Houston19514

Source please? I understand IAH is second to Atlanta in overall number of destinations, but as to International destinations, I'm a little skeptical of that claim.

The best information I can find re: ATL is from the ATL website, where they said: "With this summer's additions, Delta will serve 66 international destinations in 40 countries from Atlanta." Which means that in the future, they expect to have 66 destinations.

The best information I found re: IAH was from May of last year, when IAH had 68 international destinations (and I'm pretty sure they have added some more since then and will probably add more still between now and the end of this summer.)

Just ran across this update. With the addition of Buenos Aires, IAH now has 73 international destinations.

That is correct. Also, Annunciation (next to Minute Maid Park) has a Latin mass. I'm not sure of the times though. I think Holy Rosary is a 9:30 mass.

Correct as to Holy Rosary. 9:30 AM Sunday mass is in Latin.

Annunciation has English/Latin at 11:00 AM Sunday and Latin at 8:00 AM Sunday.

Navy Pier went from a college to the number one tourist attraction in the Midwest in ten years. Really amazing what they've done there. I think I read in Crain's that it had 22,000,000 visitors last year. In the summer I go there at least once a week. My wife is addicted to their nachos and lemonade.

(View of Navy Pier from my bedroom)

(View of Navy Pier from the Hancock Center)

But you're right -- it wouldn't be a good match for Galveston. 50% of Navy Pier visitors come by public transportation (bus, subway, regular taxi, commuter water taxi, ricksha, [does that count?]). I bet 99% of Galveston's visitors come by car, so it's important that the Galveston waterfront attraction be spread out over as much of the seawall as possible to help with congestion. But how cool would it be if you could take a water taxi from downtown Houston to Galveston Island.

I think you exaggerate the speed and the extent of the transformation of Navy Pier. It was originally constructed at least in part as a recreational facility, not as a college. The Navy Pier's own web site only claims 8 million visitors per year. More:

In 1927 the pier was renamed Navy Pier in honor of World War I veterans. It would turn out to be a prophetic name change, as the Navy Pier served as a naval training facility during the second World War. After the war it served as the Chicago branch of the University of Illinois. In 1965 the university moved to its new location and the Navy Pier started to decay.

Redevelopment

The first step in the redevelopment of the Navy Pier was the 1976 restoration by Jerome R. Butler, Jr. of the Auditorium building at the eastern end of the pier. One year later it was designated a Chicago Landmark. Another step to the redevelopment of the Navy Pier was taken in 1989, when the city of Chicago and the State of Illinois installed the Metropolitan Pier & Exposition authority. At the same time they committed 150 million dollar for reconstruction of the pier as a recreational center. The renovation by Benjamin Thompson & associates started in 1992 and was completed in 1994. The result is a very successful recreational center next to Chicago's downtown area. With many attractions and 50 acres of parks and gardens It attracts more than 8 million visitors each year.

I love the idea of a water taxi from downtown Houston to Galveston. I have long thought there should be an opportunity for some entrepreneur to connect many of Houston's biggest attractions by water by running a system of water taxis from downtown Houston the San Jacinto Monument, Kemah Boardwalk, a stop somewhere on Clear Lake connecting to NASA via shuttle, and on to Galveston Island. Does anyone have any idea how long it would take to boat from downtown Houston to the island at civilized speeds?

Some hopeful news in today's Chronicle regarding the old cathedral building. It says they are considering possibly using it as a parish hall. So, there may be hope that it won't be torn down after all.

Back on topic, judging from his response, I guess Houston19514 is all up Mr. Finger's butt for some odd reason.

Do you work for Mr. Fringer?

Unbelievable. Really unbelievable. No, I do not work for Mr. Finger. I've never met the man. I don't quite understand what your obsession with Mr. Finger is all about. I just prefer to keep things on the board a little more closely related to FACTS rather than slander, rumor, and stuff that is just plain "made-up."

I do not understand how they could build a commuter rail line from Austin -San Antonio before they could build a short line from Downtown Down the Hempstead Corridor. Albeit, the traffic can be heavy traveling down I-35 from SA to ATX vice versa. Traffice here is worse and we already have the right away, and I dnt think UP would mind as long as TXdot builds grade seperated crossings at the rail lines. Txdot has done similar things with Hardy Toll Road y Loop 1 in ATX (Mopac BLVD), I would think Metro could get on board with this. Opinions?

http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/nb/cyf...ws/3754847.html

Is there a commuter rail line running between Austin and San Antonio?

Not sure about that. This parking garage was actually added at the last moment.

There were no initial plans for a parking garage. Just a park. Then all of the sudden....

That is not correct. The underground garage was part of the plan from the very beginning. As part of the original agreement when the city conveyed the land to the park conservancy, the city retained an easement to allow it to build the underground parking garage.

Don't forget how much the city has already spent to buy the couple of blocks they needed for the park.

I think Finger graciously sold them the needed blocks, and they are now well positioned to cash in when the time is right with their new "residental" development.

Hmmm.

Wrong again. Finger did not own the land on which the park will be built. You really should try not to engage in slander.

I'm a little surprised at all the hand-wringing about the parking garage portion. It is financed totally separately from the park and is most likely self-financing. If anything, it may help pay for the park improvements.

This explains it. My bad. I'm looking in the wrong place for real Houstonian opinions of the agile port. Really, I should have known better.

... and your point is?? Oh, I forgot, you just wanted to whine, not contribute anything to the forum.

Your study shows Dallas (although highest in Texas) lower than the average. It may be just a weighting of high cost cities, but that's the first study I've ever seen Dallas grocery prices come out well at all. In my personal experience, Dallas citizens get raped at the checkout counter of the local grocery stores compared to everywhere in the midwest I have lived and traveled to. I noticed there are no midwest cities on that list, even Chicago. The issue seems to be there are nearly no discount chains except for Walmart. I haven't tried Festival Foods or whatever it is though, and we have no HEBs up here to try.

Of course, many places in California have it far worse than we do anywhere here in Texas. I was out there a few weeks ago and a 12 pack of coke was on sale for over $5.00, which is outrageous even considering their surcharge per can for recycling.

Jason

Jason, the linked chart just shows a sampling of the cities covered by the study. It was a comprehensive nationwide study. I had no idea there were still no HEB stores in D-FW. That's a shame for you guys. If you are looking for low prices, maybe you should try the Tom Thumb in Highland Park Village ;-)

nice

I guess that answers my question...

Cost of living in Houston and Dallas is the same as are just about every place in Texas (including Austin/Round Rock which isn't that much more than Houston). Just more pretentious postering from our friends in the Metroplex.

And from personal experience, the Tom Thumb in Highland Park Village is less expensive than the Randall's in Cypress. A LOT LESS. We pay out the ASS for groceries here in Houston.

A side note: Palo Pinto County (listed on the map of N. Central Texas Counties linked above) is beautiful country. I'd swear I was in the Texas Hill Country (minus the development).

I'm not buying it on the cost of groceries. Houston is generally considered to be one of the most competitive grocery markets in the country. Every study I've ever seen shows Houston with relatively low grocery prices. For example: Cost of Living Comparison

Just to check, does anyone on this forum want to talk about the potential and/or impact of the agile port, or is it a topic mostly for fun and games?

It has been pretty widely acknowledged that the "agile port" will be good for both D-FW and Houston. Do you have something more to contribute, or did you just want to whine?

I got my numbers directly from the Census web site. Clicked on American Factfinder. Typed in the city names and clicked "2004." Is there a better source for these numbers?

We've been over this before in another thread:

The problem is that your 2004 numbers are taken from the "American Community Survey" which "is limited to the household population and excludes the population living in institutions, college dormitories, and other group quarters." Thus it is not really comparable to the "census" numbers or census estimates.

The 2004 Census estimates are:

Chicago: 2,862,244

Houston: 2,012,626

No it's second to Atlanta's. But none of that matters when you have an ugly out of date Airport.

Source please? I understand IAH is second to Atlanta in overall number of destinations, but as to International destinations, I'm a little skeptical of that claim.

The best information I can find re: ATL is from the ATL website, where they said: "With this summer's additions, Delta will serve 66 international destinations in 40 countries from Atlanta." Which means that in the future, they expect to have 66 destinations.

The best information I found re: IAH was from May of last year, when IAH had 68 international destinations (and I'm pretty sure they have added some more since then and will probably add more still between now and the end of this summer.)

How does lightrail intersect with existing heavy rail ?

The existing lightrail line doesn't not cross regular railroad anywhere does it?

This new line will have to cross no matter what - westpark, richmond or westeimer.... how does it do this ?

Does it have to go over/under, or can it intersect and just have to stop like regular auto traffic ?

Also.. how expensive is tunneling for brief runs so it acts as a subway ? Is this even fiscally feasible that the City would consider it anywhere ?

Of the three possible East-West possibilities :

I think, it has to run Richmond, at least between Kirby and Weslayn in order to hit Greenway.

Also.. for the Eastern end.. I think Richmond is again the best bet in order to hit UST and the mini-museum district.

Another major issue is how does the rail interact with the Galleria?

It has to be close enough to be effective and I think this eliminates both Westpark and Richmond

But, it also can't add to the traffic nightmare that is Westeimer & 610.

If i had any say.. this would be the proposal i'd put forth for study.

Run the length of Richmond, Turn North on Weslayn, Turn Left on West Alabama.

Have the "Highland Village" Stop at thie location.

At this point, it tunnels under West Alabama becoming a subway... bypassing under Afton Oaks ( Yes they'd still have to deal with construction ), bypassing under the railroad, bypassing under 610 ( avoiding both the Westeimer and Richmond intersections ), coming back to grade just West of Post Oak.

Have the "Galleria" stop here at McCue.

Continue West and rejoin Westeimer bypassing most Galleria traffic.

I like your thinking and your plan, except it should go down Westheimer, rather than Alabama. If you are going to put it in a tunnel (and I totally agree with that thought, it would not add to the traffic nightmare along Westheimer, and that would give it better access to Highland Village, the two new developments along Westheimer (Westcreek and whatever the other one is called, and also better access to the rest of Uptown, not just the Galleria.

The disruption of a tunnel construction depends on how it's done, of course. I doubt if it would be built with an open trench construction, but would probably be built by actually tunnelling under ground, with little surface disruption.

http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/front/3742044.html

I first assumed that airport expansions and maintenance were funded by local and state funds, but this story got me all confused.

Also, when it's a sports arena, the taxpayer money usually came from hotel and car rental taxes. Where does Hobby and IAH get their funds?

There are no local or state tax funds used for Houston's airports. The money comes from the FAA (which in turn comes from ticket taxes etc) and landing fees, user fees, and rental income generated at at the airports.

Correct...to a point. Deregulation has nothing to do with why the lines were originally above ground. Deregulation has a lot to do with why we probably won't see them buried. The bigger problem with deregulation has more to do with capacity and transmission than aesthetics.

Nonsense.

19514, you are correct, that the plants and transmission lines were not deregulated. That is actually part of the problem, in that it was only a partial deregulation. Back when HL&P owned everything, they could be reimbursed for improvements to the system. Once they proved how much they were spending, the PUC would allow them a reasonable profit. The more they spent, the more they made. Deregulation created 3 groups, Generators, Transmission and Sellers. Now, the transmission lines are the least profitable part of the system. All of the money is made by Reliant, the seller, not CenterPoint, the transmission owner.

Here's an article that explains this nationwide problem better than I.

http://www.aip.org/tip/INPHFA/vol-9/iss-5/p8.html

As to whether there is ever an incentive to upgrade, think about your car. It gets cheaper to operate once it is paid off. But, over time it starts to break down more often. When the breakdowns cost more than a new car, you replace it. Of course, there are tax incentives involved when it is a business, as well.

As to why there are still unburied lines? There is a limit to what the PUC would approve. If HL&P could not make the case, it would not be allowed to recoup the cost.

Interesting tidbit: Prior to dereg, Houston had the lowest electricity costs in the country. Today, because so many of our generating plants run on natural gas, we have the highest electricity in the country.

In other words (if I may cut to the point) contrary to your first post regarding deregulation, deregulation cannot be blamed and has nothing to do with the existence of overhead lines in Houston.

Remember, deregulation removed all incentive to upgrade facilities. The free market advocates forgot to warn us about that. Oops.

Your comment raises a number of questions.

First, are you sure the transmission and distribution facilities are deregulated? I thought not.

Second, if deregulation supposedly removed all incentive, that suggests there was incentive under regulation. What was that incentive? And if there was, as you suggest incentive to upgrade facilities under the regulated regime, why is Houston still covered with unburied lines?

Third, if, as you say, deregulation removed all incentive to upgrade facilities, that suggests that no unregulated business ever has an incentive to upgrade their facilities. That just can't be correct, can it?

Houston19514 ,

After admitting I was wrong previously (the wright text you posted is unambiguous), I went back to see how I could have made a mistake like that with such clear text. I see now that I had gotten the signed covenants confused with the wright amendment itself:

This text is from:

http://enplaned.blogspot.com/

Again, I am not saying I was right all along, or this is what I meant in the first place, I'm saying this is how I got those two items confused. In fact I will go so far as to say I'm not providing the above as fact, since I screwed up the facts before. So, if you have information as to specific text on the covenant, I would be interested in it to see if it would be violating any agreements, which could potentially have the same basic affect as breaking wright. I don't know if anyone has that information though.

Jason

Very interesting about the covenants. After some searching I finally located the relevant sections of the Covenants. Unfortunately, they are not in a format where I can cut and paste and I'm out of time right now. Later today, I'll post the language, but for what it is worth I don't think the covenants would in any way block FedEx from Alliance (or any other development at Alliance).

Here is my statement I claimed was very clear, quoted exactly:

"The piece you quoted does not contradict what I said."

Jason

If that's your idea of a clear refutation, well, hey, who am I to argue? ;-) But I gotta tell you, Jason, ol' buddy... from out here it looks a whole lot more like a confirmation of what you first said.

And, to be honest, I have no idea what "piece you quoted" you are even referring to. The piece I quoted was not even addressing the question of whether or not FedEx had considered DFW; it was merely addressing the question of whether the Wright Amendment applies to cargo carriers. So of course the piece I quoted to did not contradict what you said on the question of whether FedEx had considered DFW (and even you surely now understand that in fact the piece I quoted did contradict what you said on the question of the Wright Amendment applying to cargo carriers. Tcole addressed the FedEx/DFW question, but did not quote a piece at all (but as an aside, his posting on that issue should tell you that, even if you had not meant to do so, you certainly left people with the impression that you thought FedEx had never considered DFW).

In the end, it is quite hard to see any refutation, clear or otherwise in your quoted language. But, whatever... Thanks for your grudging admission of error on the Wright Amendment

Why can't all of Downtown have that lighting? If not on the skyscrapers, at least on the streets? Wouldn't people feel more safe at night with bright lights like that? Think about how much safer Buffalo Bayou looks with those lights as well.

I also heard Houston wants to deter any homeless from living on Downtown Houston streets, and deter crime. Those lights I think could help deter that. Holla back...

I think that is actually part of the overall plan. Not sure if or when it might become reality. Check it out.

Buffalo Bayou Lighting Plan

I was simply stating that I was misunderstood. Then I went on to explain what I meant.It was never an argument.

But the thing is, Dallasboi, you weren't misunderstood...

You started off telling us that:

"It will be just as Successfull for DFW as the Port of Houston is for houston..

Many people understood you to mean that you thought this new "port" of Dallas would be just as successful as the Port of Houston.

And when people challenged that assertion, you "explained" what you really meant by telling us that:

it's expected to produce the same type of growth that Houston experienced with their port. Thats all I was pointing out......

and yet people still have the idea that you think this new "port" of Dallas will be as successful, and produce as many jobs, as the Port of Houston. Go figure.

Lets be concise:

And on the issue of not admitting being wrong, I clearly stated that I was refuting the quoted text.

Jason

Oh, and, by the way, no you did not. There was no refutation, clear or otherwise in your posts. Saying it would not stand up in court (in some mythical, imaginary case) as an excuse for using Alliance over D-FW is not the same as "refuting the quoted text". It might not stand up in court as an excuse, even if it was true, which is the impression you left us with.

But of course all of this silliness over whether FedEx considered DFW is just that, silliness. FedEx could go wherever they wanted with no Wright Amendment restrictions, as I have clearly shown in previous posts.

Oh, oh. Now you've done it. 19514 is starting to get litigious.

;-) Sorry, I can't help it... I just hate when people post random thoughts and rumors dressed up as fact, and then, when it is shown they are incorrect, try to re-write and re-interpret what they originally wrote.

Lets be concise:

--I never said that Fedex would not have considered DFW. That's an assumption you made. I said that this was stated as an excuse for Alliance. Fedex does not get into big wright verbal battles so they would never have a reason to give such an excuse. The public verbal shootouts are done by WN, AA, DFW, FW, and Dallas. And in this particular case, as I elaborated on very clearly in the later post, was done by a Fort Worth councilperson.

And on the issue of not admitting being wrong, I clearly stated that I was refuting the quoted text.

Jason

and what about the Wright Amendment? Are you still claiming it makes it illegal for Dallas to build an Alliance-type airport?

For your easy reference, here is what you said earlier: "In the past it would have been illegal for Dallas to build an airport like that, (violation of Wright) "