It is too regressive to achieve that end. If you have a lot of money, it is a trivial cost for convenience. If you are poor, but would really benefit from road access, you still may not be able to afford it. You could easily frame this as "keep the poor off the road so the rich don't have to deal with traffic".
Anyway, making walking and cycling as crappy as possible by giving people congested, polluted, dangerous streets is pretty inconsiderate to poor people as is.
And the article specifically mentions waivers for low income people.
But true, the _worst_ for cycling is very busy but still fast roads. Wilshire blvd on a Saturday comes to mind
If this congestion charge reduces traffic and makes buses run faster, it's possible that it would actually massively benefit poorer individuals.
Kind of how parking meters are FANTASTIC because they mean I can finally get a damn space for the rare occasion when I rent a van or car and need to park in front of my flat. I just wish they'd raise prices on my street because it's still tough sometimes.