Jump to content

Port of Dallas Developments

2112

By 2112
in Dallas/Fort Worth/Metroplex

Recommended Posts

JasonDFW

JasonDFW

Posted
Posted
Using a word doesnt mean it has anything to do with reality.

I get your point but it does have a lot to do with reality with respect to this thread. Using a word a certain way doesn't change what it is, but it can over time change the language and the meaning of the word itself. We see the language evolving all the time and I believe that's what has happened here, and will occur to a larger degree in the future. At some point there will be a footnote in encyclopedias that the term has evolved over time. Or perhaps not, maybe it will be called a "dry port" or something else. As people get older they really don't like to accept these changes, so perhaps many will not. When you're 90 you might have to explain snickering at the term "Port of Dallas" to you grandchildren however. :)

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.

Whoops, I should have caught that, the number was a good chunk of the figure I've seen for the DFW MSA. I've never noticed it broken down by the divisions of the MSA before, otherwise I probably would have recognized the figure more quickly.

In that case, I agree and don't think there is a chance it will suck up 1 in 3 jobs. Frisco is still exploding (not just in homes, in business parks) and so are many other traditional spots up to the north. That area of south Dallas though is mostly forest (at least compared to north Dallas) so I think there may be some interesting figures one day if they narrow down stats geographically.

Jason

Link to comment
Share on other sites
  • Replies 361
  • Created
  • Last Reply
JasonDFW

JasonDFW

Posted
Posted
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.

Sorry to go off topic, but demographics and population topics interest me. This is a constant complaint on this board, and I think it tends to be blown out of proportion by people that are admittedly skeptical of anything related to Dallas.

As an example, if a Dallasite said what Redscare said a moment ago, there'd be plenty of people ready to say Dallas is tryign to take credit for other areas. Its really a double standard, I hope you can see that.

You may have a valid complaint though, can you give me some examples where people in Dallas deliberately leaves off Fort Worth to make itself look better? There is not much that Fort Worth doesn't do as good as Dallas, through some great effort lately.

I personally think MSA statistics are much more valuable for most purposes. When around 10 years old and used to study population figures, I struggled with why there seemed to be a huge discrepancy between the economic and social impact of a city and its population. I turns out all my atlases and almanacs only had city figures, and the first time I saw an MSA rank list it made total sense why San Fransisco was considered a much more important city than San Diego and why Minneapolis "felt" like such a much larger city than Milwaukee. Just some examples, I realize "important" is a vague term but I think you get what I'm saying.

A good modern example is Atlanta. The city of Houston is a whopping ~5x larger than Atlanta, but I think that's a fairly useless figure, and if you told someone who had never been to the two areas that their MSA population was nearly the same they'd have a much better idea of what to expect in countless ways. I much prefer Houston to Atlanta, I'm not trying to bash Houston by saying that.

However, other times I think it makes a lot of sense to narrow down on things. It's nearly useless for the average Joe to state the crime rate of the DFW metro area. Its much more useful I believe to state the crime figure for the City of Dallas, and in fact given the way the crime rate is distributed here, it is much more useful broken down to the zip code level. On other things though like retail and jobs, it makes much more sense to me and I believe the average Joe to break things down by MSA. The majority of my friends from Fort Worth work in Dallas county, and I know plenty of people in Dallas commute to Tarrant county. I went looking for a nice tree tonight and I checked 4 places within a few miles of my house, which took me into Dallas, Garland, Richardson, and perhaps the edge of Plano. These borders in each of these cases don't much impact, and if there isn't a sign you'll usually not notice.

What blurs the picture quite a bit too, is that the Dallas Fort Worth has only officially been an MSA for 3 years (from memory, correct me if I'm wrong). Before that each was an MSA and the CMSA stat included both. I personally believe that properly reflects the increasing intertwined feel of the metro with things like commuter rail service coming online.

Jason

Link to comment
Share on other sites
JasonDFW

JasonDFW

Posted
Posted
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.

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

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

And the piece he quoted had nothing to do with things standing up in court which is what you're talking about after your comment. You're talking about "posts" and I said "post", because I was referring to the post you can find that quote in. Please read the whole post in question and the post it is in response to to see the quoted text. The post is still unedited so you know I haven't changed one word of it. This is really going in circles when you're talking about responses to responses to responses.

Getting back to what you really seem interested in now, how you say I changed my stance, here is the exact quote:

"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."

Nowhere in that sentence did I ever say that Fedex used this excuse. I'm sorry that it was ambiguous, but in many discussions of wright I have *never* had someone come to a conclusion like that which would require Fedex to be active in the day to day press release and other verbal jabs that go on between WN, AA, DFW, FW, and Dallas.

What is not ambiguous from that sentence though is its very clear that I said it was an "excuse", and you seemed to be doubting whether they actually didn't consider it or not, which are two entirely different things. They could have considered it and given that excuse. I hesitate to muddy the waters with that because like I said, it was a Fort Worth Councilperson that said that in response to claims that Fort Worth had broken wright. I am still trying to find the minutes of that conversation to back it up but all I've found so while searching the Fort Worth Star Telegram is off hand remarks that Fedex actually used that as an excuse, which I had never seen before that search and I have no reason to believe.

And on what I think was the only other question/comment you had "Are you still claiming it makes it illegal for Dallas to build an Alliance-type airport?". No, after looking at the text you provided I don't think that is true.

Jason

Link to comment
Share on other sites
JasonDFW

JasonDFW

Posted
Posted

Houston19514 ,

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

In conjunction with building DFW, the cities of Dallas and Ft Worth signed covenants for the bonds that were sold to fund the airport. In it, the two cities agreed not to do anything that would undermine the prospects of DFW. In particular, they agreed to prevent certificated air service at any municipal airport other than DFW. This was the basis for the city of Dallas trying numerous times to shut down Southwest
Link to comment
Share on other sites
2112

2112

Posted
  • Author
Posted

And another thing. I have issues with Austin. No, you are not "the San Francisco of Texas". And no, you are not the Seattle of Texas either. Just like Dallas is not the New York of Texas. Jeeze, these two Texas cities trying to create some artificial image of, whatever - it's just cheesy. I am so glad that Houston is so busy just trying to fend off pollution, congestion, hurricanes, traffic, and bad press, that it has no time to claim it is the "fill-in-the-blank" of Texas. But back to Ports. Houston has a Port, it called The Port of Houston. It has ships, sea vessels, scheduled cruise lines, a long tunnel underneath it, three huge bridges over it, and, did I mention, ships? Oh, and it has water too. That's why we call it a Port. We have other things where trucks and trains show up, and we call those warehouses and train yards.

Houston: The Houston of Texas.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
RedScare

RedScare

Posted
Posted
Sorry to go off topic, but demographics and population topics interest me. This is a constant complaint on this board, and I think it tends to be blown out of proportion by people that are admittedly skeptical of anything related to Dallas.

Jason

I don't think you can jump on Jason for his posts. He, more than most, tries to put up well researched numbers. As a numbers and demographics freak myself, I've seldom found his posts incorrect or intentionally misleading.

As for using or not using Fort Worth or the suburbs, you must look at the quote in context. Population is often looked at metro-wide. Crime is often reported city-wide. When I commented on some issues confronting Dallas, many Dallas posters attacked me, but Jason correctly pointed out how business has fled to the suburban towns. Even though Metro Dallas is doing well, City Dallas has some serious issues to deal with. Jason differentiates the two.

Now, there are a few other posters who do seem to look at every post for anti-Dallas sentiment. These are also the posters who throw out statistics that are not supported by any research. They are also the ones who make unsupported claims that 'Dallas is best' or 'This will be successful' or 'Houston just wants to be like Dallas', posts that invariably invite some ridicule in response. These posts are inviting scorn, and usually get it. But, Jason should not be lumped with that small group.

Now, the Wright Amendment, that's a different story. :lol:

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Houston19514

Houston19514

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

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

Jason

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

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

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

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Houston19514

Houston19514

Posted
Posted
Houston19514 ,

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

This text is from:

http://enplaned.blogspot.com/

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

Jason

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

Link to comment
Share on other sites
VicMan

VicMan

Posted
Posted

Guys, let's just call this the Intermodal Terminal, since this is what the inland port is.

Also let's call this the savior of Wilmer and Hutchins :) - Wilmer and Hutchins stagnated for years due to poor public schools.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
2112

2112

Posted
  • Author
Posted

No body is bitter (can't we all just get along?). It's simply a matter of saying things that make sense, and pointing out things that are not true. Like, for example, saying that ports don't have water. I mean, for crying out loud, that one article had a picture of a SHIP, presumably floating on WATER, and, the article had in its title The Port of Dallas. That's just silly. It just amazes me to what levels the Dallas marketers will take things these days. Next thing you know Dallas will pretend they have annexed Fort Worth, add both populations together, and then pretend they are the biggest city in Texas. If they keep this up, the city will not be taken seriously. It will earn a reputation for being a dissapointment when people expect one thing, based on an image, and when they show up, they see it really is not "all that." Pointing out these silly little things from your sister city is like having an older and wiser sibling telling you the truth to protect you, even if it hurts a little. It's simply for your own good, that's all.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
2112

2112

Posted
  • Author
Posted
aaaaaaaaannnnnd cut!!!!!!!! It's a wrap(applause)curtain closed.

Look. I know it hurts. It is not easy for a friend to tell you the truth sometimes. But being in denial is not going to help anyone. It is easy to not talk about these things, and to just want it all to stop. But, as a friend, Houston is here for you. But you have to do your part also. And the first step is to stop denying you have a problem, and let us start helping. Because that

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Dallasboi

Dallasboi

Posted
Posted
Look. I know it hurts. It is not easy for a friend to tell you the truth sometimes. But being in denial is not going to help anyone. It is easy to not talk about these things, and to just want it all to stop. But, as a friend, Houston is here for you. But you have to do your part also. And the first step is to stop denying you have a problem, and let us start helping. Because that
Link to comment
Share on other sites
JasonDFW

JasonDFW

Posted
Posted
Next thing you know Dallas will pretend they have annexed Fort Worth, add both populations together, and then pretend they are the biggest city in Texas.

Actually if they did that (which is unlikely since the idea only lives in your mind) the population would be #2 in Texas, not #1.

While we're talking population, new county estimates were released this week. Good news overall for Houston. They chipped away some of Miami's MSA lead on the 6th spot overall, which everyone expected:

7) Houston > 5.28 million

6) Miami > 5.42 million

What was a bit of a surprise though, Harris county held onto the #3 spot in the US for county population. Many expected it to lose it ot the much faster growing Maricopa county, but it has enough of a lead to even hold off a protest of the figures by Maricopa county. Add to that Katrina, and its entirely possible Harris county could hold onto the title one more year after this.

Jason

EDIT-Forgot to mention that the official MSA figures the census releases in the next month or so may vary a tiny fraction from those I posted, due to protests and such.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
2112

2112

Posted
  • Author
Posted
Actually if they did that (which is unlikely since the idea only lives in your mind) the population would be #2 in Texas, not #1.

While we're talking population, new county estimates were released this week. Good news overall for Houston. They chipped away some of Miami's MSA lead on the 6th spot overall, which everyone expected:

7) Houston > 5.28 million

6) Miami > 5.42 million

What was a bit of a surprise though, Harris county held onto the #3 spot in the US for county population. Many expected it to lose it ot the much faster growing Maricopa county, but it has enough of a lead to even hold off a protest of the figures by Maricopa county. Add to that Katrina, and its entirely possible Harris county could hold onto the title one more year after this.

Jason

EDIT-Forgot to mention that the official MSA figures the census releases in the next month or so may vary a tiny fraction from those I posted, due to protests and such.

Since you seem to be up on this stuff, can you tell me how the population figures are distributed in the New York City burroughs? As, how many in Queens, Manhattan, etc. Also, when exactly did New York City annex them? Did they use to be incorporated cities, complete with Mayors? Or were the burroghs unincorporated areas before the annex? I always wondered this stuff, and you seem to be the person who would know the answers.

I better get back on the topic before I get moderated. Uhh, oh yes, New York city has a Port. There, now this post is relevent. (whew!, that was close.)

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Montrose1100

Montrose1100

Posted
Posted
Since you seem to be up on this stuff, can you tell me how the population figures are distributed in the New York City burroughs? As, how many in Queens, Manhattan, etc. Also, when exactly did New York City annex them? Did they use to be incorporated cities, complete with Mayors? Or were the burroghs unincorporated areas before the annex? I always wondered this stuff, and you seem to be the person who would know the answers.

I better get back on the topic before I get moderated. Uhh, oh yes, New York city has a Port. There, now this post is relevent. (whew!, that was close.)

Is that a responce to the County Populations? Because From what I've seen, there are very tiny "counties" around NYC, which means the population figures (as one would think) are not high.

(July 1st, 2005 Estimates)

1. LA - 9,519,338

2. Cook - 5,376,741

3. Harris - 3,400,578

I'm not sure how New York's Counties are distributed, but all the "counties" New York City is in, add up to 18,976,457 (not including New Jearsy counties)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Go to topic listing
All of the HAIF
None of the ads!
HAIF+
Just
$5!


×
×
  • Create New...