City transportation authorities should adopt cordon-based congestion pricing under four binding design conditions: (1) earmark revenue visibly to public transit and targeted low-income relief; (2) keep exemptions narrow; (3) index and periodically escalate the charge so its effect does not erode with inflation or behavioral adaptation; and (4) expand transit capacity before or alongside launch and time any public referendum to follow a trial rather than precede it.
The net welfare effect of congestion pricing, including its distributional impact, is positive on the condition that revenue is recycled into transit and targeted relief and that exemptions stay narrow; it is not automatically equitable by design.
Authorities' stated goals are reducing congestion and improving urban quality of life within tight fiscal constraints, and no alternative instrument (road expansion, fuel taxes, or blanket vehicle bans) delivers comparable congestion relief while funding its own transit improvements.
The four design conditions are drawn from the cases themselves: London shows the charge must escalate and exemptions stay narrow or the effect erodes; Stockholm shows public opposition flips to majority support once a trial demonstrates the benefits; and the equity analysis shows revenue earmarking is what makes the package fair.
Is there a better alternative than A to achieve G?
Is A feasible for the agent (ability, resources, time)?
Is the goal/value G explicit and acceptable?
Will doing A actually achieve G in the present context?
Is doing A permissible/appropriate given norms or constraints?
Do negative consequences of A outweigh achieving G?