Emissions charging for Motorcycles, do TFL have the power?

[sickpup]

Well this seems like an odd question on the face of it but I can't find a definate yes but I can find an almost definate no. Everyone has assumed that TFL have the power to introduce this charge but maybe they don't.

After a quick 5 minute look through legislation which was hardly exhaustive by any means all I can find is that TFL don't have the power.
The legislation to introduce road charges of any kind is tied up in the Greater London Authority Act 1999 Section 295 Chapter XV New charges and Levies which states...

[Kawasaki Jimbo]

[Robby]

I have no strong feelings one way or the other, but there are few things to consider in challenging the ULEZ.

1. Any special treatment sets a precedent for bigger, richer, better organised groups to try to exploit. If an exception was made for bikes, then lorries would throw a lot of money at trying to get an exception as well. TfL would have to spend a lot of money dealing with them.
So setting a precedent is already unpopular.

2. Consider what the emissions of bikes could be when the ULEZ is in place, rather than now - that should have already been factored into any analysis done already, but not necessarily published. So if you had only modern, clean burning vehicles and dirty bikes, could the harmful emissions of bikes climb to more 3% of total - the point at which it's small, but not insignificant.

3. It's a flagship policy for the mayor, an awful lot of people want clean air. A lot fewer people care if it means someone has to buy a bike that's less than 10 years old. We aren't being discriminated against, because this measure affects all road users. You would need to make the case for a benefit to the city of keeping older bikes on the road, or enough hardship to enough people from being forced to stop riding into the ULEZ.

[linuxyeti]

Well, Birmingham are exempting motorbikes, of all ages, ...

https://www.mag-uk.org/en/newsdetail/a7382

Could be a bonus for midlanders, buying those cheap bikes that will be too expensive to run in London ...
____________________
Beware what photos you upload, or link to on here, especially if you have family members on them

[Shaft]

[Courier265]

[linuxyeti]

I know MAG are taking all the credit, but, perhaps other feedback has actually been listened to as well. I guess we'll never know. I know I did my bit by filling in the public consultation form, and I sure some others must have done so as well..

However, if it was all MAG's doing, then fair play I guess
____________________
Beware what photos you upload, or link to on here, especially if you have family members on them

[linuxyeti]

Also looks like Bath & North East Somerset Council is also going to exempt all motorcycles and mopeds from it's scheme.
____________________
Beware what photos you upload, or link to on here, especially if you have family members on them

[sickpup]

Just the man I wanted to hear from

[MarJay]

If it works, that would be good as then I won't have to swap the VFR for a post 2008 bike in two years time...

I also suspect that my VFR has lower emissions than my Street Triple. Here's my thinking:

The VFR is an understressed V4
It's fuel injected
it has a catalytic converter

The Street Triple has an aftermarket exhaust
It's a comparatively highly tuned sports engine

I'm currently vaguely thinking CBR650F or ER6F something like that.
____________________
British beauty: Triumph Street Triple R; Loony stroker: KR1S; Track fun: GSXR750 L1; Commuter Missile: GSX-S1000F
Remember kids, bikes aren't like lego. You can't easily take a part from one bike and then fit it to another.

[Robby]

I wouldn't go down the discrimination route. That's for genuine cases, or playing politics. I don't think this fits.

So, actual impact. Benefits and risks.

Benefits:
1. Emissions of NOx, SOx and particulates drops slightly. Seeing as the drop is from unmeasurable to unmeasurable, there will be no way of demonstrating this. This means no evidence to defend a future legal case.
2. Fewer vehicles on the road. Being realistic, bikers aren't going to start driving into central London en masse, they will either ride, cycle, or use public transport. This may be a benefit to TfL, but if it is not the stated purpose of this measure then it shouldn't be counted as a benefit.

Risks:
1. People ignore the law, refuse to pay fines, or ride with cloned/no number plates. This is an expensive thing to address. It means police to catch the offenders, court and lawyer time, and eventually small fines handed down from the court. TfL loses money.
2. Bike shops go out of business. There is some precedent here - Metropolis in Vauxhall closed recently, blaming the scooter crime wave. This means a risk balance decision for the mayor's office - how many businesses can close or jobs get lost over a negligible decrease in emissions.
3. People ride even older vehicles to get around it. Bikers are difficult. 40 year old bikes are going to be exempt. People would start riding around on 70s 2-strokes, and poorly maintained early UJMs, just to make a point. As a matter of fact, I'll have a spare bike from 1980 to go alongside my EURO4 daily.
4. A rush of people selling their old bikes - literally hundreds a day going on gumtree and ebay around ULEZ time - leads to another crime spree, of criminals "going to look at" those bikes and stealing them - likely with a bit of violence thrown in.

That's my take. Ask TfL for their impact analysis. They should hand it over under FoI. Also worth asking to see the current and projected emissions from motorcycles, which they should have in order to demonstrate success later on.