Houston19514

That was our point, Red. Everyone who pays any attention has already heard that there are a lot of exciting developments brewing for downtown. I live hundreds of miles from downtown Houston and I'm aware of the "insider talk". If one wants to have credibility as having insider scoop, one needs to back up the very general reiteration of rumors with something substantive that goes beyond what we've all read in the newspaper. Good grief, Niche told us nothing more than had already been printed by even the clueless Chronicle. We can all pretend to be insiders by repeating on these boards what we've read in the newspaper or a press release...

Interesting... Seems a little bizarre. Washington does not bring the word subtropic immediately to mind for most people, Iwould guess...

LOL Good luck with that. Just keep in mind the old saying: "It's hard to get blood out of a turnip." ;-)

Truth or lie; it doesn't really matter. . . Niche has told us exactly nothing, and has rarely, if ever, shown any evidence of having any truly inside information. It doesn't exactly take Sherlock Holmes to know that there are a lot of exciting developments brewing for downtown Houston.

Washington DC subtropical? That's a new one. In what sense of the word is Washington DC subtropical?

Not annoyed in the least... but HIGHLY AMUSED. Anyone who reads the papers, or follows Mayor White's statements, or even follows this forum, already knows there is a lot of "insider buzz" about projects throughout downtown.

Very good news in that report. Great to hear McClane is on board and is working for a parking structure to make it possible. (I noted the reporter said they were looking at a site north of MMP, but she clearly meant (and the video showed) the lots to the east of MMP)

The straw man reference was in regard to the straw men you threw out earlier in this thread. I thought that should have been fairly obvious. As to the "they do not burden the local tax base". Really, what is your point? Why can you not just accept that you were wrong from the start, let it go, and stop trying to muddy the water with your pedantry? You surely are intelligent enough to know that when they say they do not burden the local tax base, they mean they do not get revenue from local taxes, nothing more esoteric than that.

LOL Man, when you're not manufacturing straw men, you're manufacturing excuses. It's the FAA's fault, it's Houston19514's fault; it's the airport system's fault... ;-) I'd be interested in seeing the document that said that "in the past [user fee funding] had not always been the case." I suspect you just might have misinterpreted another document. Since seeing the airport budget and having it repeatedly explained to you apparently is still not sufficient to convince you of your categorical wrongness, here's some more "evidence to that effect." I'll post more as I find it and have time: From the Airport System's website: "While the airports represent a significant contribution to Houston and the surrounding communities' economies, they do not burden the local tax base to pay for operations, maintenance or capital improvements. Rather the system accomplishes financial self-sufficiency by deriving income from fees, rentals, and other charges. Surpluses generated are reinvested into capital development and bond retirement."

You told us that: "further investigation does raise another question. "Contributions" to the HAS total 63,989,000, but FAA documents only account for disbursements to the City of Houston of $38,698,655 and to the State of Texas of $4,000,190 for IAH, HOU, and EFD, which are under HAS' jurisdiction. So who pays for the remainder of the "Contributions", which total $21,290,155, if not the FAA?" At long last, you provided links to "support" these numbers. The numbers can indeed be found there, by adding together IAH, HOU, and EFD. The problem is . . . the numbers do not show how much money was paid, granted, handed over, to the airports by the FAA in a given year. The numbers show how much money each of the three airports paid to the City of Houston and to the State of Texas in a given year for services or property received from those government entities. (I actually explained this to you earlier in the thread, when you posted the numbers and chart for IAH only.) The explanatory language on the reports to which you linked explains it all: "The information collected on this form facilitates the submission of financial payment data. Financial Governmental Payment Form, section 47107(a)(19),requires airport owners and operators to submit to the Secretary of Transportation and make available to the public an annual report listing all amounts paid by the airport to other units of government and the purpose of payment"

And I answered your questions. You are comparing numbers from a federal government form based on the federal government's fiscal year with numbers on an Houston Airport System report based on the city's fiscal year. The fiscal years do not match up. So the numbers do not match up. (And with regard to your "Don't be an ass" opening line, maybe you should pay closer attention to the attitude you pitch in your own posts...) Edit: From a very quick look at the numbers at the site you linked, it appears that the real cause for the "inconsistency" is that you once again totally misunderstood what the numbers were. I'll come back later with a more detailed look and response.

Glad to see I wasn't the only one to notice that...

What would commuter rail do that the Metro buses and HOV lane system can't do at least as well?

You post wrong numbers, don't understand the numbers you post, and MY reasoning is screwy? You are too much. And speaking of screwy reasoning, your having posted numbers for IAH rather than for HAS would not make your point moot; it would just change the numbers. If the numbers supported your point in the first place, adding the entire HAS into the mix would only make the numbers more supportive. (I think the entire HAS payments to the city for FY 2005 was in the neighborhood of 38 Million); Sadly for you, the numbers did not support your point, but undermined it; so adding to the number only further demolished your "point." If you could provide a link for your FAA numbers, perhaps I could explain it to you (or are these numbers from one of the double-blind, super secret unnamed sources you are famous for?). Just looking at the numbers you typed, my guess is there is a mismatch of numbers to years, perhaps your error, but it's most likely a result of the city (and airport fund) having a different fiscal year than does the federal government. You are clearly in over your head on this subject. Maybe you should back out of the water before you drown... ;-)

Yes, but we weren't talking about the possibilities for expanding either roads or rail lines. We were talking about maximizing the usage of the existing infrastructure. In both freeways and rail lines, you can handle more passengers with the same infrastructure if you spread the usage throughout the day, rather than bunching the bulk of it into two 2-hour windows. (And FWIW, there is a limit to how many passengers a single rail line can handle; there is a limit to the number of cars each train can have, and there is a limit to how closely they can travel.)

Not sure they are quite as different as you are suggesting. If you can average out the demand on a rail system, you don't have to invest in as many rail cars. Isn't a rail system that's crowded 4 hours and empty the other 20 is just as much of a missed opportunity as the same situation in a freeway?

Ummmm... according to the chart in your prior post, for 2005 the total airport system: operating revenue was 353,641,000 operating expenses were 329,863,000 nonoperating net expenses were 56,645,000 FAA Contributions were 63,989,000 That leaves a surplus of 31,122,000 as was shown on your chart. Now, where are you finding any "remaining amount" or deficit, let alone $41.3 million? The chart in your most recent post is quite hilarious, as it steps all over your attempted point. You didn't crop it quite closely enough and we can still read on the bottom that that this is a chart showing payment made BY the Airport System TO the City of Houston. And according to your latest post, apparently the airports are not only providing revenue to the City of Houston, but also are subsidizing the state of Texas. Thanks for helping out.

Have you lost all of your long-term memory function? ;-)

You are rapidly revealing yourself to be nothing more than what some of us thought. Good at cutting and pasting. But not so good at actually understanding what you are talking about. As to getting me to "quit this BS about how airports aren't being subsidized?". Well, as usual, you are a little late to the party. I already said above that they benefit from the implicit subsidy of government financing. And, yea, as a public agency, they don't pay taxes. Quite the astounding discovery there, Einstein. That is exactly the sort of "subsidy" I proposed above for a high-speed rail system. As to your "categorical" proof that I am wrong on their budget being funded entirely by user fees and airport revenues... Well, you missed again. The "contributions" in the Aviation department budget are from the FAA. The FAA funds are from airport user fees.

How many people do you employ in that straw-man factory you operate? It must keep quite a few people busy to keep you supplied. ;-) Read my post again. You know very well that I did not say anything remotely like what you have implied. I never used the word "profit", let alone suggested in any way that our airports operate or could operate profitably in a private, free-market operation. That is why I said that I would be supportive of a similar arrangement for a high-speed rail system, where a rail authority can issue government bonds to build the infrastructure and repay those bonds out of operating proceeds and user fees. Hardly a proposal for a private-sector, profitable enterprise. Regarding the city of Houston having purchased the land for IAH. Do you know what the source of that money was, by any chance? I didn't think so... Could it have been airport department funds (which are derived from user fees and other airport-generated revenues)? Could it have been FAA money (which also comes from user fees, by the way)?

Look at Post #55 more carefully. Kinkaid was referring to the Westin Diplomat

But who pays back the bond issues? In most cases (and certainly in Houston's case) they are not paid back with general tax revenues, but are paid with airport user fees and other airport revenue. The recently passed Prop G proves nothing. All that did was remove the airport system from the revenue restrictions imposed on the city government. It made no sense to apply revenue restrictions to the airport system because all of their revenue is self-generated, NOT taken out of general tax revenues. There is a small subsidy implicit here, of course, in that the airports have access to the government bond issues, which will get them a better interest rate. If that's all that you have in mind for a TGV system, I'd be all for it. Establish an railroad authority to build the infrastructure with proceeds from a bond issue and then recoup the costs out of user fees. The problem with that is, at least as of the early 90's when the Texas TGV was seriously attempted, even with that level of subsidy the project was not feasible.

You may be technically correct on that. But the user fees pay the vast majority of the costs, and the rest of the money is generated by other airport activities (e.g. retail space rent, rent and fees from rental car companies, etc.) At least in the case of Houston, the airports are not supported by any general tax money.

Glad you asked. Yes, they do. And user fees pay for Air Traffic Control as well.

You'll try to define your way out of anything won't you? Since when was the discussion related solely to the term "global city". And for that matter who are you to define for all people and all time what the term "global city" means? Sheesh, take a humble pill, man. And, fwiw, I agree that overall, Chicago has more influence on the world than does Houston. THAT is not relevant to the subject.