Motorists misled over C-charge extension

Transport chiefs were today accused of misleading motorists over the congestion charge increase.

In July, the charge will rise from £5 to £8, and in early 2007 the scheme will move westwards under Transport for London proposals. TfL said the rise was to deter motorists from entering the zone and to stop the charge being "devalued".

But documents seen by the Standard suggest the real reason for the hike is to ensure the scheme does not plunge into the red under the burden of expanding into Kensington and Chelsea.

Transport for London's Preliminary Consultation Draft says: "Comparing the costs and benefits of a western extension, the net effect of a £5 and £8 extension over 10 years of operation can be calculated." It says a £5 charge would be "unlikely to cover the costs".

But an £8 charge would "broadly cover the resources it would consume" - it could even generate £210 million over 10 years under "favourable" conditions. The document says a £5 charge could make £20 million over 10 years but only if large numbers of motorists carry on paying to drive in - and if operating costs are lower than expected. Otherwise there could be "an overall financial loss", the document warns.

If the charge's finishing time is cut back to 6pm from 6.30pm as demanded by businesses, loss of benefits could be even greater, totalling £40 million to £80 million over 10 years.

In November Mayor Ken Livingstone announced he was going to increase the charge to ?8, after previously indicating it would rise to ?6. When challenged by LBC radio phonein host Nick Ferrari the following month, the Mayor said simply: "I changed my mind." Today the RAC Foundation, and Tories and Liberal Democrats on the London Assembly, attacked the ?3 hike.

"When congestion charging was launched the mayor said it was about cutting congestion - not raising money," said RAC Foundation executive director, Edmund King. "Now

TfL's own document shows the main reason for boosting the charge is not - as TfL says - to cut traffic further but simply to ensure the western extension can go ahead."

Angie Bray, Tory transport spokeswoman on the Assembly, said: "The increase from £5 to £8 is not just about extra revenue or less congestion but survival of the scheme." Lynne Featherstone, Lib-Dem chairwoman of the Assembly's transport committee, said: "This new information blows a massive hole in the Mayor's argument as to why the congestion charge should increase from £5 to £8. It is time for the Mayor to come clean with Londoners about his reasons for putting up the charge."

In April last year, before the proposed £8 charge was revealed, TfL admitted there could be a ?5 million loss if not enough drivers paid to enter the expanded zone and if operating costs were at the top end of predictions.

Today TfL denied the rise to £8 was connected with profits or making the extension viable. A spokesman said: "TfL and the Mayor have made very clear the basis on which any increase from £5 to £8 is being suggested. Profitability of the proposed western extension is not the issue at hand."

In a BBC London interview this week Mr Livingstone said he "very much hoped" to introduce the congestion charge extension, regardless of public opposition. "It's good for them," he said. "It will have a further big reduction in congestion, pollution and accidents, and a further improvement in reliability of buses."