A city divided â¿“ but is it the cure for congestion or just the blueprint for an urban nightmare?

Internal links

'This is about making money, not cutting traffic jams'

Driving ahead in war on pollution

London became a divided city yesterday with the publication of proposals that will create a virtual no-go zone for millions of commuters in the heart of the capital.

A plan to turn London into the first metropolis in the Western world to charge car-users for entering the centre has threatened to split the community it is meant to help.

Under the proposals, unveiled yesterday by Ken Livingstone, the Mayor of London, drivers will have to pay a £5 daily charge to enter the exclusion zone, policed by a cordon of digital cameras, or face an £80 fine.

The scheme, to be introduced in January 2003, comes with Government backing and is aimed at achieving a radical shift in how people commute into the city. The scheme could cut traffic by 15 per cent and raise some £200m a year, which in turn would be used to improve public transport.

If it works, cities such as Manchester, Derby, Birmingham, Nottingham, Cambridge and Durham could follow suit, and it could become a model across the globe.

At the launch, Mr Livingstone said that the congestion charge would be accompanied by radically improved bus, rail and Underground services. To cope with the tens of thousands of motorists expected to leave their cars at home, capacity on bus services would rise by 40 per cent by 2011, and on Tube and rail systems by 40 per cent by 2013 and 50 per cent by 2016.

Traffic growth in inner London would be cut to zero and in outer London it would be cut by a third. That will help businesses that need cars, according to the plan. The scheme's backers also claim it will benefit the environment.

Mr Livingstone was accused by critics of "pricing poorer motorists off the roads". The leaders of Westminster, Wands-worth, and Kensington and Chelsea councils – authorities at the heart of the central congestion zone – say the money spent setting up the scheme would be better spent relieving the "chaos and uncivilised conditions currently being endured by the public".

Critics are concerned that the scheme overlooks people who must travel to the congestion zone. This includes parents taking their children to school and those making trips to hospital. It could also create chaos at the edge of the zone as motorists try to park or find alternative routes.

The leader of Kensington and Chelsea Council, Merrick Cockell, said: "Think of all the hospitals in the congestion zone and the amount of journeys those people have to make – £5 each day will add up. Parents taking their children to school will also have no choice. The public transport system is pretty well falling apart and more problems will be created if we push more people on to it before improving it."

Although the congestion charge is likely to hit his popularity, Mr Livingstone said he was not tempted to delay introducing congestion charging until after the next mayoral election in 2004.

"Londoners have the right to know if this works. At the moment we are losing £2m a week from congestion," he said. "It would be negligent not to proceed rapidly."

Under the plan, charges will apply between 7am and 7pm every working day and will be enforced by digital cameras able to read number plates. Drivers can pay on the day or in advance at Lottery-style terminals in shops.

Once they have paid, their registrations will be sent to a database linked to a network of cameras across the capital. Those who evade the cameras have a 5-10 per cent chance of not being photographed and face an £80 fine if caught.

Motorcyclists, taxis, disabled drivers and certain buses and coaches will be exempt while residents in the central charging zone will receive a discount of 90 per cent.

In outer London, two-thirds of people get to work by using cars, whereas in inner London 40 per cent of people do so with 43 per cent of them making use of public transport.

More than 200 extra buses are planned each year including better services on 42 routes by 2004. With regard to rail, the Government, the Strategic Rail Authority and Transport for London, with a ministerial body, have signed up to oversee progress on a number of schemes to boost capacity.

The only other big city in the world to have tried congestion charging is Singapore. It introduced a paper-based scheme in 1975 and recently transferred to a computerised smart-card system.

Despite the Mayor's enthusiasm for charging, his Tory opponents believe that it will prove deeply unpopular, particularly among poorer motorists who will be hit hardest by a £1,200 "stealth tax".

Bernard Jenkin, the shadow Transport minister, said last night: "By the time Mayor Livingstone seeks re-election in 2004, he may find that the image of increased congestion, paralysed public transport and the crippling burden of high tax forms his death warrant".

However, the London scheme will be watched closely by big cities across the country, many of which are itching to introduce similar schemes. Manchester, Nottingham, Derby, Durham, Cambridge and Birmingham have shown interest and, with councils in Hampshire, Chester and all four West Midlands metropolitan areas, are part of a government working party investigating the issue.

Vince Christie, the transport policy officer at the Local Government Association, said the congestion-charging proposal for London was the "biggest and most complex" of any suggested scheme in Britain, and could act as an "interesting example" for others.

For some authorities, efforts to ease congestion have led to a straightforward choice between charging, often disliked by the public generally, or a workplace parking levy, which businesses dislike. Birmingham City Council is understood to favour congestion charging over an earlier idea of charging motorists who park at work £5 a day.

But a survey by the Institute of Directors said 75 per cent of its 3,000 Midland members were opposed to such proposals, and felt they were already being taxed too highly. In addition, 80 per cent of the region's company directors did not believe extra taxes on motorists would finance public transport.

The RAC Foundation's executive director, Edmund King, said: "We do not believe that you should charge people out of their cars until alternatives are in place first."