4 ms·

The whole point of TFA is that no, it’s a law that would cause a new type of truck to be brought to market that did comply with the length regulations. Of cour

The whole point of TFA is that no, it’s a law that would cause a new type of truck to be brought to market that did comply with the length regulations. Of course you don’t start enforcing the law overnight, you make a credible firm commitment to phase it in at some point in the future. (I’d be interested to hear how aggressive the phase-in was in London).

tyrfing 5y ago
This competes with 26' box trucks, not 53' trailers.
- theptip 5y ago
  Not if 53’ trailers are banned or restricted inside the city, like the case of NYC as discussed in TFA.
  - tyrfing 5y ago
    It's like talking about replacing C++ with Javascript. 26' box trucks already exist and could be used, but aren't for a reason. The novel part is really just the visibility and lower noise, which is irrelevant to a 53' trailer ban.
    - theptip 5y ago
      I think you're missing the point of the conversation up-thread. OP is pointing out that 53' trailers are actually already banned, but the ban is not enforced. GP suggested that enforcing the ban would bring the city to a halt. The OP provides a discussion of an alternative that could be used if the 53' trailer ban was enforced. > 26' box trucks already exist and could be used, but aren't for a reason. Right, at least partly because the ban on 53' trailers is not enforced. Nobody is claiming that these smaller trucks are strictly better in the current market environment (including the assumption that the ban is not enforced). This thread is discussing what would happen if the 53' truck ban was enforced. Your analogy doesn't make sense in this context. Neither C++ nor Javascript are banned. To fix your analogy, try this: If you banned C++ (and enforced the ban) in NYC, then you'd expect to see an increase in use of JS and other languages. Programming would not grind to a halt, if you gave enough notice then the pieces currently implemented in C++ would be re-implemented in another language.
      - tyrfing 5y ago
        They fill different roles. It's talking about replacing something suited for long distance, including intermodal, relays, etc with a short distance truck that has distinct characteristics. If you absolutely can't use 53' trailers, the best alternative is probably 48' trailers.
Twirrim 5y ago
London added the "Low Emission Zone" in 2008, phasing it in over 4 years with more aggressive pollution levels, with the "Ultra Low Emission Zone" coming in to effect a couple of years ago. Polluting vehicles aren't banned, just charged each time they enter the zone, via automated camera based solutions. Aim is to provide a solid financial incentive towards using more fuel efficient vehicles. Large commercial vehicles get charged £100 a day, everything else just £12.50. So not really prohibitive, but also a cost that soon adds up. It has been highly effective, with a large reduction of pollution in the city, and no doubt the city really appreciates the additional revenue stream (even if it's tied to specific projects)
- wolverine876 5y ago
  > Polluting vehicles aren't banned, just charged each time they enter the zone, via automated camera based solutions. Does that discriminate against people without money, who can't always afford less-polluting cars, can't afford the fines, and thus are excluded from public streets?
  - merijnv 5y ago
    You're assuming cars are the only valid transport option. London isn't the US, you can just take the subway or bus instead...
  - deleted 5y ago
    [deleted]
  - IneffablePigeon 5y ago
    One could argue it makes even cheaper options like walking and cycling into more palatable alternatives. In any case, the vast majority of people in London use public transport to get around. I'm not sure how it works for tradespeople who need to carry equipment. I'd hope there are schemes to subsidize more efficient vehicles for those sorts of cases, although I wouldn't be surprised if there aren't any.
  - baud147258 5y ago
    Well, the poor are supposed to take the efficient public transportation, while the affluent can continue to use their gas-guzzlers (and now their expensive electric cars) to clog the streets

tyrfing 5y ago

This competes with 26' box trucks, not 53' trailers.

theptip 5y ago
Not if 53’ trailers are banned or restricted inside the city, like the case of NYC as discussed in TFA.
- tyrfing 5y ago
  It's like talking about replacing C++ with Javascript. 26' box trucks already exist and could be used, but aren't for a reason. The novel part is really just the visibility and lower noise, which is irrelevant to a 53' trailer ban.
  - theptip 5y ago
    I think you're missing the point of the conversation up-thread. OP is pointing out that 53' trailers are actually already banned, but the ban is not enforced. GP suggested that enforcing the ban would bring the city to a halt. The OP provides a discussion of an alternative that could be used if the 53' trailer ban was enforced. > 26' box trucks already exist and could be used, but aren't for a reason. Right, at least partly because the ban on 53' trailers is not enforced. Nobody is claiming that these smaller trucks are strictly better in the current market environment (including the assumption that the ban is not enforced). This thread is discussing what would happen if the 53' truck ban was enforced. Your analogy doesn't make sense in this context. Neither C++ nor Javascript are banned. To fix your analogy, try this: If you banned C++ (and enforced the ban) in NYC, then you'd expect to see an increase in use of JS and other languages. Programming would not grind to a halt, if you gave enough notice then the pieces currently implemented in C++ would be re-implemented in another language.
    - tyrfing 5y ago
      They fill different roles. It's talking about replacing something suited for long distance, including intermodal, relays, etc with a short distance truck that has distinct characteristics. If you absolutely can't use 53' trailers, the best alternative is probably 48' trailers.

Twirrim 5y ago

London added the "Low Emission Zone" in 2008, phasing it in over 4 years with more aggressive pollution levels, with the "Ultra Low Emission Zone" coming in to effect a couple of years ago. Polluting vehicles aren't banned, just charged each time they enter the zone, via automated camera based solutions. Aim is to provide a solid financial incentive towards using more fuel efficient vehicles. Large commercial vehicles get charged £100 a day, everything else just £12.50. So not really prohibitive, but also a cost that soon adds up. It has been highly effective, with a large reduction of pollution in the city, and no doubt the city really appreciates the additional revenue stream (even if it's tied to specific projects)

wolverine876 5y ago
> Polluting vehicles aren't banned, just charged each time they enter the zone, via automated camera based solutions. Does that discriminate against people without money, who can't always afford less-polluting cars, can't afford the fines, and thus are excluded from public streets?
- merijnv 5y ago
  You're assuming cars are the only valid transport option. London isn't the US, you can just take the subway or bus instead...
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]
- IneffablePigeon 5y ago
  One could argue it makes even cheaper options like walking and cycling into more palatable alternatives. In any case, the vast majority of people in London use public transport to get around. I'm not sure how it works for tradespeople who need to carry equipment. I'd hope there are schemes to subsidize more efficient vehicles for those sorts of cases, although I wouldn't be surprised if there aren't any.
- baud147258 5y ago
  Well, the poor are supposed to take the efficient public transportation, while the affluent can continue to use their gas-guzzlers (and now their expensive electric cars) to clog the streets