ADCS

Gas tax revenue will go up, owing to the increase in consumption that low prices brings. Also, oil had been in the tank for a good nine months when the project was announced.

I actually do think that it's possible to get the city, the Midtown TIRZ or the Parks District to throw some cash at the bridge project to enhance its visual and pedestrian impact. It's a once-in-a-generation opportunity to create a signature addition to what has increasingly become Houston's capstone amenity. I'll certainly be asking around about how we can get funding for the project.

Here are a few examples of curved bridges with cable-stayed designs: http://structurae.net/structures/bridges-and-viaducts/cable-stayed-bridges-with-curved-deck

The integration may be better if they convert the bridge from a beam design to a more attractive arch or cable-stayed/extradosed design with a longer main span. It's the array of piers that causes the psychological barrier (more hiding spaces, more dangerous looking) rather than the deck itself.

As an outsider as well, I've got no problem with a UH medical school. No problem with a UH-Austin, either, silly as the concept might be.

Reductio ad absurdum is a perfectly good rhetorical technique, and given the absurd demands of many UH supporters in the thread, is particularly apt. Per the State Constitution, it belongs to the institutions that are the University of Texas and Texas A&M University, and it belongs to them for the benefit of all citizens of the state. They benefit because they have two universities with the resources to support world-class research and innovation. I've seen no arguments from UH supporters as to why this should be disrupted, beyond a puerile appeal to fairness, and a barely-concealed lust for that money.

Rightfully so how? Just because they want it doesn't make it right. I'd like a billion of Warren Buffet's dollars, but it doesn't mean I have any right to it.

All I keep taking away from this thread is that UH folks are upset that they don't have access to the PUF or the Big 12. I don't see any vision of an alternative that would be better for Houston and the state. It smacks of tribalism.

It's not to anyone's detriment, and it's only people who think these universities are in competition with each other who think so. Leave the competition on the football field.

Everyone in Texas has an equal chance to attend UT or A&M. Some have a more-than-equal chance owing to efforts to mitigate social disadvantages. Distribution of funding is seen primarily as a political question by most judicial authorities, unless it's a clear disparity to the disfavor of some suspect class, such as in the case of segregated schools. I don't understand why there would be a reason to dispute the notion that the university's president is going to fight this development. I am disputing the wisdom of doing so.

It's not an issue of institutional fairness, because it is an issue of what is best for the state as a whole. In my opinion, it is in the state's best interest to have a world-class flagship university that drives research, technology and economic development.

To me, it's not an issue of fairness - the state of Texas is best served by having a world-class research university, and it is able to have one because of the funding the PUF provides. The reason UH was blocked is because it serves a similar purpose to SHSU, just at a higher level. UT serves a much bigger purpose than both of those schools. Certainly, the state constitution could be changed to end this division, but I believe the state as a whole would suffer for not having a top-five endowed university in the country anymore.

It's pretty simple - the PUF was set up to benefit the University of Texas system. A&M gets a chunk because it was spun off from the UT system. UH has never been associated with the UT system, and yet it thinks it's entitled to those monies? The only way it would make sense for UH to get PUF money would be to merge into the UT system, but I do not see anyone pushing for that. This is attempting to have your cake (administrative independence) and eat it too.

Well, there's a not-too-subtle attitude from many of these folks that the opinions of those who don't hold real property don't matter all that much.

I'm ready for some investigation into where Texans Against HSR's funding comes from. They've been pretty persistent for losing every step of the way.

It's not, but it's indicative that many people in the Houston area might've had the game on, who would not otherwise be watching the game.

We had the game on at the office. I would not have watched this game otherwise.

That's only because Texas was crap up to that point, and not expected to win. The important thing isn't so much that the best UH team in a generation managed to pull a high rating for a top-tier bowl, it's that Texas can still draw a 7.2 while playing its worst football in 20 years.

Big-time athletics makes sense as a fundraiser for a flagship state school, or a private school with a large endowment, owing both to the large and/or wealthy alumni base, and the resources to weather the down times. It doesn't make sense for a school like UH, whose market niche is very different from UT, A&M, LSU or Notre Dame. Yes, it's a very silly way for rich people to feel important - and it works, once you get to a certain scale. UH isn't at that scale, and likely never will be, and it's only a matter of time before the spending on athletics turns to frivolity and severely harms the bottom line. If the school really wants to make its mark, it needs to be looking at doing different, dynamic and disruptive things, and not trying to out-UT the state flagship. FYI - neither Aggie or Longhorn

The fact that this keeps coming back to football is demonstrative of a need for UH to reevaluate its priorities.

Are you saying that the vast majority of UH students don't come from the Houston metro?

Yet that is not what the PUF is for - it's to fund the state flagship systems. If you think it should be spread wider, then perhaps we should consider a reorganization of the state's public universities under the California model.

As said below, that's really not that disproportionate, given population. Non-Greater Houston Population of TX: 20.34 million, 75.4% Greater Houston: 6.62 million, 24.6% UT proportion of UT/UH state funding pool: 81.1% UH proportion of UT/UH state funding pool: 18.9% Considering that UT serves Houston students as well, state funding is fairly equitable given each school's mission. We need to stop thinking of our public universities as being in competition with one another. This ain't football here.

In what way? UT is a huge organization, one that most likely doesn't pay much attention to UH in its decision making. I'd be inclined to take the criticism more seriously if it weren't so flimsy, and I weren't 90% sure it's primarily about Big 12 football. Some of these pro-UH comments border on paranoid conspiracy theory.

This exactly. I'm an OU alum and am happy to knock UT when the opportunity arises, but this is a no-brainer for Houston. Also, when I read things like this: This suggests that the State and UT are interested in investing in Houston as Texas' global city. That's incredibly exciting for so many reasons. At the same time, it might also explain the trepidation of so many local politicians - they like the current machine for what it is, and don't want that sort of transformative development.