Request ID: FOI-0226-2324 Date published: 23 May 2023
You asked
Hi,
Please find my questions of ULEZ cameras:
- How many new ULEZ cameras in the zones that will become part of the ULEZ expansion have been installed up until the latest available date?
- How many of these have been vandalised, damaged or destroyed?
- How much are the new cameras costing TfL in total?
- Out of those that have been reported vandalised, damaged or destroyed, how much is the total cost to repair them?
- How many reports of vandalised, damaged or destroyed traffic lights in new ULEZ area have there been from Jan 1 to latest available date this year?
We answered
Our Ref: FOI-0226-2324
Thank you for your request received on 21 April 2023 asking for information about the Ultra Low Emission Zone (ULEZ) expansion cameras. Your request has been considered in accordance with the requirements of the Freedom of Information Act and our information access policy. I can confirm that we do hold the information you require. You asked: • How many new ULEZ cameras in the zones that will become part of the ULEZ expansion have been installed up until the latest available date? Up until 28 April 2023, c.990 new Automatic Number Plate Recognition (ANPR) cameras have been installed. • How much are the new cameras costing TfL in total? The current estimated total cost to supply and install the ANPR cameras and associated supporting infrastructure for London wide ULEZ is in the range of £45-50m. • How many of these have been vandalised, damaged or destroyed? • Out of those that have been reported vandalised, damaged or destroyed, how much is the total cost to repair them? • How many reports of vandalised, damaged or destroyed traffic lights in new ULEZ area have there been from Jan 1 to latest available date this year? The information you have requested is exempt from disclosure under section 31(1)(a) Law Enforcement which relates to all aspects of the prevention and detection of crime, section 38 - Health and Safety, and section 43(2) – prejudice to commercial interests of the FOI Act. In all three cases, we consider that the release of this information would be likely to cause the prejudice or harm indicated by the exemptions, by encouraging vandalism to target our traffic enforcement cameras. Section 31(1)(a) applies where release of information would be likely to prejudice the prevention of crime. The TfL network can often be the target of graffiti and other vandalism, and anything that encourages this or can be used to assist with this criminal activity is detrimental to our efforts to combat it. Whilst we make no suggestion that you would use this information for anything other than you own personal interest, disclosure of this information to you has to be regarded as a disclosure to ‘the public at large’. Our view is that release of the information would be likely to encourage further instances of copycat vandalism by making TfL assets a more attractive target for further vandalism as well as providing useful information to those who have previously and may wish to carry out these criminal attacks. Some of the cameras being targeted may have a live electricity supply to them and lives could be endangered by individuals tampering with the wiring, as well as the potential danger to individuals from falling from equipment or being involved in road traffic accidents whilst carrying out these activities. We believe that there is good reason to conclude that release of the requested information would lead to an increase in incidents of vandalism to our cameras by encouraging other like-minded individuals to do the same, therefore we believe that the section 38 - health and safety exemption is also engaged. In relation to section 43(2) – prejudice to commercial interests, there is a clear direct financial cost to TfL in dealing with vandalism both in terms of protecting cameras from such crime and in dealing with the consequences when it does occur. These costs comprise the repair works as well as the subsequent disruption it causes to the road network in having to repair cameras and close sections of the footway and roads to facilitate this. This not only leads to significant delays and inconvenience for our customers, but also has direct financial consequences for TfL in deterring and dealing with the effects of the vandalism. The use of these exemptions is subject to an assessment of the public interest in relation to the disclosure of the information concerned. We recognise the need for openness and transparency, and in particular where this relates to the maintenance of public assets and the effective expenditure of public funds. In this case, it may also be of interest in enabling the general public to understand the extent of this problem on TfL’s road network. However, we do not consider that there are any other public interest factors in favour of the disclosure of this information, which otherwise is only likely to be of interest to those who follow and/or commit vandalism. On the other hand, there is a very strong public interest in preventing further crime, in protecting the health and safety of individuals and in protecting the commercial interests of TfL as a public authority. Therefore, in this instance we feel that the balance lies in favour of withholding the information to ensure that we are able to minimise the number of potential incidents of vandalism incidents which could have considerable implications for law enforcement, public safety, and TfL expenditure. If this is not the information you are looking for please do not hesitate to contact me. Please see the attached information sheet for details of your right to appeal.
Yours sincerely
Gemma Jacob Senior FOI Case Officer FOI Case Management Team General Counsel Transport for London
