FIGURE IT OUT
Page 18
If you've noticed an error in this article please click here to report it so we can fix it.
Although the bid to create an ultra-clean air zone in Reading has attracted the ire of hauliers, the figures RBC is relying on have also raised eyebrows in the industry.
The local authority says it relied on a "benefit-to-cost ratio" to calculate how much investment was needed and the potential revenue generated from an LEZ that it initially claimed would primarily tackle NOx emissions. This showed that its business case creates a benefit of £6.70 for every £1 of funding. It also assumes it would charge HGVs £50 for noncompliance (£5 for buses).
The modelling, based on fleet composition, estimates that 12% of HGVs, or 560, would be affected by the LEZ. but only 30% of these would actually pay the charge. The council anticipates the remaining 70% would upgrade their vehicles or avoid the LEZ. This means around £60,000 of revenue would be generated every week. ABC also believes that for E2m it can design and implement its scheme, with annual operating and enforcement costs of a further £540,000.
But the ETA says RBC is "being cavalier with someone else's money" and is ignoring the huge enforcement costs that are required.
Telling adds: "This is very bureaucratic. We think that there are lots of other, low-cost measures. And let's get real about this, carbon is now more important than NOx emissions, which are decreasing anyway and if they are not then it's not our problem; it's other things causing them."
Page's response to this latter point contrasts with the council's press off ice comment in March that NOx takes primacy. "It's not an either/or [situation]; different things will be targeted with different measures," he says. "Those are decisions that have yet to be taken forward. I take the point entirely that there are different pollutants, we need to tackle not just one pollutant"