Re: Traffic in Austin

In his post, Traffic in Austin, Robert Anderson argues that we need to invest our money into a better roadway infrastructure in Austin. He talks about the increase in business, the benefits for the economy, and the benefits for the environment.

He argues that businesses would benefit because people would be able to get to work faster, and thus spend more time working. I would add that they would be less stressed, and thus more productive with their time.

He argues of the benefits for the environment, saying that it would reduce time spent on the road, and thus reduce pollution. I agree.

I do, however, think that there's another alternative. Better public transportation. I just got back from spending three weeks in Spain, and the thing that impressed me most in Madrid was the public transportation system. I ride the bus and train here, and ride my bike as well. For example, I was at the Rio Grande Campus for the first half of the summer. I had to walk 4 blocks uphill from my class to the bus stop, wait half an hour, ride the bus farther north than my house, catch another bus 15 minutes after that one let me off, and then walk just over a mile to my house. (A mile wasn't far enough for me to bring my bike.) It took me about 2 hours after my class was over to get home. When I go to NRG in the fall, I ride 3 miles to the train station on my bike, wait for the train, and take it, and then catch the bus to campus.

In Spain, there was a bus stop 100 feet from our hotel, and a metro stop about 200 feet away. At the metro stop, you didn't worry if you walked in right as the train was leaving. There would be another one running the exact same route in less than 5 minutes. And they were fast, you could get almost anywhere in the city in half an hour, and that included walking time.

I think we need to implement a system like theirs, where trains and busses run more often, and run to more places. I saw very few cars, and lots of people walking, and riding the metro there. I believe that doing this would cut down on traffic issues, benefit the environment, and benefit the economy, and would be a healthier solution than simply improving our roads.

I'm also going to throw in a poem I wrote in high school about being stuck in traffic. Enjoy. Or else.


Two miles.
So long to go,
a mere two miles.
The fog, mixed like a drink with poison,
containing cigarette smoke,
gasoline fumes.
So oppressive.
Oh, to be late for work,
to blame: others.
The infinite line of cars,
creating a road with their roofs
stretching on, forever.
Not a break in sight.
The feeling of their radios,
beating, like a heart.
The slow, low growl, of the engines
drinking, slowly, great, hulking beasts.
Awaiting their chance to pounce,
for the smallest space.
Heat, increasing, dissipating the fog.
Almost, as if drinking the poison.
Still remaining, smells.
Cigarettes, and the heating asphalt.
Bubbling, like a anger,
the anger of impatience.
All in a day's trip to work.

*Cough*

 *Hack* *Wheeze*

This is what I sounded like last year, whenever I was outside at ACC. Why? Because of the quantity and quality of second hand smoke. In this case, quality means thickness, and at times, it was quite thick. It makes me feel sick, I really want to throw up when I'm around it for too long. And I don't even want to think about what it's doing to my lungs.

This year, I've felt much better and healthier while walking around campus. I also smell better. ACC decided to ban smoking on their campuses, and I support and thank them wholeheartedly. I can now breathe easier, and I don't worry so much about dying from smoke from smokers. (Living in a city with pollution though, can I ever rest easy?)

There are people who are objecting to the ban. For one, they're saying that people now have nowhere to smoke. This is not true. I see smokers out by the street, just off the edge of campus, every day when I come in. I'm fine with that. When they're way out there, they aren't hurting anyone but themselves.

Another objection is that it's not hurting anyone. That is just plain wrong. According to the American Cancer Society, 3,400 people die from lung cancer caused by second hand smoke alone, every year. That's not to mention the 46,000 deaths from heart disease. All from second hand smoke, in the United States alone, not to mention the rest of the world. I don't want to die because someone else wanted to feel good for a little while and wasn't polite enough to move somewhere away from other people.

Universities are supposed to be a place of learning and safety. I don't want to have to hurt myself every time I walk out side. I believe that anti smoking laws should be put into effect for all college and university campuses, as ACC has shown that it's perfectly viable and easy to do.

Skewl! (School)

I am glad that I'm not the only one who thinks that education should not be the first thing that we cut. In her post, The Difficulties of Public Education, Megan Ryan talks about her surprise upon learning that Texas is ranked very poorly on a national level for education. She goes on to briefly discuss ways that we can cut other spending to spend more on education, giving the example of a noise reducing wall that might not even work that could be better spent improving our education system.

I agree with her, for the most part. I think there's more to the situation that she's not mentioning, but I'll talk about that in a minute. First, I totally agree that there are a lot of unnecessary spending projects that can and should be cut to free up more money for important issues such as education.

Education is our future. A well educated society is necessary if we want to maintain our place in the world. I can't emphasize enough how important I think education, quality education, is to us. I'm in college because I know the value of a good education, and am willing to work to get one.

I thus think that not only should we use more of our money for school, as Megan says, but that we should be using it more effectively. As she pointed out, there's not a lot of money to go around. But what should we be using it on? I think we should look at the leading schools in the world, and take a leaf from their books. I'm going to look at Finland, and what West Virginia has done to copy them.

One of the main things that strikes me about the education system in Finland is the respect given to teachers. Teaching is considered a prestigious position, with many people vying for the jobs, even though they don't pay much better than the ones here. Part of this comes from the training given to teachers, who go through intense training camps and are continually working to improve their methods. One aspect of this we can see, even here, is that the better educated a teacher is, the longer they'll stick around, and the better they're be at their job, on average.

Not only are they teachers much better trained, but they use something called a project based learning system. According to this article, "Project-based learning -- an integral part of Finland's education system -- uses one 'project' as a starting point for learning about multiple subjects and how they fit together." It's a fascinating system.


In conclusion, I think that some of these things should be brought to Texas. They work in Finland, and appear to be working in West Virginia, so I think we should give them a try. After all, they don't seem to require a lot more money, which we are short of, but could be implemented on the budget that we're on.