Mary Dejevsky: Let us not become two nations of car drivers

The time will come when every driver in the south-east of England will be monitored by a spy-in-the-sky and charged for driving on roads we already pay for through the road tax. This is the only way, says a new survey commissioned by the Department of Transport, to discourage us from using roads that will otherwise be catastrophically overcrowded within 15 years: the alternative is traffic on the M25 slowed to a permanent crawl.

Now I for one would be quite happy to see the M25 reduced to a crawl. An enforced snail's pace would make this terrifying racetrack of a road much safer. It would also be a far more effective (and socially more equitable) disincentive to using the London orbital than any toll. And the same applies to Ken Livingstone's planned congestion charges for central London.

On the face of it, I should have every reason to cheer: I am one of the privileged who live inside the zone; I have a car and somewhere to park it. I am even socially irresponsible enough to drive in central London from time to time. Now, it seems, we "zone-dwellers" find ourselves in one of those rare win-win situations. Not only will we have less congested, less polluted streets to drive around, but our property values are forecast to rise because we will be exempt from the £5-a-day charge.

So what can possibly be my problem? Well, I am ashamed to say that it is mostly not any bleeding-heart social conscience. Council-flat dwellers inside the zone will benefit as much from the new arrangements as will private renters and owners, while the millionaires of Kensington and Chelsea will have to pay. The inequities will be outside "the zone", where the gap will only widen between those able to pay and those who cannot.

Reimbursement for the charges will be a new perk for (mostly) higher-paid employees and those with company cars. Those who need their cars ­ people working shifts, making deliveries, transporting disabled or elderly relatives into "the zone" ­ will be penalised. However much public transport is improved ­ and a sudden increase in the number of night buses and tubes looks suspiciously like a mayoral overture to soften us up ­ such people will still need their cars.

My biggest objections, though, and the ones that human nature suggests could eventually scupper the scheme, are overwhelmingly selfish, with a dash of practicality thrown in. Practicality first. Seven years ago I used to drive to work in the Docklands because, before the Tube was extended, the journey by public transport was complex and long. Then, the worst congestion was rarely in central London, but on the approaches, especially in term-time. During school holidays, the jams disappeared.

I will forbear to give a lecture on the iniquity of the school-run, the incidence of obesity among sedentary children and the question over the necessity for four-wheel drives. Suffice to say that it is on the perimeter where traffic builds up ­ the very place where the zone, and the charging, will begin. I would not like to be in the vicinity of the Euston Road when commuters realise that congestion charging means they get both the congestion and the charging.

Although the volume of traffic is supposed to have grown exponentially over the past decade, my experience is that driving in central London is, even now, not significantly slower than driving in many big European capitals. If road works and traffic lights were better co-ordinated, if all deliveries were made at night, and if parking in bus lanes or stopping in yellow boxes became death-penalty offences (OK, we can dream), the traffic through central London could flow as freely as it mostly does in Paris.

But even if charges do improve the traffic flow through the centre, those of us inside the zone could still find ourselves worse off. Traders and service people come mostly from further afield. A central postcode already attracts a premium when people quote for a job; now, they say, they have no choice but to pass on the new charges as well. That could make everything ­ from electrical and plumbing repairs to online grocery deliveries, and doubtless council tax ­ more expensive, negating any rise in property values, or even depressing them.

Then there is bound to be cheating. Just as people exploit relatives' addresses to qualify for good schools, so they will prevail on carless relatives to use an address inside the zone for their car. I will guarantee that if and when the congestion charge is enacted, there will suddenly be far more cars qualifying for parking permits in Camden and Westminster than at present.

These are just some of the more predictable perversities that will follow the start of congestion charging for just a small area of London. Now imagine the same effects multiplied over the South-east as a whole. The edge of the charging zone would become a latter-day Hadrian's Wall, creating two nations of car-drivers. Would customs' duties and passports be far behind?

m.dejevsky@independent.co.uk