<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 3.2//EN"> <HTML> <HEAD> <META HTTP-EQUIV="Content-Type" CONTENT="text/html; charset=us-ascii"> <META NAME="Generator" CONTENT="MS Exchange Server version 6.0.4630.0"> <TITLE>Public sector specifying technology</TITLE> </HEAD> <BODY>  Dear Friends, Oh dear. In the wake of this enthusiastic exchange of best intentioned views on what buses should best run on in London or indeed anywhere on this benighted planet, I offer the following impolite commentary for those views and counter-comments. Any public sector agency specifying a technology to do a given job?  Ethanol, electric, hybrid, banana-driven or what have you? This is a painful and one would hoe by now unnecessary business. Every time I run into this sort of thing I have to shake my head and wonder what if anything we have learned from our cumulative past experience of the last thirty years of this kind of thing. Public authorities know demonstrably and irrevocably N O T H I N G about technology or how to put a viable technology package together for operation in, say, a dense urban environment (or just about any other while we are at it.) So if you want a "clean" public vehicle for this or that use, you should have a close look at the state of the art and the specific performance parameters which reflect the best thing that you can bring aboard at affordable cost to the taxpayer (hey, that's ME!!) and at the same time be reliable and affordable in terms of maintenance and operation for the poor guys who have to run the damn thing. There are, I can observe from experience, only four reasons for specifying the technology (including some infelicitous combination of all four): 1.      Because you are an ideologue and this fits in with your articles of faith. 2.      Because you are ignorant of past experience. 3.      Because you are lazy and looking for the media op of the moment (at no matter what longer term cost). 4.      Because you are influenced by the interested economic players. It's that simple!!!  It don't wash! (Do I have any friends left here?) Eric Britton *       *       * FROM: ian.wingrove@london.gov.uk DATE: Mon, 20 Nov 2006 10:15:41 -0000 SUBJECT: RE: [NewMobilityCafe] Congestion charging and polluter pays Thanks again. Mayor's office went to visit Stockholm a few months ago and very interested. I bumped into a Swedish Green last weekend and chatted about this. I will be pressing them on using sewage as well. Cheers IW -----Original Message----- From: NewMobilityCafe@yahoogroups.com [<A HREF="mailto:NewMobilityCafe@yahoogroups.com">mailto:NewMobilityCafe@yahoogroups.com</A>] On Behalf Of Eric Bruun Sent: 17 November 2006 19:27 To: NewMobilityCafe@yahoogroups.com Subject: RE: [NewMobilityCafe] Congestion charging and polluter pays Ian   You are probably already aware, but Stockholm has been making ethanol for central city buses from municipal waste for years. If you don't have a contact there, I can probably find one for you.   Thanks for taking the time to explain London's program.   Eric -----Original Message----- From: Ian Wingrove Sent: Nov 17, 2006 5:33 AM To: NewMobilityCafe@yahoogroups.com Subject: RE: [NewMobilityCafe] Congestion charging and polluter pays Eric You are of course right that having a 100% zero emission vehicles is not the solution to all problems, even if it solves air pollution problems at the point of use - air quality still being a major problem in London. Again, it is the context of doing this within a framework of other successful policies. For example, zero emissions will do nothing to stop road deaths. Since 2000 when the GLA was established, London's road casualty rate has fallen faster than any other urban centre in the UK and we have tougher targets for casualty reduction than anywhere else in the UK. My boss has been the Mayor's Road Safety Ambassador during this time and has argued for higher investment in the things we know work and research into the next generation of ideas. The London road safety budget has more than doubled and we are piloting technological solutions such as speed limiters.  We have just started pushing forward on decentralised energy and local renewables in London. I can't claim any success as it is early days and we are so far behind other European cities. But the aim surely is to have an integrated system, where people produce enough energy locally to meet many of their energy needs - including charging up vehicles. For example, a recent report for the Mayor showed that they could power the entire bus fleet from energy produced from waste. Cheers IW -----Original Message----- From: NewMobilityCafe@yahoogroups.com [<A HREF="mailto:NewMobilityCafe@yahoogroups.com">mailto:NewMobilityCafe@yahoogroups.com</A>] On Behalf Of Eric Bruun Sent: 16 November 2006 19:52 To: NewMobilityCafe@yahoogroups.com Subject: RE: [NewMobilityCafe] Congestion charging and polluter pays Ian   But there is still no way that giving low emissions cars free entry can possibly reduce congestion and the demand for parking. At best traffic will stay the same, at worst it increase the traffic.   I also think that "zero" emissions private autos is a misguided goal. Unless a country is 100 percent without fossil fuels for generating electricity, even electric cars still use petroleum or coal (or maybe even nuclear power) to charge their batteries. Furthermore, batteries are themselves an eco-problem.   If your current fuel prices aren't already enough to deter SUV use, then UK's problem is that a lot of people are so darned rich that price doesn't matter to them. These are the same people who will no doubt be the first to be buying hybrids or zero emission vehicles, since access is important and price is not. They will also no doubt continue to use their SUVs or luxury cars for their remaining trips.   Finally, I want to point out the experience from the Virginia burb's of Wash DC and in California. Hybrids were allowed to use the HOV lanes and they wrecked the transit services that operate on them due to high congestion. End result - lots of cars sales (a windfall to auto manufacturers) an increase in public transport operating costs, and a  reduction in public transport use.   Eric Bruun -----Original Message----- From: Ian Wingrove Sent: Nov 16, 2006 5:40 AM To: NewMobilityCafe@yahoogroups.com Subject: RE: [NewMobilityCafe] Congestion charging and polluter pays We are certainly practical greens who want to see people shift from badly polluting vehicles to less polluting vehicles as a result of this relatively short term measure. We are keen to help create a market for zero emission vehicles and price diffentials have been very successful in doing this. If we can stop the UK from adopting the SUV culture of the US, then that will be a useful achievement. As for second cars - in all of inner London and much of outer London, they would have to pay residents parking charges, on top of all the other car owning charges. Nor is this CC policy a one off. All of the London initiatives have to be seen within the context of increased public transport provision, a growing momentum behind using 'soft measures' to reduce the demand for travel and a tightening up of car parking standards in the planning policy (by no means perfect). Despite London's rapidly growing population, we have still managed a slight decrease in traffic since 2000 across the whole of the city - at a time when it has grown by 5% in the rest of the country.     -----Original Message----- From: NewMobilityCafe@yahoogroups.com [<A HREF="mailto:NewMobilityCafe@yahoogroups.com">mailto:NewMobilityCafe@yahoogroups.com</A>] On Behalf Of Eric Bruun Sent: 15 November 2006 20:16 To: NewMobilityCafe@yahoogroups.com Subject: Re: [NewMobilityCafe] Congestion charging and polluter pays I think it is typical that "environmental" groups would advocate zero charge for less polluting vehicles. I oppose it. The congestion charge isn't just about emissions, it is about space and energy consumption as well. We can expect to see the wealthy buy additional cars (maybe not even selling their old ones) and increase in traffic.   Eric Bruun </BODY> </HTML>