Congestion pricing is often criticized as regressive because a flat charge consumes a larger share of a low-income driver's budget. That point is important but incomplete. The distributional effect of a policy depends not only on who pays at the toll point, but also on who currently bears congestion, pollution, unreliable buses, and long travel times, as well as how revenue is used. A charge whose proceeds improve frequent transit and provide targeted rebates can leave many lower-income travelers better off, particularly if they do not drive into the priced area. Conversely, a nominally progressive rate can still be inequitable if alternatives remain poor. Equity analysis must therefore examine the full package of burdens, benefits, behavior, and revenue use rather than classifying the charge from its face value alone.