PHILADELPHIA | Lowrise/General Developments Thread

[jsbrook]

Originally Posted by summersm343

I think I'm okay with this project... unfortunately this area is just not ready to accommodate urban development. This is sort of Urban-lite. I like the town homes and green space on the waterfront.

I think if we focus urban development and building up the area between Washington and Girard along the waterfront and capping parts of I-95 through Center City, then this area south of Washington Ave will eventually build up and become more urban in the future.

I agree. I would never live there, but if there's a demand, go for it. That's what this area can support right now.

[1487]

Originally Posted by allovertown

Your posts demonstrate a fundamental lack of understanding of the entire point of Public of Transit and its benefits, not to mention the business plans of Uber and Lyft.

The whole point of public transit is that it is cheaper and more efficient to move a lot of people on one bus, trolley, subway, train etc. as opposed to each of them traveling in their own vehicle. Basic economies of scale. If public transit devolves into everyone in their own individual uber car, it ceases to have a point.

Ride sharing is definitely having an effect on public transit, but in the long run that affect will be minimal. Even today, the difference in price be SEPTA fare (1.80) and an UBER or Lyft ride is significant. But what you fail to realize is that current Uber and Lyft prices are massively deflated.

At this stage in the game, the most important thing for both companies is to grab as much market share as they can. To do this they artificially lower their prices through enormous investor contributions. But this can't last forever. Despite how enormous Uber is and how successful it is perceived to be, it doesn't come close to turning a profit. Eventually that will be a problem, eventually, like every company, Uber will be expected to make more money than it spends. When that day comes Uber and Lyft will both be significantly more expensive than either is today and will fall more in line with the cost of cabs.

Cabs have been around forever and plenty of people still took the bus or the subway. At the end of the day it's the cabs that will suffer, not the buses or the subways. Uber and Lyft isn't a fundamentally new idea, it's just a better way of handling an idea that has been around for a century.

That said, SEPTA shouldn't ignore ride sharing technology. Cabs and PT have often worked hand in hand, and ride sharing's greatest inovation has been the ease of use, which could certainly benefit SEPTA. People frequently take a train into town and then a cab to their exact destination etc. If someone could open an app, input their destination and then purchase an itinerary that included a Uber ride to a train station and then the train fare itself, that would be interesting. So I agree that SEPTA should look into the best way to utilize this innovation. But removing the majority of bus routes and replacing them with Uber rides is a really terrible idea.

SEPTA plans significant improvements to real time information in 2017 that will yield more accurate and up to date info about vehicle locations and expected arrival times. This will apply to regional rail and city transit.

[MikeNigh]

Originally Posted by 1487

efficient for whom? A bus can carry 45-70 people on ONE vehicle. Spreading all those riders out into cars isn't efficient or smart. Most buses do not empty. bus schedules and sizes are set based on ridership rates so if riders drop the frequency of buses on a line will be adjusted accordingly. Subways are an entirely different matter because they carry far more people per trip than buses. Replacing that with several hundred individual rides in cars on our congested streets would be beyond silly and it would increase travel times for many. Once you increase the number of cars on the road without any increase in capacity you end up with problems- hence traffic is worse during a SEPTA strike than it is otherwise. You can't just shift tens of thousands of people to cars without any detrimental consequences. As for connecting poor neighborhoods with opportunity, most of the city's poorest areas are within 3-5 miles of the core of the city and are well served by multiple transit options. If you are talking about connecting them to jobs in King of Prussia or the 202 corridor than there is NO efficient way to do that, with or without subsidized uber rides.

How is 1k buses running non stop in the suburbs to pick up 5k people better than 500 cars making 10 to 20 trips and sitting idle in the mean time? Buses should be reduced to a few cheap subway substitute lines instead of trying to take everyone everywhere all the time. Then just let a SEPTA uber clone take care of the rest.

[Kfmcshan]

Originally Posted by allovertown

Ride sharing is definitely having an effect on public transit, but in the long run that affect will be minimal. Even today, the difference in price be SEPTA fare (1.80) and an UBER or Lyft ride is significant. But what you fail to realize is that current Uber and Lyft prices are massively deflated.

At this stage in the game, the most important thing for both companies is to grab as much market share as they can. To do this they artificially lower their prices through enormous investor contributions. But this can't last forever. Despite how enormous Uber is and how successful it is perceived to be, it doesn't come close to turning a profit. Eventually that will be a problem, eventually, like every company, Uber will be expected to make more money than it spends. When that day comes Uber and Lyft will both be significantly more expensive than either is today and will fall more in line with the cost of cabs.

I agree that Uber and the other ride shares are losing a lot of money currently and subsidizing lower prices. However, they cannot believe that if they drastically increase their prices, they will keep their customers. I believe their end goal is driverless, solar/electric cars. Then, they will have no driver to pay and wont have to pay for gas. It will be a big investment for Uber itself to buy these vehicles, but they will have plenty of data that will allow them justify the cost of doing so.

[iheartphilly]

Originally Posted by Kfmcshan

I agree that Uber and the other ride shares are losing a lot of money currently and subsidizing lower prices. However, they cannot believe that if they drastically increase their prices, they will keep their customers. I believe their end goal is driverless, solar/electric cars. Then, they will have no driver to pay and wont have to pay for gas. It will be a big investment for Uber itself to buy these vehicles, but they will have plenty of data that will allow them justify the cost of doing so.

What type of overhead does UBER have to be losing money? Cars and insurance is carried by the driver. Are they providing health benefits, vacation/sick pay or 401k retirement plans? Just curious because the model seems like a winner to me.

[allovertown]

Originally Posted by MikeNigh

How is 1k buses running non stop in the suburbs to pick up 5k people better than 500 cars making 10 to 20 trips and sitting idle in the mean time? Buses should be reduced to a few cheap subway substitute lines instead of trying to take everyone everywhere all the time. Then just let a SEPTA uber clone take care of the rest.

And you pulled these numbers from where exactly? Uber is significantly more expensive and less efficient than public transit and could never replace it. It's really that simple, your argument doesn't make any sense. At best it would better supplement public transit than cabs have.

Originally Posted by Kfmcshan

I agree that Uber and the other ride shares are losing a lot of money currently and subsidizing lower prices. However, they cannot believe that if they drastically increase their prices, they will keep their customers. I believe their end goal is driverless, solar/electric cars. Then, they will have no driver to pay and wont have to pay for gas. It will be a big investment for Uber itself to buy these vehicles, but they will have plenty of data that will allow them justify the cost of doing so.

Oh, no doubt that's a big part of their plan, they're already investing in a big way into driverless technology. But, truly Driverless cars without even needing someone to monitor them, are still a number of years in the future and even then, considering the high price of investment and how little they pay their human drivers currently, it seems highly likely that initially such a switch would cause them to only lose even more money.

So we're talking a decade plus before driverless cars are not only viable but cost effective over drivers. At a certain point investors will tire of putting money into a company that isn't planning on turning a profit until 2030. Prices will have to rise before then. They'll probably be able to still remain cheaper than cabs and other car services, but the days where a cross town, 25 minute in traffic, uber ride costs you $6.50 simply can't last forever.

Besides, as I mentioned, Uber and Lyft are already significantly more expensive than a bus fare. All of these efforts that they're undertaking to reduce overhead will at best enable them to come close to maintaining their current prices. The idea that their prices could somehow go even lower to compare to bus fare and eliminate the need for buses will never happen.

[Insoluble]

Originally Posted by MikeNigh

How is 1k buses running non stop in the suburbs to pick up 5k people better than 500 cars making 10 to 20 trips and sitting idle in the mean time? Buses should be reduced to a few cheap subway substitute lines instead of trying to take everyone everywhere all the time. Then just let a SEPTA uber clone take care of the rest.

I'm curious. What is this alleged bus rout that carries an average total of 5 or fewer people round trip? Seriously please name the routs you'd like to see cut? I trust that you realize that on return trips going against traffic buses will often appear to have lower ridership, but it's not like the same problem wouldn't impact Uber and other ride share services (They have to take their vehicles from the final destination back to a useful pickup location too after all.) There may be parts of certain routs that are lower on ridership, but then were talking about the cost savings from shortening a rout rather than eliminating one which a re much smaller. All in all I doubt there's nearly as much fat to cut from the bus routs as you seem to think there is. There are certainly some ways that SEPTA could be increasing efficiency, but switching to such a low capacity mode just doesn't pass the smell test.

[1487]

Originally Posted by MikeNigh

How is 1k buses running non stop in the suburbs to pick up 5k people better than 500 cars making 10 to 20 trips and sitting idle in the mean time? Buses should be reduced to a few cheap subway substitute lines instead of trying to take everyone everywhere all the time. Then just let a SEPTA uber clone take care of the rest.

you are woefully ignorant about how buses and trains are scheduled. You are drastically oversimplifying things. Buses and trains do NOT run at consistent headways all day and night- hence your claim that most of the day buses are riding around empty is a lie. Frequency changes based on the time of day with increased frequency and capacity during rush hour and lower frequency during the middle of the day, nights and weekends. Same with regional rail, train frequency, staffing and the number of cars per train all change based on demand. There is no suburban bus route running all day and night with short headways. Suburban bus ridership generally doesn't support that type of service. 40ft and shorter circulator buses are used for far flung suburban runs that don't serve large numbers of people. Considering the limited reach of Philly's subways, bus lines are essential to get people to the stations from neighborhoods that are not within walking distance of the trunk lines. It would be chaotic to try and replace all of this service with individual car trips in which hundreds of cars try to converge at places like FTC, Olney or Fern Rock in the morning to drop people off. The streets around these terminals are already congested and parking and drop off space is limited. You have not addressed how all these cars would fit on existing roadways without creating more traffic. Again, I remind you that during SEPTA strikes traffic becomes abysmal and that is with Regional Rail being packed with overflow customers who would normally be on city transit. Individual car rides is not an answer, not an intelligent one at least.

[Groundhog]

The city should not complete with Uber by adding a fleet of taxis to the streets and subsidizing it. It goes against the model of public transit and against Uber's own model as well by taking on full employees and vehicles. They also shouldn't get into the business of subsidizing Uber as a public service. That is a very slippery slope indeed. Let public transit be public transit (only fund SEPTA like it's peers across the country) and let private competition be just that.

Here's a timely article to go with this discussion:

SEPTA ridership decline by four million rides, or about two percent less than FY 2015.

Most of that loss came from the city’s buses, where ridership fell 3.1 million, or two percent, to 155.4 million in FY 2016. Trolley ridership also took a big hit, carrying 1.38 million fewer customers — a drop of nearly five percent (including the suburban Routes 101 and 102, ridership was down 914,000 across just the city trolleys).

Compared to other public transit options, buses are used more for short trips—the kind of trips that ride-hailing companies like Uber and Lyft tend to make, said Krykewycz. Instead of taking a bus a mile or two, riders might hail a ride through a transportation network company (TNC).

In the short run, that’s a clear win for riders, but it might not last: As Naked Capitalism has shown, Uber effectively subsidizes its trips with investor capital, keeping prices artificially low in a bid to drive up market share. Eventually, prices will rise. It’s the Standard Oil business model.

Full article: http://planphilly.com/articles/2017/...transit-strike

[1487]

Originally Posted by Kfmcshan

I agree that Uber and the other ride shares are losing a lot of money currently and subsidizing lower prices. However, they cannot believe that if they drastically increase their prices, they will keep their customers. I believe their end goal is driverless, solar/electric cars. Then, they will have no driver to pay and wont have to pay for gas. It will be a big investment for Uber itself to buy these vehicles, but they will have plenty of data that will allow them justify the cost of doing so.

they will have a much better chance of getting to a driverless fleet before an electric fleet. And even if they don't pay for gas it's not like charging cars would be free.

[summersm343]

Major Rail Park construction now underway

Major construction is now underway on the first phase of the Rail Park, after the initial groundbreaking last fall.

Center City District (CCD) recently shared a couple of photos of construction crews at work on the future Rail Park grounds. Currently, workers are jackhammering away at an 18-inch deep earthen fill, which served as a base for the original rail track.

Once all of that is removed, it will be replaced with concrete, which will serve as the base for the park.

Although they technically broke ground in October, AP Construction spent the next few months conducting its own analysis of the site. Now that they’ve started major construction, the quarter-mile-long phase of the Rail Park is expected to finish up in early 2018—so long as CCD raises enough money.

About $700,000 is still needed to reach the goal of $10.3 million. The CCD has started hosting fundraising happy hours at the nearby Trestle Inn, and as of press time $7,795 had been raised on their online crowd-funding campaign.

http://philly.curbed.com/2017/1/9/14...ruction-photos

[Boku]

Local success story Monetate moving HQ out of Philadelphia region

http://www.bizjournals.com/philadelp...ess+Journal%29

One of the region’s leading startups is moving its headquarters to New York City.

Monetate CEO Lucinda Duncalfe told the Business Journal in an interview Monday that the digital marketing and e-commerce personalization company is shifting its flagship office from Conshohocken to Manhattan to bring the company closer to its big-name brand clients and a greater talent pool – both key parts of a strategic shift in the eight-year-old company’s new direction.

“It’s the personality of the company, what’s at your core. Philadelphia is awesome. It’s perceived, and I think correctly, as a very grounded, hard-working, solid kind of place,” she said. “New York is faster, and in this market we’re going into, it’s about brand new stuff. It’s a better fit with our culture and where we want to be.”

That's a big loss, imo.

[summersm343]

Originally Posted by Boku

Local success story Monetate moving HQ out of Philadelphia region

http://www.bizjournals.com/philadelp...ess+Journal%29

That's a big loss, imo.

Yeah that does suck. Not sure why they would NEED to move their Headquarters to NYC. Why not just open an office there? It seems like the current CEO is from NYC, so she is moving the headquarters there to make it easier on herself. Not sure why she just wouldn't move the headquarters into Philadelphia, where what she's looking for exists at a much cheaper cost. She already owns a place in NYC though, which explains the decision. At least they are keeping their office in Conshohocken:

The majority of Monetate’s employees will remain at its Conshohocken development center. The private company declined to specify an exact staff number for its staff, but reports in recent years place the figure around 200. A handful of employees in client-facing positions including its sales, service and executive staff will move to New York, where Duncliffe spends about half of her time already. Impacted employees have been offered relocation.

“I’m very happy to have a home up there and not have to find a coffee shop four times a day between my meetings,” said Duncalfe. The company is currently in negotiations to secure office space and expects the New York headquarters to open by the end of the first quarter.

http://www.bizjournals.com/philadelp...eadquarte.html

[Boku]

Originally Posted by summersm343

Yeah that does suck. Not sure why they would NEED to move their Headquarters to NYC. Why not just open an office there? It seems like the current CEO is from NYC, so she is moving the headquarters there to make it easier on herself. Not sure why she just wouldn't move the headquarters into Philadelphia, where what she's looking for exists at a much cheaper cost. She already owns a place in NYC though, which explains the decision.

The CEO is actually local and has run a few area startups. And her reasoning for not just opening an office there is in her quote about the difference in culture between New York and Philly.

[Knight Hospitaller]

.

[Groundhog]

Originally Posted by summersm343

Yeah that does suck. Not sure why they would NEED to move their Headquarters to NYC. Why not just open an office there?

That's always been the case with advertising/marketing firms, at least since the 20's. It really is an industry perception that being on Madison Ave or at least close to it means something to clients. That's changed some in the last two decades, but until a Philly agency gets a national client and develops an amazing and/or omnipresent campaign that can anchor the industry here along the lines of a Martin Agency in Richmond (Geico), Wieden Kennedy in Portland (Nike), Gooby in San Fran (Comcast, Sonic, etc.) or Crispin Porter in Bolder (Dominos, Hotels.com, etc, etc) our fastest growing marketing firms will continue to jump to NYC.

[iheartphilly]

Per PBJ estimates of Monetate Company-The CEO wants to grow the business and feels the clients in NYC could do that for the company. I would just leave it at that.

Estimated Revenue (TTM)
$36.6M
Estimated Employees
202

Year Founded
2008

Industry Sector
Software, Internet & Computer Services

Company Type
Private

Main Phone Number
484-323-6313

Headquarters Address
951 East Hector Street
Conshohocken, PA 19428

[UrbanRevival]

Originally Posted by Boku

The CEO is actually local and has run a few area startups. And her reasoning for not just opening an office there is in her quote about the difference in culture between New York and Philly.

Right, which is a more nebulous way of saying that Philly doesn't have the same type of robust marketing industry that New York has, but of course that's not news to anyone.

I know that these kinds of announcements are disheartening and can lead to hand-wringing, but I think there's a silver lining here that you can find if you read between the lines a little.

Even if the "rainmakers" feel the need to establish their executive presence in a city that is the essentially the capital of their clientele, they are still executing a model of building software/engineering talent in a place like Philly, which is still enormously beneficial for the area.

This is an excerpt from the Philly.com version of the story:

Monetate's software staff will stay in Pennsylvania, which Duncalfe and other local CEOs say is a less-competitive (and therefore more-stable) market for engineering talent than New York City or California, where recruiters are constantly luring managers and developers to work for rivals.

....

"It's not a light decision" to move the company headquarters, says another Philadelphia tech booster, Bob Moul, CEO of Cloudamize and a former head of Philly Startup Leaders.

For a company that needs to keep top executives in close contact with clients, it can make sense to move to managers to where they are located, said Moul, who is also past CEO at Berwyn-based Dell Boomi.

At the same time, Monetate's decision to keep its engineers in West Conshohocken, a few miles by Septa or Schuylkill Expressway from Center City and the city's main airport and Amtrak station, underlines the Philadelphia area's advantage as a software center: "There's a vicious battle for tech talent. Here, we don't have the same amount of turnover" or the added expense constant recruitment requires, Moul added.

http://www.philly.com/philly/blogs/i...HQ-to-NYC.html

To this end, if Philly can still maintain a competitive edge in being the location of the "worker bees" of a lucrative company (which entail very desirable, high-paying jobs), does the address a company lists for legal purposes truly matter?

[Fairmount2Fishtown]

http://www.philly.com/philly/busines...-lot-site.html

[Scottydont]

$300M mixed-use project proposed for North Broad parking lot

http://philly.curbed.com/2017/1/10/1...ng-parking-lot

EDIT: Whoops, there's a thread on this.