Stage Eight: Comment on a colleague’s work #2 | My Commentary: "Delayed in Austin"

Blog Stage Eight

Stage Eight: Comment on a colleague’s work #2

In Ms.  Ileana Krau’s editorial “Delayed in Austin”, Kraus maintains that the City of Austin waited too long for a change that should have been dealt with years ago. She is talking about the subject of traffic in Austin and she believes that it will not change anytime soon. In response to her opinion, I would have to agree with what she says.

Statistical facts Kraus mentions include:

-Austin as third ranked of worse traffic in the United States

-Dallas, San Antonio, and Houston follow close behind Austin.

-Corpus Christi and El Paso also topped it off on the list of Top 14 Cities of worse traffic

Ms. Kraus points out that Austin is smaller than LA and Washington but because of city growth and expansion within the past decade and a half, the problem is getting worse.

The truth is Ms. Kraus is right, Austin is definitely on the list of fastest growing cities in the United States. 

What I found rather interesting was that she said, “It is expanding faster than the network of travel is expanding.” She proceeds to elaborate on various ways for people to find a way out of traffic.

Although I-35 is now extended to four lanes southbound (downtown) and northbound, traffic is still great. Kraus recommends a possibility to extend I-35 below ground. I thought about this for a second before reading on, and found myself in agreeing completely with what she had to say next.

Though this idea is a good one, it may actually be counterproductive because the project no doubt will take at least a good couple of years to complete. It’s not a wise choice and would actually worsen traffic. Kraus then explores the possibility of a train system in Austin. She reasons that a train system would not function well as it does in New York or London because the area that needs to be covered is much bigger and thus requiring more stops.

“The system of busses would have to be adjusted to train or subway stops, so that the two systems could work well together,” says Kraus. Just last winter 2012, I took a vacation and spent about two weeks in Washington state. I observed many things very foreign to a Texan such as myself. I loved just how well the train station and bus systems worked hand in hand together. To me, this seemed totally out of my universe. I had never seen buses share some tunnels with trains, it appeared to me almost like a cultural shock.

The problem is finding the area to place the track in which people would have to agree to give up their land for the city’s use. Not many Austinites would be willing to give up their land to contribute to something bigger than themselves. So another possibility Kraus brings up is car-free zone downtown.

The idea of people commuting on trains is not bad. I think it would save many people gas money since they would have to only drive their cars to a train state or park pretty close to downtown. The concerns I have with this is lack of familiarity. For one, Austin inhabitants are new to the concept of commuting via train in which punctuality and time may ultimately be affected. Not citizens of Austin are familiar with traveling on a train, although public transportation such as bus is increasingly becoming a necessity especially for university students.

This being said, proliferation of parked cars near downtown would force the city of Austin to have to create more parking spaces. To sum it up, Kraus has given a number of possible changes Austin could implement, however all of these possibilities would take time to implement. She has given this some good thought into pros and cons of the situation.

In the end, she concludes that, "All these are only ideas that should have been considered when the city started growing rapidly. But nobody seemed to have made a real plan. One thing is clear: the traffic situation in Austin won't change any time soon. They waited way to long for a change to happen." It's a harsh reality, but I think she proves her point, and I totally agree with her opinions.

Stage Seven: Original editorial or commentary #2 | My Commentary: "Education Chairmen Join Algebra II Fray at SBOE"

Blog Stage Seven

Stage Seven: Original editorial or commentary #2

In Morgan Smith’s “Education Chairmen Join Algebra II Fray at SBOE” article, I learned about opposing views on the subject matter of whether algebra II should be included as a required course for high school students to graduate. I found it rather amusing to hear both sides’ claims.

The Senate Education Chairman, Dan Patrick, had this to say, “The idea that we think as a board or a Legislature that every one of those 5 million students must have algebra II to live the American dream is fool's gold.” While Celina Moreno, staff attorney for the Mexican American Legal Defense and Education Fund argued, “The inclusion of algebra II is critical to ensure students' opportunities aren't limited going forward.” I can see where both sides are coming from. To add on to Patrick’s opinion, House Public Education Chairman Jimmie Don Aycock mentioned, “There are many children that we are crowding to the side of the system because they do not see relevance in their courses.”

My two cents are as follows. I understand what Patrick is saying, and I believe it holds some truth to what he is saying. While algebra II is a big hindrance in students graduating from high school, not to mention, most of them will never again use it after they take the class, I concur with Moreno’s sentiment. I am a high school graduate, who HAD to take algebra II, although I failed it because of lack of comprehension, I still saw the benefits of taking the course. Ultimately, I was on par with my fellow classmates in the end who proceeded to take pre-calculus. After taking pre-calculus, I stopped and no longer continued on to calculus. That’s where Aycock proves a great point. Many children, including myself when I was in their shoes a couple years ago, do not see the relevance in taking many courses because in the end it does not hold any part to their success later on in life.

This is my personal sentiment. I believe those who want to pursue higher education even if it is community college, should be required to take algebra II. Taking algebra II at the minimal was my saving grace because for one the concepts stuck. Proof of this was I passed the TAKS with a commended performance which ultimately allows me to be able to take “college mathematics” as a substitute for college algebra and have my math credits accounted for and done. I enjoy math, but I won’t be doing it for the rest of my life. Math fascinates me but indeed it is definitely not my forte - I don’t absolutely need it for my intended career. I also was spared of taking math placement tests and classes that I already took prior in high school. Algebra II is important for those who want to be successful in college; Texas government needs to at least keep the education at this standard. It is not too high – I think Algebra II should be just the minimal all students should take if they hope to achieve have a decent high school diploma.