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?

On Thu, Feb 14, 2019 at 12:56:26PM +0000, wrote:

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?

A car that is actually looked after doesn't have significantly higher
maintenance costs in year 15 than in year 5. I ASSume that the same
applies to larger vehicles. Whether the cost of that maintenance from
the beginning of its life is worthwhile is a different kettle of fish.
For all I know it might be cheaper to just run a lorry into the ground
every few years and buy new.

--
David Cantrell | Bourgeois reactionary pig

Do not be afraid of cooking, as your ingredients will know and misbehave
-- Fergus Henderson

On Mon, 18 Feb 2019 12:17:40 +0000
David Cantrell wrote:
On Thu, Feb 14, 2019 at 12:56:26PM +0000, wrote:

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?

A car that is actually looked after doesn't have significantly higher
maintenance costs in year 15 than in year 5. I ASSume that the same
applies to larger vehicles. Whether the cost of that maintenance from
the beginning of its life is worthwhile is a different kettle of fish.
For all I know it might be cheaper to just run a lorry into the ground
every few years and buy new.

Some trucks go through quite a beating, especially tipper trucks. Even with
good maintenance you're going to get some sort of major failure at some point
just because of wear and tear on the materials they're made from.

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