Hacker News Reader

Comment by theptip | Hacker News Reader

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).

View on HN

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)

> 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?

You're assuming cars are the only valid transport option. London isn't the US, you can just take the subway or bus instead...

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.

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

Yes, but London has fantastic public transport to the extent where if you are living in the Ultra Low Emission Zone you probably don't need a car (if you could even afford a place with a parking space). Now the extension of the Low Emission Zone is a different matter, but its less strict and while people complained a bit before it expanded I've not heard of any major issues from it (but then again, I am probably in a bubble).

It's funny - If I need to go down to London, I'll drive my car to a station just outside of London (where I can park all day relatively cheaply), and then take the train into London and use the underground whilst I'm there.

Kind of just goes to show how crap trains are outside of London, and how great they are inside of London. Plus, I've only driven in London once and it's not something I'd want to do again :D

Driving in very-central London is great. Ever since all the fees the streets are often empty! Parking on the other hand...

According to every non-wealthy Londoner that I've spoken to...yes. Regular folk that live in the city are being squeezed every which way. They don't want to leave because its always been their home but the city is optimizing for the wealthy and well-to-do.

It'll be interesting to see what happens if all the really cheap labor stops showing up (cheap labor from the EU) and working people clear out of London. What good is your million dollar flat if you can't get furniture delivered or a tradesperson in to fit a wardrobe?

I'm a Londoner who's just swapped their car to meet the ULEZ standards and it's not that demanding cost wise. Pretty much any petrol car after 2002 or so qualifies and glancing at Vauxhall Astras for example you can get one from £650 in serviceable state. It's a bit of a pain but not compared to dying early of some respiratory illness.

https://www.autotrader.co.uk/car-details/202205095508156?pri...

The rules are not very stringent for petrol cars. Pretty much anything from the past 15 years will do.

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

Not if 53’ trailers are banned or restricted inside the city, like the case of NYC as discussed in TFA.

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.

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.

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.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com