HGV traffic rose at Dartford Crossing after 40% Dart Charge hike, data shows

More heavy goods vehicles used the Dartford Crossing on the first day the Government increased the Dart Charge by 40%, according to data shared exclusively with the Daily Mail.

Ministers said the increase, which took effect on Monday 1 September, was intended to manage traffic levels by encouraging motorists to take alternative routes. The initial day of higher charges, however, showed a rise in HGV use compared with the same day a week earlier, while average daily traffic volumes were broadly unchanged compared with August and average crossing times increased for southbound traffic on the Queen Elizabeth II Bridge and northbound traffic through the two tunnels.

The data, collected from the first day after the price rise, undermines the Government's stated aim of reducing congestion by deterrence through higher charges, according to motoring organisations that criticised the move as a revenue-raising measure. Representatives described the hike as a "blatant 'revenue raiser'" and a "nice little Government earner" that targets motorists who have few practical alternatives for crossing the Thames on the M25 east of London.

Edmund King, president of the AA, described the increase as a "totally unjustified tax on movement," reflecting broader industry concerns that the rise will hit drivers and haulage firms already facing pressure from fuel and operating costs.

Transport analysts and motoring groups noted that the M25 remains the primary east-of-London orbital route with limited alternative Thames crossings for long-distance traffic, reducing drivers' ability to avoid the charge. The increase prompted immediate scrutiny of whether higher costs would shift traffic to other crossings, alter freight routing, or simply add to the cost of moving goods across the region.

The Government framed the policy as a demand-management tool to reduce congestion. Available first-day figures do not show an immediate reduction in overall traffic volumes and instead indicate longer average journey times at key points of the crossing, outcomes that critics say run counter to the stated aim.

Further monitoring of traffic patterns and longer-term data will be required to determine whether the charge achieves sustained reductions in congestion or primarily raises additional revenue. Officials have emphasised the policy intent, while industry groups are calling for a review of the impacts on freight operators and commuter traffic.