Commentary on “Can You Multitask?” by Texas is my home

I completely agree with the blog “Can You Multitask?” by Texas is my home. The author provides good reasons as well as personal experience to make a case for banning the use of cellular phone while driving. Any rational person can agree that a person who is driving while talking on the phone or texting cannot pay as much attention to the task of driving as he or she would if they had not been multitasking. This does not mean that there aren’t other distractions while driving. There have also been cases when other activities like eating or fumbling for a disc or talking to a passenger have created unsafe conditions. But these represent fairly small number of incidents as compared to the use of cellular phone. The author’s viewpoint of comparing this with driving while intoxicated does represent some similarity. The author also provides the solution of allowing the use of hands free devices to overcome this problem. In spite of providing better physical convenience, the hands free device would still not provide the mental attention that is necessary for safe driving.

Funding Texas’ Transportation

Traditionally in Texas, transportation infrastructure has been funded from the revenues collected from the gasoline tax. There are two parts of gas tax that is being collected in Texas. For every gallon of gasoline, there is 18.4 cents in federal tax and 20 cents of Texas state tax. The federal tax from all the states is collected into the Highway Trust Fund and is then redistributed back to the states. The state tax remains in the state, and is used to build new roads and bridges as well as to maintain the existing transportation infrastructure. These taxes have been in effect for more than a decade now, and have not been increased to account for inflation. Over this period, there has been a very high increase in the cost of construction, but not much increase in the revenue, leaving the state of Texas without enough money to build and maintain the infrastructure.

There are several issues with the traditional gas taxation. Firstly, with the increase in more fuel efficient, hybrid and electric vehicles, gas usage has gone down, and so has the gas tax revenue. Secondly, the current taxation system is not equitable. The taxation system currently charges based on the amount of fuel consumed, and not on the amount of miles driven. Third, unlike other taxes (sales tax, property tax, etc.) the gas tax is a fixed amount per gallon and not a percentage of the price of the gallon. The gas tax collected for Texas was 20 cents when a gallon of gas was less than one dollar, and it is still 20 cents when gas is generally more than two dollars per gallon.

All of this has resulted in the deterioration of the states highways and bridges and more congestion on some major routes. The toll roads that everyone is much opposed to are a result of the declining gas tax revenues along with increased transportation spending. Experts have provided several solutions for the current dilemma. One solution is to index the gas tax to bring it to current levels. Roughly speaking, this would double the amount per gallon. Second solution is to change it to a percent of the gasoline price similar to other taxes like sales tax and property tax. In addition to these two simple solutions, there is a more complex solution that solves most of the issues, but is relatively difficult to implement. In this method, the tax (or user fee) would be charged based on the number of miles driven, and not based on the amount of gasoline purchased.

In any case, the legislators need to seriously consider this issue and take steps to mend it before it gets worse. Transportation has been the backbone of the US economy, and every effort should be made to keep it strong.

Response to Scott's Corner post on "To Strike or not to Strike"

The commentary “To Strike or not to Strike” on Scott’s Corner provides a good perspective of the conflicts going on between the Capital Metro management and the union of workers. The author thoroughly explores the viewpoints from both sides and explains the explicit as well as implicit intents of the management and the union. All the aspects discussed are then put into the current context – the economic crisis in particular. The author’s suggestion that the union and the management should agree on a $1,000 bonus without a contract or with an addition of a 3% increase in the second year for a two-year contract is seemingly an intermediate option. Considering the current economic situation, where those who are getting laid off would rather take a pay cut, the above option seems reasonable. Also, since they are not committed for more than a year, they can renegotiate the terms at the end of a year when things could have improved. Also, like the author says, striking at this time is not the best course of action.

The current proposal seems to provide a good option but with a three year commitment. The current proposal is to provide $1,200 bonus in lieu of a raise for the first year, and then provide 3% raise for the second and third year. The catch here is that this raise does not come entirely at the beginning of the year but is broken down at every six months. That would mean that workers would get 1.5% raise every six months beginning from the second year. According to me, if the union is looking for a long term work commitment, the proposal from the management seems good, but if they want the ability to negotiate better pay once the economy improves, they should avoid getting into a three-year term, and try to negotiate something shorter.

Transportation Alternatives in Austin

Austin has been a rapidly growing metro area for the last couple of decades. The population has increased 43.8 % from 1997 to 2007. However, the transportation system has not kept pace with the increasing growth. For sustainable long-term growth of a city, good infrastructure is very important. In the case of Austin, the transportation infrastructure has hardly been able to meet the existing demands. Transportation network could be considered the framework for the urban built environment. And for the city to function effectively, alternative modes of transportation are essential.

Population Growth 1997-2007

Source: U.S. Bureau of the Census and The Austin Chamber of Commerce.

In the last few months, when the gas prices were at an all time high, residents of Austin had very little choice but to drive their car. The reason for this is the inefficiency of the current transit system in Austin. Capital Metro has several buses running on several routes, but the frequency and routing are probably insufficient to serve the needs of a majority of the residents. Sometimes one has to transfer two to three times to reach a destination which is just a few miles away. And not surprisingly, the total travel time by bus becomes more than walking. And high gas prices are only one reason for someone looking for alternative transportation. The congestion on Austin’s highways is pretty bad during commute hours, and people looking for transit alternative at that time also have little option. One may argue that with the developing technology, there might be fewer reasons to physically travel for work or other chores. But statistics have not provided too high percentage for people working from home. In contrast, the average distance traveled by a person and the average time spent to travel to work has been on an increase.

Capital MetroRail Plan

Source: Capital Metro

One may find relief from the fact that Capital Metro is expected to open the MetroRail line in a few months now (earlier plan was to open the rail line in Fall 2008). However, if the bus service and connections and transfer remain the same, the commuter rail is not going to help as much. Ideally, the integration of the rail and bus service would provide reliable and efficient transportation alternative to the residents of the greater Austin metro area.

Austin ISD Property Tax Rate Increase - Could the timing be any worse?

What is everyone's chief concern these days? Isn't it the economy and jobs, and elections and taxes? The editorial section of the Austin American Statesman has a related article titled "Austin school district tax increase: Voters should approve pay raises for teachers."

Though the title includes the part of raising teachers' compensation, the "Austin Independent School District Tax Ratification Election Proposition No. 1" does not include any language related to the pay raises that will be given to teachers provided that voters approve it. The article is targeted towards citizens of Austin who will be voting this November (or probably earlier, during the early voting period). The editor recommends to the voters to approve this proposition, and provides a number of reasons for doing so.

Firstly, the teacher pay in Austin has not kept pace with inflation. All the surrounding school districts have been more effective in hiring the best teachers by giving them better pay packages. Second, the school district has limited their spending to bare necessities due to lack of funding. Even then, this year’s budget drew $21.8 million from the $128 million fund balance to minimize burden on tax payers. If this continues for a few more years, the fund balance will soon deplete.

In addition to the above two arguments, the editor also notes that not all property tax revenue goes directly to the school district. The editor provides the example where more than 86% of the property tax revenue would directly go to the state under Texas’ school financing law. Therefore, even with the additional monies coming in, very little would directly go to Austin ISD. However, the editor does not provide any facts on whether the revenue collected by the state is redistributed to the school districts or not.

The editor puts forward several important factors in advocating in favor of the proposition. But with the current economic slowdown and job losses, it might not have as good a chance to be passed. Also, voters would be concerned whether the tax rate increase would directly help teachers’ pay raises or not?

Preparing for the Worst, OR, Advocating for the Rich

A very interesting article on post-hurricane Ike redevelopment of Galveston is published in the editorial column of The Dallas Morning News. The editor acknowledges the destruction brought to the Houston-Galveston area by Ike, and the condition of the people directly affected by it. However, the focus of the article is not those people whose “primary concerns are whether you still have a house and when they'll ever get to sleep in it.” The article is directed towards the residents of Texas.

In the article, the editor is mainly concerned about two issues. The first issue is that if state monies are involved in rebuilding Galveston, all of state’s budget surplus would be used up. In that case, should we just stop caring about what happens to Galveston? Don’t we know what happened to New Orleans after hurricane Katrina? Has it really been able to gain all the economic development that once flourished in New Orleans? If the Feds are willing to bail out banks that are in bad shape due to their greedy lending strategies, the people of Galveston should not be penalized for the wrath of nature. That said, the suggestion by the editor to recapitalize the insurance wind pool should also be considered.

The editor talks about the second issue about building more refineries. The editor mentions that this time, many refineries largely survived because of Ike, but that may not be the case if another hurricane hits the gulf coast. While considering the environmental consequences, the editor suggests that more refineries should be built so that if such a storm comes again, there will still be adequate supply of oil. The editor fails to see the other side of the argument. If another hurricane hits the gulf coast, there is potential for damage to more refineries if they are over there. Again, if they are damaged, they will need to be rebuilt. Also, the environmental consequences should be given appropriate consideration.

In short, the article does not look at all aspects of an issue. In the first issue, the editor would not like to spend tax-payer’s money to rebuild Galveston, but in the second issue, the editor talks about extending incentives and giving tax breaks to oil refineries. One may be led to believe that the article is written an advocate for oil and gas companies.

First Hispanic woman to be Texas Secretary of State

US is considered as the “land of opportunities” by the rest of the world. And like Abraham Lincoln had propounded, America stands for liberty, democracy, and equality. Over the last several decades, US has seen increasing immigrant population. Among the immigrants, there has been a massive change in the Hispanic population. Between 1990 and 2005, there has been an increase of about 20% in the total US population. At the same time, the Hispanic population has almost doubled. Based on 2005 census data, there is about 35% Hispanic population in Texas. The Texas State Data Center forecasts that there will be more Hispanic population than Anglo population by 2020.

The increasing proportion of Hispanic population can also be seen in the political arena. On September 18, 2008, for the first time in Texas history, a Hispanic woman was appointed to hold the office of the Texas secretary of state. The following article from the Houston Chronicle provides more details on the thoughts and beliefs of Andrade, and what the people of Texas can expect for the future of Texas.