ADCS

Mature cities have traffic.  A lot of traffic. At nearly all hours. The important part isn't reducing traffic, it's making traffic patterns regular and predictable.

It's not necessarily a bad thing if it always takes 45 minutes to get from one side of the loop to the other, so long as it always takes 45 minutes, with 95%+ certainty. This allows for a greater ability to plan trips and regularize transportation decision-making.

With respect to through traffic on 45 downtown, we need to focus less on catering to their needs, and more on inducing them to use alternative routes where available (for example, the East Loop, bypassing downtown altogether).

11 hours ago, IronTiger said:

"muh urbanism"

Printed up those "Keep Houston Suburban" shirts yet?

When ring road longer than a certain length, it will no longer have the "ring road" purpose anymore. Talking about Beijing, I have to say our roads are 100 years behind, both highway and local.

They're macadamized dirt roads and Belgian-block streets?

Your generalizations and putting words in mouth aside, how would you propose to fund additional flagship universities? 

 

It just seems you are focused on the wrong things. 

Incorporate all the schools into two flagship systems, just as they do in California. All the schools would have PUF access, but they wouldn't have independence in administration of the funds. It's an even trade-off.

What wrong things? Neither UT nor UH are my alma mater, so I don't have a horse in the race.

That's a false dichotomy. No one is suggesting UT and TAMU give up their spots as flagships, I suggested to add more flagships and building upon what we already have built. Personally, I think we need a flagship in each major region; UH, UT-D, UT, and TAMU. The border region is woefully under served by higher education so TAMU-Kingsville needs to become more like present day UT-D before becoming a flagship. 

 

To the bolded, the point is what's best for people of the state of Texas.

Yet you're asking them to give up money, receiving nothing in return. That's something for nothing.

The only thing that I can think of that UH has to offer that would be an even exchange for PUF access is institutional independence. Yet, I haven't seen any proposals from UH boosters that even countenance giving something up to UT in exchange for that access. It's only "we demand this" and "you should do this because this is unfair", like UT or A&M should care about such things, not to mention the people in the state's other big cities who would receive no material benefit from such a change.

UH doesn't have the leverage to get PUF access, and yet its supporters are the ones making the demands. Can you not see how this appears extremely foolish to others?

Why do people keep saying adding UH and TT to the PUF would be to the detriment of UT and A&M. So let me get this right. The two flagships get 5 percent of the revenue from the landholdings. Is that right?

UT already had more money than it knows what to do with, but anyway what if the PUF dispersement is increased to to 8 percent and then devided accordingly.

It didn't hurt UT when the other system schools were added so why would it hurt UT if UH was added? Is it because UH and TT are the closes to being Tier one?

No one's proposing to do it that way. Da Mare wanted to cut into UT's slice of the pie, to the order of hundreds of millions:

https://www.dailytexanonline.com/organization/permanent-university-fund

Why should they disperse the funds when it's only to the UT and A&M systems' detriment, and only to the UH/TTU systems' benefit? You're asking for something in exchange for nothing.

There is no reason that we couldn't have a mass higher education reorganization tomorrow. All it would take is negotiation. But, you have to understand, UT and A&M aren't going to give up their spots as the state's flagships. If you want them to give on something, you've got to give on something as well. I have not seen any pro-UH posters on here being willing to do so. The most that's being offered is an ultimatum of PUF access in exchange for us not throwing a hissy fit. Is that an even exchange?

Sacrificing independence while maintaining a bit of autonomy, on the other hand, would be. In all honesty, I don't know why any UH graduate would be opposed to it. It enhances the value of your degree overnight.

Following the California system would be more like combining the A&M and Texas systems into one, and moving Texas Tech and UH, etc back into the State University system.  You wouldnt even have to mess with the PUF or HEF.

I'd probably divvy up the State University system between the UT and A&M systems, leaning heavily toward the latter (I'd reckon that they're feeder schools for A&M more than UT).

First of all, the PUF was created in 1876 and the mineral rights on "UT's land" was established in 1901. Frankly, I don't much care about the context and history surrounding the PUF as it is outdated. Compared to California's system it is a joke

You want to follow the California system? I'm all in favor. Dissolve the UH regents and incorporate it into the UT system as an autonomous university, like UCLA. Texas Tech can be added to the A&M system. 

Of course, I don't think Mr. Fertitta will like that idea too much.

The PUF gets royalties as a percentage of revenue. Profit or loss doesn't matter. The effect of lower prices is a reduction in revenue. The only way revenue goes to zero is if the wells no longer produce.

Along with this, there's the Permanent University Fund which is composed of hard assets, along with the Available University Fund, which is where the liquid assets are located. UT and A&M each have access to a portion of the AUF for the annual budget, while the PUF remains in a sort of trust.

Seems like our UH friends have learned their negotiation skills from our Congresscritters.

http://www.houstonchronicle.com/news/politics/houston/article/Turner-tears-up-airport-contracts-will-start-6819268.php

 

Turner doesnt look like he is any rush for to approve this. 

Now there's the machine politician I was expecting when he came into office.

I am wondering the same thing, but he is passionate in that delusion so I'm going to let him have it

Y'all are arguing that state-of-the-art research magically appears wherever a bunch of smart people cluster together, without any logistical concerns, and I'm the delusional one? That's rich.

Still trying to understand just how proximity to a Seaport has anything to do with a research campus. 

Lots of things are shipped all over the world in containers. They're the backbone of the modern global economy.

You want a high-tech particle accelerator? It's probably going to be constructed in Germany or Japan. It's probably going to cost tens of thousands of dollars to get it shipped to you. Road/rail freight costs are about 3-4x sea freight costs, so the 170 miles it takes to get from the Port of Houston to Austin will add another 15-20% to the costs of shipment.

Now, imagine you're having to make these sorts of purchases several times a year to keep up with the current state of the art in research, along with making your talent happy. Those 15-20% overruns start to add up.

That's why being close to a seaport is important - every penny counts when you're running an operation that large.

No it doesn't, and no it isn't. If transportation was a major player then silicon valley would either be in SF/Oakland or LA/long beach instead of SJ to be closer to the major airports and seaports.

You are making it seem like Austin isn't a short connecting flight from IAH or DFW. Austin isn't all that hard to get to.

In medieval times Geniuses clustered in Alexandria and made lots of discoveries there. Sane thing is happening in Silicon Valley, same is happening in the Research Triangle, same at TMC. A cluster of brainpower seems to be far more important than worrying about bringing expects to town. I would be more apt to locate my research near Stanford that at Port of Oakland or LAX.

You mean Alexandria, right on the Mediterranean coast and the closest spot in the Nile Delta to Greece and Italy? I think you're making my point there more than refuting it.

Also, the entire San Francisco Bay Area functions as an economically interconnected region, just as Greater Houston does. Its sea, road and rail connections are far denser and have a greater capacity than those between Houston and Austin. This in turn lowers transportation costs. San Jose is as far from San Francisco as Galveston is from Houston. I don't think anyone would disagree that we're tied to Galveston far more than Austin.

Finally, connecting flights are expensive, and when you're having to budget for hundreds if not thousands of visitors a year, even a few hundred dollars a person can add up to quite a bit. This is especially the case when you're having to ship delicate or fragile materials.

International air and seaports have little to do with research. I'm thinking it has more to do with the brain power of TMC.

Like all these "valleys" innovation tend to come in clusters, and TMC is the strongest congregation of mental will in Texas and maybe the entire south.

If an excuse for the location needs to be had then that would be it.

Saving money on bringing top experts into town, along with shipping precision crafted tools and supplies, doesn't have a lot to do with research?

Transportation is everything when it comes to harnessing brainpower.

This is her response to the financial benefits that will come to these counties over the next 25 years.

I'm not really surprised by the lack of any evidence or factual claims against the project, but I'm a little worried at how easily Texans Against HSR persuades the people along the line with nothing but fear tactics.

I don't think there's much persuading to be done - the country folk don't like us city folk much, and they really don't like foreigners. Give them just a bit of rationalization and FUD, and they'll be frothing at the mouth in no time.

Never mind the actual landowners who are impacted - they can't wait for the annual paychecks for the use of their land that go far beyond whatever productive use they'd get out of it. It's their neighbors who always have the strong opinions on the subject.

Look at it like this, the big bully has been messing with you for years and now he says "hey want to come to my birthday?" of course you say no. 

More like the rich kid wants to build an office building in your neighborhood, you object to the perceived gentrification, he decides to let you help design the building, and you say "no way, but give me access to your bank account".

 

Sheer, dumb, coincidence, I'm sure.

 

Why not build a research campus closer to their main campus in Austin? Land is cheaper, they'd be closer to their own campus for better synergy.

It most likely is sheer, dumb coincidence. UT probably doesn't think about UH in its decisionmaking process nearly as much as you'd like them to.

Austin isn't close to a major international airport, nor one of the largest seaports in the world. That's why Houston makes so much sense.

Put Congressman Kevin Brady for the 8th district (Woodlands, Montgomery Country) in the "doesn't like trains" camp

 

http://www.houstonpress.com/news/with-primary-looming-congressman-kevin-brady-wades-into-the-bullet-train-fight-8141497

 

Of course the article doesn't mention TCR's announcement of a station near college station at all

“Taking property against a landowner’s will, especially land that may have been in the family for generations, is a serious matter. Because this is a state project, I am requesting your leadership in determining if Texas Central Partners has state eminent domain power. I question that it does," Brady wrote.

Because if you don't like reality, just question it!

Once they demolish this section, you guys do know we will have a flurry of parking lots for years to come right?

Yes, but they won't be parking lots with a freeway on top of them.

Turner should focus on getting the damn University line built, TxDOT does the freeways and they never seem to have any shortage of money. 

Didn't we just pass two constitutional amendments because TxDOT had an extreme shortage of money? I'm pretty sure that's why the Grand Parkway is a toll road.

Well, can't fault you on lack of consistency. I myself just find the idea of a highway spur going over a bayou needing a "signature bridge" a laughable (and in many ways embarrassing) prospect.

You don't think something like this, adapted for the roadway curves and doubled for capacity, would be appropriate?

OK, maybe a "bridge to nowhere" was a bit harsh. But if say, Spur 527 crossed the Buffalo Bayou (and not Interstate 45 as it stands today), would you think a "signature bridge" belonged there, instead of elsewhere?

If it was appropriate and served the functional purpose (extending the main span of the bridge and removing piers), then why not?

That still doesn't address the whole "bridge to nowhere" problem. Besides, that part of I-45 will run (and will still run) practically on top of the Buffalo Bayou, making a signature bridge even more impractical. That's just the way the highways run unless you want to do something even weirder like redirect Buffalo Bayou down Memorial Parkway between Sawyer and Bagby.

 

I kind of like the improved plan as pictured above as it does at least tighten the area of the lanes that go over it.

What bridge to nowhere problem? This is going to be the primary gateway to Midtown from north and west of Houston.

There's nothing impractical about this - it's simply a matter of reducing the number of piers by using different bridge designs. In fact, it's particularly practical by opening up more usable space within a park.

As a concept, a signature cable-stayed bridge over the bayou is ridiculous. It would end up stupider than building over Trinity Creek, it would look like a ripoff concept of said bridge (even if the design was completely different), and if you follow through with the Pierce Elevated being removed, it would be a "bridge to nowhere". The Dallas bridges have the benefit of linking downtown to a major thoroughfare in West Dallas (and a freeway corridor).

Why? It opens up the area underneath the bridge, i.e. the very valuable Buffalo Bayou park corridor, creating a more inviting and usable landscape. As Houston continues to grow in size and prominence, these are amenities that add considerable value to the area, along with increases in surrounding property values.

No one is asking for something like the Margaret Hill bridge - an extradosed design, such as what we see for the I-35 feeders over the Brazos in Waco, would be an elegant solution providing for a long main deck and open area underneath the bridge, while maintaining a low profile.