The investment has to come first. You can't deter car use if the alternative to car use doesn't exist.
Why do keep ignoring the answers already given? Quote:
"That the buses weren't a viable option after sinking to only 4500 of them didn't deter Ken when he introduced the congestion charge. He just borrowed the money to buy 200 more buses
which were waiting to carry the ex car drivers on day one of the charge. Then the charge income paid off the debt. And he'd also planned for more cycling with a set of 19 free cycling maps showing all the marked cycle routes in Greater London."
In other words you do as all governments do, borrow to invest in what's necessary, which then pays back on the investment.
Forget the myth that London has lots of money. The whole of our annual earnings, some £50 billions currently, gets taken from us by central government and spent in the regions, apparently unwisely since they never seem to improve in such as transport. That's why we still have in London some of the most poverty stricken living areas in the country and the worst housing situation by far.
Just once in a while we keep a share in a little of what we earn, for example allowed to keep the Crossrail money to build it, under 3% of our earnings in each of the likely 13 years to completion. And of course we needed Crossrail to continue to earn that £50 billions per annum for the rest of the country.
.