The Mayor is consulting on the proposed westward extension of the congestion charge zone.

He is required to consult with the Assembly – and the Assembly usually passes such responses to the appropriate committee, in this case the Transport Committee.

So I need to produce two outcomes – one is the Lib Dem response and one is to try and get a cross-party Assembly response. The latter will be quite a challenge in a year leading up to elections!

On the LibDem line – we are basically opposing the Mayor’s proposals. Now when the Tories oppose congestion charging, it’s political and because Steve Norris has already said he will remove the existing congestion charge. So – their position is the usual pro-car position.

However, when the LibDems oppose this proposed extension, there’s a good reason – as we are staunch supporters of the charge and I have always gone out there to bat for it against all the forces ranged against it in the run up to its go live last February.

However, this proposed extension is ill thought out, ill-conceived, rushed and economically apparently insane. Apart from that…

OK to explain:

Firstly – we don’t get the analysis of the first year of the charge until next spring. We have no accurate information on the effect on business, the economy or social impacts of the charge. Traffic impacts we do know, but not the rest. Only fools rush in where they haven’t a clue about the real effects of the charge. I think it has been a great policy and a great success – but I want to be very sure before making further decisions.

Secondly – whereas the original central charging area clearly covered the ground where the radial routes in and out the West End meant you would be targeting the working commuter for the most part, the extension to Kensington and Chelsea and the rest of Westminster is very residential by comparison and therefore quite a different scenario.

Also – the inmates (so to speak) would get a 90% discount. This extrapolated to any other areas of congestion charging logically would mean in the end everyone was discounted and therefore the charge would not inhibit travel.

Thirdly – outdated (yes already) technology means that this proposed extension takes it to the limit of its capacity. Any further extensions or areas in London which want or need a charge to deal with major traffic jams would have to have a completely new system.

The Mayor needs to do some strategic planning and change to Global Positioning Satellite system which would be able to target congestion hot spots wherever they were, or whatever time of day was crowded or whatever day of the week – anywhere in London. We need congestion charging to grow up, become more sophisticated so that it can work as a real tool in controlling traffic congestion anywhere.

This technology already exists – that is where we should be aiming. And all vehicles would have a little gismo / transponder – so that you are automatically charged if you enter a congestion zone and don’t have to remember to phone up each time.

And fourthly – the economics of it. I agree congestion charging is about reducing congestion and not about income – but not to the point of this financial consequence. The running cost and the revenue from the proposed extension are at about break even. Fair enough. However, the set up cost for the extension is estimated at £100 million. Now the Mayor is facing a budget deficit of £1billion after next year if he wants to implement

his various plans as well as maintain the current levels of transport provision. When you have no money for improvements – perhaps it is not the best time to spend £100 million that you haven’t got and which anyway could be better spent on something else.

So – hopefully – his consultation with us and the other members of the GLA family will focus his thinking a bit more strategically then it seems to be at the moment.