mattyt36

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.

Sam, your option is possible only in the sense that it can be written into a sentence and can therefore be read. There is zero logic behind TxDOT as currently constituted letting a rogue and uncooperative FHWA effectively cancel a project a decade in the making without "fighting back," be it through a lawsuit, reengaging with FHWA on potential redesign, etc. After all, it's not just NHHIP we're talking about here . . . it'd set a precedent for the FHWA to cancel every future highway project in the state on a whim. And, as you have acknowledged, TxDOT is highway-oriented, run by a lot of extremely highway-centric people, and the administration isn't changing anytime in the next 90 days to say, "Oh well, we gave it our best, let's just remove it and move on." Ergo I stand by my description of your option as absurd, but if you want me to re-label it as "not very likely," fine. These days the best case scenario for NHHIP to be canceled is probably someone sues the State for I-45 abetting people getting to Planned Parenthood faster.

Sammy, dear, I have subscribed to the Chronicle in print for long before it ever had a paywall. Can't say I've ever gotten (or am getting) my money's worth, but there's only one shop in town. So don't you worry. Um, yeah. 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." Translates into "FHWA is unable to complete their review in 90 days, and TxDOT removes the project." Well, I'd say you'd have some serious reading comprehension issues. Maybe I've been wrong all along and "unserious" is the wrong word to use. But, in any case, keep on with the wishcasting . . .

Yikes if you are suggesting that polls should factor into any of these decisions. Who would be allowed to vote (certainly a propos these days)? How would you weigh the responses?

That's, as "they" say, patently absurd. We're back to being unserious, I see. The FHWA "unable to complete" and takes no action? And TxDOT says on Day 91, "Oh well, guys, thanks for trying. We said 90 days and you couldn't complete it. We understand. Oh well, $500MM down the drain--que será, será." Nevermind the implications for all future highway projects in the state. I know, you're "just asking questions," right?

As suspected, nothing much of substance as to the procedure in the Chronicle article. Why has the FHWA put the project on hold? Because of "concerns related to its impacts on minority and low-income communities." A bit general, there. Concerns related to what exactly? Under what legislative or regulatory authority? The March 8 cease and desist letter (available Federal Highway Administration Asks Texas To Halt I-45 Expansion, As Harris County Sues TxDOT – Houston Public Media) references 3 letters sent to TxDOT citing concerns under Title VI of the Civil Rights Act--one by Sheila Jackson Lee (in December 2020), one by the Air Alliance Houston (January 2021), and one by Texas Housers (also January 2021), a low-income housing group. Title VI states: §2000d Prohibition against exclusion from participation in, denial of benefits of, and discrimination under federally assisted programs on ground of race, color or national origin No person in the United States shall, on the ground of race, color, or national origin, be excluded from participation in, be denied the benefits of, or be subjected to discrimination under any program or activity receiving Federal financial assistance. Needless to say, it's pretty broad. The letter states that FHWA needs additional time to evaluate the concerns raised and to "[determine] whether any further actions may be necessary to address these concerns" and states that it will "expedite its efforts to resolve any issues as quickly as possible." So, as of yesterday, it appears TxDOT is giving FHWA 90 days to complete this process, which I guess means December 1. And it appears that the FHWA's concerns are wholly related to the nondiscrimination provisions of the Civil Rights Act. Harris County then sued TxDOT shortly thereafter, citing NEPA and the agency's failure to give proper "environmental consideration for all projects requiring federal action." Title VI also applies to environmental determinations, so I'd guess that's the main thrust of the Harris County lawsuit as well: Title VI and Environmental Justice | US EPA The record of decision (RoD) was issued by TxDOT under a memorandum of understanding with the FHWA in February 2021. (This is normal, the sponsor agency completes the NEPA process.) Record of Decision - North Houston Highway Improvement Project (txdot.gov) So going forward I guess the universe of outcomes is: 1) The FHWA could complete its review of the Title VI concerns without any findings 2) The FHWA could complete its review of the Title VI concerns with findings for TxDOT to remedy 3) The FHWA (or EPA?) could take action (sue?) to invalidate the RoD, which would make the project ineligible for federal funding Independent of those scenarios, however, the Harris County lawsuit could proceed until it was dropped, dismissed, or determined. Seems like the most likely scenario of the above is (2), which results in some compromise of allowing some initial work (perhaps Segment 3) to proceed while the concerns are remedied such that FHWA and the County can save face. Then the County would drop its lawsuit. It seems like all of this may have started in October 2020, when TxDOT specified the minimum 30-day comment period for the RoD. Critics: 30-day window to comment on I-45 project far too short for generation-lasting rebuild (houstonchronicle.com) So maybe this most recent comment period for the State transportation plan was a way to sort of address that (although admittedly it is not the same formal process). I don't understand why a reporter whose sole job is to report on Houston transportation can't spell those things out and help connect the dots. True, but above you stated you weren't surprised with the response. What exactly are you insinuating here, and what course of action would you propose? As the French say, quelle surprise.

Just shows how disengaged everyone is, which was the point many of us were making all along in the face of blanket statements implying there was some burgeoning lack of support. I wish someone could explain the next step in the County lawsuit. I doubt the Chronicle will write anything of substance other than that the lawsuit is still pending. I personally haven't seen a summary of (and the legal basis for) the complaint, but, then again, I haven't done much digging. One article mentioned the County suing under the Civil Rights Act. So far no press release on the County Attorney's website. (Nothing from the Mayor's Office, either.)

I didn't get that vibe 🤣 In fairness, 8,170 comments out of an MSA with 7 million people. Out of curiosity, did anyone on here submit a comment? I didn't . . . other than here, of course. Looks like there was a real opportunity to mobilize people on both sides and, at the end of the day, neither side really did. Maybe most of the 5K "pro" comments were mobilized by the GHP and local chambers of commerce. Still way lower than I would have expected.

Keep Houston Houston, great memories! I miss it as much as Swamplot.

J, why don't you help us understand your point? There seemed to be two in your original message: That there are a "bunch of businesses nobody cares about"? I guess that's accurate. Pretty much anywhere. Do you "care" about businesses in Conroe? Seems like a weird blanket statement to make, unless you have a history with these guys and they are your preferred opticians. Or, are they just "great" because they agree with your position on NHHIP? Again, seems to be a pretty weird way to develop a position about small businesses. Perhaps what would be most instructive is if you tell us how the position of this business should be weighed against the positions of others. There must be some "system" in your head, something like: 1) Small business=weighted more than big business because . . . ? 2) Business located close to freeway but not in right-of-way=weighted more than business that may use the freeway but not adequately "near" it because . . . ? In re (2), how close do they need to be to get the special consideration? Do you envision it as a simple veto on any prospective project? Assuming you fly out of HOU, if residents of Glenbrook Valley are opposed to a couple new gates at HOU, does the same standard apply? Help us understand.

Optics, good one!

What was here 30 years ago? Was walking through the neighborhood last night and realized I have no memory.

I believe the old maxim is don't look a gift horse in the mouth, so I'll take loving the positives versus not caring at all about them. PROGRESS!

J, we are talking about the CAP PARKS between the GRB and the East End (you know the tripling of the highway width by Minute Maid Park being put to a referendum straw man). The City has pretty much said it supports segment 3 with minimal changes. WHY?! Because this has been the plan for YEARS. NHHIP Segments 1 & 2 Facilitation Group Meeting #2 (houstontx.gov) (credit to texan for supplying link in prior post) City's vision on page 13: "MOVE FORWARD NOW" And I don't believe the City has sued anyone over NHHIP, but I can't keep track. Actually none of us seem to be able to keep track with all of this misinformation.

J, there's a hell of a lot of difference between CONCEPTS and a demonstrably feasible project that has tacit support from the State (yes, the State!), the City, the Chamber of Commerce and Central Houston. It's exactly where you'd expect it to be at this phase. It's only going to get worse, I'm afraid, before new coalitions can be built with all of this pathetic, know-nothing posturing to the lowest common denominator. But let's see how 2022 turns out. (And it's jibe, not jive.)

No funding sources for construction of an actual park planned from TxDOT (because they don't do it anywhere). There's a tremendous difference. The initial drawings of Spaceport Houston were CONCEPTUAL (i.e., pretty pictures with no basis in reality). The cap park between the convention center and the East End is likely most accurately described as being in PLANNING. The next phase will be DESIGN, and, yes, guess what, it won't be in that phase until Segment 3 is permitted. The cap park is exactly where you'd expect it to be at this phase. The City, Central Houston, and other organizations are all planning for the cap park and have been for YEARS. You've got a city of philanthropists that have been absolutely committed to funding parks over the past decade. You think they could get funding for Disco Green, Lynn Wyatt Park, Buffalo Bayou Park, and Memorial Park and wouldn't make this a priority, when funding options are arguably more expansive with HOT, convention, TIRZ taxes, and now the Infrastructure Bill in a Democratic administration? Not to mention that TxDOT is funding structures and other enabling work. Somehow, you accept the park rings around downtown as possible, but not this? Give me a break. The cap parks between Midtown and the Museum District? Well, those are anybody's guess. But even in those cases you've got people working. I seriously never thought I would find myself advocating as much as I appear to be for freeways, or feeling any sympathy for TxDOT, but if they have to deal with this nonsense, I probably would be throwing up my hands, too.

OK Sam, so tell me your legislative theory of having that pass the Texas Legislature with a simple majority and be signed by the Governor, with the composition of the Legislature including plenty of R-The Woodlands, R-Frisco, and plenty of other equivalents before we even get to the likes of R-Vidor and R-Rusk. Mask mandates have a plurality of popular support and look where we are. Perfectly happy with people dying in the name of "freedom," and you think these guys don't associate cars and freeways with "freedom"? (HINT: Consider the etymology of the word FREEway.) Surely you saw that question coming. At the end of the day, I just don't think you're a very serious person.