mattyt36

Unfortunately, even if that happens, Houston will be down 1 if Marathon and Southwestern get acquired.

I understand this statement to be pretty hollow and one that most people on this forum would agree with in principle. While "equitably" may throw people off I think the general theme for most people on here, myself included, is that we shouldn't invest less in transit. But the question is, @samagon, what exactly do you mean by equitable? Because that can be measured in very different ways. It's also really not an outcome-driven policy approach--you can invest "equitably" and transit without having people use it in great numbers but still say you invested "equitably." Once again the problem in Houston is land use. Change that first, and you can change the transportation system. Trying to upend the transportation system without the land use is the proverbial case of cutting off one's nose to spite one's face. Why? Because people don't have to participate. You build a comprehensive, expensive yet highly politically controversial transit system connecting downtown with far-flung suburbs today is not a guarantee that people will use it in the numbers that some people on here think it will. And you certainly have to acknowledge that there are a hell of a lot of vested interests with a lot of money that will fight it for completely logical reasons. The State will be happy to help them out, too (and the federal government often as well, dependent on who particular is in power). It's a chicken-and-the-egg problem. We keep on about those great European and northeastern cities as if it is achievable with our land use patterns. It just isn't, not without major, major changes in land use that would essentially require political coercion. And if people have a choice that is easily presentable to suburban property owners losing the value of their primary investment (and from a variety of different perspectives) or the status quo, most will sensibly (from their perpsective) choose the status quo. And that can manifest itself in many, many different ways, not the least of which would be INCREASED suburbanization. There are some relatively comprehensive transit systems built in the last several decades, LA and Dallas among them, and I'm sure we would all agree neither is Amsterdam. Until we have a solution that more comprehensively addresses the above and creates less distinct "winners" and "losers" (which I personally think is close to impossible, at least under the existing political system), those who keep pining about less reliance on a car by building more transit are living in an unpractical fantasy-world. The ship has sailed, folks. The way things are trending politically, I could see one major party formally adopting no federal funding of transit as part of their platform--and have a lot of support for it as they view any of it as "wasted money," just as they do pretty much any government service not used by them (or, more often, that they realize they do not use/benefit from).

I've obviously been entirely ineffectual--maybe someone else can explain to him that none of the above aligns with the foreign policy platform of the person he has "no choice" but to vote for? Indeed.

You would've been a real hoot in the 1930s. What on earth do you mean, Augie? Asking for a friend.

Don’t forget China! No wonder he is such a hero of the modern-day tankies, all while calling himself a “free speech absolutist.” He’s either got some misfiring synapses that somehow allows him to rationalize these positions (when you’re ultra wealthy, I suppose you can rationalize anything with little effort) or thinks we’re all stupid.

Well 40 years ago this would have made everything abundantly clear and provoke a unified American response, with the exception of a very small population of leftists. Impossible now considering you have the leading faction of one of our two major political parties essentially aligned with autocrats who (*spoiler alert!*) don't have the U.S.'s best interests at heart. North Korea’s Leader Arrives in Russia as Nations Seek Closer Military Ties - The New York Times (nytimes.com) Here is some of what the Russian leader said: Donald J. Trump: Mr. Putin said the criminal cases against the former U.S. president show “the rottenness of the American political system, which cannot pretend to teach others about democracy.” The Russian leader said the cases amount to “persecution of one’s political rival for political motives” and lay bare “who is fighting us.” Mr. Trump has continued to express his admiration for Mr. Putin after leaving office, and called the Russian leader’s decision to invade Ukraine “pretty smart.” OH THE IRONY . . . Putin talking about "persecution of one's political rival for political motives." Translation: "Elect Trump and he will let me do whatever the flurf I want." Elon Musk: The billionaire entrepreneur is an “active, talented businessman,” Mr. Putin said, noting that all around the world Mr. Musk is recognized as an “outstanding” person in private business. The description resembled the way the Russian leader first described Mr. Trump as a “brilliant and talented” individual when he launched his U.S. presidential run in 2015. Last week, Mr. Musk acknowledged that he had thwarted a Ukrainian attack on Russia’s Black Sea naval fleet in 2022 by refusing to let the Ukrainian military use his satellite network, Starlink, to guide its drones. Well that should tell you all you need to know about Elon. China: Western nations are trying to restrain China’s development because they see how the country, under Xi Jinping’s leadership, is developing by leaps and bounds, Mr. Putin said. “They are doing everything to slow the development of China, but this will not be possible,” he said, adding: “They are late. The train has left the station.” Mr. Putin has forged closer ties with Mr. Xi, in part to overcome Western sanctions, and the two leaders declared an enduring economic partnership after talks this year in Moscow. China is in the toilet, and reality will eventually catch up with the totalitarian Xi--we could do a lot to hasten such an event by leveraging our close economic and geopolitical ties with our allies versus throwing those relationships in the trash. Doesn't seem to take many of what Lenin would call "useful idiots" to support this transparently anti-American platform--the political movement for which is equally transparently led by one Donald J. Trump.

Well, the DoJ said yesterday it would indict Hunter Biden in the coming weeks. Guess he has a small window to file his papers to run for president so he can get off on the "Trump Rule of Justice."

What part of the case exactly do you find "media/political hyperbole," and how exactly did you come to that opinion? I swear, you guys project so much you fail to realize that what mainstream Democrats believe is that there should be NO political prosecutions and generally have no reason to suspect that there are as a matter of course otherwise . . . maybe, until, for example, a future National Security Advisor chants "Lock her up" at what appears to us as a modern-day Nuremberg rally. The right-wing paranoia is so deep you don't realize you're the only ones talking about political prosecutions, civil war, etc., etc.--you think our world is as paranoid as yours. The truth is, most of us are just trying to live our lives and do our jobs without being beholden to the deeply ingrained neuroses of the maybe 10% of the country that is batflurf harebrained MAGA and the 30% who are happy to enable them "to own the libs" or for other politically expedient reasons. The other truth of the matter is that half of the country is interested in actually solving problems, too, and statements like "the Demorat radical leftist socialist communist agenda is killing babies and BTW don't drink Bud Light" kind of leave us scratching our heads as to whether the people we are talking to are indeed good-faith bargainers. Trump is not in jail yet. Far from it. You either believe in justice for all or not. Since you haven't said otherwise (you seem to like a lot of exceptions for a very, very small number of people), I'll continue to think that you don't, or at least that there should be certain exceptions for politically convenient purposes. Did the average MAGA ever think when he was growing up that they'd proudly be able to say to their grandkids, "Yep, I am such a patriot I voted for coup plotter. For me, it was really all about the suspicious timing of the case and the thought that, just, well people who had the same political opinion as me might go crazy and start a Civil War, and I of course wasn't going to get in their way. In fact, when I was arguing with people who thought differently than I, I brought up that frequently. I remember telling them 'Check this space in a couple of years, and you'll know what I mean!'" Because that's really where we are.

So once again we revert to the extortion. Are you saying because a not insignificant amount of MAGA supporters have proven themselves to be violent fanatics, we can't prosecute the person responsible for the only time in American history we have not had a peaceful transfer of power? The individual responsible for the only coup in American history? Because a bunch of wingnuts will turn around and apply the law in bad faith for retributive purposes? In other words, we're going to throw the entire American justice system out the window to keep a man-baby criminal out of prison? Trump gets a lifetime free pass because he's supported by a bunch of authoritarian thugs? Well, I'd say the source of the problem is once again pretty self-evident.

Well MAGA killed irony sometime around 2015. And boy has it sucked since.

Augie, I know you have already settled it in your mind that this is some grand conspiracy, but why not employ Occam's Razor here? Takes a while to investigate, get witness testimony, coordinate with lawyers, etc. if you do things right and not as part of some kangaroo court. How long did it take for the Mueller report? Do you have anything specific to validate your point that this is all some grand conspiracy or is it just a "hunch" you get from watching Fox News or something worse? (You may recall Fox News has essentially come out and said that its 2020 election coverage was utter bullflurf. There's a conspiracy for you if you're so hell bent on finding one.) Because he broke the friggin law, Augie. It's that simple. Not only did he break the friggin law, Augie, he did so in coordination with an election. Why is he entitled to run again when hundreds of people who he clearly incited are going to jail? Another time-worn Republican tactic--extortion. "If we don't get our way, we're going to riot, shoot you, impeach you for no reason, etc." Stop projecting. Republicans are the ones who talk openly about "getting" political opponents. This is about accountability and the rule of law. The standard that at least half the country is employing for Trump is that he should be treated like anyone else who committed a crime. He continues to act like a mob boss, thereby confirming his guilt and demonstrating yet again his unsuitability for office.

He literally tried to overthrow the American system of government on a whim. Something commonly referred to as a "coup." There has been plenty documented in the indictments as well as in the January 6th commission hearings that make this indisputable. His best defense is that he did so because he was delusional and unable to accept basic facts after all states certified the election results and he lost court case after court case after court case, including several presided over by judges he appointed. I don't believe this defense at all--he has been whining about things being rigged if he loses since 2015 and their whole reaction to the 2020 election results was planned in advance. Regardless, he has demonstrated he is absolutely unfit to be president because (a) he either consciously and deliberately tried to overthrow the government; or (b) he is absolutely delusional and mentally unstable. The fact that people who in their immediately prior lives liked to claim they vote on the basis of "law and order" would make excuses for this is absolutely unreal. As @Amlaham said, there is definitely something in the MAGA water. I guess it should be no surprise that Trump voters trust him more than they trust their own family. Salt of the earth, definitely! Trump’s voters trust him more than they trust friends and family - The Washington Post Are you suggesting this standard somehow applies to sharing one's opinion on a message board? Seems a bit snowflake-y. More than half the country disagrees. Amazing--can you believe it?! What are you talking about, augie?! Democrats won over swing voters with "Defund the Police" messaging that came out of the summer 2020 demonstrations? Absolutely delusional. Only a Republican would think indicting anyone for trying to overthrow the government is a "weaponization of the legal system." Republicans seem to be hard-wired to think "well, if I want to do something, it must be legal." Abortion rights? Doesn't matter what the majority of the country thinks--they should just be able to do whatever the hell they want to do because they are somehow "right." Same with just about every other Republican position in the culture wars. "Because I don't approve of something, no one else can do it." Fine logic. There’s a word for it—“entitled.” Oh please, what difference does it make to you really if he were indicted in 2021? Your tune would change and the prosecution would be "legitimate"? Sure, Jan, sure.

For posterity, Southwest returned to profitability in Q2 2023 with $683 million in net income, off of record quarterly revenues of $7 billion, a mere two quarters removed from the winter operational disruptions.

Huh? The logic eludes me yet again.

Bad word choice on HBJ's part--it's 3,000 square feet--the size of a standard 7-11. Convenience store, not grocery store. Definitely needed, regardless.

HBJ mentions this hotel will "replace" the existing Holiday Inn Express on Bell St--don't know if that means it will be closing completely or rebranded. “This is a great location, within walking distance of Minute Maid Park, the George R. Brown Convention Center and Main Street,” Momin said. “There are only a handful of dual-branded hotels downtown, and we will be replacing another Holiday Inn Express on Bell Street that is over 20 years old. So, it’s going to be great for visitors to Houston, who have brand loyalty and are members of our rewards program.” Dual-branded Holiday Inn Express, Staybridge Suites to break ground in downtown Houston - Houston Business Journal (bizjournals.com)

Well considering a majority of flights to Canada depart from Terminal A, I’m not sure I would use the word “rare.” Any newly added international flight would be low on the O&D scale, and those people are already on the roadways, just connecting at SFO, LAX, ORD, etc., so I don’t think your logic flows.

Well with A and B, it's likely going to be going on for another decade, so I'd say get used to it, i.e., if they aren't growing due to the construction, not sure why we would assume they would in the future.

Wrong, the new D pier was designed in no insignificant part to give UA additional international gate capacity (it should be obvious they have no other options to implement their "massive" growth plans on the international side at the peaks, which is when you want to add new international destinations to maximize connectivity) instead of building the 2008-era proposed FIS at Terminal B. They will be using it--just like they use D today, although I am sure to a higher degree. The fact that they don't use the opportunity to build a build-to-suit flagship club is, indeed, pathetic, given how crowded the existing clubs are. The closest club to those gates will be the already pathetically undersized C-North club. There were plans for a Star Alliance lounge at one point, but I'd think we'd have heard about it by now if it was still the plan. I am not saying they don't have growth plans at IAH because, as you say, they continue to pour money into facilities here and at least pay lip service to growing here. That said, in the last decade (i.e, from 2010 to 2019), UA grew 25% in seat capacity at DEN, 9% at ORD, and shrunk 4% at IAH. Since 2019, it has grown a further 19% in DEN and shrunk another 4% at IAH. Does not scream major growth plans to me. If you say they are sitting out waiting for the construction of D to be over, well, then we can only assume they'll sit out waiting for B to over, which will probably be another 5+ year redevelopment program. Chances are pretty decent there will be another major recession that will upend the existing growth plan and we will still be waiting. IMO IAH is a big hedge for them because they essentially control the facilities, unlike at DEN and ORD.

Looks like IAH has about 250K more international departing seats than DFW for CY 2023. Column 4 is 2023, column 3 is 2022: DFW Asia 321,237 444,578 DFW Australasia 84,222 161,262 DFW Caribbean 172,965 227,658 DFW Central America 377,940 451,788 DFW Europe 1,213,984 1,482,990 DFW Middle East 324,872 328,952 DFW North America 3,367,902 3,385,681 DFW South America 316,197 274,282 IAH Asia 132,867 299,298 IAH Australasia 32,974 140,350 IAH Caribbean 214,225 291,248 IAH Central America 1,148,079 1,294,646 IAH Europe 970,508 1,123,930 IAH Middle East 233,423 301,537 IAH North America 2,788,024 3,015,960 IAH South America 578,822 608,190 Of course, North America in the above is Mexico and Canada. Total IAH 2023: 7,075,159 Total DFW 2023: 6,757,191 Still, again, a far cry from the historical comparison, and I'm not sure it's anything to trumpet. Unfortunately, DFW really ate into IAH's historical dominance to Mexico. IAH's marginally higher seats fully attributable to DFW's gap to Central and South America. We'll see if there is any major expansion once the new international gates open, but I'm not holding my breath. I don't think UA is even building a club in the new terminal (we would've heard about it by now from UA, which telegraphs things like that 2 years in advance), which is absolutely pathetic.

I think the answer to that question is obviously not. Plenty of hotels in NYC, Chicago, and other major cities (in Houston, too, I'm sure) that similarly abut neighboring buildings. At least this will be only on one side. I don't think the run-of-the-mill traveler is looking for a view when booking a hotel. If they get a nice one, sure, it's a major plus, but it seems to me like the only people who would really know AND really care would be repeat travelers, who after a while could figure out a way to request a room on the other side.

Christie's not bad. The one running for mayor or president. 🤣

Worst thing that has ever happened as far as city planning goes in Houston as far as I'm concerned is the absolute inattention to a requirement for trees in public rights-of-way, sidewalks (well, yeah, I guess we don't have those, I suppose they go hand-in-hand) and roadways. And I'm not talking about the 19th century, even if someone made an effort in my lifetime, this city would be an entirely different and more livable place. Atlanta, of course, is the most prominent example.

See https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=2ahUKEwifzvmMkq-AAxUslGoFHZayCdMQFnoECA0QAw&url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww2.census.gov%2Fgeo%2Fpdfs%2Freference%2FGARM%2FCh13GARM.pdf&usg=AOvVaw24jMAK5TEr852RoZsWqjHd&cshid=1690469745964012&opi=89978449 There are rules . . . BUT the underlined portion makes it seem entirely subjective. Neither The Woodlands nor Pasadena have a population at least one-third of Houston's. The Woodlands is an obvious commuting center and an anchor point for the northern counties of the MSA. Maybe one can argue that Pasadena is from the east as well, although I'd think the numbers are much smaller--I have no handle for how many refinery jobs, for example, or in Pasadena versus Deer Park versus any of the other eastern cities. Seems like Baytown would be better than Pasadena as having its own regional draws, and as I recall, Baytown used to be part of the MSA definition along with Galveston. Pasadena and The Woodlands just must be way more vocal. (Does HGAC weigh in at all?) Central Cities and MA Titles The OMB designates the largest city in each MSA or CMSA as a central city, and additional cities qualify for this designation if specified requirements are met concerning population size and commuting patterns. The central cities of a NECMA are those cities in the NECMA that qualify as central cities of an MSA or a CMSA. The title of each MSA consists of the names of up to three of its central cities and the name of each State into which the MSA extends. However, a central city is not included in an MSA title unless it has at least one-third the population of the area’s largest city or local opinion supports its inclusion. Typically, titles of PMSAs also are based on central city names, but in certain cases consist of county names. Generally, titles of CMSAs are based on the titles of their component PMSAs, although CMSA titles may include suitable regional designations. NECMA titles are derived from the names of central cities. As is the case for MSAs, a CMSA, PMSA, or NECMA title always includes the names of all States into which the area extends. Say it after me . . . DEMOCRATIC . . . you can do it! "Democrat" is a noun, not an adjective. I shall never understand any explanation for its incessant use other than the obvious insidious one. What's in an adjective? 'Democrat Party' label on the rise | AP News

Looks like Whitmire is in the driver's seat 4 months out. Although neck and neck with SJL in the open race, he has a solid lead for the runoff. He leads because he has 80% of the Republican vote and really is aiming his campaign towards those voters (I know one cerulean "dog" who bit very fast), despite being a Democrat his entire political life, which I find strange--if he is more aligned with that party, he should simply switch and not just use the brand. I don't expect to vote for Whitmire, mainly because of his historical association with Republicans and his "opportunism," as described in the Texas Tribune article above. That said, I don't have anywhere near the same level of concern if he wins as I did with the Harris County Judge race, which was driven by toxic demagoguery and it was clear (to me at least) that Hidalgo's opponent (I can't even remember her name . . . Moral Mealer, had to look it up) was all a power play to essentially subordinate the County to the State to stave off the inevitable demographic changes the County will experience in the coming decades . . . there was a hell of a lot at stake there with national repercussions. Whitmire, while seemingly corruptible, could help mend relationships with the State and business community, and does not seem anywhere near as divisive as the typical MAGA candidate. I can see why plenty of people would call SJL divisive (and Hidalgo for that matter, too, but at least she wasn't willing to sign the County over to the State). If it's time for the other side to have a "win" to keep things in check and prevent the more toxic forces from taking hold down the road, I think that's fine. Houston mayoral race: Whitmire would lead Jackson in runoff, poll says (houstonchronicle.com)