Trapped in worsening traffic jams, Chinese cities are set to travel the same road as London did: making motorists pay to drive into their city centres.

The British capital is said to have moved faster after cutting traffic by 30 per cent with a 5-pound-per-car-per-weekday congestion charge launched in 2003.

Shanghai is the furthest ahead in taking the inspiration. A feasibility study on introducing its own congestion fees has won a municipal award. Beijing and Nanjing have shown interest in similar schemes. Both have launched studies and consultations.

As unpleasant as the new charge may seem, speaking as a Beijing resident, a car owner and a self-professed, half-hearted environmentalist, I am looking forward to seeing the initiative take effect.

The obvious reason is that it is expected to mitigate traffic jams and get the city moving.

Right now, 2.41 million automobiles are registered in Beijing. Their speed averages no more than 20 kilometres per hour within the city's Third Ring Road, an area that accounts for half of the capital's traffic. During rush hour, it can be reduced to 7 kilometres per hour. That's barely faster than walking on foot.

To make matters worse, 1,000 more vehicles are hitting the road each day, according to the Beijing Municipal Traffic Management Bureau. Beijing gained 147,000 new cars in the first five months of 2005. It took 48 years for Beijing to reach 1 million cars and only six years for it to add another million.

While the number of automobiles grows at an annual rate of 10 per cent, the increase in the carrying capacity of urban roads has grown at a mere 3 per cent. In the busy old city centre, the road grid will not see big improvements, as the cultural landscape has to be preserved, a transport report released last year said.

When there is not enough road supply to meet the growth in travel demands, it seems reasonable to control that demand.

Congestion fees provide a disincentive to driving. It could shift drivers' travel patterns to alternatives such as bicycles, walking or public transit, such as buses and the subway. These could lead to reduced vehicle trips and miles travelled, thus in the end improving traffic flow.

The second, perhaps more important, reason is that it could help reduce Beijing's air pollution. Theoretically, the less overall distance driven would directly reduce emissions of harmful pollutants. And less traffic congestion means less idling or idling for fewer drivers. Since idling contributes significantly to air pollution, less idling means less smog. So, we stand a better chance of breathing cleaner air in Beijing.

Levying new taxes or fees is always controversial. Many Londoners complained before their city introduced them. It's not surprising to hear of strong local public opposition.

A common complaint is the proposed fee is a botched solution that only treats the superficial symptoms of the urban ailment rather than tackling its root. Opponents argue that insufficient public transport networks, poor traffic management and monolithic urban layouts that concentrate city functions in downtown are to blame for worsening traffic.

A congestion fee does not tackle these root problems.

More buses and subways, improved management and better urban planning to diversify the capital's business, cultural and social functions to outer districts, should come before such pricing measures are taken, they argue.

I agree there is nothing wrong with tackling a problem at its root. But changing the entire layout of urban Beijing and building a comprehensive public transit network requires a much longer time. When the number of cars is growing and the city is clogged and shrouded in smog, can people afford to wait patiently? Something needs to be done to relieve the immediate public woes. A congestion charge may be unpopular at first, but it could also work, both as a quick remedy and the first step of a larger solution.

Many motorists are against the fee. They argue it unfairly targets private cars. With 1.65 million private automobiles, this section accounts for 68 per cent of Beijing's registered vehicles.

Unfortunately, the statement holds truth. But if there are no such measures to reduce congestion, motorists have to inch forward at a snail's pace in downtown areas and can hardly enjoy the convenience of their private cars. On the other hand, the fee one pays will expect to bring smoother and faster driving. It's just paying more for a better service.

Those in the auto industry have also voiced concerns. They worry the new proposal will dampen consumers' enthusiasm and hurt the burgeoning industry in the long run.

This might be true. However, when it comes to public policy, environmental benefits and the efficiency of the whole society should always outweigh a specific industry's interest.

Besides, the initiative targets only congested areas in the city centre. Outskirts and less travelled routes are not affected. By introducing cheap, big parking lots near underground and light-rail stations outside the fourth and fifth ring roads, the government is encouraging different travel options. One could drive to a subway station and use public transit to get downtown. Private cars could be saved for necessary trips such as weekend journeys out of the city, rather than going into the crowded city centre.

For some, the controversy is not a matter of whether we need such a scheme. It is rather a question of what is most appropriate and when. They accuse transport authorities of being too ready to follow London's footsteps without considering local conditions. Unlike London, they argue, Beijing does not have the massive public transportation network to cater to ex-car travellers. That means the capital is not ready for such a scheme yet. Some point out that the transport authorities are too eager to jump to the idea of charging without giving any service guarantee.

These arguments certainly contain some valid points. To a large extent, good timing and well-detailed implementation plans will determine the very success of the scheme.

To really learn from London's example, improvements in public transit, appropriate technology, and financial resources should be in place when the charging scheme is introduced.

London's charging scheme, authorized by Mayor Ken Livingstone, relies on advanced technology. More than 230 cameras were installed in central London to spot cars travelling into and out of congestion-charge areas. Drivers may pay the charge on the Internet, by text message, in shops equipped with a PayPoint, or by phone.

Buses, taxis, disabled drivers and emergency service vehicles are exempt from the fee, which rose to 8 pounds this year. Residents of targeted zones and drivers of environmentally friendly vehicles are eligible for discounts.

The total cost of implementing the scheme, including setting up the cameras, the call centre for processing payments and advertising to notify motorists of the scheme's introduction was more than 250 million pounds (US$310 million).

Beijing will need time to pool resources and prepare technology to put a proposal into action. Close study should also be conducted before laying out a detailed plan to balance the interest of different commuters and make sure the money raised by the scheme is invested in public transport.

Given the current public transport network, it is tempting to propose a time frame of 2008. Massive public transport updates for the Olympics, especially the eight subway lines, will have been completed by then, allowing the added capacity to convey any deterred car travellers.

Hopefully, by then, people will prefer to forgo the comfort of car rides for faster, less polluted, less energy-consuming and more predictable journeys.