Remember all that fuss last year about the congestion charge? London’s streets were going to grind to a halt and the public transport system was going to seize up.

It was all bunkum, as I predicted in an article on this page exactly one year ago, when the scheme was introduced. The now-silent media Cassandras have been proved completely wrong; their dire predictions confounded. The campaigners against the scheme, including Steve Norris, the Tory mayoral candidate, have been unmasked by events as mere opportunists, and Labour ministers revealed to be craven cowards who dared to embrace Ken Livingstone only when the scheme proved to be a clear success.

The oft-predicted demonstrations by angry motorists simply did not materialise, nor did the expected chaos on the periphery. Indeed, the first day was characterised by remarkable silence on the streets of Central London, not seen since the 1930s.

The serenity continued. At a stroke, the number of cars going into the capital between 7am and 6.30 pm fell by 30 per cent. People took to the extra buses put on by Transport for London, walked or hopped on their bikes — 73 per cent more cyclists are coming into the congestion charge zone every morning than in 2002.

The congestion charge is that rare bird, a transport success story. London has become a better place to be in. As I wrote last year: “If Ken Livingstone is successful in reducing congestion even by the predicted 10 or 15 per cent, it will have done everyone in the capital a favour and will make Britain a world leader in at least one respect, a rare event these days.” That target has easily been met.

In political terms, far from sounding the death knell for Ken Livingstone, the success of the charge has made him a shoo-in in this year’s mayoral elections. His Tory opponent, Steve Norris, is now political dead meat.

Sure the scheme is not perfect. There were, inevitably, some motorists who have spent unblemished lives north of Watford who were sent a penalty charge notice because of a misplaced digit in a computer. But compared with major central government fiascos on passports or criminal records, the problems have been trifling.

Of course there are individual sob stories, like the woman on local TV yesterday who, worried about a possible expansion of the scheme, said that every time she drives to the gym she would have to pay £5. Perhaps reading this she may spot the contradiction.

More seriously, a few unlucky, relatively poor, people will have suffered. But that’s the point about good government: making tough decisions that benefit the majority rather than the minority. But at least the greatest fallacy, often touted by Mr Norris, that poor people would be affected unfairly can be laid to rest. In fact, the vast majority of people on low incomes use the buses, which have been much improved thanks, in part, to the money raised from the charge.

The overall effect has been enormously beneficial and, contrary to many fears, the congestion charge has not damaged the economy. A London First survey published yesterday shows that three quarters of businesses reckon the scheme is working.

But Ken Livingstone has not been brave enough. He plans to double the size of the scheme to include much of Westminster and Kensington and Chelsea, but if he really wants to get motorists off the streets, he should double the charge to £10. That would really ensure that only those desperate to drive would continue to do so, freeing more road space for buses, cyclists and walkers. Go on Ken, you’ve got them on the run, go for it.

Christian Wolmar’s history of the Underground, The Subterranean Railway, is published this year.

Join the Debate on this article at comment@thetimes.co.uk