Many evidences were found in London, Manchester, Stockholm and Gothenburg which confirm that governments tend to run different policy instruments to enhance public acceptability. The improvements done in the public transport network of London and Stockholm, before and after the charging implementation, are noticeable proofs of that. Evidence of “carrots” were also seen in the scheme design (e.g. use of exemptions, awareness about overpriced tariffs, the geographic limits of congestion charging zones, transparency) as well as the so calledso-called hypothecation of revenues for public transport. Moreover, in Stockholm the use of a trial period was essential to people to get familiarity and realize the practical effects of the charge in the congestion level before they vote in the referendum. The use of communication and sermons also played an important role for acceptability, as demonstrated by public hearings run in London. On the other hand, lack of a proper communication between authorities and society can be seen as one of the main explanations why Manchester citizens refused the charge and the investment package that would bring a better transport network for this English city.

Taking all these considerations together, this research suggests that to gain acceptability of congestion charges, governments should adopt a policy strategy of “give and take”, by developing a sort of incentives and communication strategiesstrategy, previously and after the implementation of the “stick” congestion charging. Since this study was based on secondary data, future empirical research applying a quantitative approach in primary data of future schemes can improve these research findings. Also, further discussions about the acceptability in cities where congestion charging could replace current strategies of traffic demand, such as in São Paulo, Santiago and Mexico City, would also bring an important theoretical discussion about the transferability of congestion charge from developed to developing countries.