Cars are a vital part of most people's lives and the economy. Most people don't want to be a slave to public transportation, including me. Getting rid of cars would be ridiculous.
Extra fees for congestion make sense, because the land that roads and parking use in the middle of cities is much more valuable than the land in suburban or rural areas. Gas taxes don't account for that difference. They treat every mile the same (or similarly), even when the cost of that infrastructure differs drastically.
In any case, this is not about "getting rid of cars", so it's dishonest of you to reframe the argument in those terms. As very specifically noted, this is about sharply limiting to getting rid of cars in dense urban cores. Big, big difference.
Also,cars are an important part of most economies, but less so in bigger cities - and it points to the fact that a)they weren't always so and b) might not always need to be, maybe there's a better way, which is what some posters are suggesting. If you Remove the necessity of a car for some people, and make alternatives better, then there are probably a lot of benefits (pollution, construction costs, congestion, safety) to it. But no one (or very few, I guess, since this is HN and lots of opinions) is suggesting arbitrarily and unilaterally getting rid of cars.
This is free advice, so you can take it for what it's worth, but if you've ever found yourself suffering from a limited amount of trust or respect from others, consider that it may be due to your apparently limited respect for the truth. Or basic English.