 Solution

Let $R_s$ be the routes serving source-sink pair $s$. The source-sink route incidence matrix and link-route incidence matrix areThus $Hx=f$ fixes the demands, and $y=Ax$ gives link throughputs. Assume a finite route set with at least one route for each positive demand. A Wardrop equilibrium is a feasible flow for which every used route has minimum delay among the routes for its source-sink pair. Writingthis means that, for each $s$, there is a number ${\lambda }_s$ with $c_r(x)\ge {\lambda }_s$ for $r\in R_s$, with equality whenever $x_r>0$. No individual user can reduce its delay by switching routes while treating the aggregate throughputs as fixed.

The feasible set $K=\{x\ge 0:Hx=f\}$ is a nonempty compact convex set: within each source-sink pair its route flows lie in a simplex of total $f_s$. The Beckmann potentialis continuous and convex, and has $\partial \Phi /\partial x_r=c_r(x)$. It therefore attains a minimum on $K$. For a differentiable convex function, $x$ minimizes $\Phi$ exactly whenIndeed necessity follows by differentiating along the feasible segment from $x$ to $z$, and sufficiency follows from the supporting-tangent inequality. This condition is equivalent to Wardrop equilibrium. Necessity of the route condition follows by moving a small amount of positive flow from a used route to any other route of the same pair. Conversely, under the route condition,because the terms involving $x_r$ vanish and both flows have the same pair totals. This proves both existence and the claimed convex optimization characterization, with $y=Ax$.

Since each $D_j$ is strictly increasing, its primitive is strictly convex. Thus ${\sum }_j{\int }_0^{y_j}{D}_j(u)du$ is strictly convex in $y$. If two minimizing flows had different link throughputs, their midpoint would have strictly smaller potential. Hence the equilibrium link throughputs are unique.

The route flows need not be unique. Consider one unit of demand through two successive stages, each with two parallel links, labelled $a,b$ in the first stage and $c,d$ in the second. The four routes are $ac,ad,bc,bd$, and all link delays are $D_j(u)=u$. For any $0\le t\le 1/2$, chooseEvery link then carries $1/2$ and every route has delay one, so each vector is a Wardrop equilibrium. They all produce the same link throughputs but give distinct route decompositions.

For the toll construction, put $F={\sum }_s{f}_s>0$. The total delay is $L(x)={\sum }_j{y}_j{D}_j(y_j)$ and the average delay is $L(x)/F$, so they have the same minimizers. Compactness of $K$ gives a global minimizer $x^{\ast }$, with $y^{\ast }=A{x}^{\ast }$. Its differentiable objective satisfies the necessary route-flow inequalityThis inequality is necessary even when total delay is not convex, since it follows from the right derivative along each feasible segment.

Use optimal-flow calibrated congestion tolling:Here $(v{)}_{+}=\max (v,0)$. The toll is nonnegative, continuously differentiable and nondecreasing, because $D_j^{\prime }\ge 0$. The perceived cost ${\hat{D}}_j(u)=D_j(u)+T_j(u)$ is strictly increasing. At $y_j^{\ast }$ it equals $D_j(y_j^{\ast })+y_j^{\ast }{D}_j^{\prime }(y_j^{\ast })$, so the displayed necessary inequality makes $x^{\ast }$ a Wardrop equilibrium for these perceived costs, by the preceding Beckmann potential argument. Their strictly increasing costs give unique equilibrium link throughputs. Therefore every tolled equilibrium has link loads $y^{\ast }$ and minimizes average delay. Constant tolls $T_j(u)=y_j^{\ast }{D}_j^{\prime }(y_j^{\ast })$ also suffice; the added positive-part term makes them genuinely traffic-dependent without moving the optimum. Zero total demand is the trivial empty-flow case.

The usual marginal external cost toll $T_j(u)=u{D}_j^{\prime }(u)$ makes its Beckmann potential equal $L$, but concluding that all its equilibria minimize $L$ requires convexity of $L$. Strict increase of delays alone does not supply this. For example, on two parallel links with $D(u)=1-e^{-u}$ and demand six, the equal split $(3,3)$ is an equilibrium under marginal-cost tolls, while its total delay $6(1-e^{-3})$ exceeds $4(1-e^{-4})+2(1-e^{-2})$, the delay at $(4,2)$. The calibrated construction avoids adding a hypothesis absent from the printed question.