Blair must show firm resolve

Make drivers pay to sit in traffic jams? No way. That, or something like it, is likely to be the first reaction of many motorists, MPs, Whitehall officials and Downing Street policy advisers.

There must be a high chance that today's report from the government-appointed Commission for Integrated Transport will be buried before it has a chance to breathe.

Tony Blair still bears the scars of the petrol blockade of September 2000. He knows that he upsets motorists at his electoral peril. However, it would be very bad news if today's report is dismissed out of hand, for this would represent the worst kind of triumph of shallow politics over serious policy debate.

The principles that underpin today's report are hard to refute. Too many of our roads are congested at peak times. Congestion causes both delay and pollution (because of the fumes emitted by cars sitting in traffic jams).

Unfortunately, our present system does too little to tackle the problem. Once we have bought a car and paid its road tax, the cost of each extra journey is relatively small. Travelling locally by bus or train is far more expensive, especially at peak times.

What should we do? One option is to give massive subsidies to public transport, to improve services and keep down fares. This is common across the Channel. The result is fewer jams, more bus and train journeys - and much higher taxes. We could have a far better transport system, and also a much-improved health service, if the state were to take another five per cent of national income in higher taxes. This would mean an extra £50 a week from the pockets of the average family. Hands up who would vote for that?

The alternative is to restructure the way car-owners pay for their motoring - making it cheaper to own a car and to use it on non-congested roads, and dearer to use busy roads at busy times. That is precisely what today's report proposes. It wants "smart" congestion charges, with the heaviest charges on the most congested roads in the rush-hour. These would be offset by lower petrol duty and an end to road tax.

In public policy terms, this is a highly attractive strategy if it can be made to work. Collectively, we would save time and enjoy cleaner air, if enough people travelled at other times or by other means, such as by bus or train. People and companies that had to use busy roads would arrive at their destination sooner. Motorists who used other roads, or who drove outside peaktimes, would save money. Fewer children (and adults for that matter) would suffer asthma.

Politically, however, the story could be very different. This is a reform in which there would be both winners and losers. The winners may end up a large majority, but when it comes to counting votes ahead of change, the losers could well matter more. This tends to happen with reform. The pain looks inevitable while the gains sound merely speculative. As a result, many prospective losers are apt to campaign and vote against change, while prospective winners do nothing until the benefits have been delivered.

In this case, many motorists who drive to work will look at the new charges and know their monthly outgoings will rise. If they could be absolutely certain that their journeys really will be faster, and that the road tax disc really will be free and that the price of petrol really will fall to 60p a litre, they might just about tolerate the new plan. But until the benefits are proven, many will be suspicious.

As for motorists who already avoid city rush-hours and busy motorways, and who therefore ought to embrace reform with open arms, many well shrug their shoulders and say: "I'll believe it when I see it".

So ministers face a dilemma. As a way of enhancing our quality of life, reform is wholly sensible. But as a way of maximising votes at the next election, a promise to reform could be disastrous - especially in the teeth of the Conservatives' determination to condemn the proposed strategy as a "stealth tax" designed to "price motorists off the road", as their shadow transport secretary, Theresa May, told Sir David Frost yesterday.

All in all, today's report will test the maturity of political debate in Britain, and the capacity of Mr Blair's government to stick to its commitment to take decisions in the national interest. Ministers will need to lead a full-throated campaign to make the case for reform, persuade the electorate that the gains will truly materialise, and show how the only alternatives to reform are either to raise taxes by squillions of pounds, or see most of our city streets succumb to gridlock for most of the day.

One cop-out would be to avoid the large strategic choice and talk only about the practicalities. To be sure, as with any reform, the detail must be got right. How will motorists know in advance of each journey what they will be charged? How can sudden jams be prevented as soon as the high-price-rush-hour is over? Can a satellite system be made genuinely free of error and evasion? Will some people and services (doctors? Teachers? Ambulances? Mail vans?) be exempt? Can the system be designed to prevent our civil liberties being threatened?

These are all real problems and they need robust solutions. There is, however, a world of difference between a determination to find those solutions (or seek out effective alternative measures) in order to make reform work - and a cowardly decision to use the problems as a smokescreen behind which the very notion of reform can be quietly buried. The Government's reaction to today's report will tell us not only whether Britain will end up with a rational transport system, but whether ministers have the guts to overcome the political obstacles to rational policy-making.