mattyt36

Please forward idea! I am one of those without Facebook.

This sounds like an excellent topic for an initial City Cast episode. Who knows Lisa Gray?!

It's a stock photo, with the city not identified Here are some different angles if helpful City park with modern building background. (canstockphoto.com) City park with modern building background. | CanStock (canstockphoto.com) (thanks Google Images)

Houston will be the third city in the City Cast series (after Chicago and Denver), with a daily podcast hosted by Lisa Gray of the Chronicle. City Cast Houston — Daily podcast and newsletter From that link: Why launch City Cast in Houston? Houston is the United States’ least-understood big city, with an economy and a climate both prone to catastrophe. We’re a port city 50 miles inland. Most of us weren’t born here. We plant tomatoes in February. We drive northeast on the Southwest Freeway. There is literally no bedrock: Our skyscrapers somehow float on top of the clay. This crazy place sneaks up on you. You begin to understand it, and you start to care. Other places seem boring — homogenous, clichéd, set in their smug ways. “Houston gets in your blood,” the old joke goes. “Like malaria.” City Cast Houston’s goal is to speed up those infections, and to amuse and inform everyone who already shares our affliction. This city needs people to love it, and to laugh at it, and to make it better. From City Cast's "About Us" page: Like you, we’ve spent a lot of time listening to podcasts that help us make sense of the bigger world— podcasts about politics, sports, fiction, fantasy, technology, and national news. But we’ve longed for a daily podcast that helps us connect with our own communities— the beautiful, complicated cities where we spend our dollars and days. So we decided to make one (or, technically, several!). The new company's CEO is David Plotz, who you may know from the Slate Political Gabfest podcast.

Someone must have told the architect to make new building in The Woodlands look like its predecessor for continuity, but the original is much better, I guess because it doesn't look like it tried so hard. I grew up in The Woodlands in the 1980s, Greenspoint was the location of the nearest Target, Foley's, JCPenney, etc. and was where we went to shop. It seemed to have been "revitalized" with that Ed Wulfe Commons development in the early 1990s that has been some sort of a tech/warehouse hub for a long time now. (In retrospect that must be an interesting story!) (BTW, Greenspoint is 100% planned by urban planners. I know the default response of urban planners is "but they didn't do it right," which is the definition of a self-own.)

Lobo and Crossroads served such a purpose back in the day!

Well thanks again to @Justin Welling and @Houston19514 for proving me wrong. I've been trying to find a good photo of the LHR T2 walkway (also from the garage to the terminal over the curbside roadway) but have come up empty. Below are the best I can find. I have completely changed my opinion ("eaten crow" as is said) and now think that this will be a great architectural feature. I thought they had "value engineered" the connector over Terminal Road and anyone walking from the terminal to the gates would have to walk outside in the heat with rain blowing sideways. With this walkway situated in between buildings, I don't think rain will be an issue. Star Alliance improves transfer experience at Heathrow T2 – Business Traveller The entrance to the departure terminal at Terminal 2, the Queens Terminal, at Heathrow Airport, London, England, UK Stock Photo - Alamy

The answer to that question is almost always a resounding no, but especially in this case. SLC was an extraordinarily low cost airport and was debt free when Allegiant started PVU. It's changed now with the new terminal but still very low cost for a new facility. (MSY also in this bucket. The new terminal was built when all the outstanding debt for the old terminal was paid off.) Allegiant serves plenty of decent-sized markets (100K+ population, relatively affluent) like PVU and these decisions have very little to do with airport costs. They do love having a facility to themselves, though. BKG is a different airport altogether and a very special case as it was a fully privatized development and not subject to FAA grant assurances with subsidizing airlines. Not sure if it has "opted in" yet considering it has not been successful. FAA regulations allow airport operators only to waive fees for 2 years--any additional subsidy (either longer than 2 years, revenue guarantees, or direct operating subsidies) by the government entity that operates the airport (in Houston's case, the City of Houston) is not allowed. Some cities have created "travel banks" through their chambers of commerce to provide revenue guarantees, but it doesn't come from the airport. The other common subsidies are grants from the federal government, either through the EAS or SCASD program. The above said . . . (1) I never thought Houston would have nonstop service to Provo, Utah; and (2) I find Allegiant's service from Houston to be pretty fascinating. There's service for outbound vacation destinations but they also seem to be serving Houston as an inbound leisure destination, which is novel.

From the "It Could Be Worse" department . . . Twitter series on "Pictures of Highways in China." I guess the only good thing you can say is at least most don't have feeders? Noah Smith 🐇 on Twitter: "Pictures of highways in China https://t.co/d8yMYCUlRu" / Twitter

It's been awhile since I paid any attention to this series, but this seems a long time coming. 'Top Chef' Season 19 to Film in Houston, Bravo Says - Variety

On this, only thing I can confirm is that UA has requested (at least pre-COVID) more gates on A, for obvious reasons that don't have much to do with utilization. They'd be stupid not to. I thought there was some agreement/right of first refusal, subject to minimum utilization requirements, but appears I was mistaken. The A gates do have minimum utilization provisions, the problem being they're not tied to minimum utilization of gates at other terminals. So UA can schedule the minimum turns per gate on A while not utilizing some gates on B, C, or E to that level (if at all), without losing the A gates. The former A icehouse gates that became the Southwest gates were under yet another separate lease with a 30-day termination at either the City's or United's option. It may even be the case that the City terminated the lease before COVID and Southwest because at one time the first AA flight of the day to LAX used those gates (as well as the EAS airlines). It's strange to me that the City and Southwest are not talking more gates at HOU. Seems like now would be the time. And it'd probably be the 5-gate international concourse expansion versus a new east concourse for non-Southwest airlines.

That's correct, the various lease terms are tied to the investments, with B-South being the first required investment that IIRC squeaked through the first deadline since it was negotiated right before the financial crisis and then there was the controversy post-UA merger with the HOU international project. The new C-North was the second phase of that lease, but the largest phase was the redo of the terminal, the new FIS, which I believe was to go where the Skytrain APM maintenance facility currently is, and the two piers to replace the banjos. Of course there's nothing preventing the City from extending the development period, especially with COVID. But I hope they don't. One of the reasons IAH has suffered because of the mad rush for gates at DEN and ORD and associated minimum utilization requirements, so it'd be dumb for the City to lose leverage in this situation. Oh, I get it now, it's a walkway running east-west over the ticketing curbside from the C garage, not north-south across Terminal Road from the terminal to the concourse. Thanks for that. It might be a popular feature . . . at least there will be an underground option. Looks like you were right!

It appears to be in the place where the existing sterile walkway from D to the FIS goes. I doubt a walkway from the garage would make much sense, considering D will no longer have ticketing, and considering the new ticketing building is farther to the west toward Terminal C, I doubt it's from the Ticketing to the concourse. The above said, I can't imagine CBP approving an uncovered sterile walkway, so who knows? Maybe it carries utilities. There's a similar structure at Terminal A parallel to the walkway.

Just looking at it at greater detail and boy does that drawing on the cover look like an exterior walkway from the terminal to the D concourse. Yikes. I knew the guys they hired for program management did LHR T2 with similar exterior walkways, but Houston is not the place. Hope I'm wrong.

And here's a link to the video presentation https://houstontx.swagit.com/play/09162021-772

Here's a link to the 9/15 presentation to the Economic Development Committee of Council: https://www.houstontx.gov/council/committees/econdev/20210915/iah-itrp.pdf

Will have to see what I can find. I was able to find this . . . the lease expires 12/31/24 if UA does not proceed with further Terminal B redevelopment. If they do, the lease extends for 25 years. It's difficult for me to post a link but here goes: Municipal Securities Rulemaking Board::Emma (msrb.org) You should be able to click on the "Official Statement" and download the official statement. See lease summary page 7 of the document. IIRC "Deferred Phase" refers to the replacement of the banjos with two piers on B-North. The Terminal B FIS was shelved with the Terminal D project, which includes an FIS expansion. Or at least that was the last I heard. Although I guess they still have the right on paper, they'd have to fight for CBP staffing. Kind of a throwaway, gladhandy phrase in my experience in the industry when it comes to these things. (No one ever tells City Council that they don't have interest from multiple companies because the obvious response would be, "What are you doing wrong?" or "You should talk to my buddy!") Not as prevalent as industry favorites like airlines saying "the new route is exceeding our expectations," but certainly on the list.

I remember when that was trying to be addressed by the Master Plan and it was either have a manufacturer essentially rebuild the rolling stock and all the controls (which is quite the specialty job) or install a moving sidewalk (if you wanted to keep it in the existing right of way, that is). Pretty sure the idea of trackless, driverless vehicles (think a driverless golf cart) driving in the existing right of way was also brought up . . . I guess that'd be the way to go, although again pretty specialized due to car width, I'd think. Yes, no need to risk burning down the place 😄

That shouldn't be a surprise. Same dynamics as at other gate-constrained airports, and airlines like Southwest are happy to squat on the real estate, whether they need them or not. IIRC, there was some MoU related to the Terminal D work that committed to giving UA more gates (half of any new ones?) in Terminal A in any expansion. I'm sure AA and DL would take additional gates, too, not to mention F9 or NK. Are you referring to the 2008-era plans that also included the B FIS? Or have they resurrected them? I forget the requirements from that lease, but I think the redevelopment rights expire at some point soon. Of course they could get such rights extended with Council approval. I can't imagine there will be many alternatives for this given the width of the tunnel between A and the hotel, unless it's being located somewhere else. Hello moving sidewalks?

Yes, one would expect a proposed MoU between two opposing parties to address the issues that have been raised. That checks out. How you get from 1 to 2, I'm not sure. But I suppose that's a possibility.

New article in today's Chronicle, with Turner stating that the TTC chairman misrepresented his position by saying on 8/31 that Turner supported the project. Turner referred to a MoU between the City and TxDOT proposed by the City on 8/30. Turner: TxDOT leader misrepresented my position on I-45 project (houstonchronicle.com) The actual MoU is available at https://www.scribd.com/document/525534277/Agreement-on-I-45#download&from_embed From a quick reading of the MoU (which originated from the City . . . the article doesn't mention if the text was based on any formal or informal negotiations . . . if it purely reflects the City's position, then I'd say it's more of a term sheet), the major provisions are: -Increased support for dislocated residents -Design changes to mitigate floods -Reducing the footprint of the expansion where possible (but rather soft language if you ask me) -Collaboration language re transit, neighborhood connectivity, and parks that I'd characterize as "soft" and serving simply to memorialize what is already in the plan In terms of likely outcomes, it seems like the best chance for the project proceeding is some agreement in this form between the City and TxDOT, which would be used as a vehicle to satisfy the USDOT review as the preferred "local solution." Not sure how Harris County fits into Segment 3, if at all, due to it being entirely within the city limits. I'm not sure why TxDOT wouldn't agree to the spirit of the MoU, but there may be a long list of reasons. The biggest may be so as not to create a new precedent as to how to deal with relocations.

Add One Park Place to the list of buildings that needs a bath. (Please start with the Hilton Americas, though.)

Sammy, this question has been thoughtfully answered multiple times above. If you can’t connect the dots, well, then, that’s on you.

What is the conditional tense? - Conditional tense - GCSE German Revision - BBC Bitesize What is the conditional tense? The conditional tense is used to say what might happen under certain conditions. TxDOT could do a lot of things, of which this is one. In another world, they could build a commuter rail system. But that'd require a hell of a lot of very unlikely things to happen first, as we have discussed. Let me suggest a likely scenario: DUG BEGLEY: "What is TxDOT's next step in the process?" TXDOT: "We will give FHWA 90 days and we will come back and revisit this. After the 90 days have expired we will discuss what to do with the project.” DUG BEGLEY: "Does that include the possibility that the project is removed?" TXDOT: "Yes, we could do that." DUG BEGLEY: "What would that entail?" TXDOT: "Another 60-day comment process." Sam, let's try again with some holistic thinking. I have presented plenty of obvious arguments as to why this scenario makes zero sense. You have conveniently ignored engaging with any of them. I'm not surprised--it's how you roll. You're scrupulously literal when you need to be and fantastically figurative whenever it suits. I'll ask you yet again, what is your theory as to exactly why would TxDOT remove the project wholesale if FHWA sits on its review? In the spirit of holistic thinking . . . note that from a political perspective, ending the project is not a winner in any way for the Biden Administration, in the same way it's not a winner for the Abbott administration to withdraw its request with its tail between its legs. Why? Because it is a gift to the Texas Republican Party in that it is a great, (on the surface) non-culture war issue to appeal to the suburban voters they have lost in droves to say, "Look what the elitist liberals in the City of Houston and Harris County are doing to the suburbs. They want you to sit in traffic because they think it will force you to move into a city with real estate you can't afford, with much higher taxes, where you will be forced to send your kids to poor performing schools. They don't want us to be able to use the gas taxes that you have paid into the system to make your lives a little easier. Not only that . . . they want to waste half a billion dollars that was already spent." These ads write themselves. Hell, they can point to posts in this very thread that say that very thing unabashedly.

Sam, if you think "We will give FHWA 90 days and we will come back and revisit this,” Bugg said. “After the 90 days have expired we will discuss what to do with the project" means, "Hey, FHWA, if you don't come to a decision within 90 days, we will just drop it," well, then, I'm not sure what to tell you. It either means you have never involved in a negotiation of this kind, or you're being deliberately obtuse or disingenuous. Or, hell, both. TxDOT might as well cancel it now. Wink, wink.