USPS Finalizes Plans To Buy Gas-Powered Delivery Fleet, Defying the EPA and White House (yahoo.com) 419
echo123 shares a report from the Washington Post: The U.S. Postal Service finalized plans Wednesday to purchase up to 148,000 gasoline-powered mail delivery trucks (Warning: paywalled; alternative source), defying Biden administration officials' objections that the multibillion dollar contract would undercut the nation's climate goals. The White House Council on Environmental Quality and the Environmental Protection Agency asked the Postal Service this month to reassess its plan to replace its delivery fleet with 90% gas-powered trucks and 10% electric vehicles, at a cost of as much as $11.3 billion. The contract, orchestrated by Postmaster General Louis DeJoy, offers only a 0.4-mile-per-gallon fuel economy improvement over the agency's current fleet.
Federal climate science officials said the Postal Service vastly underestimated the emissions of its proposed fleet of "Next Generation Delivery Vehicles," or NGDVs, and accused the mail agency of fudging the math of its environmental studies to justify such a large purchase of internal combustion engine trucks. But DeJoy, a holdover from the Trump administration, has called his agency's investment in green transportation "ambitious," even as environmental groups and even other postal leaders have privately questioned it. [...] Environmental advocates assailed the agency's decision, saying it would lock in decades of climate-warming emissions and worsen air pollution. The Postal Service plans call for the new trucks, built by Oshkosh Defense, to hit the streets in 2023 and remain in service for at least 20 years.
DeJoy said in a statement that the agency was open to pursuing more electric vehicles if "additional funding - from either internal or congressional sources -- becomes available." But he added that the agency had "waited long enough" for new vehicles. The White House and EPA had asked the Postal Service to conduct a supplemental environmental impact statement on the new fleet and to hold a public hearing on its procurement plan. The Postal Service rejected those requests: Mark Guilfoil, the agency's vice president of supply management, said they "would not add value" to the mail service's analysis. Now that the Postal Service has finalized it agreement with Oshkosh, environmentalists are expected to file lawsuits challenging it on the grounds that the agency's environmental review failed to comply with the National Environmental Policy Act. They will probably base their case on the litany of problems Biden administration officials previously identified with the agency's technical analysis.
Federal climate science officials said the Postal Service vastly underestimated the emissions of its proposed fleet of "Next Generation Delivery Vehicles," or NGDVs, and accused the mail agency of fudging the math of its environmental studies to justify such a large purchase of internal combustion engine trucks. But DeJoy, a holdover from the Trump administration, has called his agency's investment in green transportation "ambitious," even as environmental groups and even other postal leaders have privately questioned it. [...] Environmental advocates assailed the agency's decision, saying it would lock in decades of climate-warming emissions and worsen air pollution. The Postal Service plans call for the new trucks, built by Oshkosh Defense, to hit the streets in 2023 and remain in service for at least 20 years.
DeJoy said in a statement that the agency was open to pursuing more electric vehicles if "additional funding - from either internal or congressional sources -- becomes available." But he added that the agency had "waited long enough" for new vehicles. The White House and EPA had asked the Postal Service to conduct a supplemental environmental impact statement on the new fleet and to hold a public hearing on its procurement plan. The Postal Service rejected those requests: Mark Guilfoil, the agency's vice president of supply management, said they "would not add value" to the mail service's analysis. Now that the Postal Service has finalized it agreement with Oshkosh, environmentalists are expected to file lawsuits challenging it on the grounds that the agency's environmental review failed to comply with the National Environmental Policy Act. They will probably base their case on the litany of problems Biden administration officials previously identified with the agency's technical analysis.
Electric engines offer better torque, lower cost? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3)
The other problem is that the current USPS delivery fleet is well past it's designed lifetime. They need new vehicles NOW.
Re: (Score:3)
Having trouble finding an average miles driven per day, but I'd be very surprised if it wasn't well within the range of current EVs.
Taxi companies love EVs. The cars need very little maintenance and the batteries last longer than fossil fuel engines. Plus a battery replacement is relatively easy compared to an engine replacement.
Are their preferred suppliers just way behind on the technology? There are electric busses that have been in production for years now, and in China they became the bulk of sales abo
Re: (Score:2)
Vehicle MPG ratings (and ranges) are determined by the EPA. I would guess their "real world" tests do not accurately represent how a USPS vehicle would be used and therefore their MPG estimates would not be accurate. USPS vehicles have a lot of stop and go behavior as well as idle time. I honestly have no idea if gasoline or electric would be best in the USPS fleet.
https://www.epa.gov/compliance... [epa.gov]
https://nepis.epa.gov/Exe/ZyPD... [epa.gov]
Re:Electric engines offer better torque, lower cos (Score:5, Insightful)
USPS vehicles have a lot of stop and go behavior as well as idle time. I honestly have no idea if gasoline or electric would be best in the USPS fleet.
I also don't have all the data needed, but *stop and go" is pretty much the ideal case for electric and the worst case for gas. Aside from a few rural routes, USPS trucks are in the sweet spot for current EV tech.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
This is the part I'm not sure about. It's not "a few rural routes", but I don't know what percentage of the routes and vehicles on those routes are rural. The only documentation I've found has said there are 80,000 rural routes and 133,000 rural carriers. What percentage of the vehicles will be used on rural routes where an electric vehicle probably doesn't make sense?
https://www.uspsoig.gov/blog/d... [uspsoig.gov].
I found this which says the USPS has "over 200,000" vehicles.
https://about.usps.com/news/st... [usps.com]
I agree th
Re: Electric engines offer better torque, lower co (Score:5, Informative)
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Tesla cars are really really fucking expensive. Maybe you don't think so, but that would mean your are definitely a privileged 1 or 2 percenter.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
But I can already tell you the answer: it's minuscule in relation to the grid
I appreciate the contribution, but unsourced anonymous internet posts are not very persuasive to me. I'd prefer something more formal+nuanced.
Re:Electric engines offer better torque, lower cos (Score:5, Interesting)
Well idle time in an EV used zero power. Stop start really depends on how hard they accelerate and how good the regen is. For a vehicle like that having regen right down to nearly stopped will be important.
How many miles a day do you think they need? 200 miles? That's easily within the range of consumer EVs from a few years ago. In Europe there are commercial vans that can do that on the market already.
Re:Electric engines offer better torque, lower cos (Score:5, Insightful)
The routes are like 25 miles on average lol.
There are some longer rural ones but even the longest one is 185 miles but IIRC the rural routes are deliverted in the driver's vehicle.
This is an absolute no brainer. Known short routes, lots of idling, stop and go driving. Overnight charging in the depot. You couldn't possibly have a better use case for EVs. Just by E-Transists from Ford or something goddam it.
Re: (Score:2)
How much infrastructure changes are required at the depot to charge that many vehicles overnight? I'm all in for switching to electric, but it seems that the cost of the vehicles isn't the only cost associated with electric fleets. There's at least 100 delivery trucks i can see at my local mail depot. I wonder how much cost and time it would take to have infrastructure to charge all those vehicles. Not saying it's impossible, just something to consider.
Re:Electric engines offer better torque, lower cos (Score:5, Insightful)
It is just the last money grab by gas car makers, When all the private parcel deliver companies switch to EVs to save cost, USPS will be wasting money in gas, and the same politicians who shoved this gas van monstrocity down the throat of USPS will be saying, USPS is inefficient, wastes money ...
Re:Electric engines offer better torque, lower cos (Score:4, Interesting)
All the parking lots have lamp posts wired for 240 v 20 amp circuits to support halogen, sodium vapor lamps. They are switching to LED. There is spare capacity in every damned lamp post in USA. Adding a simple 10 amp plug for EV is not much
Your ordinary 120 v outlet in the wall can dispense 25000 miles a year plugged 24/7. So many Tesla owners are making do with a 120 V charger in their garage. EV overnight charging is a lot simpler than it appears
As for the load on the grid, EV charging load on the grid is no different from Aircon load on summer evenings. But charging happens at night, when the base load plants are operating way below their rated capacity.
Anyway, you don't have to believe me, I don't have to convince you. We do not matter in the larger scheme of things. The bean counters and fleet operators count. Watch what they are doing. When UPS and Fedex and Amazon are all using electric vans, the chugging smelly noisy postal vans will be a good reminder to people, "elections have consequences, elect morons based on culture wars, and you end up with dumb solutions"/
Re:Electric engines offer better torque, lower cos (Score:4, Interesting)
Heck with the overnight charging, go with the rapid stuff.
Fed Ex is going electric in a big way.
https://www.cnbc.com/2021/12/1... [cnbc.com]
If a private company believes it is better financially to go this route, then there is no effin' way a government entity shouldn't do the same.
Heck, while the Fed Ex trucks are big babies, they are reasonably priced, and made by GM. ... the contract for the USPS was made by a Trump appointee, to Oshkosh Defense Corp ... let me check ... yep, PAC donations go 2:1 to GOP candidates, and they explicitly donated to Trump ..
Oh, wait
Re: (Score:3)
They must have depots where the vehicles are stored when not in use. They probably have fuel there already, and certainly electricity. So overnight charging is no big deal.
Re: (Score:2)
As long as I have been alive, I have known batteries to be replaceable, (and to even become rechargeable), given the end of their usefulness.
Re: (Score:3)
Also these trucks will have to last decades, and battery tech is rapidly improving and becoming cheaper. When the first batteries start wearing out, the replacements will be cheaper and better than the originals. New gas engines and fuel injectors will cost the same or more.
Re:Electric engines offer better torque, lower cos (Score:5, Insightful)
Gas engines last 30+ years.
Most in fact do not last that long without expensive major maintenance. The average age of vehicles in the US "fleet" is 11 years and it is very common for the end of a vehicle's lifespan to be marked by expensive engine failure.
Thats somewhere between 3x and 6x as long as the best data for how long EV batteries will last.
No, it is not. Even if it were true (which it isn't) it would be between 3x and 6x as long as the best data for how long before EV batteries are at 80% charge capacity. For a postal route that's less than 100 miles, and all stop and go traffic which by the way reduces ICEV lifespan but does literally nothing bad to EV lifespan, an originally 200 mile range vehicle can continue to do this job until its battery capacity is reduced to 50%.
Now, stop being a half-assed rationalizer and try again.
Pot. Kettle. Black. Stop being a half-assed hypocrite rationalizer. Don't bother trying again, though.
Re: (Score:3)
What are you talking about?
Yearly maintenance of EVS is way, way less than the equivalent of gas vehicles, even ignoring fuel costs. ICEs have tons of parts (many of them moving) which run hot and fail; EVs have a lot fewer parts, few of which move and require far less maintenance. Even some parts common to all vehicles (brake pads, for example) are cheaper in EVs since regenerative braking reduces the wear rate and thus replacement rate. And you know all this, so please let me know if your rationalizati
Re: (Score:3)
We are talking about the USPS not UPS, postal carriers are very rarely driving for 12+ hrs a day and EV battery life is not based on hrs its based on miles. No route is going to be 300 miles long.
Re: Electric engines offer better torque, lower c (Score:4, Informative)
Your packages need to be kept at 50F - 80F.
Uh, if that were true, then for a large part of the country for a large part of the year, the carriers wouldn't be able to leave your mail in your mailbox.
Re: (Score:2)
EV batteries are not replaceable in the same manner a flashlight battery is. If you need to work for 12straight hours you cant just pack some extra batteries.
They're not readily swappable in the typical consumer vehicle but, there have been designs where it can happen. Anyway, this is completely irrelevant to USPS delivery vehicles. They're not working for any 12-hours straight.
Re:Electric engines offer better torque, lower cos (Score:5, Interesting)
Re: Electric engines offer better torque, lower co (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
You keep saying they deliver more than 12 hrs a day and they don't. Even though it doesn't matter why would I care if my mail is delivered at 3 AM?
Re: Electric engines offer better torque, lower c (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
> The duty cycle of a postal truck exceeds 12hr days
Got a citation for that? All the sources I've stumbled upon say the average shift for a local delivery route is 6 hours, for a total post worker's shift of 8 hours when you include sorting and loading. Apparently they go to some effort to keep each worker's shift close to 8 hours.
Okay, maybe each vehicle runs two shifts with different drivers? Even if that happens there would definitely be a break in between, and that still leaves you with 12 hours per
Re: Electric engines offer better torque, lower c (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
The duty cycle of a postal truck exceeds 12hr days
Not only is this not true (postal routes are normally completed in 8 hours or less, but may take up to 9 hours) but it's also a stupid objection. 12 hours of use leaves 12 hours for charging, they can slow charge in that time so they don't even need fast chargers, just 220V outlets like you would plug a dryer into.
Re: Electric engines offer better torque, lower c (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Austria would fit within several of our different states ! The mileage driven is vastly different plus the vast shortage of charging stations is a huge bottleneck !
How is that at all relevant? Do you think postal carriers are delivering to multiple states in one day?
Pretty much a modern milk float (Score:2)
There used to be a type of vehicle in the UK called a milk float [wikipedia.org], which was a battery operated vehicle for delivering milk in sub-urban neighbourhoods. They were slow, but for the purpose they were used for they were pretty good. The reason they went out of fashion is most people stopped having their milk delivered and there was no longer a market for that kind of vehicle.
This was what they achieved with tech designed mostly in the 1950s, inefficient motors, old battery designs and heavy iron frames. The ma
Re: (Score:2)
I don't know how many hours per day these trucks are not being used, if it's say 8hrs that would be sufficient for a good charging for the upcoming shift.
Also, ordering this many vehicles gives a lot of cloud demanding things like easy replacement for when better batteries become available.
Re: (Score:2)
Electricity can be generated cleanly, where was gasoline can't. There are also no emissions from the vehicle itself, i.e. where people live and breath the air.
As for efficiency, just the fact that it uses no energy when the vehicle is stationary is huge for a mail delivery vehicle that has to stop and start constantly.
Re: (Score:3)
As for efficiency, just the fact that it uses no energy when the vehicle is stationary is huge for a mail delivery vehicle that has to stop and start constantly.
Also regenerative breaking. Huge efficiency boost for frequent stops and reduces the amount of nasty brake pad dust. Not to mention another source of reduced maintenance.
Re: (Score:3)
Okay, let's say you want 2kW of heating or cooling continually. With a heat pump you are looking at say 750-1000W max. So 12 hours would be worst case 12kWh.
Adding an additional 12kWh of battery is no big deal. For reference the original Leaf from over a decade ago had 24kWh, and the average for modern EVs is around 50kWh.
Re: Electric engines offer better torque, lower c (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
So, reading a bunch of comments here, and this stuff about environmental controls (A/C and heating) keeps popping up. Let's look at the math;
EV battery: Readily available at 100kWH, 200-400mi range.
A/C: My home AC (~2000sqft) is 3kW. That battery will run it for 15 hours (straight!), using 45% of charge -- and is massively overpowered for a delivery van.
Heating: a 3kW heater is a stove element on 'high'. 1kW as a small space heater; 50 hours, using 50% of the battery charge.
So, on a hot or cold day -- a
Re: Electric engines offer better torque, lower c (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Recharging to 80% takes around 35 mins, time well spend on a coffee and a snack and thus similar to a regular refuel.
At least that's how it works for me.
So I don't see where you are getting the added DAYS from.
Short sighted corrupt individuals. (Score:2)
Short sighted corrupt individuals in the USPS it seems.
Price per vehicle? (Score:2)
The main problem for me is that an electric car costs a fortune compared to even a new petrol one, and still moreso compared to a second-hand one. I don't imagine that the USPO is buying second-hand, but what is the price difference for electric cargo vehicles?
If you're shopping in a budget the ecological issues don't make new money magically appear.
Re: (Score:2)
Yes I know that's un-American.
Re: (Score:2)
but the cost to the environment should also be considered. Yes I know that's un-American.
Not on the internet, where if it even saves one butterfly the cost to tax payers does not matter. Practicality also doesn't matter.
Re: (Score:2)
Well, electric cars do cost more upfront, especially if you're trying to compare a midrange electric to a bargain basement econobox. But for postal vehicles, th
Re: (Score:2)
Over the vehicle's lifetime an EV will be much, much cheaper. Cheaper "fuel", less maintenance. Even less wear on the brakes due to regen.
Any organization that can budget for any reasonable length of time will see that EVs are cheaper overall. This decision makes little sense, it's going to cost USPS a fortune to keep those vehicles running.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Over the vehicle's lifetime an EV will be much, much cheaper. Cheaper "fuel", less maintenance. Even less wear on the brakes due to regen.
Any organization that can budget for any reasonable length of time will see that EVs are cheaper overall. This decision makes little sense, it's going to cost USPS a fortune to keep those vehicles running.
I don't know exactly how the USPO is funded but I'd bet they don't have surity of budget that goes even 5 years ahead and that's probably not "any reasonable length of time".
If they vans they have are falling apart they need replaced now with the money they have now.
It will cost them more in the long run, but the long run isn't here yet. Such is the world.
Re: (Score:2)
I don't know exactly how the USPO is funded...
The USPS is funded by people paying them to deliver stuff. Their budget is not at the whim of Congress.
Ideology ... (Score:5, Insightful)
The contract, orchestrated by Postmaster General Louis DeJoy, offers only a 0.4-mile-per-gallon fuel economy improvement over the agency's current fleet.
What a waste of money. This is what happens when somebody runs a business based on a combination of ultra right wing ideology and stupid rather than the dollars and cents business case. This will pander well with the Trumpist base but to anybody with a lick of business sense it's just ... stupid. The future is not the ICE, it's electric. These museum pieces will become money pits the USPS customer base has to subsidise long before those 20 years are up.
Re: (Score:2)
And Lithium being toxic is not an issue because outside your right-wing bubble those batteries are recycled.
Re: (Score:2)
And Lithium being toxic is not an issue because outside your right-wing bubble those batteries are recycled.
Are they? Citation required.
Re: (Score:2)
You're making too much practical common sense on the internet. Please refrain from unnecessarily exciting these netizens.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Everyone wants the same thing really, an efficient use of money
Wrong, and also wrong.
Lots of people just want to watch the world burn. Don't pretend it isn't true.
What I want is not specifically an efficient use of money, it's an intelligent and most importantly sustainable use of money. Nothing is more important than sustainability, period. If you don't have a future, it doesn't matter what it would have looked like.
Re: (Score:2)
Everyone wants the same thing really, an efficient use of money
Wrong, and also wrong.
Lots of people just want to watch the world burn. Don't pretend it isn't true.
Not exactly true. They just want to get theirs, they don't care about if there is anybody left for anyone else.
Re: (Score:2)
Wrong and also wrong. Sustainability is a noble goal, they need those trucks now, If you die in a month b/c your insulin didn't arrive, you really don't give a shit how high the oceans are in 5 decades. If you die in the present, then the future is irrelevant.
Re: (Score:2)
I understand your response. Unfortunately, propaganda has managed to get the best of us. Both groups tend to find extremist elements of the opposition and apply that as a definition for the entire group. The reason why lean one particular way when I used to lean another was based on anti-science positions held by the conservative party, specifically wanting to teach Creationism as a scientific theory in science class, though this itself was an extremist position. As I continued to see more shift politic
Re: (Score:2)
When playing chicken, being rational is the way to lose.
Republicans are playing chicken, and Democrats will always compromise, to save the country and lose support from Democrats and will not win over any Republican. Cycle repeats.
Re: (Score:2)
Everyone wants the same thing really, an efficient use of money.
You might not be familiar with the concept in your country, but in the United States, there are a lot of people who only want money to be used in whatever way gives them the most in kickbacks.
Re: (Score:2)
BTW, keep voting for corrupt, incompetent, senile old men.
Why would a "Leftist Biden Voter" vote for Trump?
Re:Ideology ... (Score:4, Insightful)
keep voting for corrupt, incompetent, senile old men
I don't think it necessary to tell left-wingers to not vote for Trump, who actually IS corrupt, incompetent and senile.
Whilst petrol engines may be more efficient than electric, you did not perform much of a cost analysis there, just threw in some unsubstantiated claims, extrapolating from a single data point. If you have a point, you should actually make that point.
Now, let's get on to petrol engines being efficient.
Yes, there was a challenge, the X-Prize, to build a petrol car that could do 100 mpg at 100 mph on a complex path (so not just in a straight line) whilst carrying two adults and two children. There were two cars that succeeded in this, showing clearly that you can build highly efficent cars. There are no road cars in America that are remotely close to this level of efficiency. Some of that is down to the weight necessary to reach the safety levels needed, but even if we factor that in, we should be seeing cars do a whole lot better than they are. At least 20-30 mpg better than they're currently rated, in many cases.
So we know we can build amazingly efficient internal combustion engine vehicles, if you build it correctly.
I'd start by asking why car manufacturers obsess more about tradition than engineering. It's why American car manufacturers were crushed by Japan, after all. Had nothing to do with unions and everything to do with very poor traditional vehicles as opposed to building things right.
The next thing I'd look at is the choice of vehicles. According to TFA: "However, the Postal Service announced its agreement to purchase the trucks in February 2021 before it started an environmental analysis", "`When it came out,` said Adrian Martinez, a senior attorney at Earthjustice, `we realized they were either looking at the wrong things or they were totally misinformed. And whether that was intentional or not, it’s hugely problematic.`"
In short, they chose the vehicles first before looking at any numbers, any TCO, or any other aspect. That's not how you shop for a vehicle, especially if you want one with a low impact.
Right there, we see that your argument has no bearing on the matter because they never considered whether any type of engine was better, or even which vehicles were efficient.
They may well have chosen the best vehicles, but if so it was by luck and not design. And if those were the best vehicles available, I'd ask why manufacturing is still churning out substandard vehicles. You're not going to get 100mpg in a truck, but if you can't do better than a 0.4mpg improvement over many decades of engine technology advancements, then the vehicles being produced really are pathetic compared to where the technology is.
So, sure, I've no problems with ICEs, but make them the best ICEs for the job and not just something they were recommended when they played golf with a manufacturer's salesman.
Re: (Score:2)
In short, they chose the vehicles first before looking at any numbers, any TCO, or any other aspect. That's not how you shop for a vehicle, especially if you want one with a low impact.
That's not how you shop for a vehicle, that's how you direct funds to specific people's pockets. I will bet actual money that this will turn out to have been a conspiracy to further enrich someone who's already rich.
Re: (Score:2)
HAHAHA...in other words, purchasing efficient gasoline engines is based on "ultra right wing ideology."
Actually, no. ICE is far more mechanically complex which results in requiring many repairs over it's lifetime. Repairs cost money.
Electric vehicles are MUCH more expensive than gasoline vehicles.
The investment price is indeed much higher. However, the cost of repairs as well as the cost of fuel and up making ICE vehicles more expensive. The environmental cost (which will need to be paid in time) should also be taken into account. An ounce of prevention and all.
The lithium in the batteries they use are extremely toxic to mine and process,
Toxic chemicals are used in all refinement processes which is why we take care when using them. You should
Ahh, makes sense now (Score:4, Insightful)
This is someone who clearly thinks that the Post Office's mission is to move and deliver mail. Then I saw it in the article: "a holdover from the Trump administration" and it all made sense.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Wrong. The text immediately preceding the text that I quoted was "DeJoy, "
Re:Ahh, makes sense now (Score:5, Insightful)
This is a guy who thinks the PO's mission is decline in service and increase in price until he's successfully starved the beast and Congress moves to privatize all mail delivery. So what makes sense? This fucking disgrace of a Post Master General making yet another shitty decision, then complaining he wasted so much time making said shitty decision it's now too late to make a far better one?
He's a classic Republican, the government can't do anything right, and by god he'll sabotage it as much as it takes to prove that, while he's well positioned to profit immensely off of competing private services (no, he hasn't even remotely divested from all conflicts).
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
Just out of curiosity, do you understand the history leading up to this? The shitty decisions that Congress made regarding the postal service predate Trump by at least a decade. Logic suggests that these decisions must also predate the tenure of a Trump appointee. Or did I miss some big news about time travel technology?
Re:Ahh, makes sense now (Score:4, Informative)
Dejoy is just the freshest turd on the pile of shit that congress, especially Republicans, have been piling up outside USPS' doors.
A big part of it seems to be because there is a lot of money to be made in privatizing the postal service. Part of it is likely because the USPS is a great example of how a government run operation can be efficient, cost-effective, and popular... which runs counter to conservative's talking points that the government can do no right.
Dejoy specifically was installed to help cripple the USPS just in time to stymie mail-in voting, because Republicans have an even longer tradition of hindering certain demographics the ability to vote. One of the first things Dejoy did was dismantle a whole bunch of brand new sorting equipment which caused massive backlogs and delays just as mail-in ballots were being sent to voters...
The correct solution is to get Congress out of the picture and let the USPS operate as the constitutionally mandated service it's supposed to be.
=Smidge=
Re: (Score:2)
The truck thing is money. Right now the custom Ford Transit van works out to about US$35k per vehicle. That's actually not bad at all, a pretty sensible deal, but American stop/start systems are farki
Re:Ahh, makes sense now (Score:5, Informative)
It's complicated, and yes it is Trump's doing that DeJoy can't be directly replaced. https://slate.com/news-and-pol... [slate.com]
Re: (Score:3)
Maybe if you took the trouble to understand how anything works you would realize Biden does not have that power and he's only been in office for just over 1 year.
Re: (Score:3)
Then why didn't Biden replace him in the last two years?
Well, most obviously, because it’s outside his authority as the President. The position is appointed by a Board of Governors and can only be vacated by an act of the same Board. The President can (depending on the circumstances, sometimes, maybe) put members on the Board as they roll off, but they serve seven-year terms and things ended up being timed so that Trump was able to fill five of the nine seats, so Biden wouldn’t even be capable of filling the Board with enough people to oust DeJoy unt
The stupidity is breathtaking (Score:2)
Let's hope lots of cities will introduce inner city zones where these stinkers are not allowed in.
Gas Powered (Score:2)
B'Gosh! (Score:2)
Huh, never heard of them and am slightly annoyed that Oshkosh Defense shares a name / location with Oshkosh B'Gosh, those coveralls I wore as a little kid.
Apparently they just announced a month ago a hybrid joint light tactical vehicle for the military.. they use Ford parts and some or all can be retrofitted for electric one day if more money falls on them. Not an expert but since Google says that with their funding crisis they were 9bn in the red in 2020 and 5bn in the red in 2021, 10bn will be just right
Quotes from TFA (Score:5, Insightful)
However, the Postal Service announced its agreement to purchase the trucks in February 2021 before it started an environmental analysis, and paid $482 million to Oshkosh to begin building manufacturing facilities before the study was completed.
“When it came out,” said Adrian Martinez, a senior attorney at Earthjustice, “we realized they were either looking at the wrong things or they were totally misinformed. And whether that was intentional or not, it’s hugely problematic.”
In short, this has nothing to do with whether electric or ICE is better, that was never looked into prior to the purchase. Indeed NOTHING was looked into prior to the purchase. This smacks of CEOs making decisions based on what they were told over a game of golf, the usual method of making stupid decisions.
So forget all your fancy arguments over electric, ICE, or any other technology, and focus on the one thing that matters. They made the decision first and THEN looked for data that would justify it.
Yes, politicians do that all the time. And it should be made a Federal offence for any civil servant or member of government to do so if it isn't already. This is NOT an acceptable way to make decisions with taxpayer money. Grifting should be taken out of all parts of government and kept out. Regardless of by who, regardless of why, and regardless of how good the round of golf turned out to be. This is NOT good governance.
This needs to be studied by the GAO. If the GAO declares that the USPO acted in bad faith and mis-spent money, then the entire of the upper management needs to be sacked with no golden parachutes. If, on the other hand, the GAO finds that the EPA has acted in bad faith, then it should get its upper management replaced the same way.
The consequences of a bad decision should be felt, not just as a slap on the wrist but as something major that they cannot ignore and pass off as politics as usual. Regardless of who it was that made the bad decision.
And if the decision was right for the wrong reasons? Then the person making it should face a summons by Congress to explain why a bad faith decision should be tolerated by anyone, and booted out of whichever of the two organizations it turns out to be.
This is called accountability. It's a novel concept for some people, I know. It's certainly novel in politics. But it is how you ACTUALLY drain a swamp, as opposed to talk a good talk but choose to walk towards an even deeper swamp, the way Trump and his supporters did.
Get the GAO to establish three things:- what did the head of the USPS know, when did they know it, and was their action justified based on that knowledge. The usual stuff.
Re: (Score:3)
So forget all your fancy arguments over electric, ICE, or any other technology, and focus on the one thing that matters.
The one thing that matters is the biosphere we all depend upon for life support, and that fossil fuels are hastening its demise and thus ours. Mail delivery is stop and go, so by definition it is literally the worst case for an ICEV.
Get the GAO to establish three things:- what did the head of the USPS know
He knows his mission is to destroy the USPS.
Re: (Score:2)
Hmm (Score:2, Troll)
But DeJoy, a holdover from the Trump administration
Relevance: zero.
If he's a political appointee, then Biden could have replaced him, in you know, the last two years ...
(I personally blame Emmanuel Goldstein [wikipedia.org]).
Glacial NGO vs Tech Startup (Score:2)
DeJoy? (Score:5, Insightful)
Not really surprised ... ...
Except: How is it that DeChaos is still in office??? He's maliciously tried sabotaging both the election AND successfully crippled the USPS efficiency
Prediction (Score:3)
The short-sightedness of this decision is indefensible and utterly galling to me, as a USPS customer, as a taxpayer, and as a environmentally-concerned member of the human race.
Re: (Score:2)
Electric predates ICE delivery vehicles (Score:4, Informative)
How can the USPS defy the government? (Score:2)
Urban vs. Rural delivery (Score:2)
At least it's not diesel (Score:2)
Given the chance, my postal worker would totally roll coal to retaliate for all of the free weights, litter, and heavy bags of dog food I've ordered during the pandemic.
Here's an idea (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
You mean Trump. Your talking points are identical to beachmike, so you're either a sock puppet or you're both getting your talking points handed to you on a plate.
You HAVE good arguments there, somewhere, but you SHOULD be thinking of them yourselves. Be competent. You're capable of it. Well, assuming you aren't a sock puppet.
Re: (Score:2)
There's little to no charging infrastructure built out at their depots and having to implement that rapidly would as substantial cost.
So they get loans for that. Since the TCO of EVs is lower than ICEVs, that should be easy. The only needed infrastructure is wiring and sockets. Since they can charge overnight when no mail is being delivered, they don't need fast charging.
MUCH if the USA that the USPS services is ex-urban and rural where fleets in those areas are smaller and distances covered may actually require more than a single daily charge.
No, they won't. Rural routes are still not very long. They will not need more than one charge with a modern EV. They could literally buy vehicles already in production from major manufacturers and have more than enough range.
The vehicles are designed for EXTREMELY long service lives, so full battery change outs probably 2-3 times per vehicle would need to be amortized into cost of operating
A 200-mile-range EV will still have enough rang
Re: (Score:2)
People that lease a new Tesla every two years don't understand this.
Hybrids would probably work, but again long term reliability isn't proven (we are talking service life of decades not years), plus equipping and certifying all the mechanics to maintain high voltage batteries and compo
Re: (Score:2)