If London's city fathers had listened to Christopher Wren, there wouldn't be a problem.
After the Great Fire of 1666 that destroyed most of the city, architect Wren submitted a master plan for rebuilding. The plan included wide boulevards with plenty of room for traffic.
If you have visited the city, you know that the city fathers turned down Wren's plan. Because of that, most of London's streets can accommodate only slow-moving carriages and wagons, instead of the traffic that a city of 8 million produces.
The average speed of a vehicle in London is 10 m.p.h, with 200,000 vehicles going through the city in a day. In a belated attempt to handle the horrendous amount of congestion on London's streets, the city has launched a radical plan to cut back on the number of vehicles driving in the city.
If it works in London, many cities worldwide may follow suit, including New York City.
The new plan, implemented on Monday, requires drivers entering London to pay a congestion charge of about $8. The hope is that drivers won't want to pay and will take a bus, a taxi, or the Tube (London's subway system).
London's congestion charge is a great experiment. Cities around the world have searched for decades for a solution to traffic congestion. Expanding public transportation systems has not cut it. City governments need to hit people where it hurts most - their wallets.
In the first few days of operation, London saw a 25 percent drop in traffic. In a city where traffic crawls and pedestrians move faster than buses, 25 percent is significant. Even if the school holiday was responsible for keeping some parents off the road, even 10 percent is significant.
The money raised by the congestion charge will be funneled back into the public transportation system. The charge is estimated to raise $300 million per year. After taking away the $100 million necessary to run the cameras and computer database needed to enforce the charge, $200 million is ready to go into the public transportation fund, which needs it.
The Tube already runs at full capacity during peak hours, with so many commuters stuffed onto trains that one Member of Parliament said cattle get better treatment. After a recent accident, two major train lines have shut down, leaving the Tube even worse off. Unfortunately, $200 million will not cover the costs necessary to dig more lines and add more trains.
Phoenix is not at the point where it needs to implement such a radical plan - it would be an excellent preemptive strike though - but other cities in the United States are. Obviously New York City comes to mind first, and a possible plan similar to London's is in review for next year.
Other cities like Boston, San Francisco and Los Angeles have traffic congestion that certainly could benefit from a congestion charge. However, Los Angeles might be out as an option because of its urban sprawl. The ability to enforce the charge depends largely on a small area of surveillance.
It's too early to say if the system is a success. London's mayor, Ken Livingstone, wants at least two months before declaring it a failure. He's betting his political career that it won't be.
To be a proponent of the plan, I do not even need to go into the environmental benefits that come from a congestion charge. Cities with less noise and fewer car accidents is enough for me.
In London, people reported on Monday that they could hear the birds again. Wouldn't that be nice for all of us?
Kym Levesque is a journalism junior. Reach her at kymberly.levesque@asu.edu.