Disclosure of why TfL has not used Government & JAQU 'Charges apply, Pay online' signing guidance on ULEZ signage
Request ID: FOI-2955-2223 Date published: 22 March 2023
You asked
I wish to request full details of the considerations, reasons and decisions by TfL not to follow JAQU and DfT / DEFRA Clear Air Zone charging signage guidance and to explicitly exclude reference to charging and payment information i.e. 'Charges apply, Pay online' from TfL ULEZ zone signage contrary to the good practice of most other local authorise e.g. Birmingham. This FoI request also includes all relevant correspondence / communications of significance between TfL and DfT, Highways England, DEFRA and JAQU on ULEZ charging and payment signage information, including decisions on the exclusion of charging and payment information from TfL ULEZ signage.
Please note that I understand that ULEZ signage is non-prescribed and would have been agreed with and authorised by DfT. However I wish to understand why both TfL and DfT did not follow JAQU and DfT/DEFRA guidance on clean air charging zone guidance.
Clarification received 18/02/2023: I wish to confirm that my FoI request relates solely to existing ULEZ zone signage and the decisions made to use the current signage and the decisions made not to include 'Charges apply, Pay online' wording as set out in JAQU, DfT and DEFRA guidance.
To make the request simpler, the FoI request and response can focus on the formal decisions made and supporting rationale considered in the decision-making process.
This FoI request does not relate to the proposed expamsion of the ULEZ zone.
Clarification received 22/02/2023: I confirm that I am content for this FoI request and its' response to focus on the formal decisions made and supporting rationale (i.e justification and reasons) considered in the decision-making process. This includes within TfL and between TfL and DfT. the formal decisions made and supporting rationale (i.e justification and reasons) considered in the decision-making process. This includes within TfL and between TfL and DfT.
Clarification received 23/02/2023: I confirm that I request the correspondence and communications that relate to and underpin the formal decisions made and the supporting rationale (i.e justification and reasons) considered in the decision-making process. This includes within TfL and between TfL and DfT.
We answered
TfL Ref: FOI-2955-2223
Thank you for your request of 9th February 2023 (and subsequently clarified on 18th, 22nd and 23rd February 2023) asking for information about ULEZ signage..
Your request has been considered in accordance with the requirements of the Freedom of Information Act and our information access policy.
Specifically you asked:
“I wish to request full details of the considerations, reasons and decisions by TfL not to follow JAQU and DfT / DEFRA Clear Air Zone charging signage guidance and to explicitly exclude reference to charging and payment information i.e. 'Charges apply, Pay online' from TfL ULEZ zone signage contrary to the good practice of most other local authorise e.g. Birmingham. This FoI request also includes all relevant correspondence / communications of significance between TfL and DfT, Highways England, DEFRA and JAQU on ULEZ charging and payment signage information, including decisions on the exclusion of charging and payment information from TfL ULEZ signage. Please note that I understand that ULEZ signage is non-prescribed and would have been agreed with and authorised by DfT. However I wish to understand why both TfL and DfT did not follow JAQU and DfT/DEFRA guidance on clean air charging zone guidance.”
You later clarified that the request “relates solely to existing ULEZ zone signage and the decisions made to use the current signage and the decisions made not to include 'Charges apply, Pay online' wording as set out in JAQU, DfT and DEFRA guidance”; that “the response can focus on the formal decisions made and supporting rationale considered in the decision-making process” and that “I request the correspondence and communications that relate to and underpin the formal decisions made and the supporting rationale (i.e justification and reasons) considered in the decision-making process. This includes within TfL and between TfL and DfT.”
I can confirm that we hold the information you require.
On the question of how the wording of the signs was determined, I can confirm that during the design stage (which took place in 2017 and which included liaison with DfT) we considered the use of additional messaging to that which was eventually agreed, including the potential to add instructions about paying charges. However, there is only a limited amount of messaging that can be placed on a traffic sign which can be safely read and assimilated by drivers moving at speed. For the introduction of the ULEZ scheme, where the majority of drivers were already compliant and did not need to pay a charge, we ultimately considered that messaging that included payment instruction would be more confusing for the majority of drivers. There is a large range of information that drivers need to know about the ULEZ scheme in terms of compliance, enforcement and payments, that it is not practical to include on a single sign. We therefore had to select the most appropriate communication channels to help drivers fully understand the scheme, and our traffic signing strategy forms part of that. All of the information that drivers need to know to comply with the scheme is available online via our website (see here) and this information was widely advertised prior to the launch of the scheme. Drivers in London were also familiar with other, earlier Road User Charging schemes in London due to the Low Emission Zone and Congestion Charging Zone already being in operation. The TfL roundel is a highly recognised brand, giving us different options in our overall messaging strategy to that adopted in other cities.
Note that the main decisions and agreement with DfT around signage happened when the original Central London scheme was introduced and the same principles were then followed as the scheme expanded to the area within the North / South Circular in 2021. We did not discuss this with JAQU or DEFRA as the scheme design was a matter for TfL and DfT. In terms of sourcing all of the correspondence that relates to these decisions, both internally and with DfT, I am afraid that this is not possible within the costs limit for responding to FOI cases, as set out under section 12 of the Freedom of Information Act. Under section 12, TfL is not obliged to provide information if it would cost more than £450 to determine if that information is held, and to then locate, retrieve or extract the information from elsewhere. This is calculated at a rate of £25 per hour.
In this case, the exemption applies because the information has not been collated before and there is no quick or efficient way of doing so. While it is possible to run automated searches of email accounts using keywords, there is no single set of keywords that we could use to source all of the information that falls within the scope of the request without also finding vast amounts of material that is not relevant to the request. We would then have no option but to read every item individually to determine which were specifically about the principles behind decisions on ULEZ signage content. This could only be achieved at disproportionate cost in excess of the £450 limit.
Please see the attached information sheet for details of your right to appeal as well as information on copyright and what to do if you would like to re-use any of the information we have disclosed.
Yours sincerely,
David Wells FOI Case Officer FOI Case Management Team General Counsel Transport for London
