If you can calculate it, you understand the scenario. That makes to you possible as well draw it. In Illustrator or Inkscape you can have any scaling without losing the accuracy. I have constructed an example, how apparent heights ( actually distances to the horizon line) can be drawn:
the place of the apparent drawing paper. All heights are marked here. The top of the vertical blue line is the top edge of the paper and the bottom end of the same line is the bottom of the paper.
a line to the horizon
the end of your lane
a simple object
The next image is a construction of the heights. The widths are quessed except the object 5 is drawn like it were rectangular and parallel with the lane. Thats why the edges are directed to the same escape point than the sides of the lane.
For exact widths you need a top view projection that you use to measure the apparent widths in the same way as I measured the heights.
This all is a very old theory that was in wide use before the year 1500. If you want to do it easily, goto 3D. Even free SketcUP can help yo create realistical perspectives. There's no urgent need to construct complex 3D models. You can place there only coarse mock-ups and then make a careful illustration over the SketcUP screenshot. In addition very rich selection of things (everyday stuff, buildings, animals....) is freely downloadable straight into your scene from SketchUP's 3D warehouse.
In Illustrator there's the Perspective Grid tool which is handy if you work in 2D, want consistent looking perspective but are not especially interested to make too many measurements from different projections. It's as accurate as measurements, if you adjust it properly (tricky!!!!) to yor scene and have some calibration objects that have realistic 2D dimensions.
Your current case:
This is the principle without any scale. You are in point A. The apparent place of your image B is unknown, So is C, where the lane edges disappear from the image. The only known distance is 100 meters from A to D. Unfortunately that's not enough to reconstruct your case, because your image has very low resolution. We cannot reliably decide how wide the far end of your whole track is in the image.
Lets assume you can measure it better. Let you have got the far end of your whole 3 lane track have width T (pixels, millimeters or other units) in your image.
Then we can calculate the apparent distance of the image.
The apparent distance AB = T * (100m / the real width of the track)
We assume that your camera doesn't have any distortion.
If you can decide T, then you probably can mark the escape point, too by continuing the right and left edges of your track. They meet at the escape point and there's also your horizon.
Now we can calculate how much below the horizon is the apparent ground at 50m distance. The real altitude difference is 1m, as you told.
the altitude difference from the horizon to ground in the image is
= (1m/50m) * AB = 0,02 * (100m / the real width of the track) * T
Lets assume your T= 8 pixels and your total track width is 8 meters. Then the ground at 50m in front of you has altitude 2 pixels below the horizon in the image.
That's not very inspiring result. If the car happens to be 2m wide, its width in the image would be 4 pixels. If you work in photoshop, you have generously 3 smaller brush sizes to paint the details.
To have artistically interesting output you should consider to draw the car to much less distant position.