Soccer at NRG: A bad field, a bad crowd, a bad report.

Last night Italian Serie A power AC Milan beat Mexican League stalwart Chivas 3-0 in a game that will be remembered more for horrible turf and turnout than it will be remembered for good play. In fitting with the horrible conditions and crowd, the Chron's soccer beat writer mailed one in when reviewing the game:

AC Milan's 3-0 win over Chivas marred by poor field conditions, Jose de Jesus Ortiz, Chron.com

You don't risk ruining your Ferrari on a country road in Porter, and that's exactly the dilemma AC Milan and Chivas faced while contemplating whether to play their friendly match at the Texans' stadium.
Mario Balotelli and AC Milan ultimately took the pitch and beat Chivas 3-0 before a crowd of 14,871, the smallest attendance figure for an international match at NRG Stadium.

Not mentioned in the article is the fact that, despite the horrible field conditions, Balotelli was awesome, scoring two goals and proving too much for the CONCACAF fueled Chivas de Guadalajara to handle.

How bad was the field?

That bad.

In fact, it was an embarrassment to the folks that run NRG.  The stadium was also dumpy looking on TV, with all of the bunting and padding removed the stadium more closely resembles a bomb-shelter. Add to this the fact that it was 2/3 empty and you have a failure on a massive scale. Why there wasn't an effort to play this game at the Dynamo/Dash stadium (Compass Bank Stadium) I'll never understand.

As is his wont, Ortiz doubles down on being incorrect by throwing in this nugget:

Houston soccer fans are sophisticated. AC Milan took Houston fans for granted. Subsequently, the promoters got what they deserved, a crowd worthy of their horrendous pitch.

Houston soccer fans are NOT sophisticated. They're just about on par with the fans in Portland who were chanting "USA!" as a multi-national group of "all-stars" eeked out a 2-1 win over Bayern Munich.  That's right, the best and brightest of the entire American professional LEAGUE struggled to beat one TEAM from the Bundesligua.

And fans chanted USA! to a group of players that included representatives from Europe, South America, the Caribbean, Canada and Nigeria.  American soccer fans, as passionate as they may be, are NOT sophisticated. These are people who think that blocks of four behind the ball is somehow less defensive of a set up than a flat five or six. (Seriously, I had someone argue that with me on Twitter)

Not that it's the Houston fans who were at fault here. The real problem was the promoters: Texas Lone Star Sports & Entertainment and SNG-NRG Park. Both of these companies mailed it in to a degree that there was no advertisement to speak of, and almost no-one knew that AC Milan would be in town.

Ortiz, mysteriously, blames AC Milan for this.  Now, it is his M.O. to prop up the Mexican Leagues as Gods among men, so you really shouldn't expect anything different here.  Fortunately, you don't get anything different.  What you get is a fluff quote from Chivas suggesting that they "heart Houston" and then a bunch of conjecture that AC Milan just blew Houston off. Given that we don't know how the promoters (who got everything else wrong) drew up the itinerary this is a preposterous statement to make. It's opining on the part of the reporter and any decent editor would have sent it back for re-writing.

For a city that yearns to be "world class" I'm never amazed when Houston is frequently less than so. Whether it's poorly planned or executed events or the sub-par media coverage of them, the norm in Houston is to do things half-assed and then blame others for the failure.

Why Houston can't have anything nice. (Tear down the Dome edition)

Oh. My. Gawd.

A not so modest proposal for the Astrodome. David Kaplan, Prime Property a Chron.com blog

It’s Niagara Falls meets Paris World’s Fair meets “2001: A Space Odyssey.”

And that's just the header.  The remainder of the article is a reminder of just how bereft of ideas the so-called "creative class" in Houston really is.

Niagara Falls? - Um, not really. Especially when you consider Niagara Falls is one of the seven wonders of the Natural world.  An inside waterfall would be like the Dubai Mall, only less so because it would be a weak copy without all of the beauty of the silver figures diving down it.

Paris World's Fair? Look, the Eiffel Tower works because it is the perfect (phallic) symbol for the Nation of France.  Obviously such symbolism doesn't work for perpetually whingeing Houston.  What is the symbol for an inferiority complex again?

2001: A Space Odyssey?  Actually, Kaplan is setting his sights a little lower trying to COPY.......Fort Worth.  If you're the biggest city in Texas and you're trying to COPY Fort Worth, you're doing it wrong.

The rest of the 'idea' is nothing more than a wish-list of things that the so-called 'creative class' wishes they had in Houston instead of other places.  Copy an Apple store design? Check.  A Space Needle (complete with revolving restaurant). Check. River Rides?  Check.

To my mind that's been the problem with every idea that's been floated for the Dome. They're all weak attempts at knocking off things that make other cities special.  Even the most creative idea, stripping down the Dome and turning the area into a park, was ruined when Chris Alexander, the project director, described it as "a potential Central Park in Houston".  The problem here obviously being that the Reliant Complex is NOT centrally located and that Disco Green was supposed to be "Houston's Central Park" and you can't have two.

Outside of the obvious, a casino - currently illegal in Texas - there's not much there that's going to be approved by both the Texans and the Houston Livestock show and Rodeo.  Given this reality we're running full steam toward the point where we demolish the thing, fill the hole, and build either a parking lot or garage. When this happens there will be much wailing, gnashing of teeth and blame casting.  In reality, the blame falls with the contract that was written with the Texans and the HLSR back when Reliant was constructed, and the fact that Houston has allowed those with a chronic lack of imagination take charge of planning and ideas.

Houston needs a creativity infusion and it needs it soon. The same ol', same ol' from the Sardine Urbanists could be the one thing that causes us to grind to a halt.

Happy Dome Day!

Well, today is the day, the last day for private groups to submit proposals (with funding attached) to the Harris County Sports and Convention Corporation regarding what to do with the Astrodome.  As you might imagine, there is no shortage of opinions regarding the Dome's future and the staff at ChronBlog (predictably) has weighed in suggesting that the only solution is a rather large taxpayer outlay, an outlay, if recent reports are to be believed, would add to an already troublesome problem.

Never mind the cost of renovating the place, there are several hurdles which make any private concern difficult at best.

First, there's what's best described as existing "non-compete" clauses with both the Texans and the Houston Livestock Show and Rodeo.  I understand that Bob McNair is a community-minded individual, and by all accounts a pretty nice guy, but why would he be willing to green-light a project that might interfere with Texans game-day operations? 

Then there's the fact that the Houston Livestock Show and Rodeo, despite public perception, is NOT as community minded as is Mr. McNair.  There's no way they're going to green-light something that interferes with their gravy-train (have you seen their offices?) no matter what the positive effects to the county might be.

In short: Whatever happens to the Astrodome needs to be something that works in tandem with the HLSR AND is closed on Sundays.  This really leaves us with only two options:


Either we tear the thing down and re-develop it into a parking garage, or we turn it into the world's largest Chick-Fil-A.

The Highwayman and Houston Tomorrow: An introduction to Trinketland

First I read this:

Wisconsin Court Ruling means Houston could think more about transit. Dug Begley, The Highwayman, Chron.com

A federal court judge in Milwaukee might have made it a little trickier to widen Texas roads.
Leaving aside whether that’s a good or bad thing, the ruling has certainly energized Houston-area people who push for more transit and less freeway building.
“It feels like it is almost the sky is the limit for our team on these kinds of issues to stop wasteful highway building and increase transit,” said Jay Blazek Crossley, program development and research director with Houston Tomorrow, an urban planning nonprofit.

Then I read this:

Federal court says highway sponsors must first study transit, impacts on suburban sprawl. Kaid Benfield, Switchboard

It is just an interim ruling, but it is potentially an important one:  In a suit brought by inner-city, minority plaintiffs, the US District Court in Milwaukee has indicated that the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) and Wisconsin Department of Transportation (WisDOT) cannot enlarge a major urban freeway connection without further study of the project's impacts on transit-dependent populations and on regional suburban sprawl.  For now, the case is headed to mediation; but the court's ruling on legal issues in the case, as articulated in an opinion signed by federal judge Lynn Adelman, is potentially significant to other highway-expansion controversies with similar circumstances.

Then I went and read the entire opinion:

Court Opinion

Before me now is the plaintiffs’ motion for a preliminary injunction. The plaintiffs seek an order prohibiting the agencies from taking further action in connection with the project pending a final decision on the merits of this case.

For the reasons stated below, I find that the plaintiffs have a likelihood of success on the merits and that they are likely to suffer irreparable harm in the absence of an injunction.

There's a lot more in the 36 page court opinion that makes what was reported, breathlessly here, ring hollow.  First, this was a preliminary injunction which doesn't mean that the court is stating firmly that the plaintiff's case has merit, only that there's a likelihood that it does.  Second, even IF it's determined that the case has merit there's no getting around this:

The controlling statute at issue here, NEPA, “declares a broad national commitment to protecting and promoting environmental quality.” Robertson v. Methow Valley Citizens

Council, 490 U.S. 332, 348 (1989). It has been described as a “procedural” or actionforcing” statute that does not “mandate particular results” but instead requires agencies to study and describe the environmental consequences of their proposed actions. Id. at 348–51; Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power Corp. v. Nat. Res. Defense Council, 435 U.S. 519, 558 (1978). Thus, under NEPA, if an agency has adequately identified and evaluated the environmental effects of its proposed action, it is permitted to take that action even if the environmental effects will be devastating. Robertson, 490 U.S. at 350. Put differently, “NEPA merely prohibits uninformed—rather than unwise—agency action.”

This is NOT the wording of a ruling that's got the potential to be a "game-changer" as the sardine urbanists are currently classifying it. What it appears to be is more of a procedural hand-slap to an agency that tried to half-ass their way through an EIS review hoping that no-one would notice.  However, even IF the EIS revealed a benefit to attaching some form of public transportation component to this project, when you consider that the agency in charge of the project has no jurisdiction over mass transit, it's inherently clear in the judges decisions that they would be under no obligation to add it.

In other words, this is not a tool Blazek-Crossley, his dad and other members of the non-productive class can use to "stop" highway construction, but it is a possible way for TxDOT to distract them down the line by giving them input and then completely ignoring it. 

In a way, this shouldn't surprise anyone. After all, those who are constantly amazed by trinket governance are typically unaware when different trinkets are used to distract them from the real issues. 


Oooh!  Look!  Peak Oil!

One step closer to making Post Oak even more impassable

We're getting there:

Uptown transit plan back on the road. Dug Begley, Chron.com

Uptown's plan centers on offering bus rapid transit service along Post Oak, between a planned Westpark transit center south of U.S. 59 and west of Loop 610, and the Northwest Transit Center near 610 and Interstate 10. Buses would run the route in special center lanes along Post Oak, then using either elevated lanes along 610, or existing city streets north of where Post Oak meets Loop 610.

There's a reason several business owners are in opposition to this (dissenting voices unsurprisingly omitted from the Chron.com article) and it's because construction of these lines is going to eat into existing lanes for automobile traffic which is going to cut down on their potential exposure to customers during the construction phase.  Of course, the office tenants will be happy because, if they can force buy-in, then they can have their employees park in the off-site park-and-ride lots and save money on parking costs in building garages.  Building management companies (were they thinking clearly) would oppose it because they would lose said parking revenue.  However, my suspicion is that many will be for it because they've been convinced amenities such as BRT lines give a whiff of world classiness to the joint.

Never mind that, based on current estimates, construction is estimated to last 4 years. And while the district promises that there will be as many automobile lanes post construction as pre-construction, it's the interim that is always of concern.  As with any road/mass transit project, the controlling entity is basically asking their current tenants to survive on greatly reduced revenues for an extended period of time.  In many cases the businesses that benefit are not the ones that were in place when the construction started, especially when you're talking about smaller, locally owned stores who cannot just absorb the losses as can larger chains.

None of the above is a reason why it should, or should not, be done, it's just adding some context that was (sadly) missing in the Begley piece.  Too often, especially in ChronBlog, anti-mass anything opponents are criticized as spend-thrifts with a default "no" response to spending any money whatsoever.  That's frequently not the case, but there's no onus to present the issue fairly when you've already stated your position on the matter and abdicated your role as a news agency.

A larger conversation surrounding why this points to the failures of Metro should also occur, but those are only happening on the outskirts, and will not get full shrift in ChronBlog if history is any indication.  That's too bad, because there's fertile ground to plow but no one wants to plow it.

Houston Neighborhood Naming Conventions.

So, this is a thing:

Fake names, It's gotta stop. Keep Houston Houston

Yes, EaDo is lame, but you're wrong about everything else. John Nova Lomax, Houstonia

What's in a name, Part Deux. Keep Houston Houston

What's in a neighborhood name? Kuffer, Off the Kuff.

If you took the time to read through all of that back n' forth (including the incredibly lame comment by John Nova Lomax on the second KHH post) then you probably have come to the same conclusion as I.  EaDo (and, by extension NoDo) has got to go. 

Outside of that you have pretty much what should be expected from a City that's re-gentrifying at a steady rate, flexible area names. Many of these names are brought about by developers, who have an interest in making areas seem as idyll and pastoral as possible. "Sawyer Heights"?  Brilliant.  It sounds edgy and homey at the same times.  Never mind that the entire area is being rebranded after a fairly unremarkable multi-family building best known for one side being constantly bombarded with noise from I-10.

I will say this however, outside of John Nova Lomax, the conversation did get on fairly well and was conducted at something close to an adult level.  Not that we expect anything more from a former member of Village Voice Houston, but hey, at least we're getting there.  Heck, even Houston's bestest blockquoter took some time off from the indentation and added a worthy riposte to the discussion.  In terms of Houston blog conversation, this was fairly solid.

Long-time readers of this blog (all 3 or so of you) will not be surprised to discover that I'm ambivalent about the entire matter, other than about EaDo and NoDo obviously, which are just sad. To me neighborhood names are more an indicator of current community aesthetics than they are a tribute to the historical significance of where people live. They are also good indications of the vanity of the masses.  Where the "wards" have a negative connotation to some, Neartown or Midtown invoke images of a futuristic Norman Rockwell setting where kids play in busted fire hydrants, men wear suits and fedoras and women walk around in flowery dresses holding shopping baskets full of vegetables and steak wrapped in butcher paper purchased from a man named Saul.

In short, all of these newish names are about marketing, and what could be more Houston than that?

When bad reporting leads to confusing results. (Houston Parks edition)

First we're great.....(sorry for the link to the pathetic article FWIW)

How's about another heaping helping of Houston economy porn. Craig Hlavaty, The Texican at Chron.com

Everybody loves parks. Houston’s got more of them than any other top 10 metropolitan area.
Come to Discovery Green, take off your shoes, and watch a free concert on a Thursday evening. Make a night of it and take a nap in a nearby bush.

And then we're not.....

Houston ranks near bottom of national list of park access. Carol Christian, Chron.com

When it comes to parks, Houston ranks near the bottom of the 50 largest U.S. cities, according to a national conservation organization.
The Trust for Public Land's new report on urban park systems ranked Houston at No. 38 among the nation's 50 largest cities.

The problem lies in context, which (when reporting on studies where Houston ranks poorly) ChronBlog is notorious for leaving out, especially if that context would distract from the ideas fostered by the leadership of Houston's former news daily.

The idea being that Houston needs more parks.  Pocket parks, downtown parks, big parks, little parks, parks for things for the kiddies, parks for dogs, parks where people can lay out in the sun, parks where skateboarders can roll, all paid for by City Government and containing nice plaques containing the names of the current elected officials who oversaw their construction.  In short, legacy makers.  That's why parks are so popular with the elected set. Do you not think former Mayor Bill White and his wife Andrea still don't get a thrill out of the fact there's a walkway in Discovery Green that's named after them?

Never mind that the park access study was seriously flawed, failing to take into account geography etc.  It was negative toward Houston in a way that the Sardine Urbanists like to see so, ergo, it must be reported as fact.  The problem is....reality.  Which is often the problem when the sardine urbanists and Houtopians get together at their workshops and public forums.  The reality that yards substitute for the local park in many occasions, parks being more useful for those in multi-family establishments etc.

These things aren't mentioned, because it makes David Crossley and his acolytes angry when they are.  Their anger leads to silly little editorials and comments in comment sections of stories which cause normal Houstonians to want to pat them on the head and send them to bed with a cookie.  'Awwww....poor David, he's not getting his way again.  Time to stop telling us how stupid we all are Crossley and head off to bed."

This leads to more anger which leads to incivility which ultimately leads to somebody, somewhere deciding to take action in a marketable manner, which leads to the Ashby High-Rise situation.  All in the name of Sardine Urbanism when it should really be placed at the feet of a lack-luster media who refuse to admit to themselves that Houston is pretty good as it is.

If only the Astros would start winning.

Missing the obvious point......

It's always fun to watch the local kiddies harp and moan after big events like last weekend's Free Press Summer Fest. Fortunately, I was disconnected and camping over the weekend so I missed the real-time coverage.

I'm constantly amused by complaints that a. bottled water isn't free or b. it's too expensive, when the festival organizers have water stations available and you're allowed to bring in refillable water bottles at no cost whatsoever.

The best howler however was courtesy of Neph Basedow of the Houston Press "Rock's Off" blog:

Free Press Summer Fest: The Worst things inflicted upon us 2013. Various, Houston Press Rock's Off.

I think water should be cheaper. Actually, I think it should be free for press and media. (There, I said it!)  - Neph Basedow

OK.  Since you said that, I'll say this:  If you're writing for the Houston Press "Rock's off" blog you're neither press nor media, you're a blogger.  A paid blogger maybe (putting you one rung higher than me on the blogosphere ladder) but a blogger nevertheless.

(There, I said it!)

Public Transit in Houston.

Presented with only one comment.  This is behind the Chron's paywall so I'm only going to quote a very small piece (which I believe is keeping with the spirit of fair use) and encourage you to go read the whole thing.


US Transportation Chief: Houston needs to 'get it's act together' on Light Rail. Dug Begly, HoustonChronicle.com

LaHood said the area is coming up short because more hasn't been done to extend lines to the suburbs where most people live.

He said he spent the morning in Houston talking about projects to extend transit farther from the downtown area. Suburban taxpayers who supported referendums in 2003 and 2012 especially have demonstrated a desire for development, only to have officials shortchange them

"The fact that these people voted for a referendum and are paying these taxes and have never seen any benefit from it is just not right," LaHood said.


Read more: http://www.houstonchronicle.com/news/houston-texas/houston/article/U-S-transportation-chief-Houston-needs-to-get-4481101.php#ixzz2S963ptyp

My comment: I can't believe I actually agree with LaHood.

Looking at the discussion of the Uptown TIRZ

Last week it was Mattress Mac weighing in against the proposed plan while this week Ed Wulfe editorialized in favor.  Both articles are (sadly) hidden behind the Chron's newly installed pay-wall* which means that only a fraction of Houstonians will read, or pay any attention, to either piece.  It also illustrates everything that's wrong with the debate in Houston surrounding transit issues, and why only one set of ideas is seriously considered.

So far, I've seen references to McIngvale's opinion piece use "screed" and "diatribe" and a host of other words designed to make him seem as if he's some wild-eyed Luddite attempting to stop any and all progress in our fair city.  Fortunately, for most, these things have been limited to bloggers and organizations to whom few pay attention, and who don't really add anything meaningful to the conversation in the first place.  Ed Wulfe on the other hand is described as even-handed, transformative and dare I say it, world class in his vision for the region. Where McIngvale is self-serving and underhanded, Wulfe is a benevolent benefactor of the Houston region who's certainly not hoping to pad his wallet through increased development.

This is the problem with most of the discussions in Houston surrounding mobility and other issues.  If a person does not support the key-tenants of the sardine-urbanists then they're either misstating their argument intentionally, or just evil/stupid/moronic etc. and are trying to fleece the Houston population.  It's a land where factual statements are derided through the mis-use of context, through the creation of straw-men and through many a logical fallacy that would give an ancient Greek debater the hives.

It's not a debate strategy that's designed to find the "best" solution, but to advocate for one single solution. Houston might have a stereo of opinions, but in our news and commentary outlets one of the speakers is definitely blown.

Even worse, it's becoming increasingly clear that the debate over HoustonFuture is increasingly being conducted on the fringes, either behind pay-walls in the old media which few read, or in partisan blogs (yes, like this one, I'm aware of this) that are nothing more than glorified echo chambers where finding intelligent, decent commentary is akin to finding a gold nugget on the Kalahari. It's because of this reason I'm considering shutting down the comments function on this blog. I get a few good ones (Stephen Seagrave's comment on the IAH Terminal B expansion is an example) but most are lame attempts at personal attacks because I have the audacity to not want to move inside the Loop and give up my yard, or think that enormous sums of taxpayer money should go to subsidize the play-things for that thin slice of the community who continually wish that Houston was Portland.

It was said that, during the recent Presidential election, the biggest Google search on election day was "Who's running for President in 2012"  While it's true that this is a sad commentary on where we stand in 'Merica today, I wonder what the vast majority would say if you asked them what a "complete street" was?  Or, how many miles MetroRail ran?  Or how much all of the sardine-urbanist's new plans were going to cost, and what the trade-off would be?  Looking at it another way, what would be their answer if you explained to them how much concrete would need to be poured (and at what cost) to handle the increased vehicle traffic if Metro is allowed to shut-up shop and stop providing any public transportation whatsoever?

What seems to be missing from any of this is a centrist view.  I admit you're probably not going to find that here (I'm as anti-inner-city-at-grade rail, sardine urbanist as they come) but it really doesn't seem that you're going to find it anywhere at all.  At lest, not in Houston, a city where bloggers can win multiple awards for ripping off huge pieces of journalism and then adding "we'll see what happens" or where organizations that consider themselves 'news agencies'** can post 1/2 naked pictures of women one moment, misspell the name of the Texas Speaker of the House the next and then demand that we take them seriously. 

And I haven't even made it to the former newspaper of record yet.

The fact is, Houston has a discussion problem.  It's a problem that's driven by our lack of integration among the different communities and the maddening need for people to personalize political issues.  A loss is no longer just a loss, it's a statement of personal failure. A win is not just an election outcome, but it's been morphed by the small-minded and gormless into a personal triumph over one's political opposites. These things have somehow become personal vindications for those with very tight world-views.

In other words, partisan political bloggers and amateur pundits.  Unfortunately, they're driving most of the debate these days and that's a problem. With the collapse of the professional media here it's much more a problem in Houston.  I'm not sure what the fix is going to be.
































*As pointed out to me via e-mail, ChronBlog has now moved both of these pieces to their "free" site so they're searchable on Chron.com.  Adding to the confusion of what the Chron is trying to do with their pay-site.
**Yet another big problem is the confusion between what is a blog and what is a news agency, and expecting the former to live up to the standards of the latter.  You will rarely, if ever, see me chastise a blogger, working on a budget of zero (usually) for a misspelling or something along those lines. However, media outlets are different.  The media has budgets and income and editors. There's no excuse for them to be making simple spelling errors and errors in grammar. A blogger's editor is usually a quick electronic spell-check and (possibly) one quick read-through. That's not to excuse grievous errors, or to ignore repeated spelling errors, but the bar should be somewhat lower.

Houston homebuying trends, not to say I told you so

but I told you so.($$$)

Sadly, this story is hidden behind the Chron's pay-wall, which is the Houston journalism equivalent of Comcast SportsNet meaning that most aren't willing to pay to gain access.  And while you should go read the entire article, the main take-away is that 80% of new-home sales in Houston are occurring outside Beltway 8.

Eighty percent.

What this means is that, despite the protestations of Houston Metro and The Unproductive Class a vast majority of our region's residents have taken a look at the promise of sardine-urbanism, and have decided to take a pass.  The reasons for this are not hard to figure out.

 - You can get more home for your buck the further away from the city center, and people will always be attracted to larger homes, and yards.

 - In many cases, the idea that downtown is the biggest jobs center in Houston is false.  More and more companies are locating elsewhere, including along the Energy Corridor and in The Woodlands, which means that, in many cases, commuting into town is no longer a necessity.

 - Taxes are lower outside of the Houston city limits. Given the passage of the new rain tax, much lower.


There are many more reasons but you get the general idea.


Now that we have this data the question should be asked:  If 9 out of 10 new home purchases are being made outside the Loop (if you include the 12% Loop to Beltway 8 purchases) why are our elected officials and transportation agencies continuing to forward transportation plans that don't provide them any benefit?

If you think either ChronBlog or the Apple Dumpling Gang are going to ask this then I've got this Casino Galveston I'd like to sell you.  Houston's transportation planning is, currently, a disaster, yet no one wants to address the reasons why.

In Houston, you have to drive to bike to work apparently.

This Friday is NOT, bike to work day.  Last Friday was.  And, judging by the responses ChronBlog aggregated from Twitter Houston isn't even getting that right.

Parker pushes pedaling as way to get to work. ChronBlog

For many in Houston, every day is a day to bike to work.

Mayor Annise Parker gave them a shout-out with today’s Bike to Work Day by encouraging cyclists to pedal the short jaunt into work from seven locations. Departure points included bike stores and bike repair shops.

The mayor’s office estimates that the trip from each spot would take about half an hour

Isn't that great?  If you live at one of the seven destinations that is.  However, I know few people who live at either a bicycle store or a repair shop so that travel time estimation is silly, much like the rest of the commute to work bilge that's being pumped through our local media by City Hall.

Of course, most Houstonians live in the suburbs, from which it's almost impossible to mount a bicycle and ride down a Houston freeway to get into the office.  Plus, this only works during selected months in our fair city. Note that these days aren't held in June, July, August, September.  In Houston, for a very select group of people who live near their offices, commuting to work via foot power is an option for around 90 days out of the year.  Possibly March, April, October and November, at least the parts that don't rain.  For the rest of us, biking is not a viable option.  Unless we want to do it the way favored by the sardine urbanists, who would like us to ditch our cars somewhere outside the Loop and bike in on a rented BCycle.

Political events such as bike to work are only good for the unproductive class (h/t Kevin for the name) who don't have to work at jobs but want to try and convince us that the city should be structured around their chosen lifestyle at the expense of the overwhelming majority. People with paying jobs, on a schedule can't afford the luxury of waiting for all of the interested politicians to speak and get photo ops before heading in the final 5 miles to work in a pool of sweat and flash photography.  One guesses that Ma Parker's people chose one of the few routes in Houston that was relatively pot-hole free, or she'd have a better idea of the issues facing work-a-day Houstonians.

Of course, the poor and middle class aren't on the minds of our fair Mayor these days, as she moves mountains to try and shore up her support with the Caucasian, upper-class progressive set.  She's going to need their money to win re-election after all.

City of Houston to discuss passage of safe-passage law for bicyclists, which most will also ignore.

Groups like BikeHouston want room, lots of room.  Up to three feet when passing and six feet when trailing ($$$) (actually they want more than that but it looks like this is what they're going to get) from automobile drivers who have the bad taste to think roads are designed for automobiles as well.  As you might imagine, this is not going over well with those who prefer cars (see comments) the biggest issue being (rightly) that many bicyclists don't view vehicle laws as applicable to themselves. Judging from the comments (even from some bicyclists themselves) the biggest offender (in Houston) is the 'inclusive' group Critical Mass.

My feelings on safe passage laws dovetail with my feelings on no-texting-while-driving laws.  You can pass all the laws you want, but they're worthless if people ignore them and the police don't enforce them.  Also, the idea that we can pass a law/ordinance/edict/directive etc. and solve a problem is a symptom of the Something! Must be done. attitude displayed by too many of our local, state and federal elected officials.

Bicycles, which I enjoy riding for recreation, are classified as vehicles.  As a result they're subject to the same laws & regulations (in theory) as are automobiles.  This means that you can't bike/drive distracted, you have to obey the rules of the road and you have to follow various laws to ensure safe operation.  Ideally this would mean that minimum/maximum speeds are enforced, people would yield the right-of-way, safe following distance would be maintained, and passing would be done in a safe manner.

As we all know, this is not the case.  If only bicycles had license plates the City could have made a ton of money when the red light cameras were active due to the number of bikers who run read lights.  If a police officer really wanted to help the city, he/she would stake out on Allen Parkway and get all of the bicyclists who run up between cars at red lights as well.  Aggressive driving/biking?  Never ticketed.  Distracted driving/biking? Phaw!  So while the police are ignoring these laws, what's left to make people think that just a few more laws would change behavior?

Short answer: It won't.  What it will do is aggravate the already aggravated band of militant Houston bicyclists who feel that every car passing them, whether at a safe distance or no, is committing an aggressive act.  The police will yawn and then those who are against cars will advocate (even more strongly) for complete streets, which cost a lot more money while reducing automobile capacity.  If you're shooting for a Inner Loop grid that's as congested as Rome, Paris or London, you might be onto something.  If you were seriously trying to improve the lives of those who enjoy wearing Lycra bibs, vented helmets and the loudest walking shoes ever, then you might give serious consideration to separating the motorized vehicles from the non-motorized ones and building out the bike trail system.

Of course, there's no money for this so it'd have to be a toll-trail, which would prove difficult for bikers because those spandex shorts don't have pockets and their shirt pockets are constantly filled with packets of GU, Cliff Bars and "the stuff that made Lance go." (no, not that stuff, the OTHER stuff)  At least they're not using the stuff that made Landis go right?  All this means that coins are hard to carry when you're cycling.

Still, despite the fact that there's no money for it I believe the best option is to separate the bicyclists from the automobilists.  It may cost some but, as we've seen with Houston's silly little toy train system, trying to intermingle two disparate means of transportation typically ends with a loud crash followed by emergency response sirens and pools of blood.  Of course, those of a complete-streets, sardine-urbanist persuasion don't worry too much about that.  They live in neighborhoods close to the trails, and their chauffeurs will deal with the bits of bone and splotches of blood on the paint job before it does significant damage.

Mao may have told the people that biking was good for them, but you never saw him on one did you?

First the beer summit and now this.

The Comcast/(insert television provider here) debate over the pricing for airing their little sports channel is still dragging on.  You know this because of several "here's the facts" commercials Comcast has decided to constantly bombard you with.  Never mind that the commercials are neither factual or all that helpful. The idea that people are willing to pay more to watch the Rockets, Astros & Dynamo is proving to be laughable.

Enter Houston Mayor Annise Parker. She who sees a campaign opportunity and, having decided that all of Houston's serious problems are now resolved, has decided that dedicating resources to ensure 60% of the city has the option to tune out the Rockets, Astros and Dynamo is priority one. Herein lies the disconnect between elected officials and the general public, and I'm not just singling out Annise Parker here.

No doubt, for a fraction of Houstonians, the opportunity to watch the Rockets lose to a two or three seed in round one of the NBA Playoffs is high up on the priority list. Watching the Astros set new records for futility is important to an even smaller fraction, and watching Minor League Soccer appeals to even fewer.  Are there enough votes here to push Parker over the top should a run-off with Benjamin Hall III become a reality?  Possibly, although it seems that Hall's apparent lack of respect for government already has many of a Statist lean against him and given that many in Houston often cast a vote for Mayor on ground flimsier than the Astros starting line-up, I'm not even sure Parker will need this to propel her to victory.

Of course, there is the concern that pushing this deal through might backfire.  Not only could Parker be viewed as the Mayor who foisted the futility of the Astros to a wider audience, if cable rates were to increase because of this people might get mad as well.  You might think this is in jest but, when you consider the biggest Google search on election day 2012 was "who's running for President in 2012?", no-one ever came up short underestimating the American low-information voter.

The reality is we live in a city where bike-sharing is propped up as a transportation plan by elected leaders, instead of as a form of recreation as it should be, where a taxpayer-subsidized downtown convention center hotel is currently being rubber-stamped despite low occupancy rates in the area.  Voters within the Houston city limits consistently re-elect Rep. Sheila Jackson-Lee despite the fact that she doesn't have anything closely resembling common sense.  State Sen. John Whitmire is running around Austin convinced some far-right prison gang is out to get him (the threat was later determined to be a scam) and The Al Green/Boris Miles campaigns were proof of case that anyone who can fog a mirror has a chance of being elected.  Given this voting pool Parker has a very good chance of positioning herself in campaign ads as the "Mayor who gave Houstonians back their sports teams" and that could be just enough for her to eek out the win.

All of this sound and fury while it has gone unmentioned that this is a private business deal in which the government probably shouldn't be involved at all.  I realize that there is a strong public aspect to television in the form of regulation, but people have no inherent "right" to watch their local sports teams lose.  Nor do I see any benefit of having this summit in the first place.  It's probable that all of the major players will be there, and there will be many a photo op with Mayor Parker (which will also be used in campaign literature) but in terms of actual results I just don't it, unless CSN is willing to lower their price.  This is unlikely as well because, "we're working day and night for you" rhetoric to the contrary, Comcast is just as concerned about the bottom line as all of the other companies involved.  A quick meeting with Ma Parker and team is not going to change that.

Of taxes, good schools and kinks in the demand curve.

For years now, Houston leaders and sardine-urbanists have used the results of the Kinder Houston Area Survey as a de facto guide star for navigating the choppy waters of city planning.  In the 2012 survey those who would like to see everyone crammed inside the Beltway (or, even more ideally, the Loop) squeed with joy as 51% of survey respondents expressed a desire to live closer to work in livable, walkable neighborhoods.  39% even said that they would move into a smaller home to do so.  The problem, based on the questions, is that the "city/suburbs" qualifier didn't apply to the "where to move or live" questions.

Whereas the "move" question read as such:

 If R lives in a suburban or rural area (WHERELIV2): How interested would you be in someday moving to a more urban area? Would you say: very interested, somewhat interested, or not interested? (12)

The "urban living" question was not broken down:

If you could chose where to live in the Houston area, would you prefer: - [ROTATE:] A single-family home with a big yard, where you would need to drive almost everywhere you want to go; or: A smaller home in a more urbanized area, within walking distance of shops and workplaces? (08, 10, 12)

What this means is that, of all the respondents, several of the "I would like to live in a smaller house" answers could have been answered by people already living in that environment. Given that only 39% of respondents answered that in the affirmative, there's a very good chance that a large majority of people who desire a smaller home and urban lifestyle are already taking advantage of those amenities.

The problem with the "suburban move" question is that it doesn't offer any trade-offs.  Therefore it doesn't surprise that 51% of Houston area residents think moving in closer to the City would be a swell idea.  Most of us would like to have a shorter commute would it mean giving up nothing in the way of lifestyle.  In other words, all of these questions are asked in a vacuum, missing several external variables that go into the home-buying decision, schools, taxes, etc.  Given those points it is no wonder that the HAS has no explanation for why people are increasingly moving to the suburbs, survey answers to the contrary.

It's also no surprise that Houston's local elected officials have decided that encouraging development that packs people in tightly is the way to go. ($$$)  In the story, which is pay-walled so I will not blockquote, Houston Mayor Annise Parker bemoans the absence of homes "like she grew up in" within the city limits.  It seems to elude her that the construction of townhomes, patio-homes and condominiums are not going to bring her childhood home back either.  The resulting neighborhoods are going to be too dense to provide a meaningful substitute for what is currently found in most suburbs.  It's a fool's mission.

While hardly scientific, the comments to this ChronBlog post asking whether people would move back into the city if the price was right are very illuminating.  Overwhelmingly the response is "no".  I would assume the move-rate would be higher than the comments, but would it be enough to generate meaningful investment in previously unlivable areas?  Or is Houston setting itself up for "The Heights II: Invasion of the slightly less wealthy Caucasian DINKs?  In reality what's going to happen is that developers are going to find existing single-family home neighborhoods where people are already living and start knocking down homes and rebuilding 2-3 townhomes on the lot.  Think Rice Military or the old 6th ward if you think that hasn't happened before.

Finally, attempts at price control never work out as planned. The goal of any smart developer is to maximize profit and they realize that their are profits to be made from certain groups on residences of this type.  What resulted inside the Loop when this was allowed was not an increase in the number of homes available to the middle-class, it was an increase in the amount of homes available to the affluent while the poor and middle-class were shunted to the outer locales.  If you've been paying attention, this is exactly what those of a sardine-urbanist lean really want.

What Houston Metro (and ChronBlog) wants MetroRail to be vs. what it actually is.

(and what ChronBlog's new transportation scribe is willing to accept from Metro's bloated PR department)

The cacophony that surrounded MetroRail yesterday was, for once, not the sound of a crash followed by emergency response sirens, but a celebration of (per Metro) 100 Million train boardings that have occurred since Houston's 7-mile long amusement park ride was placed into service. Houston's boosters for world-classiness in the transportation system were giddy. One imagines that the Apple Dumpling Gang is currently consulting with Houstonians of a sardine-urbanist lean to author an editorial that's sufficiently gushing while not sounding like it came directly from the agency's bloated PR department.

Before that however, the Chron's newly minted transportation blogger/reporter has come out with what is supposed to be a reasoned analysis of the numbers. And while he gets a little bit correct, he has hopped aboard the train on at least one major issue.

100 Million reasons to celebrate, and a few to condemn. Dug Begley, The Highwayman, ChronBlog.

Here’s the actual news: To celebrate its 100 millionth boarding, the Metropolitan Transit Authority is offering free rides on Tuesday. The agency said it ferried its 100 millionth rider last month, four years ahead of schedule.

If you like trains, you point out that in less than a decade, and quicker than projected, the little trains that apparently can have handled 100 million trips. That’s 13.3 million riders per mile and 33,200 people per day, through March 31. For February, the rail system averaged 37,538 trips every weekday.

Those sound like big numbers, and they bolster the point that people will ride rail in Houston. That’s millions of car trips taken off the road and millions of people getting to jobs that maybe they could not afford to drive to, all feeding the local economy.

Emphasis mine, and it illustrates a fallacy about MetroRail that is never properly addressed in the media.  Namely, MetroRail, in its current configuration, does not take car trips "off the road" in the numbers that they are claiming. There is probably some reduction of vehicle travel on an intra-day basis. After people drive into work they might hop onto the rail to go to the Medical Center or somewhere to run an errand.  In this sense some of those trips are "avoided". The more likely scenario is that people are taking mid-day rides on the train that they otherwise wouldn't take at all.  In other words, they might hop on the train after work to head to another location along the line for drinks, or to run a shopping errand. These are not "avoided" trips but "extra" trips. It doesn't mean that this type of trip isn't a benefit of MetroRail, it most certainly is, but it also doesn't mean that "cars have been taken off the road".  At some point in this a car trip was required to board the train, so congestion (in a commuting sense) is not affected. It is more accurately argued that MetroRail has taken more cars off the road via collisions than by people choosing to ride the train vs. drive.

A second boarding scenario (a far worse one) is that the current Metro system is using the train as a transfer vehicle, or as a means to handle the "last mile" problem in the downtown core/medical center.  In this case people ride a bus into town, and then board the train to transfer to the point where they would get on the next bus, to head to their final destination.  The "last mile" issue is when riders disembark from a transit station, and then take the train to a train stop nearer their destination. (I know, it's not an entirely accurate descriptor because, many times, they still will need to walk to their final location.) Metro's (not so) dirty little secret is this: They've intentionally routed their train system to 'force board' passengers already on the bus system onto the rail to boost ridership numbers. 

The big problem with using the train as a transfer vehicle is that it's a horribly inefficient use of resources.  A more well planned out system would use fixed-rail, grade separated trains to move people into transit centers, and then buses to ferry people to and from somewhere near their final destination.

The last incorrect statement is the contention that Millions of people are now reaching jobs they might not be able to afford to drive to otherwise. This is patently false. There is nowhere that MetroRail has significantly improved service to the point that a once inaccessible job is suddenly reachable via public transit.  The toy train services downtown, the museum district the medical center, and Reliant Park. These are hardly areas where prior bus service did not exist.  MetroRail didn't expand service, it simply change the mode of transportation to something more expensive, and less flexible.

The biggest problem with MetroRail is that it was designed and implemented to serve a customer that no longer exists. If you remember, back when it was rolled out, much hey was made over getting the system in place before Houston's Super Bowl. The early focus was to move people from an (imagined) long-term downtown entertainment district to Reliant Park. Rail planners envisioned this happening during Texans game and the Houston Livestock Show and Rodeo. Unfortunately, the entertainment center in Houston has moved on and the inflexible system has been forced to rely on forced loads and other gimmicks to inflate ridership.

It's mission has also changed. Beyond being an entertainment vehicle MetroRail is now viewed by the sardine-urbanist set as the cog in the wheel of Inner Loop living. Unlike other, more practical, transit systems throughout the world, the idea is not to move people but to try and change how and where they live. On this front MetroRail has been a spectacular failure. Infill development has been slow to materialize, has not shown long-term staying power and is now hampered by speculative land owners. Then there's the fact that the people most likely to use public transportation (the poor and lower middle class) are being priced out of the areas where most of it exists.

This should not be read to mean that I'm anti-train. Nothing could be further from the truth. I've vacationed throughout the world and partaken in some really great public transit. From Seattle to London to Rome, Dublin and Singapore I've been on and enjoyed them all. Rarely on vacation do I rent a car because I simply do not need to. I spent 2 weeks in the Black Heath suburb of London where I took a train into the city every day and then rode buses and the tube to get pretty much everywhere inside the city that I needed to go. MetroRail, because of the agendas of its planners, is designed specifically to prevent people from doing that.  It's designed instead to make them want to move inside the Loop. Given the recent census numbers it has failed miserably even at that.

Houston's salad days

Give it up for our fair city.  It's been one long run of stories celebrating the finer attributes of H-town and writers everywhere start to go ga-ga over what the Bayou City brings to the table.  Yes, Space City is now awash in critical acclaim finally taking advantage of all of those drummed up nicknames and increasing its National profile.  It seems Houston is finally threatening, one assumes, to reach the mystical plateau of world-classiness to which it has long aspired.

Just today we see that one travel writer has declared Houston's superiority over those twig-chompers from Austin and only yesterday it was discovered that Houston has been declared the most walkable of ALL major cities in Texas.  Given that Houston is now blessed with an amusement park ride that has (maybe) ferried around 100 Million passengers, we're told that things are looking up. It's even possible that a fifth of those aren't the transient looking for an air conditioned place to grab a quick nap before being hustled out by Metro's high-tech SWAT team. Houston also now has (get ready) an alternative transportation system that's predicted to handle dozens of commuters although probably not on days when it rains, is too hot, too cold or windy, meaning that it will in reality be a transportation system available for a couple of days in March and possibly October.

These are wonderful things.  Things so great that it should have sardine-urbanist groups such as Houston Tomorrow dancing in what used to be car-infested streets, now reclaimed as pedestrian walkways.

Except, they're not.  Because none of these things really indicate any type of improvement to Houston's transportation grid that will be taken advantage of by an overwhelming majority of commuters.  The "most walkable major city in Texas?"  That's like getting a slightly larger participation medal than the kids who finished last in tee-ball and had to forfeit several games because they kept hitting themselves in the head with the bat.  "100 Million riders on MetroRail?"  OK, but considering most Houstonians either have to drive downtown, park and then ride the train for several miles, or take a bus in, be force-boarded onto the train because of asinine routing, then be moved down three stops to hop on another bus which will take you somewhere not even remotely close to where they're going, this is a hollow, forced number as well. And, let's be honest with each other here, is besting Austin really something which should generate a round of chest bumping?

Think about it.  Austin is still running on the vapours of the 70's and 80's, when Willie was King and South by SouthWest was something other than a bunch of journalists running to workshops between free concerts put on by street musicians all of whom are trying to prove a base level of cool.  UT-Austin is just this school you know?  Their athletics program has regressed under Dodds to a level of very profitable mediocrity.  The Texas Lege is currently there stinking up the place and their single biggest attraction (the capitol) is locked down tighter than a US Airport.  Austin's traffic is 21st century, but their infrastructure is mid 20th century. Returning to the youth sports analogy, their the kid that gets picked last because you're afraid they're going to spike themselves rounding first base.

That's not to say that Houston is a bad place. Clearly it's better than say....Detroit, or any city in California (financially speaking) but all of these "accolades" that Houston is receiving are really just flower dressing designed to give the self-conscious set something to feel good about themselves.  The reality is, most Houstonians (you and me) don't care two licks about winning ginned-up competitions designed to make us feel good about our collective selves.  These are for reporters with nothing better to do, and local public officials who need fodder for campaign fliers.  Instead of going to voters and saying that she passed a huge tax increase for some hazy, underdeveloped water scheme Annise Parker's campaign staff is now dancing in their cubicles because they can put this walkability survey front and center.  They're trinkets in a trinket city, where a majority of voters are low information and are fascinated by baubles in the same way the penguins at Moody Garden are fascinated by a light on the wall. 

What makes Houston great is not being the most walkable city in Texas, or being somehow cooler than Austin, or having a bike-share program that's used by tens of people on weekends as they head to a thread-bare farmers market where vegetable wholesalers unload the stuff they couldn't sell to HEB for twice the price.  What makes Houston great is that you can get on fairly well here for relatively cheap.  That you can have a job and a house with a yard and 2.35 kids and a dog and cat and a two-car garage in which to store your junk.  And you can do all of this for the same amount of money that would, in some other areas, get you an efficiency apartment with view of some back-alley and an electric cook-top that was aging in the 60's.  If Austin is a city of hipsters, then Houston is a city of business.  Most people would much rather live in the latter.

And that is why Houston is currently winning.

Either eye-witnesses are credible or they're not. (You can't have it both ways)

Recently there has been a lot of noise from innocence types about the flaws that run rampant in eye-witness identification.  If we're talking about murder, there could be 500 people that watch the event live and the good folks from the Innocence Project are going to do their darnedest to convince you that each and every one of them are a bunch of racist, classist buffoons who couldn't ID the President in a line-up if you spotted them two guesses and limited the sample size to the man himself. 

I say this not to disparage the work that the Innocence project is accomplishing, but to highlight the inconsistency as presented in the following....

Houston man shot multiple times while investigating noise outside. Dale Lezon, Chron.com

Racus said investigators don't know why the man was shot and have no descriptions of the suspects who shot him. He said investigators at the scene found several shell casings from two different guns. A witness said one of the suspects may have been carrying an AK-47 rifle.

Emphasis mine.

So, let's get this straight.  You have man who was tragically shot and killed while eyewitnesses stood around, none of whom could provide the police with any description of the shooters, yet the Mr. Lezon, and his editors presumably, have decided that the same people who couldn't tell who shot the man were experts enough on firearms to make a positive identification of an AK-47 to the point it had to be in the story?

This from a newspaper that publicly stopped, years ago, providing skin color information on shooters because of concerns people were 'scorekeeping'.  I understand not wanting to get it wrong when it comes to a suspect, but you can't have it the other way around and choose to possibly get it wrong on hot-button issues (gun control) just because it happens to be a belief you personally hold. You certainly cannot do this when your employer has run several opinion columns disparaging the accuracy of eye-witnesses.  Either eye-witness testimony is worthy of being included in a preliminary news story or it is not.  It really is that simple.

Leaving the pro-gun control bias out of the story what we do know is that a man was tragically shot multiple times and died.  He was shot by two men, for whom we have no description, using guns of what type we also don't know.  There is no credible eye-witness testimony available because the eye-witnesses in question were unable to provide even a basic description of the shooters.  We don't know what type of gun was used, nor does anything the eyewitnesses say regarding gun type have any credibility since they obviously weren't observant enough to provide even basic information to the police.

We also have a former newspaper of record who's trying to have it both ways on eyewitness ID.  They want it to not count when the death penalty is on the line because they oppose state executions, but they want to keep it in place when gun identification is on the line because they support the idea of banning certain types of guns from the public.  That's not journalism, that's advocacy.

The Metro service you want vs. what Metro says you need.

Like a few of you, those few who still subscribe to the dead-tree edition of ChronBlog and actually read it instead of just grabbing the coupons and using the rest for grilling kindle, I was surprised Sunday morning to read the Outlook piece by Metro board member Christof Spieler regarding their plans to receive public input on 'making bus service better'.

The link:

Metro works to make bus service easier to use. Christof Spieler, Chron.com

This could be viewed, with reservations, as good news.  For one, it's long been the position of this blog that Metro's antiquated hub and spoke system doesn't serve the transit needs of a city with multiple employment and entertainment centers and, given that Metro has spent an incredibly large amount of money chasing the white whale of central core developing rail, Metro hasn't been putting much thought into what should be the meat of their public transit plan.  In fact, Spieler mentions these exact things in his piece, talking about the need to have bus service that matches the City's needs etc.

On the surface then it's all well and good, the people are going to explain why buses can't take them anywhere in Houston without first going downtown and being force-loaded onto the Danger Train, Metro is going to sagely smile and nod and changes for the good of all are soon to come and we can all ride around town on beautiful buses adorned with T-Mobile adverts. Only Bob Eury will be angry.

Underneath the happy-talk there's an undercurrent of heels-dug-in predetermination that starts to emerge when Spieler speaks of "goals" and "missions". It becomes clear that the blank slate he was talking about in the beginning is not as blank as one might imagine.  First, there are certainly sacred cows, bus routes in places that serve political, as well as mobility, goals.  Second there is still the Danger Train, and the beast has to be fed.  Then there's the, now required, fealty expressed to the central business district and Medical Center, areas which Metro's "stakeholders" (Read: developers) have long-held financial positions in which they've heavily invested and are not ready to relinquish.

Then there's the problem with Metro itself.  For all of the talk about "New" Metro vs. "Old" Metro the differences are basically only seen on the public relations side.  They have done a better job controlling their message and projecting the appearance of transparency.  When it comes to the actual nuts and bolts of transportation operations however they're pretty much the same. The same "side" of the transportation debate, the minority who supports Metro's stated mission of driving development inside the Loop, are the one's whose input is greeted with an open ear while others are shut out, cast as Luddites in a Siemens-constructed new-technology world.

It would seem as if the residents of the Houston region would welcome a totally re-designed bus network that got them where they needed to go quickly and efficiently.  The problem with Metro (either new or old) is that they seem to have a pre-determined preference on these matters regarding what the public should want that's given preference despite what's actually communicated.

If history is any indication then they'll do a good job disseminating the preferred plan to certain activist groups, the Apple Dumpling Gang and other fellow travelers.  If you start to see a symmetry in the "wants" between all of these groups then you know that the "Old" Metro style fix is in. Of course, the way to prevent that would be to hire a third party firm to conduct many of the surveys Metro is touting, and to have them release the full data for all to see, including cross tabs.  Given the history of Metro and its public interaction it's doubtful this option has ever been seriously discussed.  I believe what we're going to be told we want is exactly what Metro has decided we need.

Marfreless closing announcement brings wailing and gnashing of teeth.

I know, I know, I was on hiatus.  But the announcement that Houston's "make out" bar Marfreless was closing, and the response to it, made me want to bring up one quick point.

Marfreless bar announces it will be closing. Chron.com

Just months after celebrating its 40th anniversary, Marfreless, the infamous lounge of love, is closing its doors.
The bar ownership cites the excessive cost of doing business in the River Oaks Shopping Center as the reason for the closure

Predictably, this has brought out the "Houston is dying" crowd in droves.  From the comments:

TallTxn99: Thank goodness there wasn't FB or Youtube back when I used to go there.... What happened at Marfreless, stayed at Marfreless.... lol

Gimpypimp: Back when me and my wife were dating, we used go there at least a dozen times a month. I didn't even know the name of the place at first. We just called it the Blue Door. We're going to have to hit it one more time for old times sake and say farewell to one of the most romantic spots in town.

Houstonbeachgirl: When I was a bit younger in the 70's I discovered this cool bar with a blue door and no name. It's like entering a mysterious cave of unknown. Once you go in and see the super cool bar you instantly feel comfortable. I too may have to pay them a visit soon. Great Manhattans!Thanks for the memories!!!!

TEXUS: Used to go there a lot in the late 70's and early 80's. A nice place for a nightcap after a show where the music wasn't blaring and you could actually carry on a conversation. I think this is where the phrase, "Get a room you two!" originated.

Now, I've only been to the place once, back in the mid-90's.  As such I'm rather ambivalent about the place closing down.  What I find funny is that many people who "used" to "frequent" the place in the 70's and 80's, but presumably haven't been back since, are now leading the chorus of "Nooooooo!" that's fluttering around Houston's Internets.

That's Houston in a nutshell though.  We screamed about AstroWorld closing and then admitted that we hadn't really gone there in 20 years.  We declared the closing of Feast to be a sure sign Houston was not a world-class city even though we only ate their once and round the sight of pig testicles and penis to be....unsettling.  We griped about SRO closing but really we had moved on to Mongoose vs. Cobra or Anvil long ago.

All of these establishments have become places for others to go, not us.  And we can't believe it when the next wave of revelers decides that the haunts we've long abandoned are not worthy of their time.  Nevermind that we're not frequenting these places, it's the other groups that aren't that reveal a tear in Houston's cultural crazy-quilt.  We had families and children and well....you understand right?

The second whinge is directed at Weingarten, that evil, faceless company who's looking at higher property values, ever-increasing property taxes and the very real prospects of lowered profit if they don't raise rents. Because they're trying to keep the bottom line healthy and keep their employees in paychecks, their investors in the black and their tenants in properly maintained buildings their held up as someone who's tearing at the face of Houston's world-classiness.

Perhaps if more people visited Marfreless than waxed poetic about it the owners could afford to accept the increased rents like the rest of the tenants? 

Just a thought.