Keep in mind that the histogram is really just a pareto. The sharp peak is explained simply by having a fairly large area of flat, bright sky. There's not a whole lot you could do about that except point your camera at something else when making the photo. I wouldn't call it a contrast problem, but an issue of unfortunate compositional choices.
No. The spike is on the dark side of the tonal range. It's not the sky. It's the trees, the planters, the axel, and all the shadowed areas --- i.e. it's the subject.
Furthermore, had the same data and the same histogram been stretched to use all of the available horizontal space on the user interface, the process would have been a lot easier. This can be seen as either a limitation of the software UI (or equivalent, my ability to use it) in failing to use all of the available space, or a limitation of the film or the digitization process that fails to make the darkest parts of the image truly black, and the lightest parts truly white.
Here's the image again without the tone curve I added. What the histogram is saying is "this image is a giant muddy blob of dark gray".
To be clear, I am not asking for help. I understand the sorts things that need to improve, and this should get better with practice. I could improve my scanning to get more dynamic range in the digital image, and I could find better ways to use the software UI. I am simply giving a relevant supporting example of how someone might struggle with contrast --- I have an image with limited dynamic range and I need to adjust the black point, the white point, and the transition between them to make a passable image.