Anyone who switches to transit or short-distance carpool likewise comes out ahead, even if the carpool has to pay full congestion charges. That leaves out a third of peak-hour drivers who drive between ten and 25 miles. Pay for what you get is well accepted for other necessities. It is true that congestion charges would be regressive, in the sense of charging the poor a higher fraction of their wealth than the rich for the same benefits. Most people, poor people included, would be horrified if we charged the same artificially low prices for these as we do for roads at peak hour, correctly guessing that people would waste them, just as we now waste our time, our roads, and our health.
Congestion charges are much less regressive than the existing system.
The system now in use, as we have seen, is triply regressive. Taxpayers generally, a poorer class, now subsidize road users, a richer class. Road users generally, a poorer class, subsidize peak-hour commuters, a richer class. Asking people to pay for what they get would be not only more efficient, but also less regressive than any of these foundations of the existing system. If necessary, losers can be compensated.