Jump to content

Port of Dallas Developments


2112

Recommended Posts

This port is the Dallas Intermodal Terminal by Union Pacific, right?

This port is why Dallas ISD chose to get Wilmer-Hutchins ISD.

ALSO: This will mean that Seagoville, Combine, Red Oak, Lancaster, ETC will probably no longer be sleepy towns. Wilmer and Hutchins may rise out of the pits because of this port.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Don't we already train/truck alot of stuff to Dallas from our port anyways? I am not sure I get what this whole "Port of Dallas" thing is?

Oh I see...

Dallas will store the containers... Containers from Long Beach, because this new fleet of chinese ships can't fit threw the Panama Canal. Because, its not like California couldn't ship its containers anyways...? right?

"houstonians(2112) do not want to feel like Dallas is evening the score."
"But, While this is not totally like the Port of Houston It will be just as Successfull for DFW as the Port of Houston is for houston."
"So to be realistic about the situation"
"In other words"Dallas' "Train Yard" as some will say,will never be like the port of Houston because it has no water ".Which is entirely true,but it will be just as successful or even more."

* * *

Its a little annoying that Dallasboi thinks this "Port of Dallas" will be equally and/or more important then the Port of Houston... :blink:

"The port (of Houston) is ranked first in the United States in foreign waterborne commerce, second in total tonnage, and sixth in the world." - Source

So how is building a warehouse going to add up to become what our port(and ship channel) has since 1837? Don't count your chickens before they hatch.

Edited by Montrose1100
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Its a little annoying that Dallasboi thinks this "Port of Dallas" will be equally and/or more important then the Port of Houston... :blink:

I'm not sure that's what he meant, but I can see how you'd come to that conclusion and now I see what the previous "don't bite the hand" comment was about. If that is what he meant, I rather doubt it anytime this century. I think if you were even going to try to compare that in say 25 years he'd have to do a better job at laying out criteria for successfulness.

On the question of what the whole thing is (which is much more than a warehouse) I'd recommend studying Alliance and its wide ranging effects. In the past it would have been illegal for Dallas to build an airport like that, (violation of Wright) but now that its been done and wright will be gone soon anyway, it looks much more likely.

Jason

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Reading this post, I couldn't help but feel like my mother was lecturing me about playing nice. 713, you're attempt to sound above the fray is nice, but no one on this board who has read your previous posts is buying it.

It's helpful to know that you speak for over 1,800 people on this board. :D I'll just address you from now on. . .Yeah right!

Here's the deal. We're Houstonians. We live here. We post on a Houston board. Sometimes we crack jokes, like the one about Dallas having a port. Often, we are brawlers. But, remember, this is a Houston Board populated by Houstonians. If you throw out bait to see what will eat it, don't be surprised if someone does. Frankly, several of the Dallas based posters exhibit trolling behavior. We don't get upset. We make fun. If you cannot handle the fun, either don't post the thread, or don't respond to it.
Spoken just like a true lawyer.
I, for one, am not going to stop posting jokes or legitimate comments just because a Dallas poster might get offended. I ESPECIALLY will not stop posting because a Dallas poster thinks it might be childish. I spend my entire day dealing with serious crap in a criminal courtroom. I'm not going to get serious here. When the mods kick me off, I'm gone. Until then, you guys are just going to have to deal with my jokes about "The Port of Dallas", because....dammit, it's FUNNY! :lol:

From one attorney to the next. . .I've been to criminal court many times before. Criminal Court is what's funny. :P

Link to comment
Share on other sites

How do you know Dallas has a nice website?. . .Have you been lurking there?

Glad you asked.

HAIF had a member who was provoking the sort of Houston vs Dallas, tit-for-tat discussion we're currently having - but on a much more vicious level. A moderator from the Dallas site (was it you?) had the courtesy to confirm that this person had been a problem on their board as well. As a moderator (he said, blushingly) I felt it was my duty to view the Dallas site. It's very good. Perhaps I should examine it again at more length. I also visited it again to be sure that my info was current before posting my reply to you. That's the extent of my lurking. I trust that the editor and moderators of the Dallas site will deal with obnoxious posters (whether from Dallas, Houston or elsewhere) as they see fit. If their editor or moderators ever want to compare notes with HAIF, we'll be happy to help in any way we can.

Until then, you guys are just going to have to deal with my jokes about "The Port of Dallas", because....dammit, it's FUNNY! :lol:

That's the whole point...this silly rivalry between the two cities. "Houston has a Port, so dammit, we have to call our trading facility a port, too!"

It reminds me of when I was a kid, and my mother made a special trip to the store to get something for my sister. I was mad, because she didn't get something for me, too. At the time I didn't understand that a five year old boy probably didn't need a box of tampons. I just felt excluded.

So, Dallas, enjoy your port. It's not a box of tampons, but it'll have to do. :D

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm not sure that's what he meant, but I can see how you'd come to that conclusion and now I see what the previous "don't bite the hand" comment was about. If that is what he meant, I rather doubt it anytime this century. I think if you were even going to try to compare that in say 25 years he'd have to do a better job at laying out criteria for successfulness.

On the question of what the whole thing is (which is much more than a warehouse) I'd recommend studying Alliance and its wide ranging effects. In the past it would have been illegal for Dallas to build an airport like that, (violation of Wright) but now that its been done and wright will be gone soon anyway, it looks much more likely.

Jason

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

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I probably shouldn't even waste my time writing this, but I will. The point here is not that some of us here are making fun of Dallas or it's residents, but rather the civic booster types who come up with these over-the-top names for their projects. Making fun of "The Port of Dallas" moniker for an admittedly large scale freight facility is not unlike the fun we had at a Houston developer's expense who insisted on trying to rename Midtown to "SoDo". Anyone who regularly reads this forum knows the withering assault on THAT stupid name. It does not mean that we do not like Midtown, because we do like it. It was just that we were making fun of the guy that thought the name was more important than the development.

The same applies here. No one disputes that this may be a huge development, but the name invites scorn and derision...not at Dallas, but at the clowns who came up with the name. If some residents take that as a personal insult, well, what can I say. I am not even asking anyone to stop being offended. I am merely suggesting that silly names made up by self-aggrandizing civic boosters will ALWAYS be ridiculed on this forum, and those that are offended should understand it.

By the same token, those of us who sling the mud also understand that we must take the return mudslinging. That is the price we pay for our sarcasm. So, fire away. I for one, enjoy it. :P

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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

You will find no such text in the amendment. Alliance fully qualifies as "competition" to DFW. In fact that part has even been admitted, but the excuse to get around it was that Fedex wouldn't have considered DFW for a hub so its not really competition. That wouldn't stand up in court.

If that were a valid excuse Southwest would be free to fly anywhere from Love because they've said the same thing. :o

Jason

Edited by JasonDFW
Link to comment
Share on other sites

See my post #2 in this thread. The Port of Laredo is just as stupid of a concept as the Port of Dallas.

Whoever came up with this should be put to pasture.

Under this standard, the Wal-Mart shipping facilty under contruction near Baytown would be considered a "Port".

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You will find no such text in the amendment. Alliance fully qualifies as "competition" to DFW. In fact that part has even been admitted, but the excuse to get around it was that Fedex wouldn't have considered DFW for a hub so its not really competition. That wouldn't stand up in court.

If that were a valid excuse Southwest would be free to fly anywhere from Love because they've said the same thing. :o

Jason

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.)

Edited by Houston19514
Link to comment
Share on other sites

In fact that part has even been admitted, but the excuse to get around it was that Fedex wouldn't have considered DFW for a hub so its not really competition.

FedEx DID consider DFW for a hub ops base. Ross Jr. offered a better deal. And cargo routed through AFW DOES NOT terminate in the DFW area (all FedEx cargo terminating in the Dallas Fort Worth metroplex is off-loaded at DFW).

Edited by tcole
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Bringing up the airport issue raises a couple of questions. The concept of creating a rail yard/truck intermodal away from the Port of Houston makes sense, given the congestion on both the rails and the freeways near the port. Placing it in or near Dallas makes sense too, given the freeway and rail infrastructure, as well as it's central location for distribution purposes. My question is why a cargo airport would be needed. Shipping by boat is cheap, but slow. Shipping by rail is also cheap, but slow. The rails only go so many places, necessitating truck transport to get goods to their final destination. Air cargo is fast, but expensive. So, if you are shipping goods slowly but cheaply, why would you suddenly want to pay to air freight those goods? Wouldn't you just air freight them to begin with?

Secondly, why would a second cargo airport be needed? Alliance seems to be large enough to handle this added cargo, and it is only 30-45 minutes from the proposed rail yard, all interstate. Could this be a Dallas versus Fort Worth competition?

Lastly, does anyone know how seriously the air cargo component is being discussed?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Secondly, why would a second cargo airport be needed? Alliance seems to be large enough to handle this added cargo, and it is only 30-45 minutes from the proposed rail yard, all interstate. Could this be a Dallas versus Fort Worth competition?

Pretty much. AFW has plenty of room for this and better access to rail.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

FedEx DID consider DFW for a hub ops base. Ross Jr. offered a better deal. And cargo routed through AFW DOES NOT terminate in the DFW area (all FedEx cargo terminating in the Dallas Fort Worth metroplex is off-loaded at DFW).

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

Edited by Houston19514
Link to comment
Share on other sites

So, would it be your opinion that the 'inland port' might actually be better located near Alliance?
Absolutely. In fact, the infrastructure is already there and exists in form that is only proposed for S. Dallas. So you could say that "The Port of Cowtown" already exists. In fact, some of the land around Alliance is designated as "freeport."

Designating Alliance as a "port" is probably incorrect in that the commonly held connotation of the term necesitates sea vessel access. Alliance, and what is proposed in Dallas would better be described as intermodal transport hubs - which I guess a sea port is as well. In the end, I do not think that you would find anyone in Fort Worth claiming Alliance as a port in any manner other than tongue in cheek.

Lastly, does anyone know how seriously the air cargo component is being discussed?

It is being discussed seriously (and has been for over 10 years). The question is whether or not the talk leads to action.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

In the end, I do not think that you would find anyone in Fort Worth claiming Alliance as a port in any manner other than tongue in cheek.

From the official Alliance page:

"Fort Worth Alliance Airport officially opened on December 14, 1989. Alliance has since become an international trade and logistics complex. It is an inland port, offering transportation access to air, rail and highway

Wow, an inland port. Imagine that.

Jason

Link to comment
Share on other sites

From the official Alliance page:

"Fort Worth Alliance Airport officially opened on December 14, 1989. Alliance has since become an international trade and logistics complex. It is an inland port, offering transportation access to air, rail and highway

Wow, an inland port. Imagine that.

Jason

So there really IS a Port of Foat Wuth!

Yeee Hawww!!!!

spr7.jpg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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

You need to read a bit closer as to not tarnish your own credibility. The piece you quoted does not contradict what I said. Of course Fedex considered DFW, it already had operations there and it was the highest capacity airport in the world at the time. The statement that they never considered DFW an option was given by a Fort Worth councilperson as the reason why Alliance doesn't break the spirit of Wright.

And on the other comment about Alliance traffic not terminating here and insinuating that changes everything... About 2/3rds of traffic at DFW does not terminate here, and that's the traffic that DFW has tried the hardest to hold onto with Wright. They claim that this traffic will be the big loss if wright is repealed.

Jason

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You need to read a bit closer as to not tarnish your own credibility. The piece you quoted does not contradict what I said. Of course Fedex considered DFW, it already had operations there and it was the highest capacity airport in the world at the time. The statement that they never considered DFW an option was given by a Fort Worth councilperson as the reason why Alliance doesn't break the spirit of Wright.

And on the other comment about Alliance traffic not terminating here and insinuating that changes everything... About 2/3rds of traffic at DFW does not terminate here, and that's the traffic that DFW has tried the hardest to hold onto with Wright. They claim that this traffic will be the big loss if wright is repealed.

Jason

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.

(B) 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 (B) 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?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

From the official Alliance page:

"Fort Worth Alliance Airport officially opened on December 14, 1989. Alliance has since become an international trade and logistics complex. It is an inland port, offering transportation access to air, rail and highway

Wow, an inland port. Imagine that.

From the official Alliance website - as prepared by Hilwood Development, A Perot Co. - based where? The designation as an "inland port" comes from a firm in Dallas.

I stand by my original post, no one in Fort Worth would refer to Alliance as a port (as the term is gernerally understood) except tongue in cheek.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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?

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

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Don't we already train/truck alot of stuff to Dallas from our port anyways? I am not sure I get what this whole "Port of Dallas" thing is?

Oh I see...

Dallas will store the containers... Containers from Long Beach, because this new fleet of chinese ships can't fit threw the Panama Canal. Because, its not like California couldn't ship its containers anyways...? right?

* * *

Its a little annoying that Dallasboi thinks this "Port of Dallas" will be equally and/or more important then the Port of Houston... :blink:

"The port (of Houston) is ranked first in the United States in foreign waterborne commerce, second in total tonnage, and sixth in the world." - Source

So how is building a warehouse going to add up to become what our port(and ship channel) has since 1837? Don't count your chickens before they hatch.

Ok guys......Let me explain.I was not comparing the two ports and their operations, Of course I know that houston has a very busy and important port, and yes it will take years for our "TRAIN YARD" to build to the magnitude of the houston port if ever.I was simply just comparing the economic impact that each port has for each city. Houstons port has always been an economic engine for the city of Houston,it's no denying that.A great percentage of Houstons growth was spurred off of that port,so I know the importance of a port.All Im saying is that this thing is predicted to create 45,000 good paying jobs within 3 years and 100,000 within 5-7 years so it's expected to produce the same type of growth that Houston experienced with their port. Thats all I was pointing out......any questions my neighborly Houstonians? :rolleyes:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

From the official Alliance website - as prepared by Hilwood Development, A Perot Co. - based where? The designation as an "inland port" comes from a firm in Dallas.

Don't be embarressed to pull up a step ladder to help you reach some of those straws.

And by the way I know several people native to Fort Worth that call it a port, and actually a married couple mentioned the Alliance Port as the reason they moved to that area instead of near their parents on the south side. However, I'm sure Angela and Lance are somehow disqualified and it all goes back to a Dallas conspiracy.

Jason

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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) "

Edited by Houston19514
Link to comment
Share on other sites

And by the way I know several people native to Fort Worth that call it a port, and actually a married couple mentioned the Alliance Port as the reason they moved to that area instead of near their parents on the south side. However, I'm sure Angela and Lance are somehow disqualified and it all goes back to a Dallas conspiracy.

Don't jive me boy. I AM FROM FORT WORTH, and can assure you that I talk to a good bit more people in town and about town and no-one, as stated before, would refer to Alliance as a port except as tongue in cheek. Hell, even Mike Berry jokes about the operations out there being "port-like", but you do not see him actually naming the thing something so silly as "The Port of Fort Worth." "Inland port", whether oxymoronic or anymoronic for that matter is just a way to concisely explain what facilities and operations are present at Alliance.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Don't jive me boy. I AM FROM FORT WORTH, and can assure you that I talk to a good bit more people in town and about town and no-one, as stated before, would refer to Alliance as a port except as tongue in cheek. Hell, even Mike Berry jokes about the operations out there being "port-like", but you do not see him actually naming the thing something so silly as "The Port of Fort Worth." "Inland port", whether oxymoronic or anymoronic for that matter is just a way to concisely explain what facilities and operations are present at Alliance.

I think I gotta go with tcole on this one. I lived in Foat Wuth from 1987 to 1996 (Alliance opened in 1989), and I never once even remotely heard it referred to as a port, even in jest. Hell, I was even friends with Jim Lane, the city councilman with jurisdiction over the Alliance property, and HE never called it a port. He just called it a coup for Fort Worth.

And, indeed it was. :lol:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ok guys......Let me explain.I was not comparing the two ports and their operations, Of course I know that houston has a very busy and important port, and yes it will take years for our "TRAIN YARD" to build to the magnitude of the houston port if ever.I was simply just comparing the economic impact that each port has for each city. Houstons port has always been an economic engine for the city of Houston,it's no denying that.A great percentage of Houstons growth was spurred off of that port,so I know the importance of a port.All Im saying is that this thing is predicted to create 45,000 good paying jobs within 3 years and 100,000 within 5-7 years so it's expected to produce the same type of growth that Houston experienced with their port. Thats all I was pointing out......any questions my neighborly Houstonians? :rolleyes:

With numbers like that, one would think you were "Sean in New Orleans".

*Also;

How could a distribution center create that many jobs, and hold such an strong economic grip? I mean, its not like Dallas wouldn't have a growing economy without this facility. Houston was founded on being a port, and more then likely, wouldn't have become such a power house without it. (Excluding Cotton & Oil).

Edited by Montrose1100
Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

From the official Alliance page:

"Fort Worth Alliance Airport officially opened on December 14, 1989. Alliance has since become an international trade and logistics complex. It is an inland port, offering transportation access to air, rail and highway

Wow, an inland port. Imagine that.

Jason

Using a word doesnt mean it has anything to do with reality. The Earth was flat and waves traveled in Ether for hundreds of years, you know. While on that subject, I just saved a lot of money on my insurance.

Don't be embarressed to pull up a step ladder to help you reach some of those straws.

And by the way I know several people native to Fort Worth that call it a port, and actually a married couple mentioned the Alliance Port as the reason they moved to that area instead of near their parents on the south side. However, I'm sure Angela and Lance are somehow disqualified and it all goes back to a Dallas conspiracy.

Jason

Oh, they were married, and they mentioned the word "Port". Why didnt you say so. The Port of Dallas: It's a Port. It's in Dallas. It's what's for dinner.

[The preceeding is best read while listening to that "beef" commercial]

Edited by 2112
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The Port of Amarillo

The Port of Odessa

The Port of Arlington

and, The Port of Dallas

See where I'm headed with this?

It just doesnt pass the smell test.

Besides. There's no water. (It's not a Port)

Take care,

-2112

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ok guys......Let me explain.I was not comparing the two ports and their operations,...

You see it's things like this that make me say and do funny things (Like start this entire thread). What I have noticed with many Dallasites is that the way they get around a weakness in some issue, is too not directly address the issue. Instead, they make some statement that has the issue-in-question imbedded in it, as if too hide it somehow. When you say "I am not comparing the two ports...", it makes me think that the sayer of those words knows his argument is weak. Otherwise, the sayer would just say "We have a Port, and we call it The Port of Dallas." But of course you can't say that directly because then you open up your weakness to direct observation. It's the same thing when Dallasites use MSA statistics and include Fort Worth to prop up population figures when comparing themselves to the rest of the country. But, how convenient that when there is some attribute about Fort Worth that does not live up to the Dallas image, then Fort Worth suddenly becomes a different city. Oh, but start talking about Houston, and then Fort Worth and Dallas become one again.

It's as clear as day. And today is a good day!

Now, time to get another fresh cup of delicious coffee.....

[sound of footsteps as 2112 leaves confidently from the forum]

Edited by 2112
Link to comment
Share on other sites

First, as a native Texan, it has been my experience that Ft. Worth is generally happy to be Ft. Worth.

Rarely if ever do I hear anyone from Ft. Worth try to latch on to Dallas to prove something. If anything, they come off as not really wanting to be associated with Dallas. Not out of any reasons of jealousy or competition. They just seem secure in their own identity.

Perhaps a lesson we could all learn from.

Secondly, 2112 quotes Dallasboi (?) as saying: "I am not comparing the two ports..."

There aren't two ports to compare. There's only one port involved: The PoH which is largely making the south Dallas County terminal a reality. It's an empty comparrison. In 2004, the tonnage figures for the PoH were over 200 million. Now with the south Dallas County terminal, I predict even more tonnage in the future.

There really doesn't need to be this juvenile rivalry between Houston and Dallas.

Looks to me like a good match-up for all involved.

B)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You see it's things like this that make me say and do funny things (Like start this entire thread). What I have noticed with many Dallasites is that the way they get around a weakness in some issue, is too not directly address the issue. Instead, they make some statement that has the issue-in-question imbedded in it, as if too hide it somehow. When you say "I am not comparing the two ports...", it makes me think that the sayer of those words knows his argument is weak. Otherwise, the sayer would just say "We have a Port, and we call it The Port of Dallas." But of course you can't say that directly because then you open up your weakness to direct observation. It's the same thing when Dallasites use MSA statistics and include Fort Worth to prop up population figures when comparing themselves to the rest of the country. But, how convenient that when there is some attribute about Fort Worth that does not live up to the Dallas image, then Fort Worth suddenly becomes a different city. Oh, but start talking about Houston, and then Fort Worth and Dallas become one again.

It's as clear as day. And today is a good day!

Now, time to get another fresh cup of delicious coffee.....

[sound of footsteps as 2112 leaves confidently from the forum]

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

Link to comment
Share on other sites

:huh: 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.

Edited by Houston19514
Link to comment
Share on other sites

With numbers like that, one would think you were "Sean in New Orleans".

*Also;

How could a distribution center create that many jobs, and hold such an strong economic grip? I mean, its not like Dallas wouldn't have a growing economy without this facility. Houston was founded on being a port, and more then likely, wouldn't have become such a power house without it. (Excluding Cotton & Oil).

I'm going to jump in...

It's my understanding of the project that the "Port of Dallas" already has in the works partnerships not only with Houston, but San Francisco, LA, Long Beach, and one or two ports along the western Mexican coast. Most N American seaports are bursting at the seams, including Houston, and are desperate to expand capacity by utilizing inland ports to relieve congestion. If Dallas is positioned to take advantage of the opportunity, the project could indeed produce tens of thousands of jobs by 2020, if not sooner. 100K jobs in 7 years is a stretch, but the economic impact could be significant, and it could happen quicker than a lot of people realize. Think of it, Dallas already has much of the infrastructure in place, and building additional rail yards and warehouses take years, not decades, to construct. I see this entire project as being a big gain for Houston, a much bigger gain for Dallas, and huge for the Texas economy as a whole.

BTW, I've worked at Alliance since '97 and have a degree in supply chain logistics. Referring to Alliance as an "inland port" to my non-work friends will result in blank faces, but anyone who is involved with management at Alliance is familiar with the term. I can also verify that the "Port of Dallas" is not mocked by anyone out here; we are watching "Alliance on steroids" very closely, not out of envy, but as a place where we might by furthering our careers in a few years.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Considering all of Dallas added only 44,000 jobs in 2005, it seems highly unlikely that this project, whatever it is called, will create one out of every 3 jobs in Dallas for the next 7 years. I would suggest that the infrastructure could not even be built fast enough to support that many jobs. For example, WalMart built the largest distribution center in the US in Chambers County, 2 million square feet, yet it employs only 450. Dallasboi's numbers suggest 20 WalMarts built in 3 years, and 200 built in 7 years...highly unlikely.

Additionally, the Port of Houston, one the world's largest ports, employs only 89,710 people. It has existed in some form since 1837. The Ship Channel has been in existence since 1914. The suggestion that a Dallas facility, fed by the Port of Houston, would create 100,000 jobs in 7 years is...well...optimistic.

Almost as optimistic is the "direct and indirect job" calculation that economists and civic boosters use to boost employment numbers, usually to convince taxpayers to give them money. The Port of Houston estimates 287,000 direct and indirect jobs created. In other words, 2 non-port jobs for every port job. The problem is, every other industry counts those indirect jobs too, so it is not a very accurate number. Even so, Dallasboi predicts the Dallas facility to be one-third the size of the Port of Houston in 7 years. Doubtful, to say the least.

This is not to say that the facility will not be big and an important addition to the Dallas economy. But, the numbers being thrown about are wildly optimistic.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm going to jump in...

It's my understanding of the project that the "Port of Dallas" already has in the works partnerships not only with Houston, but San Francisco, LA, Long Beach, and one or two ports along the western Mexican coast. Most N American seaports are bursting at the seams, including Houston, and are desperate to expand capacity by utilizing inland ports to relieve congestion. If Dallas is positioned to take advantage of the opportunity, the project could indeed produce tens of thousands of jobs by 2020, if not sooner. 100K jobs in 7 years is a stretch, but the economic impact could be significant, and it could happen quicker than a lot of people realize. Think of it, Dallas already has much of the infrastructure in place, and building additional rail yards and warehouses take years, not decades, to construct. I see this entire project as being a big gain for Houston, a much bigger gain for Dallas, and huge for the Texas economy as a whole.

BTW, I've worked at Alliance since '97 and have a degree in supply chain logistics. Referring to Alliance as an "inland port" to my non-work friends will result in blank faces, but anyone who is involved with management at Alliance is familiar with the term. I can also verify that the "Port of Dallas" is not mocked by anyone out here; we are watching "Alliance on steroids" very closely, not out of envy, but as a place where we might by furthering our careers in a few years.

You seem to a have a little more knowledge than most in this thread re: Alliance so I have a few questions as I am a Houstonian and far removed from the Perot company's owned Hillwood managed Alliance.

["They (Hillwood) have everything out there (Alliance), plus they have a good delivery process - a great team with excellent leadership in H. Ross Perot, Jr." - Jack Fraker, Cushman & Wakefield
Do you work directly for The Perot Company, Hillwood or perhaps are contracted from another entity?

How many federal, state and local funds have gone to help develop Alliance? [That's a hard one because the information is so blured and buried-especialy the manner in which a Foreign Trade Zone designation was obtained]

Do you think many people know that Hillwood is a privatly operated Perot company?

I ask because I think it's important to know the background of Alliance just as I think it''s equally important for people to know what the back ground of the Port of Houston's involvement is with their new terminal in south Dallas County. It may shed new light on how contracts and franchises are let when it involves so many ordinary taxpayers in so many ways.

Do you think most people know how the Wright Amendment was brought to fruition?

I just think you'd be the most knowledgable since you've worked at Alliance since '97.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Considering all of Dallas added only 44,000 jobs in 2005, it seems highly unlikely that this project, whatever it is called, will create one out of every 3 jobs in Dallas for the next 7 years.

I think 1 in 3 jobs sounds *very* realistic, but the absolute number of jobs may be too optimistic which may be part of what you're saying. I say 1 in 3 sounds realistic because companies are moving back into town from the suburbs *very* slowly and jobs are still moving out to the suburbs at a good pace. In other words it would not take much at all in the city of Dallas to be creating 1 out of 3 jobs. I gather Houston does way better in this respect, partially because huge job centers like Las Colinas and Addision would be inside the city limits. I'm sure there are other reasons, like a better HOV system into town, more middle income housing, perhaps better schools etc.. Anyway, getting off topic.

DFW in the past has said they support ~280,000 jobs. That's a rough ballpark figure I think they'd be going for in this whole project, but that may be 20 years off when DFW is supporting many more jobs. However support is measured.

Jason

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think 1 in 3 jobs sounds *very* realistic, but the absolute number of jobs may be too optimistic which may be part of what you're saying. I say 1 in 3 sounds realistic because companies are moving back into town from the suburbs *very* slowly and jobs are still moving out to the suburbs at a good pace. In other words it would not take much at all in the city of Dallas to be creating 1 out of 3 jobs. I gather Houston does way better in this respect, partially because huge job centers like Las Colinas and Addision would be inside the city limits. I'm sure there are other reasons, like a better HOV system into town, more middle income housing, perhaps better schools etc.. Anyway, getting off topic.

DFW in the past has said they support ~280,000 jobs. That's a rough ballpark figure I think they'd be going for in this whole project, but that may be 20 years off when DFW is supporting many more jobs. However support is measured.

Jason

Jason, the 44,000 jobs I referred to are for the entire Dallas region, including suburbs. However, it did not include Ft. Worth/Arlington.

BTW, in all of my searches, I have not found a single reference to job predictions. In fact, as of January, this was still in the negotiation stage. Can anyone quote a source for these figures, or is it just some wild-eyed guess? Because it sure sounds like one.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • The title was changed to Port of Dallas Developments
  • The topic was unlocked
×
×
  • Create New...