Traffic Light Coalition: The Progress Car Stumbles Right at the Start

Sometimes the most exciting things are between the lines – and there are many lines over 177 pages of the preliminary coalition agreement: They will "adjust the Road Traffic Act and Road Traffic Regulations so that in addition to the fluidity and safety of traffic, the goals of climate and environmental protection, health, and urban development are taken into account," it says in the coalition agreement. The agreement, inspired by Willy Brandt's maxim "dare more democracy," bears the grand title "dare more progress" – and is supposed to become a real "progress vehicle," moving from a standstill to the fast lane, to put it figuratively.

But: When you read between the lines and keep the StVO-code for the "maxim of the car-friendly city," which reads "fluidity of car traffic," in mind, you get the uneasy feeling that the coalition members do not necessarily have the "fluidity of bicycle and pedestrian traffic" in mind.

And besides, it says: IN ADDITION to fluidity, yes, of course, also "environment and stuff". In general, one could have also written – to completely revise the road traffic regulations and transform them into a mobility law. "Adjust" does not exactly sound like "revise."

But perhaps most telling is that the buzzword "traffic turnaround" hardly appears at all, not in the entire agreement and not in the long section on mobility. But wasn't that the goal?! "The traffic turnaround" and "jubilation in the left lane" or "more Volkswagen instead of daring progress," sniped Spiegel promptly.

Lovelessly ticked off: Bicycle and pedestrian traffic

In general, the section on the most environmentally friendly of all means of transport, bicycle and pedestrian traffic, seems almost lovelessly ticked off, as if it just had to be included as well: continue the bicycle traffic plan, supplement the pedestrian traffic plan with a "national strategy," done. No mention of the huge potentials of electric micro- and light mobility and the heavily debated cargo bikes during the election campaign.

How detailed, on the other hand, is the topic of automotive mobility: Not only did the FDP manage to include their perennial favorite synfuels, with which, of course, every modern combustion engine can be refueled, even without "proof."

And what about the treacherous auxiliary brake formula that they want to push for an "ambitious and feasible pollutant norm EURO 7," where "value creation and jobs are taken into account"?

It is also listed in great detail how they want to promote electromobility, expand the charging infrastructure, support automobile regions, and in one fell swoop with 15 million e-vehicles by 2030 become a lead market for e-mobility, a center for semiconductor and battery cell production. Especially the latter two seem somewhat presumptuous at present, Korea, China, Japan, and the USA are not "floating along the lithium soup" either.

Quite a strong car and airplane fixation

But that's not the point: The coalition agreement reveals a quite strong "car fixation," which should not really be to the liking of the Greens. By the way: What about the promotion of the bicycle industry, which is anything but insignificant in terms of jobs and is a key industry of the future?

Where is the vision of a different mobility away from the automobile, from motorized individual transport to the environmental alliance with a 365-euro ticket for public transport? From the "sufficient" mobility that thinks "small to large"? From the more livable cities that need to be created. Overall, from the shift to a more sustainable lifestyle and mobility with lower energy consumption and CO2 footprint. All due respect to e-mobility, but you certainly don't solve the space problem in cities with 15 million electric cars, and if so, the addition "preferably shared e-vehicles" is missing. The coalition agreement suspiciously sounds like: The same in green.

Sure, public transport is mentioned, flanked by funding extensions and a bit of "digital mobility services." But it seems timid and thin compared to the automotive determination of the agreement when they want to "enable countries and municipalities to improve the attractiveness and capacities of public transport and significantly increase passenger numbers." Not like: "Make it the backbone of city and suburban mobility," as many experts demand.

At least: A glimmer of hope is the statement that they want to "invest significantly more in rail than in roads to prioritize projects of the Deutschlandtakt." Seems to have been really important to the Greens at that point. 

Flying almost as before – just in "green"?

The portioning question arises also when you contrast the aviation section, where the text almost raves. No more talk of domestic flight bans as introduced in France or a kerosene tax, which is deferred to the EU. Instead, a green retreat across the board, when the suspected FDP writers can rave about the capital:

"Germany is to become a pioneer in CO2-neutral flying. We want to sustainably and efficiently develop the German aviation industry and economy as key sectors," it says. 

Excuse me? Didn't we want to fly less because the airplane has by far the worst environmental footprint of all means of transport and the "green flying" is quite a long shot and first needs to be proven? Ah, here comes the soothing pill, because they also want: "By improving train connections, reduce the number of short-haul flights." Well then. 

And the whiff of technological openness that permeates the entire paper also appears in the hydrogen topic: They want to "not limit the use of hydrogen to specific applications." Yes, of course, "green hydrogen should be used primarily in economic sectors where it is not possible to convert processes to greenhouse gas neutrality through direct electrification." But we'll keep the use in passenger cars open. 

But how all the technology lighthouses up to the electrolysis boom are supposed to be financed is also unclear: The FDP didn't want tax increases at all, and there shouldn't be any. And the direct financing through the elimination of fossil subsidies, which is demanded by everyone but isn't explicitly stated in the agreement, has been rejected.

And probably not considered that the next and best "booster" for e-mobility would be the removal of subsidies for fossils.

A city toll would also be a source of income. But it's not mentioned. Parking management with higher fees? Only marginally mentioned as a "digital parking control" to better exploit parking space. And the causative CO2 price as a central element and source of income was probably not wanted so explicitly by the SPD.

Where to take it from? Oh, yes, the truck toll!

Instead, once again the "workhorses of the nation" are to be burdened. Sure, the protest is supposedly the least among truckers and who loudly opposes a truck toll from 3.5 tons. Whether the few euros will be enough to implement the coalition's high-flying technology plans, however, is highly doubtful. If you overlay the coalition agreement as a pass over the accurately worked out UBA plan "Eight Building Blocks for the Traffic Turnaround", there is at best a partial overlap. The "transport experts on duty" will lament how little of their proposals reached the negotiators in Berlin.

That the Greens couldn't even conquer the Ministry of Transport, even though they had Cem Özdemir, a widely recognized transport and general politician, among their ranks, is surely a bitter blow to supporters, as well as the almost "triumphantly" repeated brusque rejection of a "general speed limit." Not to mention other speed limits like "30 km/h in towns," considered a "game changer" by experts.

The risk is real that the unfortunate dualism of diverging viewpoints between the ministries of transport (FDP) and (regarding the topic of climate, hollowed-out) environment, respectively Habeck's "super climate ministry," which could at least provide a boost in terms of eco-energies, will often lead to a traffic policy deadlock, resulting in no progress.

How the game between yellow and green turned out: Between technology policy and regulatory policy? Clear victory for the liberals, one must say. Whether it is a victory for climate protection remains to be seen. And whether it will be enough to decarbonize the transport sector by 2045 is also questionable. Let's hope that the party with the slogan "invent instead of ban" will first reinvent itself and then mobility in Germany – and surprise everyone.