16 States, Several Environmental Groups Sue USPS Over Purchase of Gas-Guzzling Mail Trucks (arstechnica.com) 209
An anonymous reader quotes a report from Ars Technica: The US Postal Service is facing lawsuits from 16 states and several environmental groups challenging its decision to buy tens of thousands of gasoline-powered delivery vehicles instead of electric vehicles. As previously reported, the Environmental Protection Agency says the gas-powered trucks being ordered by the USPS "are expected to achieve only 8.6 miles per gallon (mpg), barely improving over the decades-old long-life vehicles that achieve 8.2 mpg." The USPS countered that the vehicles get 14.7 mpg when air conditioning isn't being used and that the trucks' size will make it possible to deliver the same amount of mail in fewer trips. The USPS plan is to buy 50,000 to 165,000 vehicles over 10 years. Of those, at least 10 percent are slated to be battery-electric vehicles (BEV). [...]
A lawsuit filed by California and 15 other states on Thursday said the USPS failed "to follow a process mandated by the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA)," continuing: "Instead, the Postal Service first chose a manufacturer with minimal experience in producing electric vehicles, signed a contract, and made a substantial down payment for new vehicles. Only then did the Postal Service publish a cursory environmental review to justify the decision to replace 90 percent of its delivery fleet with fossil-fuel-powered, internal combustion engine vehicles, despite other available, environmentally preferable alternatives. In doing so, the Postal Service failed to comply with even the most basic requirements of NEPA."
The lawsuit seeks an injunction forcing the USPS to stop the vehicle purchases "until it has complied with NEPA." It was filed against the USPS and Postmaster General Louis DeJoy, who was appointed by the USPS Board of Governors in 2020 under then-President Donald Trump. All 16 states involved in the lawsuit have Democratic attorneys general. They allege that the USPS "violated well-established legal precedent prohibiting 'an irreversible and irretrievable commitment of resources' before completing the NEPA process by signing contracts with a defense company (Oshkosh Defense, LLC) to procure vehicles six months before even releasing its draft environmental review and a year prior to issuing the Final Environmental Impact Statement ('Final EIS') and Record of Decision." The states also claim the USPS failed to consider and evaluate reasonable alternatives. "Specifically, the Postal Service did not properly evaluate several environmental impacts of its action, including air quality, environmental justice, and climate harms, by simply assuming that any upgrade to its vehicle fleet would have positive impacts on the environment," the complaint said. States also alleged the USPS "failed to ensure the scientific integrity of its analysis by relying on unfounded assumptions regarding the costs and performance of electric vehicles, infrastructure, and gas prices, and refusing to identify the source of the data relied upon in the Final EIS." "The Postal Service conducted a robust and thorough review and fully complied with all of our obligations under NEPA," a USPS spokesperson told Ars.
The statement continues: "The Postal Service is fully committed to the inclusion of electric vehicles as a significant part of our delivery fleet even though the investment will cost more than an internal combustion engine vehicle. That said, as we have stated repeatedly, we must make fiscally prudent decisions in the needed introduction of a new vehicle fleet. We will continue to look for opportunities to increase the electrification of our delivery fleet in a responsible manner, consistent with our operating strategy, the deployment of appropriate infrastructure, and our financial condition, which we expect to continue to improve as we pursue our plan."
A lawsuit filed by California and 15 other states on Thursday said the USPS failed "to follow a process mandated by the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA)," continuing: "Instead, the Postal Service first chose a manufacturer with minimal experience in producing electric vehicles, signed a contract, and made a substantial down payment for new vehicles. Only then did the Postal Service publish a cursory environmental review to justify the decision to replace 90 percent of its delivery fleet with fossil-fuel-powered, internal combustion engine vehicles, despite other available, environmentally preferable alternatives. In doing so, the Postal Service failed to comply with even the most basic requirements of NEPA."
The lawsuit seeks an injunction forcing the USPS to stop the vehicle purchases "until it has complied with NEPA." It was filed against the USPS and Postmaster General Louis DeJoy, who was appointed by the USPS Board of Governors in 2020 under then-President Donald Trump. All 16 states involved in the lawsuit have Democratic attorneys general. They allege that the USPS "violated well-established legal precedent prohibiting 'an irreversible and irretrievable commitment of resources' before completing the NEPA process by signing contracts with a defense company (Oshkosh Defense, LLC) to procure vehicles six months before even releasing its draft environmental review and a year prior to issuing the Final Environmental Impact Statement ('Final EIS') and Record of Decision." The states also claim the USPS failed to consider and evaluate reasonable alternatives. "Specifically, the Postal Service did not properly evaluate several environmental impacts of its action, including air quality, environmental justice, and climate harms, by simply assuming that any upgrade to its vehicle fleet would have positive impacts on the environment," the complaint said. States also alleged the USPS "failed to ensure the scientific integrity of its analysis by relying on unfounded assumptions regarding the costs and performance of electric vehicles, infrastructure, and gas prices, and refusing to identify the source of the data relied upon in the Final EIS." "The Postal Service conducted a robust and thorough review and fully complied with all of our obligations under NEPA," a USPS spokesperson told Ars.
The statement continues: "The Postal Service is fully committed to the inclusion of electric vehicles as a significant part of our delivery fleet even though the investment will cost more than an internal combustion engine vehicle. That said, as we have stated repeatedly, we must make fiscally prudent decisions in the needed introduction of a new vehicle fleet. We will continue to look for opportunities to increase the electrification of our delivery fleet in a responsible manner, consistent with our operating strategy, the deployment of appropriate infrastructure, and our financial condition, which we expect to continue to improve as we pursue our plan."
I'm no greenie... (Score:5, Insightful)
... but man, these gas-powered trucks are stupid. If there was ever an application where EVs made sense, it's this one.
Why is Louis DeJoy still in charge of the USPS? That's not what I voted for.
Re:I'm no greenie... (Score:5, Interesting)
The USPS is one of the most efficient and well run of all government bodies. It's far from perfect but better than anything else.
Because of being too good they are hamstrung by other governments and their cronies that want to steal the money savings that the USPS generates. There is a huge disinformation campaign to discredit the USPS even though they're kicking ass.
Because of all this they are under enormous unreasonable budget constraints. Within those constraints the old gas trucks are the only option without degrading service.
So what we see is again they're forced to make unpopular decisions so people can point out "oh, look how bad they are!" corruption pushing a narrative of how bad the USPS is when it's not their fault at all. All in a successful ploy to steal their money.
Citizens should be pissed off this is happening. Mail is one of the essentials of a functioning society and greedy dickheads are trying to destroy it.
Re: (Score:2)
The USPS is one of the most efficient and well run of all government bodies.
That doesn't mean they make good strategic decisions, it just means they run a tight day to day ship and deal with boneheadded management.
Because of all this they are under enormous unreasonable budget constraints.
Now if only there was a way to get costs down like oh say... switch to EVs with their massively reduced running costs compared to gas guzzlers.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Again, the reason for the bailout and losses is because all their money is being stolen.
And again, the reason for the crappy trucks is because of their constraints.
There is plenty of information about this out there.
Re: (Score:2)
This shows a shocking ignorance about the USPS. I don't even know where to begin.
Comment removed (Score:5, Informative)
Re:I'm no greenie... (Score:5, Insightful)
It's a Republican axiom that government is bad, so if the facts disagree, then they have to pass ever more laws to drag reality back into line.
It's bizarre really: you have a party that brags about how bad they are at running the country, and then really tries hard to follow through when the country had other ideas, and yet people keep voting for the group who's primary philosophy is being bad at their job.
Re: (Score:2)
Wow. Succinct and reasonable portrayal of US politics. Might be something similar that can be said of the "other" party as well, but that doesn't change the picture much.
A small dark part of my hopes Newt is rotting in hell for what he did to American politics.
Re: (Score:3)
It's a Republican axiom that government is bad
A government led by Republicans doubly so.
Re: (Score:2)
The problem with that bill was that it didn't apply to anyone else. In reality it should apply to anyone, public or private, who promises post-retirement health plans.
Re: (Score:2)
Not really; a business that is a continuum only really needs to fund current responsibilities based on future projections, with a bit of a safety factor. Having too much money in the funds causes some other problems and is grossly inefficient from an economic perspective.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:I'm no greenie... (Score:5, Insightful)
Yep, if memory recalls, Congress back in the 2006 or so passed a law requiring the USPS to prefund their retirement plan for 75 years in advance, even before the people how would under the USPS had been born. Congress knew what it was doing and did it to screw USPS. it was called the Postal Accountability and Enhancement Act. It's insane and Congress refuses to fix it.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
When a large part of your political platform is "the government doesn't work" you are going to be inclined to pass laws that end up proving it out.
Re: (Score:2)
Many people on the right believe the government shouldn't be in the package delivery business. A post office was needed in the past because it was used for personal correspondence, but almost no one uses postal mail for that anymore. It is now junk mail, which no one wants, or Amazon packages that could be delivered by private companies such as UPS.
Re: (Score:3)
They did fix it. The 2022 Postal Service Reform Act removes the 75 year prefunding requirement, and was signed by Biden on April 6th, 2022. Notice how the GOP refused to allow any reform of this measure until after the USPS agreed to drop plans for hybrid/electric vehicles and instead purchased a low mpg fossil fuel fleet. Back in 2006 when the GOP lead congress passed that pensions funding requirement, it was in direct response to a USPS plan to purchase a hybrid/electric vehicle fleet. That 2006 bill
Re: (Score:3)
Thanks for asking the question; it made me actually look up the information myself. From USPS 2021 Annual Report [usps.com]:
Gross Receipts: $73B - Compensation and Benefits: $49B - Retirement Benefits: $7B - Retireee Health Benefits: $5B - Workers Compensation Insurance: $3B - Transportation: $8B - Other: $10B = Net Loss: $9B (all rounded to nearest Billion so numbers don't add.
Their balance sheet shows a $81B deficit (assets - liabilities), so it isn't like they have a magic stash of retirement benefits on their bal
Re:I'm no greenie... (Score:5, Insightful)
The USPS is one of the most efficient and well run of all government bodies.
The USPS received a $107B bailout earlier this year [cnet.com] and is expected to lose $160B over the next 10 years.
The post office doesn't have to be profitable. Do your local police and fire departments generate a profit? What about schools? All those things cost a lot of money, and that's OK because they perform important functions.
Same with the post office. If it isn't profitable, that's OK. It just needs to be run as well as possible and not waste money. But it is not. The claim that the post office is "the most efficient and well run of all government bodies" might just be the stupidest thing ever said on the Internet.
The U.S. postal service is riddled with corruption and incompetence. And these stupid new trucks are just one more example.
Re: (Score:2)
Just remove its monopoly and auction it off. Winner is whoever wants the least bailout money to buy it and prefund the pension fund.
Re:I'm no greenie... (Score:5, Informative)
The USPS is usually efficient and well run, and even mostly functions most of the time. This DeJoy garbage has severely damaged the USPS, however. Just more from the orange git that keeps on grifting.
Re: (Score:2)
I'm not so sure the facts bear that out. I think it is generally efficient and reasonably well run, but there are some huge opportunities for improvement to be sure. If I were charitable I might think that DeJoy was trying to improve that, but he is too slimy for me to give him the benefit of the doubt.
Re:I'm no greenie... (Score:4, Interesting)
I've seen lots of room for improvement, but if you compare its price and performance to other world postal systems you'll see that it's among the best of the breed.
Re: (Score:3)
Why is Louis DeJoy still in charge of the USPS?
He hasn't resigned, and the other members of the board of governors have not voted to remove him.
They serve 7 year terms, so Biden has not had a chance to appoint a significant number of replacments.
Re: (Score:2)
Why is Louis DeJoy still in charge of the USPS?
My guess is that the board and the DOJ fear confrontation.
Re:I'm no greenie... (Score:5, Interesting)
Some contend that the mail has to be delivered even if the power is out for days, so liquid fueling makes sense. But because of the extreme stop and go nature of their travel, it absolutely, positively does not make sense for postal vehicles to not be electrified at all.
To wit, every postal vehicle which is not a full EV should be either a plug in or at minimum mild hybrid. A mild hybrid offers up to 80% of the benefit of a full hybrid (though not a plug-in) for a dramatically reduced cost, because it has a drastically smaller battery. The technology also makes auto start-stop work properly, by making it seamless. The same motor that moves you away from a stop starts the engine, instead of having to start moving and then start it up.
It is fully idiotic for any short route delivery vehicle to not be electrified, and it's obviously crony corruption in this case. DeJoy needs to be run out of town on a rail, and that rail needs to be run into a bottomless pit.
Re: (Score:3)
Not only do they use less fuel, it's less wear & tear on nearly every part of the engine, and less brake pad usage, which means a reduction in brake dust (a known carcinogen). Maintenance should be less frequent, so costs should be reduced, along with down time. Vehicles which do a lot of 'stop and go' driving, as you say, are particularly ideal candidates-- why run the engine all the time when you spend so much time at a standstill?
I've been pretty ast
Re: (Score:2)
The USPS has a limited budget for replacing the fleet and electric vehicles are more expensive right now so they cant afford more than 10% EVs.
There's also the issue of charging. Many of the USPS buildings are old and would need significant upgrades to support charging a fleet of trucks. That also needs to be added to the budget.
I'm sure they would have liked to go more EV in the fleet, but with the Republicans trying to kill the USPS for the las
Re: (Score:3)
If we assume that the average postal route is about 50 miles and the new delivery vehicle gets 8.5mpg they are spending $25/day per vehicle on gas, or $7,800/year. At $0.25/kWh and 250Wh/mi, electric would be $3/day, or $6,850/yeaer in savings.
EV batteries are $200/kWh. Assume they size the battery for a worst-case scenario and go with 40kWh (160 mile range). The cost of the battery is paid off in 1.5 years with gas savings. If USPS has a cash flow issue then they should lease-to-own the vehicles throug
Re:I'm no greenie... (Score:4, Informative)
IIRC the average semi-rural rout was ~100 miles. so they need a little more range than you guessed.
The claim of $500 per vehicle for charging is laughable. Perhaps a Level 2 charger might cost $500 in quantity, but when you need 50 of them running simultaneously the building's infrastructure needs a significant upgrade. That shit ain't cheap.
As for not needing them all in the same year, the spec needs to be the same for all the vehicles to keep long-term costs down so not getting them all now doesn't mean a damn thing.
Re: (Score:2)
Generators at the base stations probably costs less than hybrids with all their complexity.
Re: (Score:2)
so why do ups, fedex, and amazon not get sued?
Re: (Score:2)
... but man, these gas-powered trucks are stupid. If there was ever an application where EVs made sense, it's this one.
Or hybrids. Or diesel. Or a vehicle (like mine) which stops the engine when the vehicle stops.
I wonder if we're talking the typical USPS delivery van/truck things. That they get 9 MPG seems odd: that's quite low. OTOH, they're not small vehicles and they have an unusual driving pattern: all stop and start with periods of idling. As AC points out, ideal use cases for electric or any other vehicle which doesn't use any energy when stopped and regenerative braking.
I also wonder why we have to go to a defense
Re: (Score:2)
Maybe, but 40 trillion trucks require some infrastructure to support them, not to mention the ability to churn out that many and have them be remotely reliable.
Re:I'm no greenie... (Score:5, Informative)
Biden isn't senile and your bitching about "it takes him forever" is bullshit. You are just missing the previous (alleged) president who shot from the hip on a whim and then his aids had to somehow turn that dog's breakfast into something. It was that penchant for stupidity that caused him to sell out the Kurds in a phone conversation with Erdogan of Turkey with whom he felt a kinship seeing as they both want to be dictators. I'm fine with Biden taking his time to decide on issues.
Re: (Score:3)
I'm fine with Biden taking his time to decide on issues.
Joe Biden is often called "sleepy Joe" by his opponents, I think because of his occasionally hesitant manner of speech. I take this as evidence of thinking, a faculty sadly lacking in many politicians. Even Biden's apparently off-the-cuff remarks about Putin are not just thoughtless ranting. They speak to what many people think, instead of pussy-footing around for fear of upsetting big bad Putin.
Re: (Score:2)
> drove off all the old regulars, /. had regulars? (Other then the incompetent editors of course)
Do electric trucks even exist? (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Ford is releasing an all-electric and a hybrid this year. Chevy is releasing two electric models next year. Amazon, UPS and FedEx are all testing prototypes.
Re: Do electric trucks even exist? (Score:2)
Re: Do electric trucks even exist? (Score:2)
Volvo sells them. See for example https://www.volvogroup.com/en/... [volvogroup.com]
Re: (Score:2)
I mean trucks for commercial transportation of goods, not personal / small business vehicles like SUVs.
Large truck are not generally used for last-mile delivery of post as the USPS replacement is for. They aren't generally in production yet as EVs as they need to be able to do a long distance with a heavy load. It will come, though. For the USPS replacement, there are BEV options, though.
Re: (Score:3)
Trucks as in 18 wheelers aren't really a thing because the power density doesn't work out for long haul - battery weigth eats into useful cargo capacity too much.
Delivery trucks/vans are absolutley a thing though, our local grocery delivery service uses some custom EV thing. Ford is now selling the E-Transit [youtube.com] which an EV Transit used by local deliveries or services.
Re: (Score:2)
Don't forget there actually are a few Rivians on the road. (I know, I know)
But to answer the original question, and assuming trucks mean pickup trucks (slightly different answer for semis) it's the use case. A pickup truck is expected (not that most people do) to be able to haul heavy loads or trailers, away from fast charging / nonstop long distances. Until recently there's been a lack of solutions that even attempt to address those issues (because it would have meant something like $300k for an absolutely
Re: (Score:2)
I'm not trolling, I've seen electric buses but never trucks.
I've seen a few electric vans out and about.
Re: (Score:2)
I'm not trolling, I've seen electric buses but never trucks.
Electric vans (USPS 'trucks') I have seen in the UK and Europe. I considered buying one of the electric versions of the more car-sized ones about eight years ago, and ones of that size are used for delivering mail in the UK. Eight years ago the mileage wasn't quite there for my use, although it would be now. It was already adequate for a lot of light delivery requirements back then in Europe, though. The downside was high initial cost and a mileage payment to cover the cost of a battery replacement. Now bat
10% of fleet will be electric ... (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I'm not trolling, I've seen electric buses but never trucks.
Of course there are electric trucks. There have been electric trucks for years. They have mostly been niche vehicles because the battery technology has not been that great until recently. Now there are multiple full-EV pickup trucks coming to market. Rivian, Ford, GM, others. (Rivians are allegedly delayed right now because they can't get the light colored wood for the dashboards. Ignoring the fact that light colored dashboards are shit. But anyway...)
There must be something wrong with their economy, because if there's an industry that is desperate about cutting fuel costs it's transportations, so they should be adopting electric trucks en masse now if they were cheaper to operate.
FedEx and UPS are both starting to receive EVs now. If t
"total cost of ownership" math. (Score:2)
The good news is, Once the math works, the market will follow.
Re: (Score:2)
If the total cost of Ev's were truly less than gas. No government or activist actions could stop the 100% adoption of EV's by the public.
Automakers are selling EVs as fast as they can make them. There is also the issue of cash up front vs. TCO. Some people can't get a car loan, or at least, can't get one worth having. And finally, there's the BUT MUH FREEDUM crowd, who thinks that their gasser makes them a rugged individual.
Re: (Score:2)
Solution: USPS publishes Operations Research (Score:5, Interesting)
Let's start in California! (Score:2)
Then an accurate picture of the effect that an overhaul to EVs will have on the power grid.
While an apparent good use of EVs in urban and suburban settings, will the existing power grid provide enough power without failing (either brown outs or black outs).
Is the Power-Grid Infrastructure in place to support massive amounts of EVs?
Re: (Score:2)
Calif power grid is not capable of supporting the current hydrocarbon economy, much less an all-electric one.
Meanwhile... (Score:2)
... postal services in other nations teamed up with manufacturers to develop custom-tailored EV delivery trucks for those needs.
But would they... (Score:2)
But would they be suing if USPS had failed to follow the law and chosen EV's?
Do we really need mail delivery? (Score:2)
Maybe we should look at mail delivery in general. I have an LLC and my state mandates that a third party maintains a mailing address. That company in essence takes the mail, opens it, scans it, and then e-mails me what the letter said. That might not fit for all cases but in the case of personal or private correspondence we may have to have a new class of mail rather than "everything first class." I don't know, it's just a thought.
Most of what I get in the mail isn't correspondence, it's bills or junk mail
The question to ask (Score:2)
The question to ask the furious, in this case as in all similar cases, is: how much difference would it make?
How much difference would it make to global emissions and global temperatures if the USPS were to go with electric trucks?
I think we know the answer: None.
So tell us, why is it so important to do it?
Re:Government efficiency on full display (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Frequent stp start is the worst for gas engines whereas EVs handle it easily.
They only handle it easily if they exist.
And even if they exist, they only handle it easily if they are affordable - both in total-cost-of-ownership and up-front capital requirements.
Sure electric mail trucks, good enough to handle the service requirements, would be great. And if some company was willing and able to make them and sell them at a good price, and had offered them to the USPS, they'd have a fantastic market.
Pity no co
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
Mail is all about start stop and delivery within a local route. If one application where the range fallacy doesnt work its mail trucks. Are you planning to do a cannonball run with your mail truck? If not why the hell do you care about range. Frequent stp start is the worst for gas engines whereas EVs handle it easily.
The US van gets 8.6 US MPG, which is 10.3 Imperial MPG (I'll be quoting imperial MPG from now on).
The UK still largely uses petrol (well a lot are diesel, but for the purposes of argument we'll roll them into one) vehicles here in the UK. The bog standard Ford Transit van gets on average, 20 MPG in urban traffic (40 on the motorway) from the 2.3L duratec (that's a petrol, for those not familiar with Ford's engine range). That's for a van that can carry 3t. The more common, lighter "around town" vans like
Re: (Score:2)
The bog standard Ford Transit van gets on average, 20 MPG in urban traffic (40 on the motorway) from the 2.3L duratec (that's a petrol, for those not familiar with Ford's engine range). That's for a van that can carry 3t.
It gets 20 MPG with or without those three tons?
Re: Government efficiency on full display (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
Regenerative braking is not magic
Your comment is not intelligent
an EV will lose enough energy with each stop that it will still need a large battery
An EV doesn't lose energy with stops, it gains it. That's what sets it apart from an ICEV for delivery use. ICEVs just throw that energy away. EVs get most of it back, literally. As in, around 70%ish. And in-city delivery is the very best case for regen because the speeds are low.
which adds substantial weight to an already heavy truck
The truck is not very heavy, actually.
negating much of the possible gain.
In fact, it does not negate most of the possible gain. EVs are vastly more efficient than gassers even without regen braking. With it, they are even more superior
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Yes yes, we all know that when you brake, even with regen braking you will lose energy to heat.
But what I obviously meant was that EVs gain energy back to the battery while stopping, while ICEVs simply throw all of it away as heat in the brake system.
On one hand this place is supposed to be news for nerds and so I arguably should be more pedantic. On the other hand this discussion is so full of ignorant fuckfaces peddling bullshit opinions they rented from Fox News that I have to assume that anyone reading
Re: (Score:2)
The superiority of electric motors over combustion engines is almost uniform when the energy source is taken out of the equation. The elctric motor is simpler and more reliable, with more torque where it is needed in most applications and with modern VFD type technology the amount of precise contol you can over their operation is extremely good. The abundance of diesel-electric motors for so many applications is an undeniable fact.
Almost every advantage a combusion engine has comes from the nature of liqu
Re: (Score:3)
Of course, they could have bought a sensible mix of electric and hybrid vehicles and easily recouped several times the price differential over the operational life of the vehicles, complied with the law, and nobody would need to be sued.
Re: Government efficiency on full display (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
he didn't come to Washington to drain the swamp, he came to Washington because he felt he would do well in his natural environment.
Re: (Score:2)
Why didnâ(TM)t Trump drain the swamp and install competent people in the first place?
He drained the swamp directly into his cabinet. Promise kept!
Re: Government efficiency on full display (Score:3)
Re:Point out comparable vehicles to mail trucks. (Score:5, Interesting)
Don't forget to do "total cost of ownership" math. EVs tend to stomp internal combustion in the long-term when driving frequent stop-and-go. Which pretty much NOBODY does more than the post office.
Gas, brake pads, engine wear. And that's not even counting environmental impact.
About the only other application that can even approach the post office for stop-and-go is the garbage trucks. And many cities are going EV for them already.
Re: (Score:2)
School buses. Used twice a day, relatively short routes, lots of start stop. Kids need protection from emissions.
Re:Point out comparable vehicles to mail trucks. (Score:5, Interesting)
There is no rational justification for the Oshkosh Defense purchase.
If any such exist, then do a cost analysis and a feasibility study.
There's a bidding process, like all government contracts.
There also seems to be something shady [theverge.com] going on in this case, however.
Re: (Score:2)
There is no rational justification for the Oshkosh Defense purchase.
This... What I don't get is, if you're going to stick with traditional fuel powered vehicles (and there are plenty of reasons for this), why do you need a custom built van?
Most postal services in the world, thinking specifically of Royal Mail in the UK, use standard commercial vans or if a special version is needed, a customised commercial van as it's a lot cheaper to modify than build from scratch. The Ford Transit (2.3L petrol) gets twice the MPG, smaller, lighter vans like the Fiat Doblo (1.3L turbo d
Re: (Score:3)
They use a custom vehicle because it is a bit better for the mail delivery job and they are buying enough of them and keeping them long enough that it doesn't make a big difference in cost.
They have chosen this vehicle because of crony corruption in the form of the Postmaster General, who was appointed specifically to fuck up the USPS.
The USPS fleet is almost five times as large as the Royal Mail's. I don't know why UK residents keep forgetting that their total territory is minuscule. The USA is over 9 mill
Ford Maverick: 20K. (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Just make it into a wholly different type of vehicle based on an entirely different platform, and you're done!
Try looking up the Nissan e-NV200. There's no need to redesign anything, there are literally production vehicles which would serve.
Re: (Score:2)
Just make it into a wholly different type of vehicle based on an entirely different platform, and you're done!
Try looking up the Nissan e-NV200. There's no need to redesign anything, there are literally production vehicles which would serve.
I don't think purchasing from a non-American company is going to fly.
Re: (Score:2)
They could literally put new powertrains into the old pile they're using now and keep using it and do better than DeJoy's proposal.
Re: (Score:2)
I read about this contract, besides what's pointed out above they only considered two options for percentages, I think they were both 90%/10% splits. So: "gee, 90% EV isn't going to work, I guess we can only buy 10% EV's." is how it was done.
I can totally see why a good segment of the vehicles shouldn't be the short-route, urban model. But I think #1, the focus should be on something like 5-10 year total-cost-of-ownership (I image broader support for that than climate-change-based-arguments) for as many veh
Re: (Score:2)
they should award multiple contracts to multiple bidders to allow better designs to produce relative statistics (they can be sent to different states so no area has to work with multiple variants)
They want one type of vehicle so that they only have to deal with logistics for one type of vehicle. This is sensible and your approach ruins that.
the batteries should all be one or two form factors
EV and battery technology is moving too quickly for that. Also, battery cases are structural in basically all EV designs. The design has to be inferior if that's not true. Standardizing on one design screws that up.
They are buy some EV ... (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: Point out comparable vehicles to mail trucks. (Score:3)
In FY 2019, the Postal Service spent about $706.2 million in maintenance costs for 141,057 LLVs. While annual LLV maintenance costs have not significantly changed since 2018, average maintenance costs per vehicle were about $5,000, and nearly 10,000 LLVs averaged more than $12,000 in annual maintenance costs.I https://postaltimes.com/postal... [postaltimes.com]
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
The average was $5,000 for the entire fleet. This set included the less than 7.1% of trucks that cost more than 12k to fix because something major broke down on vehicles which are at the end of their lifecycle. Learn 2 math.
Re: (Score:3)
What kind of vehicles require 100% of the purchase price in maintenance every year?
The ones with a lucrative (quasi) government contract.
Re: (Score:3)
Yeah...no....
Paper has less density than wood and ordinary letters stored for transports have at least a magnitude less density because they aren't analogous to a brick of compact paper.
The average letter weighs about 0.4 ounces/12 grams, and if a mail delivery truck have 10,000 letters (which is a stretch) in the back that's 250 pounds/120 kg. Of course, all this exclude packages which is a bit irrelevant since there it's usually space and not weight that is the constraining factor.
Interestingly enough, wh
Re: (Score:2)
Thank the lord no one mails catalogs, magazines, or packages - just your 0.4 oz letters.
Re: (Score:2)
You know what, the whole point is stupid to begin with. USPS trucks are built like they are because they need to a) be used for delivering mail b) stand up to wear and tear - not because they are moving around sliced tree-trunks. Thinking that those criteria excludes EV's because of the belief they can't carry as much weight for some arbitrary reason is just plain silly.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
It doesn't matter that batteries are heavy. At postal vehicle speeds you can get most of your energy back from regeneration, because the speed is never that high (so the C rate is never that high) and because you know where you're stopping so you can stop smoothly.
It doesn't matter for mail delivery that ranges are short. Most postal routes are very short. For the small percentage of routes which are not, they can use ICEVs. But it doesn't make sense for literally any postal vehicles to not be electrified,
Re: (Score:2)
About full electric, I see its role in a city where the average distance between stops is short.
That's certainly the place where it makes the most sense, but even in the sticks most postal routes are not very long, and many of them could reasonably be full EV. However, each and every one of them should use an electrified vehicle, at least a mild hybrid, because of the number of stops they make. There is literally no way in which it makes sense for any postal (or similar) delivery vehicle to not have an electrified powertrain.
Re: (Score:2)
In practice it always comes down to the driver. Whether the truck is an EV or not doesn't matter because the drivers can only do so much during their shifts.
Distributing mail in all it's forms between towns and cities usually need a larger vehicle to be effective which excludes all EV's at this point (AFAIK), but for delivering it an EV's should be just fine in most circumstances.
Re: (Score:2)
That's IC specific math though. EVs have a flat torque curve.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
If you are living in the middle of BFE, and the USPS is required to be able to deliver you mail, and they have no charging station except perhaps at the post office, if they are that lucky, then how can that service of mail be reliably provided?
If you wanted to know the answer to that question, then you would compare EV ranges to postal route lengths. This is a thing you clearly have not done, because if you had, you'd know that even a busted old Leaf has enough range to do most routes even in the winter.
Don't put the cart before the horse, kids.
What we've done is put pearls before swine. The pearls are the facts on the internet that you could have trivially found with google.
Re: (Score:2)