Houston19514

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?

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

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.)

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.

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.

Nonsense.

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.

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?

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).

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

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

But the thing is, Dallasboi, you weren't misunderstood... You started off telling us that: 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: 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.

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. ;-) 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.

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) "

You just cannot admit to being wrong, can you? Simple facts, man: The Wright Amendment only restricts passenger carriers, NOT cargo carriers. The Wright Amendment only restricts operations at Love Field. It has no application whatever at ANY other airport. Period. It does not apply at Alliance. It would not apply at any new airport in the D-FW Airport. Therefore, as far as Wright Amendment restrictions are concerned, it could not matter less whether FedEx first considered or would have considered D-FW airport. I suggest you actually read the language of the Wright Amendment before pretending to know what it says. Since you seem unable (or unwilling) to find it for yourself, here are the exact words of the Wright Amendment: (a) Except as provided in subsection ©, notwithstanding any other provision of law, neither the Secretary of Transportation, the Civil Aeronautics Board, nor any other officer or employee of the United States shall issue, reissue, amend, revise, or otherwise modify (either by action or inaction) any certificate or other authority to permit or otherwise authorize any person to provide the transportation of individuals, by air, as a common carrier for compensation or hire between Love Field, Texas, and one or more points outside the State of Texas, except (1) charter air transportation not to exceed ten flights per month, and (2) air transportation provided by commuter airlines operating aircraft with a passenger capacity of 56 passengers or less. ( Except as provided in subsections (a) and ©, notwithstanding any other provision of law, or any certificate or other authority heretofore or hereafter issued thereunder, no person shall provide or offer to provide the transportation of individuals, by air, for compensation or hire as a common carrier between Love Field, Texas, and one or more points outside the State of Texas, except that a person providing service to a point outside of Texas from Love Field on November 1, 1979 may continue to provide service to such point. © Subsections (a) and ( shall not apply with respect to, and it is found consistent with the public convenience and necessity to authorize, transportation of individuals, by air, on a flight between Love Field, Texas, and one or more points within the States of Louisiana, Arkansas, Oklahoma, New Mexico, and Texas by an air carrier, if (1) such air carrier does not offer or provide any through service or ticketing with another air carrier or foreign air carrier, and (2) such air carrier does not offer for sale transportation to or from, and the flight or aircraft does not serve, any point which is outside any such State. Nothing in this subsection shall be construed to give authority not otherwise provided by law to the Secretary of Transportation, the Civil Aeronautics Board, any other officer or employee of the United States, or any other person. (d) This section shall not take effect if enacted after the enactment of the Aviation Safety and Noise Abatement Act of 1979. And as to FedEx. You told us earlier that FedEx would NOT have considered DFW (see post #112), now you tell us "Of course Fedex considered DFW" (see first paragraph above), and then you tell us "they never considered DFW as an option..." (also first paragraph above). Which is it?

Wow, Jason sure shot a hole through the heart of his credibility with these posts about the Wright Amendment, didn't he?

But you will find these words "...to provide the transportation of individuals, by air, as a common carrier for compensation or hire between Love Field, Texas, and one or more points outside the State of Texas," So, for two reasons, your statement that Dallas' building of an Alliance-type airport would be illegal was incorrect. (1) a new Alliance-type airport would not be Love Field, and (2) a new Alliance-type airport would not involve the "transportation of individuals, by air, as a common carrier" And of course the Wright Amendment is irrelevant to all of the business about FedEx not really being competition to DFW. The Wright Amendment does not apply anywhere but Love Field and does not apply to cargo carriers (event though the word "cargo" indeed does not appear in the language of the Wright Amendment.)

The Wright Amendment has no application to cargo carriers, and thus no relevance or application to an airport like Alliance.

Where is it written that a spire is considered part of the building. Were some of the verses of my book of Genesis left out? "And on the eighth day God decreed that spires shall be considered part of buildings when calculating heights, but only if they are ornaments, not if they are radio or telecommunications." But what if they are ornamental radio or telecommunications? Or telecommunicating ornaments? ;-) In fact, On July 10, 1997, the Council on Tall Buildings and Urban Habitat met in Chicago to announce new standards with four categories for measuring tall buildings. These categories are: 1. Height to the structural or architectural top. 2. Height to the highest occupied floor. 3. Height to the top of the roof. 4. Height to the top of antenna. Three thoughts: (1)This topic was about the tallest Condo tower, not tallest residential tower. The building in Dallas will be rental, so does not even fit in the category being asked about. (2) The building in Dallas is under construction and has no one living in it, so as of today, the Huntingdon is still the tallest residential building in Texas, no matter how loose of a definition you want to use in measuring heights of buildings. (3) In my opinion, when judging what is the tallest condo building or the tallest residential building, the salient question is, which building has residences the farthest from the ground (highest occupied floor). Even after people start moving in to the building in Dalls, the Huntingdon (and probably several other buildings in Houston) will have several floors of residences that are higher in the sky than any residences in downtown Dallas, or elsewhere in the state. A little more on the spire issue. When I look at a building to judge its height (and I think most people would do the same) I look at where the top of the main structure is, not to the top of any little ornamental spire sticking up like a flag pole. For this reason I think one has to include the ornamental structure on top of the Bank of America building in Atlanta, but it seems ridiculous to include the little flag-pole-like ornament on top of that building in Dallas. I question whether this particular ornament would even qualify as the "structural or architecural top" of the building; I would say not. I can imagine that if you showed a picture of the two buildings in that Dallas complex to any number of people and asked them which building is the taller. . . after they looked at you like you were out of your mind for even asking the question, and then pondered whether it was a trick question, about 99% would tell you that the 50 story building next door is taller than the 34 story building being converted to residential. This building in Fort Worth (now called The Tower) is 488 feet tall. So, no, it is not the tallest condo tower or the tallest residential tower in Texas, no matter how you measure.

I'm relieved to see someone is still awake. For a minute there (actually 54 minutes) I thought Posts #89 and 90 had put everyone to sleep. ;-)

Oh, you mean the off-topic blather about the D-FW website (that was in fact responded to by several Houston members in Posts #66, 71, and 76). What was your point again?

What in the world are you talking about?

See my response to JasonDFW (that apparently crossed paths with your question to me) The really funny thing is all of you Dallas guys coming onto a Houston board pondering why Houstonians care so much about what is going on in Dallas, why Houstonians care so much about what Dallasites think of them, and declaring that Dallasites don't care anything about Houston. Ironic, no? I took you up on your invitation and went to the Dallas website and looked around. In my brief perusal, the main difference I noted was the lack of interjections by defensive and humorless people from outside the subject city (people who, one might say, seem to have chips on their shoulders).

You're joking, right? How about every one of your posts on this thread? How about the fact that you felt compelled to come onto a Houston board to "defend" Dallas's "port" against nothing but some light-hearted ribbing? Lighten up, man. I just realized I left Dallasboi off my list of those who need to take themselves (and Dallas) less seriously; an inexcusable oversight on my part. ;-) Zaphod, you are quite right; Tulsa does have a river port, just as do all of the cities along the Mississipi River and other rivers. And trust me, Tulsans think they have a port comparable to the Port of Houston or Port of New Orleans, handling ocean-going cargo, etc, etc. If one were to go onto the Tulsa board and merely point out that the Port of Tulsa is more comparable to, say, the Port of Memphis or the Port of Muscatine, Iowa, you'd set off a defensive flame-war like nothing you've ever seen.

ROFLMAO This has to be the funniest thread ever on this board. Jason, 713, and Banking, try not to take yourselves (and Dallas) so seriously. You'd have to go to the Tulsa board to find people as who are as defensive about their little burg as you guys. And the fact that the local media illustrated the story of "The Port of Dalls receiving its first shipment" with photos of an ocean liner unloading was too precious for words. Oh, and, by the way, Johnson Space Center is indeed in the City of Houston.