Election campaigns are not necessarily times of fine and softly presented differentiations. It is often primarily about loudly entering the collective memory with pithy theses. That was never different. A look back, for example, at the passionate exchange during the federal election campaign in 1980 is strongly recommended as evidence of this. In the heat of the argument, in new territory reinforced by a Twitter conditioning of the attention span to yelling messages, remarks are quickly made that seem rather strange from a distance.
In this context it is hoped to see that the applicant for the government post in Berlin, Bettina Jarasch (Die Grünen), suggested reducing parking spaces and at the same time assumes that the traffic that arises when looking for one will decrease . It is the pinnacle of an idea of mobility that distances itself as much as possible from the everyday lives of those who have to deal with it.
Reallocating traffic: actually a good idea…
It’s probably in the political genes of the Greens that they initially find cars dumb. There are certainly understandable reasons for this – a policy that has shaped car-friendly cities with all their side effects over the decades provides the ideal template, so to speak. In principle, trying to shift individual, motorized traffic is not a bad idea, quite the opposite. The quality of life in cities like Copenhagen or Barcelona, which have more or less already implemented this, has undeniably increased.
Dimensions of the car share
Despite all the aversion to the car, which the green circles repeatedly underline in a publicly effective way, it is important to keep in mind the dimensions of a shift. Although the city-state of Berlin is in the bottom third of Germany with a car density of 327 cars per 1000 inhabitants – in Bavaria there are more than 600 – but in total there are around 1.25 million registered cars in the capital alone. So there must be good personal reasons for a number of people in Berlin to afford such an expensive item. They certainly vary, and yes, convenience will be one of them, but they may not be as easily challenged as a certain number of parking spaces.
With a mobility law, Jarasch wants to do more for walking and cycling, which is absolutely to be welcomed. However, the car is currently the number 1 mode of transport nationwide, and by a huge margin. That Federal Ministry of Transport and Digital Infrastructure comes in the study “Traffic in Figures 2020/2021” concludes on page 229 that in 2018 motorized private transport accounted for 73.8 percent of transport performance. This number has to be classified in two places: On the one hand, it applies throughout Germany, and in rural areas the distances traveled by car are longer than in large cities. Second, she is five years old. The pandemic has also left its mark on these statistics, albeit not in the direction Ms. Jarasch wanted.
Fewer parking spaces equals less search traffic?
Now, among other things, a drastic reduction in parking spaces should encourage people in Berlin to switch. Jarasch does not believe that this will result in even more traffic, namely that of looking for a parking space. “A good proportion of the traffic looking for a parking space is caused every day by 200,000 commuters from Brandenburg, many of whom are still traveling by car,” argues the senator. Please switch to public transport. I doubt whether small-scale resentments against commuters from the surrounding area are constructive or even helpful.
Public transport: Please accept
If you want to push back the dominance of the car at least a little, you have to distribute the traffic performance differently. It is superficially a great idea to encourage the population to exercise more. In a hectic world across the board, relying on this form of deceleration does not seem particularly promising to me. We are certainly not replacing the car as a mode of transport on a large scale. Indirectly, Ms. Jarasch admitted this herself, who in October 2022 had herself photographed in the saddle on a newly opened cycle path in a way that was effective for the public. Traveling to and from this photo shoot was by company car, because otherwise the “senator’s tight schedule could not be worked through”, as it was said when asked. Preach water, enjoy wine: A rather unfavorable way if you want to credibly sell the switch from the car.
Local transport in Berlin also runs close to the limit of its capacity during rush hours. If you want to take on additional users from the “car” mode of transport, you can’t avoid massive investments.
carrot and stick
If the transport performance of the car is to be reduced, an alternative to the car that is perceived by the broad public as at least roughly equivalent is needed. The principle of “carrot and stick” also only works in transport policy if it is used alongside the one so acclaimed by its own supporters “Autocorrect” also has a widely accepted, attractive alternative. Walking and cycling are usually not, because they serve a different mobility need, and this will not change dramatically even with additional cycle paths. This does not mean that their share cannot and should not be increased. But I don’t think we will convince the masses of drivers to leave their vehicles in order to walk or cycle around the city if there are masses of parking spaces.
Public transport at the limit
Only a densely networked local transport network can handle this task. However, public transport is so full at peak times in Berlin that one may ask where Ms. Jarasch got the hope that he could also take over the car share of commuting. Without massive investments in drastically expanded capacities, this idea is downright grotesque. For years, the cash-strapped capital lacked the money to even reliably maintain the existing route network. Something has definitely improved here in recent years. However, investments in public transport alone, which would be necessary to implement Jarasch’s ideas, are a long way off. Not to mention what would be part of an actual traffic turnaround, i.e. additional building blocks such as new cycle highways or more clever planning of intersections.
Conclusion
People’s need for mobility is not decreasing. If you want to make the number one mode of transport – the car – less dominant, you can’t rely solely on making its use as uncomfortable as possible, no matter how loudly it is applauded by your own supporters. An attractive alternative to one’s own car is needed to at least partially convince drivers to make the switch. This task will fall primarily to public transport, which, however, would have to carry out a costly change. That is not foreseeable, and so Jarasch’s proposal is probably above all an attempt to mobilize his own voters. This push could actually stand in the way of an actual turnaround, because the idea of being able to cut the car out of the complicated network of transport policy without compensation may motivate those who are against any change to vote.
(mfz)
