Request ID: FOI-2052-2122 Date published: 06 January 2022
You asked
With reference to FOI-2040-2122:
On one point, the claim that the cycle path is “safer”, please don’t just answer that this is LBHF’s claim because in repeating it, TfL is effectively endorsing it, and that is highly material, as TfL is a body that would be expected to know.
In the event that TfL does try to answer by pointing me to LBHF, please answer this question:
What due diligence did TfL do on LBHF’s description of C9 as “safer” to make sure the description as safer was supportable with robust evidence? And, if done, what was that evidence?
If no due diligence was done on that point, why was it not done and who was responsible for approving use by TfL of the word “safer” in the description of C9 in any communication by TfL, if only to repeat LBHF’s description?
I understand that Metropolitan Police data on accidents on C9 indicates an increased accident rate since it was built. Is TfL aware of this fact? If not, why not? Also, please disclose all data TfL has on accidents on C9.
Clarification received 10/12/2021:
As TfL has, in its letter, repeated the description of C9 as a “Safer Cycle Pathway”, and as TfL must be aware of its obligations not to knowingly mislead the public on the question of safety, what due diligence did TfL do on LBHF’s description of C9 as “safer” to make sure the description as “safer” is rigorously justifiable.
Independently of what LBHF might say, what evidence is there to justify the description of C9 as “safer”?
In considering the safety record of C9, has TfL obtained accident data from the Metropolitan Police and if so what does it show regarding accidents on C9 and the same stretch of road before and after the construction of C9?
I understand that Metropolitan Police data on accidents on C9 indicates an increased accident rate since it was built. Is TfL aware of this fact? If not, why not? Also, please disclose all data TfL has on accidents on C9 and the equivalent stretch of roadway both before and after its construction.
What safety review, audit or reports have been done on C9 since its construction and what do those assessments show?
We answered
TfL Ref: EIR-2040-2122 and EIR-2052-2122
Thank you for your requests of 4th December and 10th December 2021 - detailed below - about the Cycleway 9 scheme.
Your requests have been considered in accordance with the requirements of the Environmental Information Regulations and our information access policy.
Your requests are being refused under Regulation 12(4)(b) of the EIR on the basis that it would be “manifestly unreasonable” to address all of the questions asked. As you can see below where I have annotated your requests with numbers, taken together they pose 27 distinct questions. While some of these are relatively straightforward others are more complicated, including questions which are open-ended in terms of timeframes (for example, “please disclose all data TfL has on accidents on C9 and the equivalent stretch of roadway both before and after its construction”). It would take a great deal of time and effort for us to source answers to each and every question. The Information Commissioner’s Office states that the manifestly unreasonable exception may be applied “when the cost of compliance with the request would be too great” and that “The purpose of the exception is to protect public authorities from exposure to a disproportionate burden or an unjustified level of distress, disruption or irritation, in handling information requests.” In this case we consider the resource required to answer every question would represent a ‘disproportionate burden’ and a disproportionate ‘level of disruption’.
The cumulative effect of answering this many questions on a single topic is that it imposes a burden and disruption to colleagues across the organisation whose principal function is the planning and running of transport services or the support services required to make that happen. Responding to them requires the re-allocation and diversion of our resources and places a burden on a small number of personnel. All of this leads us to believe that answering your latest requests is not a justified and proportionate use of our time.
Please be assured that our application of the exception does not reflect a conclusion that it has been your deliberate intention to place an undue burden on TfL, and we will consider any future request for information on its merits and in accordance with the requirements of the law and the expectations of the ICO. However, in making any future request I would ask that you consider carefully what information is of most importance to you, and to take into account the guidance and advice provided by the ICO on how best to access information from public bodies, such as the “dos and don’ts” published on its website here: https://ico.org.uk/your-data-matters/official-information/
You will note that the table halfway down that page includes the following advice to FOI applicants:
Do….“Give the authority ample opportunity to address any previous requests you have made before submitting new ones”, and; Don’t… “Disrupt a public authority by the sheer volume of information requested”
We would therefore encourage you to prioritise any future requests around the information that is of most importance to you to ensure that you are able to make the best use of our resources.
Further, I note that a series of Mayoral Questions have been asked which mirror precisely some of the questions in your request of 4th December, shown here:
Cycleway 9 (1)- Question No: 2021/4985- Tony Devenish - Please disclose the data used to support your claim that C9 will be “safer” than the status quo.
Cycleway 9 (2)- Question No: 2021/4986- Tony Devenish - What safety assessments have been done prior to implementation of C9?
Cycleway 9 (3)- Question No: 2021/4987- Tony Devenish - What assessments has TfL done on C9 in terms of its impacts on congestion and traffic delays?
Cycleway 9 (4)- Question No: 2021/4988- Tony Devenish - Please quantify the expected delays to buses due to Cycleway 9.
Cycleway 9 (5)- Question No: 2021/4989- Tony Devenish - Please also quantify the expected delays to general traffic caused by C9.
Cycleway 9 (6)- Question No: 2021/4990- Tony Devenish - In implementing the C9 scheme, please provide me with the cycling usage data used to justify the investment in the scheme, including data on the usage of the temporary cycle lane that was set up around the Hammersmith Gyratory during the pandemic and subsequently removed.
Cycleway 9 (7)- Question No: 2021/4991- Tony Devenish - Please explain why the temporary cycle lane around the Hammersmith Gyratory was removed and please provide a copy of the assessment document that justified the decision to remove it.
Cycleway 9 (8)- Question No: 2021/4992- Tony Devenish - As the experimental temporary lane put round the Hammersmith Gyratory was consistently empty and as TfL is well aware that it caused congestion, why was the result of that experiment seemingly ignored? In answering, please provide a copy of the internal report produced on the effectiveness and impact of that temporary cycle lane. In addition, please provide a copy of the internal document justifying this “temporary” project, which was signed off prior to its approval.
You may wish to review the responses to these questions before considering and submitting any revised request.
Please see the attached information sheet for details of your right to appeal.
Yours sincerely,
David Wells FOI Case Officer FOI Case Management Team General Counsel Transport for London
