I suspect if the costs were more apparent people would be more apt to support public transportation and reconsider their driving habits.
A gas tax is already proportional to miles driven times vehicle weight times a fuel efficiency factor.
Congestion, on the other hand, is a more difficult thing. Vehicle length certainly plays a factor, as well as width, acceleration, and braking distance. Number of passengers is an obvious factor. Trip routing efficiency has a role. I really don't expect local legislators to understand the mathematics of traffic. If they don't commission a study by traffic experts, and do exactly what those experts recommend, they might just end up making things worse.
A study in Copenhagen found that the total cost (personal + to society) of cycling 1km was 8¢, versus 50¢ for driving, or 89¢ for driving at peak times. (That includes 16¢ given back to society in fuel tax.)
The low cycling figure is mostly due to the positive benefit to society of a healthier population (reduced healthcare costs, offset by slightly increased state pension costs when people live longer).
Unfortunately, the paper is a MS Word document: http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2015.03.006 or https://www.researchgate.net/publication/274097090_Transport...
"Accident costs are founded in market values, and comprise public services (police, rescue and treatment), the loss of net productivity, premature deaths, minor and major injuries, and the cost of material damage. Costs are calculated in comparison to number of accidents related to cars/bicycles, and interpolated by the number of km driven/cycled. Accidents entail a cost of Euro 0.022/km for driving and Euro 0.106/km for cycling (COWI and Køpenhavns Kommune, 2009; Transportministeriet, 2010). Even though accidents involving cyclists entail lower material damage costs, overall costs are higher, as cyclists are more exposed and hence affected by accidents. As outlined by Transportministeriet (2013), there remains considerable uncertainty regarding average accident costs for cyclists."
I doubt the cost of treatment is recovered from road insurance policies in Denmark.
(Also NB this is urban driving at 50km/h, the accident cost of extra-urban driving may be higher.)
It follows that converting a car-based city to a transit one necessarily takes away resources from the people who have sunk high costs into their acquisition of a car. That population almost always objects to transit-oriented development.
Driving isn't free, but the costs you mention are all part of the cost to the person choosing to drive. That person has presumably incorporated these into their decision of whether or not to drive.
A congestion tax (or dynamic toll) is an attempt to internalize the external costs that a driver imposes on others; when I get in the car and drive, I slow everyone else on the road down, but without a toll (or an expectation of altruism toward random strangers), that won't affect my decision making at all. The goal of a toll is to make the cost of choosing to drive equal to the sum of the costs it imposes on everyone, not just the driver.
The same problem exists within electricial grids. Providing 'peaker' plants which are only used 5% of the time are incredible expensive. cf how expensive electricity got in california when Enron shut these plans down intentionally in summer.
Secondly, not all gates can take larger aircraft.
Thirdly, larger aircraft take a lot more time to turn around than smaller ones (fewer doors per passenger). Which means your gates are tied up for longer.
That's true, but completely misses the point. Road access is free, which is what causing congestion on some roads during rush hours.
Any solution to that has to target those specific roads during those specific hours.
Air travel and electrical power:
(1) Are easier to add capacity for during times of peak demand
(2) Actually do fail (even though tolled!) when demand exceeds capacity (brown/blackouts for electrical power, cascading delays easily exceeding those for ground traffic when weather knocks down capacity).
On top of that, it isn't as if driving has been anything close to free -- gasoline and associated taxes are immediate costs for every mile driven, and most people know at some level that each mile also has an additional total cost in terms of insurance and impact on maintenance/lifetime of the vehicle.
And people still choose to make it more expensive in the form of higher-end (and often lower MPG) automotive purchases.
If there's a solution to the traffic problem, instead of attempting to make driving particularly more expensive, it probably involves:
(a) make other transportation options more affordable in terms of reach, time, and money
(b) making the housing market more liquid and affordable, so people can more easily choose locations convenient to their living activities