DVF Debate on Street Spaces: Everyone Benefits from Less Car Traffic

Exciting debate at the Controversial Panel of the German Transport Forum, on the very day when the new Transport Minister from the FDP took office and the new coalition agreement came into force. The panelists, gently directed by ZEIT Politics Section Head Marc Brost, could not have been more controversial and immediately gave the liberal transport leader on duty some messages on the topic "City, Bike, Car - Who Owns the Roadspace?" For there was no doubt for both ADAC President and DVF Presidium Member Gerhard Hillebrand and General Manager of the Zweirad-Industrie-Verband (ZIV) Burkhard Stork that a reallocation of the roadspace is necessary to achieve the Paris climate goals, albeit with different intensities and priorities.

Coalition Agreement: Positive for ADAC, Vague for ZIV

Hillebrand warned against too radical interventions and reminded of the "Yellow Vests" in France, which are not wanted here. He stressed that drivers also need to be "included" in the transformation. In this respect, Hillebrand gave the relatively moderate coalition agreement in the chapter Mobility an "8 to 9" on a scale of 10, mainly because there is no speed limit and the transition of drives would be carried out "technology-neutral". Meanwhile, Stork found a lot of "rubber" in the formulations but at least acknowledged that it is no longer just about the "fluidity of car traffic," but also about climate protection, environment, and health.

ZIV: Bicycle infrastructure must precede demand

Stork also included a passage from the coalition agreement stating that the charging infrastructure for electric cars must precede demand. He wished the same for bicycle infrastructure, addressing the new transport minister. Here, courage is needed, even against the "not-in-my-backyard" mentality, for example, when it comes to converting parking lots into bike lanes or parking spaces.

Cycling with great potential

However, it was undisputed for both association heads that the bicycle must play a central role in the traffic transition, but that it should be embedded as a means of transport in a large meta-plan, a comprehensive concept with a clear vision. Especially on short routes that are still frequently tackled by car, the contrasting discussants quickly agreed: This is where the greatest potential lies in terms of climate protection, air quality, noise, and space. The opportunity window must be utilized. However, this should be understood as an "invitation" to more reasonable mobility, not always as an "act of world-saving."

"We need to help people out of crazy routines and onto bikes. You don't need a car to go 500 meters to the bakery, but maybe for 50 kilometers out of town," advocated Stork.

Keeping speed limit 50 versus introducing speed limit 30

But while Hillebrand would prefer to send cyclists in the city to side streets and reserve the main traffic routes for the "flowing car traffic" at speed limit 50, ZIV man Stork thinks quite differently here. He would allow cities the flexibility for a general speed limit 30 and first create wide bike lanes alongside cars on main traffic routes. According to him, these would need to be structurally separated in such a way that they can be quickly implemented, without causing major (civil) engineering interventions. Subsequently, it would be necessary to see how to keep any diverted traffic out of the neighborhoods and side streets - keywords being bollards, modal filters, bumps.

Traffic shifts? It can also "fizzle out"

Stork also countered ADAC President Hillebrand's main argument that speed limits and narrowing would only lead to diverted traffic with the consequence of higher CO2 emissions, as well as the Google-driven "rerouting mania." Stork referred to studies from Paris or other metropolises, where strong interventions in favor of cycling had simultaneously led to a drastic reduction in car traffic. Motorized individual transport would often simply be abandoned when it is no longer convenient and biking as well as public transport are faster, argued Stork.

"Roads create traffic," he remarked dryly.

In the end, everyone would benefit if a well-developed cycling infrastructure led to more people getting on their bikes: car drivers would face less traffic jams, buses would move more efficiently, and delivery services could stop more easily, perhaps even in temporarily restricted delivery zones. And shops would have more customers:

"Smart retailers create bike racks - because that's where twelve wallets fit," explained Stork.

Public transport not the focus for short distances

For short distances, he doesn't see public transport as much of a focus. Although both discussants can imagine opening bus and taxi lanes to (preferably faster) cyclists. ADAC representative Hillebrand would also allow electric cars the privilege of using bus lanes. Ultimately, though, this is a minor aspect. More important is the creation of bicycle parking facilities modeled after those in the Netherlands or Scandinavia. The money for this is available, it has simply been lacking the political will, criticized Stork.