So how is someone who isn't allowed to drive going to get to the station when there is NO public transport? Or are you proposing that every remote village and hamlet is going to have a regular bus service that ties in with every train service?
By not buying the railcard that requires surrendering your driving licence, of course.
While it's obviously a bit extreme, it recognises the threat that cars pose to public transport: fixed costs. When you buy a car, you commit to a large fixed expenditure, and the marginal cost of an additional journey is small. All those 'true cost of motoring' things are irrelevant, because many people either need to have a car, or think they do, so most of the cost is locked in whether they drive fifty miles a year or fifty thousand.
When you travel by public transport, you pay a more-or-less proportionate share of the fixed costs in addition to the marginal cost. Since many people either need a car, or think they do, it's a question of paying the total costs of public transport, or the marginal costs of taking the car. In almost all cases, the marginal cost of driving is lower so public transport will always struggle on price alone.
The proposal from
@JamesRowden cuts that logic off before it can get started, and whilst rather extreme I could see it having attraction to some people, almost entirely city-dwellers. There are lots of other advantages to driving, of course, so it wouldn't be suitable for the vast majority of people.
More practical would be a rather expensive railcard, costing a couple of thousand pounds a year, but which offered a very large discount - perhaps 75%, maybe even more - on fares. The logical conclusion of this approach is BahnCard 100, which costs the equivalent of £3,500 and gives 100% discount on fares.
