Construction costs are currently skyrocketing

A blanket abolition of the commuter allowance is wrong. There are commuting routes in rural areas where a functioning public transport system cannot be established. Buses for one person are counterproductive. I would find it acceptable to remove it for car commuters who are following public transport. Presumably, public transport in metropolitan areas needs to be massively expanded during peak hours.
This does not mean that public transport should not be established in rural areas. It would be very nice if it existed again. Several times a day to the surrounding cities. In the evening to the club, pub, midday for shopping, the bus takes you much closer to the city center than a car. If public transport is re-established, it must not stop at state borders.
In the early 90s, not everyone in our village had a car at 18 yet. People shared the second car with their mom. Within a few years, public transport was cut back so much that everyone at 18 had a 1-series Golf or a Polo. Now people get their driver's license at 17, and that is already too late for many.

It was already written above: Especially in rural areas, charging an electric car costs me almost nothing for 10 months. That more than compensates for the removal of the flat rate. And don't come to me with "Nobody can afford electric cars!!!11". Anyone who thinks gasoline cars are cheaper can go ahead. Those capable of full cost accounting will already be surprised at how cheap driving a car can be. Even without photovoltaics.

I conducted passenger surveys in the Stendahler Land about 15 years ago. There were these call taxis. Once an hour, stops were only served on demand. I thought it was a good system. Now imagine truly autonomous cars. With that, anything is possible!

If we are to take climate protection seriously in the future, then we need to consistently allocate the produced climate damages to the polluter (there are several possibilities for this, e.g. [CO2-Preis]).

Transport:
More public transport (in the near term, the long procedures, e.g. for railway tracks, are quite a challenge)
Less individual traffic (this cannot simply be promoted indefinitely)

Construction:
New construction will become significantly more expensive if energy and resource consumption are consistently allocated to the polluter.

Energy:
Nuclear power and coal are no longer competitive if climate damages are consistently allocated.
Storage in the grid will no longer be taxed twice (how stupid is that actually?)

This affects everyone, some significantly more than others, but it is still cheaper than "business as usual" – only that then we don’t pay, but our children do – not only in terms of money, but also in terms of security and peace.

It is also clear that implementing this in a global environment with a growth-dependent economic system is anything but easy and provokes resistance.

If you know you have to jump 4m to cross an abyss and you will die if you don’t jump, you don’t plan a 2.3m jump. The technique of the jump can be debated extensively, but not the distance, that is fixed.

Maybe it all seems incredibly expensive now – if politically effective action begins, building must become much more expensive. In 10 years, people will consider the cost of new construction today, relative to an income, a bargain.

Imagine truly autonomous cars. With that, everything is possible!

Creepy thought. That will more than double traffic volume with unnecessary empty trips. I drive to work, send the car home, my wife uses it additionally, and then it drives autonomously back to my workplace to pick me up. Great future...

Creepy idea. That will more than double traffic volumes with unnecessary empty trips. I drive to work, send the car home, my wife uses it additionally, and then it drives autonomously back to my workplace to pick me up. Great future...

It looks different if you don’t own the autonomous car but use it. That’s where route and usage optimization comes in. A kind of public transport with an autonomous taxi option.