FLUG REVUE April 2002: Germany needs coordinated transport policy

LACK OF UNITY OVER GERMAN TRANSPORT POLICY

By Volker K. Thomalla

The signals regarding transport policy that are currently emerging from the various government ministries here in Germany are quite contradictory. On the one hand we have Transport Minister Kurt Bodewig announcing on the occasion of a visit to Braunschweig harbour on 8 February, "Integration of the different means of transport is the key to accommodating the expected growth in traffic.” In so saying, he is acknowledging the need for different means of transport and is pursuing a policy based on the premise that each of them is allowed to assert its strengths. Otherwise it will not be possible to accommodate the ever greater need for mobility in a society that is based on the division of labour.

On the other hand, the Ministry of the Environment is apparently thinking seriously about introducing a charge for the use of airspace and sea in the next parliament. The proceeds of this charge would be used to monitor the environment and to eliminate ecological damage.

These deliberations in the Ministry of the Environment reflect a clear preference for rail as a means of transport and deliberate discrimination against air transport. The fact that the railways are a highly subsidised means of transport is ignored in the deliberations. In actual fact, the favourite of the green environmental politicians is not a clean mode of transport at all. The exposure to noise caused by rail traffic affects many times more people than are affected by aircraft noise. Again, railways use up many times more land than air transport does. And as far as emissions of pollutants and the consumption of primary energy are concerned, the railways once again are not as squeaky clean as many politicians would have us believe.

The idea behind charges for the use of air and sea, according to the Ministry of the Environment, is to provide an inducement to develop low-emission aircraft and ships. One can agree with this in principle provided that such charges extend to all means of transport, and hence to rail transport as well.

For whereas aviation has made huge strides on cutting down emissions of noise and pollutants in recent decades – as explained also in the article in this issue of FLUG REVUE on page 82 – the rail industry has not given any thought at all in recent years to the question of how to tackle its own noise problem.

Quite apart from this, history shows that grandiose announcements by politicians that the proceeds of taxes will be used for a particular purpose or that the levy will last only a limited time are simply lies. The Ministry of the Environment cannot seriously believe that the charges levied on the use of airspace and the sea will all be spent on the environment. It did not happen when a tax on sparkling white wine was introduced before the First World War – this was supposed to be abolished again once the wartime navy had been built up – nor did it happen when the mineral oil tax was introduced, the proceeds of which were supposed to be used entirely on road building.

Full integration of all the means of transport is the only sensible solution to our future mobility problems. But to achieve this it is necessary first to clarify who is in charge of formulating transport policy, the Ministry of the Environment or the Ministry of Transport.

From page 4 of FLUG REVUE 4/2002

Last updated 8 March 2002

FLUG REVUE, Ubierstr. 83, 53173 Bonn, Germany