Cost incurred by one car of maintaining the road is essentially negligible. The majority of road damage comes from heavy vehicles or weather. Additionally it's interesting you want to 'charge for externalities' when it's actually the cyclists getting a free ride in this category. License fees and gasoline taxes contribute to road funding. Nothing related to cycling does.
I agree with parking, but only if it costs something. If the office already has it, you not using it will not likely save the company any money by refusing to use it.
The only externality you might not be paying enough for to drive to work is the gas filling (assuming non electric). However, the numbers regarding the impact of CO2 are mostly just made up from sums of imagined future or previous natural disasters that can't be directly linked to CO2 emissions.
Peddling to work only eliminates the mild inconvenience of filling up my tank once every 2.5 weeks or so.
When I drive, I suddenly realize what a waste of time it is. And it's not really fun because of traffic either.
I actually miss public transport. I also imagine that cyclists do similar things. The trouble in this argument is that maybe the cyclists also enjoy cycling like I did skating. To most people who solely drive to commute, it's a thing they don't particularly enjoy.
It can be subtly simple things, like, working in a job where you have to go across town to a customer site 3 times a week during the middle of the work day and can't afford to take 2.5 hours out of your day to bike there and bike. Or living in a place with lots of hills, or having no place to clean up once you get to work.
All those issues have to be solved long before bike lanes becomes part of the discussion for biking to become a practical choice. A few people who are really into biking, crazy spandex outfits and all, might be willing to ignore those practical considerations, but if you want to get the average citizen up on a bike like in the Netherlands, you have to solve the rest of the issues.