As gas-electric hybrid vehicles are increasingly embraced by a society getting sick of rising fuel costs and the US government's apathy towards the environment, oil companies and government agencies are already churning their murky minds to circumvent the resulting loss of revenues. More miles to the gallon means less fuel sold. The oil companies lose, unless hybrid owners start driving more than before. Improved fuel efficiency also implies less income from the gas tax. The government loses.
The likes of Exxon-Mobil and Shell can easily re-calibrate their bottom lines by jacking up fuel costs. This they have done (as expected): after several months of artificial price-setting kept the cost per gallon of regular gas under $2.20 in my neighborhood, the end of the Congressional elections has seen a nearly 27 cent increase in double-quick time. How predictable, on so many levels!
So what can the government do about declining gas tax incomes? Tennessee lawmakers are showing the way by proposing a road use tax. Instead of paying a per-gallon tax at the pump, you get to pay for the miles you drive! In a trial of this latest swindle, a fleet of cars will be equipped with GPS units that track your driving distance between gas station visits. The units will communicate with the gas pump, deduct the gas tax from your bill, and tack on the use tax instead. These law-makers, whose salaries probably allow them to keep driving gas-guzzling behemoths without a second thought, are finding ways to annul the technological advances generated by foreign auto makers!
Here is a potential traffic impact from such a bizarre taxation policy. Currently, people largely choose routes based on perceived travel times, delays and facility-specific tolls. Traffic thus gets spread across multiple road facilities based on many days of driving experience and trade-offs between monetary tolls and travel time savings. If the taxes begin to depend on distance, people could start targetting the shortest distance (and not the shortest time) options. Distance is a concrete measure: there are no grey areas related to individual perceptions, and it certainly does not change from day to day. Together with fuel cost increases from the oil industry, the road use tax could make traffic worse!
Or maybe it won't. But I am sure that the possible side effects have not even been considered by Tennessee's rich law-makers.
Saturday, December 23, 2006
Drive safe: watch out for the lunatics!
I have been commuting to work for nearly six months now, and have seen enough to rant about Boston's drivers (at least those who drive around me as I stumble to work on the dreaded Mass Pike, I-90, every weekday).
There is at least one accident almost daily on the short 15-mile stretch of highway. One can only ascribe these routine collisions to careless and reckless driving way past the speed limit, too fast to be sustained by heavy weekday traffic levels. Besides the obvious risks of personal injury and vehicle damage, such driving is inconsiderate, to say the least. The smallest perturbations tend to throw I-90 into a downward spiral that can grind traffic to a standstill lasting hours. My 40-minute commute, for example, has often degenerated into a one to two hour drag.
One of my pet peeves (and I have many of these) is drivers who cannot stand seeing traffic move fractionally faster in another lane than theirs. They constantly weave left and right, as though they have a mandate to use all lanes equally. I see several such lunatics daily, cutting across lanes with impunity. They will often start crossing over to the next lane to take advantage of a 1-2 mph speed increase, only to find a slow-moving truck ahead in the target lane. Otherwise, the current lane might temporarily speed up a bit. The selfish driver then arrests her lane changing process mid-way (with two wheels in each lane) to return to the lane she just began evacuating. All of this, of course, will be executed without the use of turn indicators. Sometimes, these people will be half way to the next lane before their conscience directs them to blink their indicator for a fraction of a second, more like an afterthought!
I believe that such aggressive behavior is largely encouraged by the ridiculous blame system associated with fender-benders: the rear-ender is always at fault. Drivers therefore take their chances. They cut too close in front of others, knowing that the poor victim has all the incentive to watch out for this weirdo and slow down. Safe drivers are especially vulnerable, since the distance they maintain from the vehicle in front is enough invitation for aggressive types to cut in. Turn signals are used as rights of passage: "Hey! My indicator is on, so watch out!" In case of an accident, the cautious driver always loses. How convenient and safe!
There is at least one accident almost daily on the short 15-mile stretch of highway. One can only ascribe these routine collisions to careless and reckless driving way past the speed limit, too fast to be sustained by heavy weekday traffic levels. Besides the obvious risks of personal injury and vehicle damage, such driving is inconsiderate, to say the least. The smallest perturbations tend to throw I-90 into a downward spiral that can grind traffic to a standstill lasting hours. My 40-minute commute, for example, has often degenerated into a one to two hour drag.
One of my pet peeves (and I have many of these) is drivers who cannot stand seeing traffic move fractionally faster in another lane than theirs. They constantly weave left and right, as though they have a mandate to use all lanes equally. I see several such lunatics daily, cutting across lanes with impunity. They will often start crossing over to the next lane to take advantage of a 1-2 mph speed increase, only to find a slow-moving truck ahead in the target lane. Otherwise, the current lane might temporarily speed up a bit. The selfish driver then arrests her lane changing process mid-way (with two wheels in each lane) to return to the lane she just began evacuating. All of this, of course, will be executed without the use of turn indicators. Sometimes, these people will be half way to the next lane before their conscience directs them to blink their indicator for a fraction of a second, more like an afterthought!
I believe that such aggressive behavior is largely encouraged by the ridiculous blame system associated with fender-benders: the rear-ender is always at fault. Drivers therefore take their chances. They cut too close in front of others, knowing that the poor victim has all the incentive to watch out for this weirdo and slow down. Safe drivers are especially vulnerable, since the distance they maintain from the vehicle in front is enough invitation for aggressive types to cut in. Turn signals are used as rights of passage: "Hey! My indicator is on, so watch out!" In case of an accident, the cautious driver always loses. How convenient and safe!
Saturday, December 02, 2006
The Swiss Alps
Let me start with a simple geography quiz.
Q: Which country does Geneva belong to?
A: Actually, it depends.
Now, I know this sounds completely wacky. Geography was one of my favorite subjects in high school. I liked looking at maps. I liked drawing/replicating map outlines, and I had no problems with studying for my geography exams. So why this sudden ambiguity about such a well-known city?
Personal experience taught me a bittter lesson. So here is a little geography tip that might be useful to first-time travelers to Geneva. Especially those who (a) plan on flying Air France to get there, and (b) do not have permission to visit France.
For, though Geneva belongs to Switzerland, France has taken a bite out of the city! In fact, a part of Geneva's airport is French territory!
It is as bizarre as it sounds. Here is a real-world account of what is in store for the unsuspecting traveler.
We recently booked tickets for a Boston-Geneva trip on Delta Airlines (through www.Travelocity.com), which conveniently tagged their flights as Air France through a code-sharing agreement. Our final destination: GVA (Geneva, Switzerland). As we were going to Switzerland, we applied for (and obtained) Swiss visas in advance, and were feeling pretty good about ourselves. We boarded our flight at Boston, landed in perennially messy Charles de Gaule airport in Paris, and even figured out the departure gate for the Paris-Geneva flight.
And then, the seemingly simple matter of an international transit turned into utter chaos. We were refused entry to the gate area! It turned out that Air France treated Paris-Geneva as a domestic flight, since they would be landing in the French sector of Geneva's airport. Essentially, we had to clear customs at Paris, for which we had no visa!
All that was required was a single line of warning on Travelocity's website: "Geneva airport is split in two; please ensure you have the required documents." Three agencies - Travelocity, Delta Airlines and Air France - failed to pass on this critical piece of information (freely available to them), and we paid the price. Literally, too, as we shall see in just a moment.
Air France personnel righted their second wrong (of letting us on the Boston flight without checking for Shengen visas) by re-routing us to Geneva on Swiss Air. Terribly nice of them. Until our checked bag got lost, and we had to join a long line of similarly disgruntled passengers at Geneva. Swiss Air, as the last carrier to get us to our final destination, was saddled with the burden of tracing and delivering our bag. They screamed in anguish (in a nice, calm, Swiss sort of way) about the incompetance of everyone involved. Apparently, the Paris fiasco was a regular occurrence!
We had to have Delta re-book our return tickets, which was done after we were forced to cut a day out of our trip and cough up an additional $440. Plus, Delta only flew out of Zurich! We ended up on Zurich-Atlanta-Boston return flights, which required another $220 in the form of train tickets (to get to Zurich). Delta maintains that they are not responsible for this ridiculous occurrence. Travelocity and Air France have ignored me so far. And I am left holding the bag.
Brilliant, all around. Kudos to the airline industry!
Q: Which country does Geneva belong to?
A: Actually, it depends.
Now, I know this sounds completely wacky. Geography was one of my favorite subjects in high school. I liked looking at maps. I liked drawing/replicating map outlines, and I had no problems with studying for my geography exams. So why this sudden ambiguity about such a well-known city?
Personal experience taught me a bittter lesson. So here is a little geography tip that might be useful to first-time travelers to Geneva. Especially those who (a) plan on flying Air France to get there, and (b) do not have permission to visit France.
For, though Geneva belongs to Switzerland, France has taken a bite out of the city! In fact, a part of Geneva's airport is French territory!
It is as bizarre as it sounds. Here is a real-world account of what is in store for the unsuspecting traveler.
We recently booked tickets for a Boston-Geneva trip on Delta Airlines (through www.Travelocity.com), which conveniently tagged their flights as Air France through a code-sharing agreement. Our final destination: GVA (Geneva, Switzerland). As we were going to Switzerland, we applied for (and obtained) Swiss visas in advance, and were feeling pretty good about ourselves. We boarded our flight at Boston, landed in perennially messy Charles de Gaule airport in Paris, and even figured out the departure gate for the Paris-Geneva flight.
And then, the seemingly simple matter of an international transit turned into utter chaos. We were refused entry to the gate area! It turned out that Air France treated Paris-Geneva as a domestic flight, since they would be landing in the French sector of Geneva's airport. Essentially, we had to clear customs at Paris, for which we had no visa!
All that was required was a single line of warning on Travelocity's website: "Geneva airport is split in two; please ensure you have the required documents." Three agencies - Travelocity, Delta Airlines and Air France - failed to pass on this critical piece of information (freely available to them), and we paid the price. Literally, too, as we shall see in just a moment.
Air France personnel righted their second wrong (of letting us on the Boston flight without checking for Shengen visas) by re-routing us to Geneva on Swiss Air. Terribly nice of them. Until our checked bag got lost, and we had to join a long line of similarly disgruntled passengers at Geneva. Swiss Air, as the last carrier to get us to our final destination, was saddled with the burden of tracing and delivering our bag. They screamed in anguish (in a nice, calm, Swiss sort of way) about the incompetance of everyone involved. Apparently, the Paris fiasco was a regular occurrence!
We had to have Delta re-book our return tickets, which was done after we were forced to cut a day out of our trip and cough up an additional $440. Plus, Delta only flew out of Zurich! We ended up on Zurich-Atlanta-Boston return flights, which required another $220 in the form of train tickets (to get to Zurich). Delta maintains that they are not responsible for this ridiculous occurrence. Travelocity and Air France have ignored me so far. And I am left holding the bag.
Brilliant, all around. Kudos to the airline industry!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)