On 12/02/2019 17:29, wrote:

Meanwhile all the extra CO2 from the manufacture of the replacement vehicles
chain will simple hasten climate change that little bit faster. I'll take
local pollution over global pollution any day. And a lot of the people whining
about air quality are the same people who install wood burning stoves in their
farrow and ball decorated living rooms.


Ah, well, the new Clean Air Act will sort those out. The first step will
be to ban the installation of new wood stoves that don't comply with the
emissions rules, as well as banning the retail sale of non-approved
solid fuels and unseasoned wood in many boroughs of London under powers
the Act grants to local authorities.

--
Tciao for Now!

John.

John Williamson wrote:
On 12/02/2019 17:27, wrote:

I have wondered if all the transport companies should have got together
and refused to make deliveries if they have to pay the charge and see
what the little squirt does when the shelves empty in central london.
I drive a coach for a living, and I know that the industry has been
lobbying strongly, and has been totally ignored. I assume the haulage
industry has been doing the same.

The purpose of the plan is to reduce the polluting vehicles in central
London, which it's acknowledged cause too high levels of pollution.
Presumably, lorries and coaches are a big contributor?

So what are the industry proposals that would be a better way to achieve
pollution reductions? What is the industry lobbying *for*, as opposed to
lobbying *against*? (lobbying against taxes is no surprise)

If you dispute that lorries and coaches are major contributors, do you have
evidence for that? If you dispute that pollution is too high, evidence for
that?

Theo

On 12/02/2019 17:27, wrote:
On Tue, 12 Feb 2019 12:22:20 +0000
John Williamson wrote:
On 12/02/2019 09:07, Robin9 wrote:
I think it's certain that prices will go up. The Uber rep is obviously
concerned primarily about Uber drivers working in "the middle"
but there is also the issue of suburban PHV drivers who make only
one trip per day into central London.

If, for example, a driver takes an outer suburban customer to
Barts Hospital, that customer will be the only one that day
necessitating the driver to pay the surcharge. Presumably the
entire charge will be added to that passenger's fare. The customer
will not be pleased with Mr. Khan!

As far as Uber goes, that can be done automatically by the app,
hopefully with an explanation. Or Uber can arrange things so the driver
has a full day in the centre once he's cleared the Bart's job.

What's really going to **** them off is the new ULEZ that kicks in on
the date given, so anything earlier than Euro 6 will cost a fortune to
take in. It's also annoying transport companies, as using any lorry or
coach older than Euro 6 will cost £200 a day. The company I work for has
has to spend over two million quid to update our fleet to comply.

I have wondered if all the transport companies should have got together and
refused to make deliveries if they have to pay the charge and see what the
little squirt does when the shelves empty in central london.


I do wonder if this is a cunning plan by the aforementioned little
squirt to skew the figures so he can put out a more impressive
announcement.

The kind of thing I'm thinking of is that following the ULEZ there's
some press release that talks about an 8% reduction in traffic caused by
it along with the consequential improvement in air quality, but if you
dig into the figures it turns out 75% of the reduction is in private
hire vehicles changing their strategy to avoid the central area....

We all know how to reduce air pollution in London caused
by road vehicles. We've been through this several times
before in other threads. Vehicles have not suddenly become
more polluting in the past twenty years. They have become
cleaner. The huge increase in air pollution in London is because
the roads have been changed. (TfL calls them "improvements"
I call it sabotage) Vehicle journeys take far longer, their engines
are running longer; hence an increase in vehicle emissions.

There is also the issue of 20mph zones. Vehicle emit more
pollutants at 20mph than at 30 mph.

On 12 Feb 2019 20:34:46 +0000 (GMT)
Theo wrote:
John Williamson wrote:
On 12/02/2019 17:27, wrote:

I have wondered if all the transport companies should have got together
and refused to make deliveries if they have to pay the charge and see
what the little squirt does when the shelves empty in central london.
I drive a coach for a living, and I know that the industry has been
lobbying strongly, and has been totally ignored. I assume the haulage
industry has been doing the same.

The purpose of the plan is to reduce the polluting vehicles in central
London, which it's acknowledged cause too high levels of pollution.
Presumably, lorries and coaches are a big contributor?

So what are the industry proposals that would be a better way to achieve
pollution reductions? What is the industry lobbying *for*, as opposed to
lobbying *against*? (lobbying against taxes is no surprise)

If you dispute that lorries and coaches are major contributors, do you have
evidence for that? If you dispute that pollution is too high, evidence for
that?

The bus and haulage industry don't build the vehicles. Stuff has to be
delivered somehow unless you want to go back to horse drawn carts and until
battery technology allows viable electric goods vehicles and buses** then its
going be diesel.

** Yes, I know about the battery buses in southwark with their not great range
even on the flat ground on which they operate. Put them on a hampstead route
and see how long the battery charge lasts.

On 13/02/2019 16:31, wrote:
On 12 Feb 2019 20:34:46 +0000 (GMT)
Theo wrote:
John Williamson wrote:
On 12/02/2019 17:27, wrote:

I have wondered if all the transport companies should have got together
and refused to make deliveries if they have to pay the charge and see
what the little squirt does when the shelves empty in central london.
I drive a coach for a living, and I know that the industry has been
lobbying strongly, and has been totally ignored. I assume the haulage
industry has been doing the same.

The purpose of the plan is to reduce the polluting vehicles in central
London, which it's acknowledged cause too high levels of pollution.
Presumably, lorries and coaches are a big contributor?

So what are the industry proposals that would be a better way to achieve
pollution reductions? What is the industry lobbying *for*, as opposed to
lobbying *against*? (lobbying against taxes is no surprise)

If you dispute that lorries and coaches are major contributors, do you have
evidence for that? If you dispute that pollution is too high, evidence for
that?

The bus and haulage industry don't build the vehicles. Stuff has to be
delivered somehow unless you want to go back to horse drawn carts and until
battery technology allows viable electric goods vehicles and buses** then its
going be diesel.

What about the efficiency of the deliveries? How many vans etc are
driving around half empty?

Maybe some idea of huge depots on the M25 where things are delivered to
and then have some system of allocating particular areas to particular
delivery companies so they send in full vehicles that do as little
driving as possible?

Yes - it doesn't work for big goods and/or things that come on lorries
(although it does work for things that come on pallets) but it would be
a start.

In message , at 07:25:14 on Thu, 14 Feb
2019, Someone Somewhere remarked:
On 13/02/2019 16:31, wrote:
On 12 Feb 2019 20:34:46 +0000 (GMT)
Theo wrote:
John Williamson wrote:
On 12/02/2019 17:27, wrote:

I have wondered if all the transport companies should have got together
and refused to make deliveries if they have to pay the charge and see
what the little squirt does when the shelves empty in central london.
I drive a coach for a living, and I know that the industry has been
lobbying strongly, and has been totally ignored. I assume the haulage
industry has been doing the same.

The purpose of the plan is to reduce the polluting vehicles in central
London, which it's acknowledged cause too high levels of pollution.
Presumably, lorries and coaches are a big contributor?

So what are the industry proposals that would be a better way to achieve
pollution reductions? What is the industry lobbying *for*, as opposed to
lobbying *against*? (lobbying against taxes is no surprise)

If you dispute that lorries and coaches are major contributors, do you have
evidence for that? If you dispute that pollution is too high, evidence for
that?
The bus and haulage industry don't build the vehicles. Stuff has to
be
delivered somehow unless you want to go back to horse drawn carts and until
battery technology allows viable electric goods vehicles and buses** then its
going be diesel.

What about the efficiency of the deliveries? How many vans etc are
driving around half empty?

Maybe some idea of huge depots on the M25 where things are delivered to
and then have some system of allocating particular areas to particular
delivery companies so they send in full vehicles that do as little
driving as possible?

Yes - it doesn't work for big goods and/or things that come on lorries
(although it does work for things that come on pallets) but it would be
a start.

A lot of the things being delivered in central London will be in
(wheeled) cages. It's a bit unusual to see a fork-lift truck unloading
palettes in WC1. The trick with cages is to load them into the van in
the correct order, so the ones you want first are by the doors at the
back.

Distribution depots on/outside the M25 already do a pretty good job
sorting and consolidating deliveries. They don't send one truck of baked
beans around several destinations, followed by a truck of Cornflakes to
make numerous drop-offs. They'll load the truck with a mixture of Baked
Beans, Cornflakes etc and try to have the minimum number of drop-offs.

The cost of operating the trucks is mainly time and mileage (not a
relatively small access fee) and therefore they have that sort of thing
pretty well optimised already.
--
Roland Perry

Roland Perry wrote:
The cost of operating the trucks is mainly time and mileage (not a
relatively small access fee) and therefore they have that sort of thing
pretty well optimised already.

Pollution is an externality. There's not a lot of difference in road tax
between a Euro 1-5 truck and a Euro 6 truck. As a haulier, I can buy a 15
year old truck for a lot less than a new one, and the operating costs are
broadly the same (maybe the new one is more fuel efficient, but that's
probably less of a concern in London where distances aren't so large).

If a haulier wants to 'do the right thing' by running newer trucks, the risk
is they're undercut by a competitor who doesn't.

By including the costs of pollution in the bottom line, it now makes an
economic incentive to invest in newer vehicles. And the playing field is
level because everyone is under the same pressure.

It might end up costing the consumer slightly more, which comes down to the
question: do you want to live in a polluted city or don't you?
(also not to forget the costs of pollution that taxpayers pay, eg in extra
healthcare, and the way that the effects of pollution may not be evenly
distributed across the population)

Theo

On 14 Feb 2019 12:22:13 +0000 (GMT)
Theo wrote:
Roland Perry wrote:
The cost of operating the trucks is mainly time and mileage (not a
relatively small access fee) and therefore they have that sort of thing
pretty well optimised already.

Pollution is an externality. There's not a lot of difference in road tax
between a Euro 1-5 truck and a Euro 6 truck. As a haulier, I can buy a 15
year old truck for a lot less than a new one, and the operating costs are
broadly the same (maybe the new one is more fuel efficient, but that's
probably less of a concern in London where distances aren't so large).

I realise trucks are built to last a lot longer than cars, but even so, surely
a 15 year old truck is going to be pretty heavy on maintenance costs?

In message , at 12:22:13 on Thu,
14 Feb 2019, Theo remarked:
Roland Perry wrote:
The cost of operating the trucks is mainly time and mileage (not a
relatively small access fee) and therefore they have that sort of thing
pretty well optimised already.

Pollution is an externality. There's not a lot of difference in road tax
between a Euro 1-5 truck and a Euro 6 truck. As a haulier,

I'm obviously a bit confused. Aren't you a computer scientist.

I can buy a 15
year old truck for a lot less than a new one, and the operating costs are
broadly the same (maybe the new one is more fuel efficient, but that's
probably less of a concern in London where distances aren't so large).

If a haulier wants to 'do the right thing' by running newer trucks, the risk
is they're undercut by a competitor who doesn't.

By including the costs of pollution in the bottom line, it now makes an
economic incentive to invest in newer vehicles. And the playing field is
level because everyone is under the same pressure.

But my proposition is that a pollution charge isn't in fact high enough
for that to kick in.

It might end up costing the consumer slightly more, which comes down to the
question: do you want to live in a polluted city or don't you?
(also not to forget the costs of pollution that taxpayers pay, eg in extra
healthcare, and the way that the effects of pollution may not be evenly
distributed across the population)

Theo

--
Roland Perry