This is a tricky conundrum, thegelding. On the one hand, our car culture is extracting a heavy toll from society and the environment, so something ought to be done. On the other hand, charging for it seems to hit the poor hardest. I say "seems" because those who can't afford a car often take the bus, and anything that significantly reduces congestion will dramatically reduce bus journey times.
An economist would tell you that building more roads would not reduce congestion unless the cost of driving were increased. By building more roads the cost is actually reduced and demand rises accordingly, filling the new roads in short order. I haven't thought this through, but I tend to think that the poor have no right to congest and pollute, so if they're priced off the roads that's a good thing. The fact that the rich would continue driving isn't reason enough to make the policy "fair". It would in fact be "fair" toward the poor, and "generous" towards the rich.
Rail has had a hard time in recent decades because low-cost airlines are attracting customers by low fares made possible by the competition-distorting zero-tax policy on aviation fuel (aeroplanes use such excessive amounts of fuel per passenger-kilometre that they would be hopelessly outclassed for <500 km routes if aviation fuel were taxed like other energy sources). On the other side, driving a car is far cheaper than the true cost because everyone in the country and indeed the planet pays the costs, in terms of infrastruture construction, road safety and air/noise pollution.
In London taking a car into the central zone is charged at £8 (US $15.55) per day. This is on top of very high fuel costs, extremely high parking costs and among the highest new-car prices in Europe. Despite the costs the city is packed to the gills every day. Public transport in London is more expensive than anywhere I've lived or visited, but it's still a lot cheaper than driving. I'm not sure what the solution is.
