sort of tax credit/deduction.

Massachusetts faces no shortages of capital investment in the slightest. Massachusetts also faces no shortage of jobs that result in "net inflow" to the Commonwealth; see, e.g., pharma and biotech jobs. That isn't an issue here.

No the issue as I and others see it is that some companies are getting tax breaks and some aren't. It invites corruption and distortions of the free market when state officials are handing out money without any objective framework. And it leaves out growing small businesses that are the real engines of growth and innovation.

Also, top down "capital investment" isn't the same as capital in a free market economy. If the money flows down and then straight out then it isn't there to circulate in the local economy. The waterfall model of trickle down economics only works as long as the Federal Reserve is giving out money.

If anything, what's missing from Massachusetts' labor picture is jobs for lower-skilled, lower-education workers. Those jobs are disproportionately represented in industries that are not Massachusetts-based, but it's still perfectly okay to encourage them.

In short, given the current state of our labor market, adding 100 low-skilled jobs to Massachusetts making $50k each is probably better for the overall health of our economy than adding 25 high-skilled jobs making $200k each, even if those $200k jobs derive their revenue from out of state.

Where is the money going to come from to pay those $50k jobs? The economy might not be "zero sum" but money has to come from somewhere and it makes it a lot harder to sustain a healthy economy with a lot of local transactions of trade and employment if too much money is going out before it circulates around a bit.

 

[JumboBuc]

Where is the money going to come from to pay those $50k jobs? The economy might not be "zero sum" but money has to come from somewhere and it makes it a lot harder to sustain a healthy economy with a lot of local transactions of trade and employment if too much money is going out before it circulates around a bit.

Some sectors bring money in to the Commonwealth, some send it out. That's fine. It's how open economies run and why they thrive. Again, Massachusetts suffers from no lack of capital. If every state put up barriers to the free flow of capital across state lines, the US would be a shell of what it is. We can all thank Hamilton that this isn't the case.

I agree 100% that the government shouldn't pick winners and losers. That's why basing public policy on some ill-conceived metric of "out of state revenue" versus "in state revenue" is a bad idea.

 

[shmessy]

People have high hopes on whatever these car pods are.....
Hybrids have been on the market for almost 20 years at this point, and they have grabbed a whopping 3% of new car sales as far as market share.
I have a hard time thinking we're going to see drastic shifts in personal choices in half the time to a currently non-existent transportation mode.

50 years, ok. A decade, there will be plenty of parking structure in the city still, and people will still be filling them and paying ridiculous rates. The expansion of Massport parking is testament to this. They ain't building them for the next 10 years. Those are 50 year structures.

As long as we keep getting cheap oil, we'll keep driving cars in the USA. And, next time the oil prices rocket, there is viable options now to keep people in their SOV's. Tesla has shown the electric car is more viable than previously believed, and hybrids will surge if/when it happens.

Your pods and hyperloops, are real and coming, but not in a short period of time.

You're right in it being a temp solution, but 50 years is temporary in the grand scheme.

You're spot on for rural and suburban. Not for cities.

Money and commerce rule. Traffic kills economic opportunity for cities. There will be punitive economic barriers put up (London and others are already going in that direction). It's all about stents for the veins and arteries in the heart - - not the legs or shoulders.

10-20 years.

 

[SeamusMcFly]

I'll shoot low, you shoot high.
Hopefully, we'll meet in the middle..

 

[Coyote137]

I tend to agree with Seamus here that these supposed miracles are likely further off than the technophiles would like. I also tend to shy away from believing that anything will be close to the panacea it is touted as.

There's also a fairly big difference, in my view, between dialing a cabbie up on my iPhone (which is basically what I'm doing with Uber/Lyft) and completely autonomous vehicles, including all necessary infrastructure/policy/financing/insurance/etc.

Yes, things can change quickly, but this is going to take a while to sort out. In the meantime, parking garages will be plenty popular (and in the extreme, autonomous vehicles will be stored in urban garages).

We can all agree to meet up in 20 years, and the losers of these predictions can buy drinks for the winners. I'd suggest the Tam, but that will be long gone by then.

 

[FenwayResident]

I tend to agree with Seamus here that these supposed miracles are likely further off than the technophiles would like. I also tend to shy away from believing that anything will be close to the panacea it is touted as.

There's also a fairly big difference, in my view, between dialing a cabbie up on my iPhone (which is basically what I'm doing with Uber/Lyft) and completely autonomous vehicles, including all necessary infrastructure/policy/financing/insurance/etc.

Yes, things can change quickly, but this is going to take a while to sort out. In the meantime, parking garages will be plenty popular (and in the extreme, autonomous vehicles will be stored in urban garages).

We can all agree to meet up in 20 years, and the losers of these predictions can buy drinks for the winners. I'd suggest the Tam, but that will be long gone by then.

What, exactly, is going to make it take 20+ years? The technology is almost there and rapidly getting better. It won't be more than a few years until self driving cars will be able to handle 99.99%+ of situations better than a human driver.

On the political side, some state and local governments are already allowing driverless cars to operate on public roads. Once there's a business need and proven technology I'm sure many more will follow.

Not to mention that a self-driving fleet is essentially a taxi company without the drivers. I don't get why the Uber/Lyft analogy doesn't hold in your view. It's going to be the same user experience except you pay 60% less because the driver's cut is taken out of the equation.

There are already companies formed and operating whose mission is to launch self-driving fleets (Waymo, Uber, etc.). Asserting that something is "decades" out when there are multi-billion dollar companies with working prototypes is simply ludicrous, head-in-the-sand technophobia.

 

[tangent]

Some sectors bring money in to the Commonwealth, some send it out. That's fine. It's how open economies run and why they thrive. Again, Massachusetts suffers from no lack of capital. If every state put up barriers to the free flow of capital across state lines, the US would be a shell of what it is. We can all thank Hamilton that this isn't the case.

No place did I say put up a barrier to the free flow of capital across state lines. We should just have clear metrics about which companies are actually a net benefit to the economy and could decide to locate anywhere when formulating incentives.

I agree 100% that the government shouldn't pick winners and losers. That's why basing public policy on some ill-conceived metric of "out of state revenue" versus "in state revenue" is a bad idea.

Picking winners and losers is what is happening now where the state "negotiates" with companies to locate here. Tax policy isn't about picking winners and losers.

Choosing a tax policy that incentivizes companies that have a presence in Massachusetts to engage in out of state or international trade would be a good tax policy for the reasons I have stated. Wealth is wealth... capital is capital and keeping more wealth in the state economy is good for the state.

Open markets and free trade are good things, unless you are on the negative side of that trade balance. And there are far worse impediments to free trade within the US before worrying about state and local tax incentives. Regulations in the states create many many impediments to free trade in goods and services.

A labyrinth of state and local licensing and regulatory requirements makes it difficult or cost prohibitive for companies to provide many kinds of goods and services across state lines. Many people can't even practice their profession across state lines.

What I am talking about is the opposite of a barrier to interstate commerce and would provide a state incentive to reward companies that are engaging in trade.

 

[Coyote137]

What, exactly, is going to make it take 20+ years? The technology is almost there and rapidly getting better. It won't be more than a few years until self driving cars will be able to handle 99.99%+ of situations better than a human driver.

On the political side, some state and local governments are already allowing driverless cars to operate on public roads. Once there's a business need and proven technology I'm sure many more will follow.

Not to mention that a self-driving fleet is essentially a taxi company without the drivers. I don't get why the Uber/Lyft analogy doesn't hold in your view. It's going to be the same user experience except you pay 60% less because the driver's cut is taken out of the equation.

There are already companies formed and operating whose mission is to launch self-driving fleets (Waymo, Uber, etc.). Asserting that something is "decades" out when there are multi-billion dollar companies with working prototypes is simply ludicrous, head-in-the-sand technophobia.

What did I say that's technophobic? I'm talking about what I think will be the case, not what I want to be the case. It's called a prediction. If I'm wrong, I'm wrong. I'm sure we can both live with little old me being wrong.

 

[shmessy]

What did I say that's technophobic? I'm talking about what I think will be the case, not what I want to be the case. It's called a prediction. If I'm wrong, I'm wrong. I'm sure we can both live with little old me being wrong.

I agree - - it's all good. None of us actually knows.

The only thing I DO know however, is that money decides everything (sadly, sometimes).

If our cities lose further billion$ and competitive standing due to gridlock they will climb over each other sooner than most think to get to the inevitable space saving answer.

So put me down for <20 and a Tanqueray + Tonic on March 19, 2039 at the Tam. I'll be the old fart stumbling out of a pod.

 

[FenwayResident]

What did I say that's technophobic? I'm talking about what I think will be the case, not what I want to be the case. It's called a prediction. If I'm wrong, I'm wrong. I'm sure we can both live with little old me being wrong.

Saying "it doesn't seem like it'll happen for a while" despite a ton of evidence to the contrary is pretty technophobic IMO. If you had a specific objection - for example that machine vision neural nets are still green technology and might not ever be capable of deciphering complex, contextual road signage - that's a valid point and worthy of discussion. But a ton of people "just have a feeling" that it's going to be a while based on no evidence other than their gut and it leads to bad planning and policy decisions.

Self-driving is happening, and it's happening quickly. Boston can either get on board with it or get passed by.

edit: I'm not railing against you specifically, Coyote.. it's just a general position I've seen a lot of people take that annoys me. Sorry if it came across as a personal attack .

 

[shmessy]

Saying "it doesn't seem like it'll happen for a while" despite a ton of evidence to the contrary is pretty technophobic IMO. If you had a specific objection - for example that machine vision neural nets are still green technology and might not ever be capable of deciphering complex, contextual road signage - that's a valid point and worthy of discussion. But a ton of people "just have a feeling" that it's going to be a while based on no evidence other than their gut and it leads to bad planning and policy decisions.

Self-driving is happening, and it's happening quickly. Boston can either get on board with it or get passed by.

Honestly, it can't come soon enough for the cities of the future, for a multitude of reasons.

 

[TheRifleman]

The only thing I DO know however, is that money decides everything (sadly, sometimes).

"MONEY---decides everything"
America is based on a concept of Freedom and rule of law.

When the people in power can just print our money or issue tax breaks for some but not others. (Which is the working class stiff labor & buying power) Then change laws for certain groups that pay taxes and others don't pay taxes.
America concept of Freedom is basically finished. Offer bailouts to some but not others.

Money is freedom in America and the politicians have allowed our money to be swindle by a certain corporate group of elite.

For the parasites that don't get this on the board your either part of this corrupt system destroying the American concept or a complete clueless political hack dependent on this system.

I would rather live under a bridge than allow the American concept to be eroded by a bunch of corrupt lazy people in corporations and a bunch of corrupt politicians. Remember you are also getting your PERSONAL TIME SWINDLED.

 

[Coyote137]

Saying "it doesn't seem like it'll happen for a while" despite a ton of evidence to the contrary is pretty technophobic IMO. If you had a specific objection - for example that machine vision neural nets are still green technology and might not ever be capable of deciphering complex, contextual road signage - that's a valid point and worthy of discussion. But a ton of people "just have a feeling" that it's going to be a while based on no evidence other than their gut and it leads to bad planning and policy decisions.

Self-driving is happening, and it's happening quickly. Boston can either get on board with it or get passed by.

edit: I'm not railing against you specifically, Coyote.. it's just a general position I've seen a lot of people take that annoys me. Sorry if it came across as a personal attack .

Fair enough, and I’m not put out. But I also didn’t say that planning or policy decisions should be based on my prediction. Having a master’s degree in urban planning, and having studied under a certain former Sec. of Transportation, I’m pretty sure nothing I said could be construed as my having sugggested we should slow down or avoid the coming and glorious 5th Element future.

 

[Coyote137]

I agree - - it's all good. None of us actually knows.

The only thing I DO know however, is that money decides everything (sadly, sometimes).

If our cities lose further billion$ and competitive standing due to gridlock they will climb over each other sooner than most think to get to the inevitable space saving answer.

So put me down for <20 and a Tanqueray + Tonic on March 19, 2039 at the Tam. I'll be the old fart stumbling out of a pod.

You’re on. We’ll have to clarify the exact terms of the bet before then - a G & T will probably put me out $25 or $30 by that point!

 

[SeamusMcFly]

Saying "it doesn't seem like it'll happen for a while" despite a ton of evidence to the contrary is pretty technophobic IMO. If you had a specific objection - for example that machine vision neural nets are still green technology and might not ever be capable of deciphering complex, contextual road signage - that's a valid point and worthy of discussion. But a ton of people "just have a feeling" that it's going to be a while based on no evidence other than their gut and it leads to bad planning and policy decisions.

Self-driving is happening, and it's happening quickly. Boston can either get on board with it or get passed by.

edit: I'm not railing against you specifically, Coyote.. it's just a general position I've seen a lot of people take that annoys me. Sorry if it came across as a personal attack .

That general position has years and years of history backing it.
Technology typically exists for a long time before it is implemented.
You think union cabbies gave Uber a hard time? Wait til there's no driver.

They are beta testing and extensively at that what are still in effect prototypes. How quickly do prototypes get put into action typically?

There are a lot more hurdles than just can it be done to put this stuff in action. There will be tons of regulations, red tape, high costs of buying fleets, etc. Etc. Keeping up with construction changes to traffic will require major upgrades to our local systems as well to keep autonomous vehicles on working roads.

You say evidence, but I don't see evidence that changes my view. I originally said no way in 10 years, and stand by that. Is my 50 years high? Probably, but I also forsee some government tampering to slow things down byond regulations for safety etc. But, also for less kosher reasons. Protecting other industries that would be hurt by this new sliced bread transportation.

Testing cars over by the design center is very different than massive amounts of driverless cars in mixed traffic. Forgive me if I feel the overall technology coverage isn't there. If my phone loses signal as I take the train thru Holbrook. Or my PC crashes to the blue screen of death in this day and age. What happens in my rented computer on wheels? Does it reboot in mixed traffic? Is it susceptible to technoterrorism? Could be a scary thought if someone takes over that server.thats a lot of solid state hardware to protect against such things. Not to mention the drunk knucklehead in his gas guzzler blasting thru them.

I think your more idealist to my (believed) realist. Maybe you're right. But, nothing I've seen makes me think so. A couple of them doing their thing does not meet the requirements. This has to be a massive shift to meet the requirements. No one likes my car anaolgies because they seem to think it's not relevant as they are both modes of transport, and I'm trying to compare them. I'm not. But, electric car technology has been around for a long long time. It was never deemed feasible, but is that true? If the right level of investment and research was done? Now someone is showing that it's feasible, but they are not being marketed or pushed at all still. There are other hands at work here that do slow technological advances in the public realm.

We work play and some of us live in a city that has 100 year old infrastructure, that is still among the best in the country. What makes us think a new technology is going to take off in such a short period of time?