The refusal of three Tory county councils to allow Ulez warning signs to be erected on London approach routes could result in an increase in road collisions, it was claimed on Wednesday.
Transport for London (TfL) issued the safety alert as it claimed that Hertfordshire, Kent and Surrey county councils had “no legitimate basis” for continuing to prevent it from erecting the signs.
TfL fears that drivers could perform “unsafe manoeuvres”, such as U-turns, if they suddenly realise they are about to cross into Greater London.
It named three locations where it believes the lack of advance warning signs could potentially result in an increased risk of collisions.
These are the Stanwell Moor Road approach to the roundabout with the Southern Perimeter Road of Heathrow airport in Surrey, Hewitts roundabout in Kent, and the A411 approach to Stirling Corner roundabout in Hertfordshire.
A spokesman for London Mayor Sadiq Khan said: “These councils outside London are not fulfilling their responsibility to ensure their residents and other motorists have all the information they need to avoid driving into the Ulez inadvertently.”
The London-wide ultra low emission zone, which goes live in less than a fortnight, on August 29, largely follows the Greater London boundary.
Highways England has allowed warning signs to be erected on all motorways into London, including the M20 from the Channel Tunnel. Slough borough council has also allowed the signs.
Drivers of non-compliant vehicles will have to pay £12.50 a day or will be sent a £180 penalty. However it is likely that “first offenders” will receive a warning letter rather than a fine as part of a “soft” expansion of the clean air scheme in its first few weeks.
TfL has responded to more than 200 instances of its 2,750 new enforcement cameras being vandalised by so-called “Blade Runner” vigilantes by concealing their wires within a protective metal box.
More than 95 per cent of vehicles in the current Ulez zone comply with the emissions rules – meaning they are exempt from the charge.
TfL said the opposition from the three county councils would not stop the Ulez expansion going ahead.
TfL said county councils had a legal duty to “secure safe and convenient movement of traffic on their own roads and between other road networks”.
It has offered to cover the cost of erecting the signs and has urged the councils to do the “right and responsible thing”.
Last month the High Court comprehensively rejected a bid from five Tory councils, including Surrey, to have the Ulez expansion declared unlawful.
A TfL spokesperson said: “We have been trying to work collaboratively with the councils surrounding London to ensure that their residents have as much information and warning of the Ulez boundary as possible, but so far this has only been possible with Slough Borough Council.
“The refusal of the other authorities to work with us means that their residents will not have as much information as we would like as they are driving towards the zone.”
A spokesman for Hertfordshire county council said: “The expansion of the Ulez zone... to Hertfordshire’s borders will price some of the lowest paid in our county off the roads. No amount of signage will change the fact that our residents and businesses face a £12.50 penalty for travelling into the capital.”
A Kent County Council spokesperson said: “We fully understand and appreciate our obligations as a highways authority, and the safety of road users is always our priority.
“We stand by our decision not to adopt Ulez signage for as long as there is no mitigation to minimise the impact of the expansion of the scheme on Kent residents.
“KCC is committed to the aim of improving air quality, but this must go hand-in-hand with appropriate mitigations, including better availability of public transport – something the Mayor is looking to reduce for non-Londoners with the withdrawal of the day Travelcard.
“More recently we note that the Mayor of London is potentially looking to raise more money through the potential introduction of tolls at the Blackwall Tunnel. This is another indication that he has no consideration for the impact it could have on Kent residents and businesses to be further financially penalised.”
