|
Uber Representative Calls For A United Protest
|
Uber Representative Calls For A United Protest
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 |
Uber Representative Calls For A United Protest
|
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. |
Uber Representative Calls For A United Protest
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. |
Uber Representative Calls For A United Protest
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 |
Uber Representative Calls For A United Protest
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 |
Uber Representative Calls For A United Protest
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? |
Uber Representative Calls For A United Protest
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 |
| All times are GMT. The time now is 12:18 AM. |
Powered by vBulletin®
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2006 LondonBanter.co.uk