TFL and Taxi Idling... by David Davis.

It seems that the latest ridiculous emissions strategy by TFL to reduce emissions by imposing a regulation to stop taxis idling is just another ploy to hide the facts; they have no proper knowledge of understanding as to how to implement an effective emissions reduction strategy so they have decided to do something which sounds good for political reasons.

The concept of reducing emissions by stopping vehicles idling is a valid one. However most of the research for this has been conducted in the US where they have tested light duty gasoline (petrol) engines and heavy duty diesel engines. They do not  have an abundance of Light Duty Diesel Vehicles in the US and therefore there does not seem to be any test evidence for these vehicles.

As a Public Body TFL have legal requirements with regards to their decisions and practices.

It is a pre-requisite of a fair and lawful process that it should be known in advance to those who must comply with it: see R (Walmsley) v Lane [2005] EWCA Civ 1540, in particular Sedley L.J.‟s observation at [57] that “it is inimical to good public administration for a public authority to have and operate such a policy without making it public” and that failure to do so “exposes such an authority to the risk of lawsuits based on ignorance of how it has gone about taking the material decision”.

In order for TFL to have complied with this legal requirement they should have conducted proper testing at a Vehicle Certification Agency Lab, which would mean testing the actual vehicle  that they are imposing this restriction to ie a London Taxi and use  the exact drive cycle of a London Taxi ie not the Euro 3 drive cycle in which a taxi reaches speeds of 70 mph but a drive cycle in which the taxi drives at the speeds that it would in London (an average of 8 mph).

The reason that they need to test an actual London Taxi is because the engine design of most London Taxis is very basic. The Fairway, TX1 and TX2 do not have a complicated electronic management system and therefore the test results of other vehicles that do and show benefits of idling are not applicable. The requirement for a proper drive cycle is because the main pollution problems in London relate to Particulate Matter and Nox. A Diesel Particulate filter operates effectively when it is at its ‘light up temperature’. This is obviously more easily achieved when the engine is warmed up. It is also the case that an older basic engine creates pollution when it is cold; its easy to see smoke from the tailpipe when you start the engine from cold and not when the engine is idling.

Regardless of whether or not the idling restrictions are effective, the bottom line is that TFL have again acted improperly and targeted London Taxis with another ineffective strategy. The age limit for taxis that is due to be implemented in January is also improper and does not comply with the legal requirement cited above;

1/ In 2006 and again in March 2010 the Department of Transport issued a Best Practice Guide to give Local Authorities and Taxi Licensing bodies guidance as to the regulations that they should operate by.

In this guidance they said with regards to Age Limits

‘‘It is perfectly possible for an older vehicle to be in good condition. So the setting of an age limit beyond which an authority will not license vehicles may be arbitrary and inappropriate’’

They are saying that it is not good practice and not appropriate to impose age limits and yet TFL have completely ignored this.

The full report can be seen here http://www2.dft.gov.uk/pgr/regional/taxis/bestpractice/pdf/guide.pdf

2/ TFL have conducted absolutely no emissions conformity testing to show that older taxis are creating more pollution than newer taxis. As a Public Body they are required by law to make reasonable and rational decisions. It is not reasonable or rational to just guess that older taxis are creating more pollution; TFL should have conducted proper tests on all ages of taxis to prove that this is the case.

There has actually been independent testing carried out which shows that the opposite is actually true; older taxis do not necessarily create more pollution that newer taxis.

3/In 2007/2008 TFL implemented an Emissions Reduction Project, which made it compulsory for Taxis of a certain age to be fitted with an emissions reduction system that had been approved by TFL. These systems were fitted at great expense (more than £2000 per system) and this was done so on the expectation that these taxis could continue to be used as they now achieved a Euro 3 Emissions Standard. It is not therefore reasonable and rational to now say that these vehicles must now be scrapped having forced taxi owners to spend money on having an emissions system fitted.

It is also not reasonable or rational to say that these older vehicles, (which by TFLs own definition are now Euro 3 compliant ) must be scrapped and at the same time allow other Euro 3 vehicles i.e. TX2s to remain on the road.

TFL have stated that the age limit will be introduced to reduce emissions. If they are to comply with their legal requirements for fair and consistent decisions then they would have to say that ALL Euro 3 Taxis must be taken off the road, not just taxis of a certain age because by their own definition they are doing this to reduce emissions and not to persecute owners of older taxis.

4/ In a recent High Court Judicial Review taken by Taxi Drivers in Newport in Wales against the licensing Authority who were trying to impose an age limit, the age limit on Taxis was ruled to be unlawful by the Judge.

One of the reasons given in the ruling which deemed the imposition of an Age Limit unlawful, was the fact that the Licensing Authority had failed to conduct proper consultation (which is again part of its legal requirement as a Public Body)

In London TFL has conducted token consultation with some Taxi trade representatives. However this consultation has not been conducted fairly or properly.

5/ The taxi trade representatives may have conceded to a15 year age limit because TFL was trying to impose a 10 year age limit. This means that they have effectively been coerced into accepting an age limit by thinking that it was the best option available. The fact is that they should not have been forced into accepting an age limit at all. This does not constitute proper consolation.

In addition the taxi trade representatives did not consult with their members at all. In order for this to have been a proper consultation the trade representatives should have conducted proper and fair consultation with their members before accepting any decisions. This was not done.’’

6/ TFL have not taken into consideration the age of the engine. Many of the older taxis have had there engine replaced with a newer engine and therefore their levels of pollution are no greater than that of a taxi which is 5 years old.

I personally believe that TFL as an entity does not operate in a proper and lawful way. However the taxi trade has themselves to blame for allowing this to happen.

I am an outsider looking in  and it is plain to see that the reason that TFL has the ability to continue to act improperly is because the London Taxi trade has no unified representation. The organisations which are supposed to represent you seem to be run by people who have their own personal agendas in mind ie they run a taxi business and are looking for the best solution for themselves. The majority of London Taxi drivers seem to be apathetic; they have the ‘Im all right Jack’ mentality and dont care about the principles of what is taking place.

At the end of the day the London Taxi trade has to make a choice; either put aside your political and personal differences and take proper united action, or as someone else has said ‘assume the position’ and let TFL do whatever they want (whether its proper and lawful of not).

Dave Davies, Eco-Power