Model for German cities: New York, Singapore, Hong Kong: traffic expert explains what these places are doing right
–
Today, 06/10/2021 | 11:37
Road traffic and mobility play a major role in the climate debate. But according to traffic expert Axel Friedrich, there is no sensible plan in Germany to achieve the turnaround in traffic. There are only hectic reactions – instead of long-term ideas.
–
FOCUS Online: How do you think about the German traffic?
Axel Friedrich: In Germany we do not have any clear objectives about what traffic should look like in the future. Just a hectic response to problems that are already occurring. We don’t know what it actually looks like and what needs to be done. It is also due to a wrong legal structure. Some of the laws come from the Cretaceous, from the Nazi era. We do not have any legal requirements that include a modern transport system or a modern mobility system.
There are various approaches that are being discussed in public, such as supporting rail travel and expanding local transport.
Friedrich: I’ve been hearing that for 40 years since I’ve been in this field. But what happened The train has been pulled back. At that point you did exactly the opposite of what you always said politically. The need to expand the railways and local public transport accordingly means that planning has to be changed and financial resources made available. I have to say: I want to achieve this and that in the future. And that means I have to have specific targets.
Fortunately – or “unfortunately” one has to say in this case – we have a massive target due to the climate protection discussion. We have to drastically reduce emissions. And in contrast to other sectors, transport has not changed its climate budget at all in the last 30 years. We see a lot of catching up to do here. This means that in the next nine years until 2030, traffic will have to make a very strong effort to significantly reduce climate-grade emissions. And that means for the first time that we have a clear target. But the question is, how do I meet this target, also taking into account the other goals? I don’t just have to pay attention to one goal, I have to work on many goals at the same time. And this question has not yet been answered by the Minister of Transport.
To be very specific: How important is the speed limit here?
Friedrich: It’s a topic, one of many. Of course, it is difficult to understand why people have to drive on the autobahn at 300 km / h. Everyone knows that physics is very simple: the faster I drive at a straight speed, the more energy consumption increases. It’s easy to see. The fact that cars are getting bigger and heavier also contradicts the goals that we have formulated politically, but which are not being implemented.
But it’s only a very small part. A speed limit makes maybe five to eight million tons of CO2, depending on the population. This is the same with the discussion about domestic flights. That is one percent of greenhouse gas emissions in the transport sector. We are talking about important symbols of transport policy. But that doesn’t solve the problems. We need a clear specification of what the mobility sector should look like in ten or 20 years. So it takes long-term planning. As in France, Austria or Switzerland, we need significantly more financial resources for the railways. And a clear specification of how freight traffic should run by rail. You can only hear this in speeches at the moment; it is usually not implemented in real planning.
Economic performance is also possible without the priority of the car
Do we have to act ourselves and all become cyclists?
Friedrich: Of course we don’t have to. The individual has only limited influence. Of course, it’s nicer when everyone behaves in a sustainable and environmentally friendly way. But that alone does not solve the problems. For example, if I don’t have decent public transport, the challenge to people is easy, but of course it doesn’t help, because I also need the alternatives.
I also need to know: Where do I have local public transport, where do I have a high-speed cycle route that takes me to my destination? Where do I park my bikes? Where can I go home by public transport in the evening? If I do not clarify these questions, then I cannot make the demand on the individual.
–
More from our experts
–
Do you see dangers in the fact that the German auto industry would shrink if the transport turnaround is implemented quickly? Or does that even have advantages?
Friedrich: It has to change and act differently. We need service mobility, not the car as a means of transport. Cars as a means of transport have to be part of mobility, part of structural change. Of course we will still need cars. When buying furniture, it probably doesn’t make that much sense to use local public transport to get there. But in the city, where space is limited, I have to find other solutions. Because the city is a place for people to meet.
Interestingly, it can be shown that the cities with the lowest car density in the inner city have the greatest economic output. Because people can meet there and generate economic output – for example in New York, Singapore, Hong Kong. There are comparatively few vehicles per square kilometer in the city. There is the question of how one can create structures that advance us as a society. And of course the still high number of road deaths and serious injuries are unacceptable.
Soft factors are the most important for the settlement of companies today. How can I take my children to school? How can I live cleanly and well without environmental pollution and noise? These are reasons for places where companies now settle. Because they know that only with these soft factors can they attract workers. Because if, as an engineer, I have the choice of going to a company in a clean and quiet city or to a company in a noisy and dirty city, then one decides against the city with high pollution.
And it is often forgotten how important these soft factors are today. But the crucial point is that we get a legal change in the framework conditions. That is why we need a federal mobility law that looks at all of these things in an integrated manner.
Are there at least good sustainable developments in transport in Germany?
Friedrich: Yes, in the municipalities. Interestingly, it all comes from the municipalities. We have some who pursue different transport and mobility policies, Berlin or Bocholt for example. But there are no overarching guidelines. However, there are many things that the municipalities cannot do if the federal government does not create the appropriate rules. How do I get a legal requirement for the goals that we have decided politically, such as climate protection? How do I get this into a legal framework so that it has to be implemented?
–
–
About the expert
Axel Friedrich is a German chemist and environmental expert. He was department head for the areas of traffic and noise in the German Federal Environment Agency and co-founded the International Council on Clean Transportation. In 2016 he worked as an expert for Deutsche Umwelthilfe.
—
–
“Citizens’ mobility needs must be in the foreground”
What are specific examples from the municipalities?
Friedrich: If you do a sensible traffic planning, then of course the mobility needs of the citizens have to be in the foreground. When you go out into the open and shop, you have the same mobility as when you have a shop next door. It is not a question of generating traffic, but of enabling mobility. That means making a mobility plan that imposes as little effort as possible on the citizen.
And that also means the question: Who actually owns the space in the city? Space in the city is limited. So I have to make clear guidelines on how that is divided up. In the past, the space had just been divided up towards automobiles. And that means that we have to bring the division back to the needs of the people.
So the priority has to be shifted back from the cars to the people.
Friedrich: We need the guidelines here, the framework. We actually need a federal mobility law that is geared towards people’s needs. Today we are planning one for road traffic, one for rail and one for inland waterways. But what we really need is joint mobility planning that looks at things in combination. But that doesn’t exist today. No goals are set. It is not clearly stated: We want to achieve these goals as a society. And what is missing today is that we are moving forward but do not know where to go. And that’s the worst way to get around.
–
More from our experts
Our world is becoming more and more complex. So that you can keep track of things, in the series “Understand the world: focus on expert knowledge“Specialists scrutinize urgent issues with all their facets. Profound but understandable.
Read more articles from our experts here
—
–
What could traffic look like in the future?
Friedrich: We have made such big changes in society. During the Corona crisis, we saw how much the traffic flows have changed. More home offices, more cyclists, significant changes in traffic structures. At this point we will experience and have to achieve even greater changes so that we can achieve these massive climate reductions. We need a different planning and structure at this point.
Nine years is an extremely short time in transport infrastructure. We’ll have to work with tools like pop-up bike lanes at this point. So that we can change the infrastructure quickly. We need a lot of quick changes. So far, politics has not done particularly well on the matter. We’re too slow to get there. We have to become faster here in order to be able to master the challenges of the future.
–
Phobia against official letters: lawyer explains whether fear of letters protects against punishment
