Everyone is talking about the transport revolution. Noise, air pollution and competition for space can no longer be ignored, especially in cities. At the same time, according to the Federal Statistical Office, the density of cars in Germany has increased continuously over the past ten years. More than a quarter of households in Germany even own two cars. In rural areas in particular, there are hardly any suitable alternatives. How can a rethink still succeed and what trends can be expected for the mobility of the future? An attempt at an answer.
Everyone is talking about the transport revolution. Noise, air pollution and competition for space can no longer be ignored, especially in cities. At the same time, according to the Federal Statistical Office, the density of cars in Germany has increased continuously over the past ten years.
More than a quarter of households in Germany even own two cars. In rural areas in particular, there are hardly any suitable alternatives. How can a rethink still succeed and what trends can be expected for the mobility of the future? An attempt at an answer.
“Society is based on mobility.” This statement was made by mobility sociologist and professor at the University of Hamburg, Katharina Manderscheid, in an interview with Redaktionsnetzwerk Deutschland at the end of 2022, underlining the relevance of mobility from a social perspective. Today’s society is differentiated, with individuals changing their social spaces several times a day. Traffic and the distances traveled have been increasing continuously for decades.
In its 2020 “Energy Technology Perspectives” report, the International Energy Agency (IEA) predicts that global traffic – measured in passenger kilometers – will double by 2070. The agency also assumes that the number of car owners will increase by 60 percent and that demand for passenger and freight flights will triple during this period. This will inevitably be accompanied by a further increase in greenhouse gas emissions attributable to the volume of traffic.
According to the Federal Environment Agency, the Federal Republic of Germany emitted around 746 million tons of greenhouse gases in 2022. The transport sector alone is responsible for emissions of around 148 million tons of CO2 equivalents. Individual mobility and freedom are increasing. But the environment is suffering.
The Federal Environment Agency addresses this conflict in a handout entitled “Sustainable urban transport 2050: meta-analysis, measures and strategies”, which was published at the beginning of this year. Mobility is a prerequisite for participation in social life. Katharina Manderscheid’s research also confirms this assessment. She is no longer just talking about freedom, but also about the compulsion to be mobile in today’s society.
She cites rising rents in large cities as an example. People who can no longer afford the prices are moving to the suburbs or surrounding areas and commuting longer distances to work. While alternative means of transport are being expanded in urban centers, numerous studies also confirm the deficient situation in rural areas. There, the private car is often still the only way to get around independently.
The ADAC conducted a representative survey on mobility in rural areas in 2018. 3,400 residents from twelve federal states were asked about their daily habits and their use of transport. The results showed that the majority of respondents were satisfied with their own mobility. A surprising finding at first. At second glance, however, the positive result turns out to be undifferentiated. This is because the satisfaction only related to mobility with their own car. Seven out of ten people stated that they often or regularly travel by car. In contrast, satisfaction with local public transport was negative. More than half of those surveyed hardly ever used regional trains or buses. Respondents cited the lack of direct connections, large gaps in the timetable and the excessively long journey times as the reasons for this. Dramatic figures back up this assessment. Since 1990, for example, a fifth of the rail network in Germany has been shut down.
The study shows how the quality of life of some groups of people is strongly linked to the possibility of free and individual mobility. At the same time, however, a high volume of traffic minimizes the quality of life of other individuals. Air pollution and noise, for example, inevitably result from increasing mobility. And these are harmful to the health of local residents. Permanent exposure to particulate matter from road traffic, for example, leads to an increased risk of allergies and asthma. Car noise also has an impact on health. The Noise Working Group of the German Society for Acoustics even names road traffic noise as the “most significant source of noise in the Federal Republic of Germany”. This can result in circulatory diseases, strokes and heart attacks.
In addition to emissions, land consumption is the biggest problem of individual mobile traffic. It is not only multi-lane roads for car traffic that cut through the urban layout in many places. Stationary cars in particular take up space that is not sufficiently available in the dense city. Statistics show that a private car in Germany is parked for more than 23 hours on average. Other transportation alternatives also take up space, but to a lesser extent. While a parked bicycle requires just 1.2 square meters, a parked car takes up 13.5 square meters. This problem is less noticeable in rural areas, but is a considerable burden in urban agglomerations.
New solutions are needed to guarantee both freedom of movement and an environment worth living in for everyone in the future. Mobility sociologist Katharina Manderscheid distinguishes between the transport revolution, the drive revolution and the mobility revolution. In the public debate, great hopes are currently being pinned on a mobility transition. This refers to the maintenance of individual car use as it is the status quo today. Only the respective drive is replaced, for example by an electric motor. However, this solution ignores many problems, says Manderscheid. For example, the environmental footprint of electromobility is controversial. The mining of lithium on site can often hardly be declared as environmentally friendly and responsible.
In addition to the questionable ecological balance, more electric cars on the roads does not solve the problem of space. A real traffic turnaround could provide a remedy. This means shifting traffic from cars to other means of transportation. It goes hand in hand with a mobility turnaround in people’s minds. Mobility should be reorganized and being on the move should become more attractive. At the same time, the status quo and existing mobility constraints need to be questioned. Cities and municipalities, state administrations and private companies, right down to individuals, must all play a part in this. The fields of action and approaches are diverse.
The Federal Environment Agency published a publication entitled “The city for tomorrow” back in 2017. In it, the Department of Transport, Noise and Spatial Development identifies challenges as well as measures to meet the climate protection and sustainability goals of Germany and the European Union. Eight overarching topics have been identified. These are grouped into various thematic areas.
The fields of action “Social framework conditions” and “Socio-demographic developments”, for example, have a significant influence on mobility, but are more difficult to control and are treated as subordinate. On the other hand, there are areas that can be actively and positively influenced by measures. The “Political and legal framework conditions” module proposes, for example, the designation of speed and access restrictions. Under the “Technological developments” aspect, the use of electric or low-emission vehicle fleets is suggested. The topic area “Economic framework conditions and instruments” calls for financial incentives or disincentives such as the levying of infrastructure usage charges.
The keyword “Transport infrastructure and supply” provides for the planning, provision and integration of sustainable transport services and infrastructure in the city. According to the Federal Environment Agency, the expansion of cycling and walking infrastructure and local public transport, the creation of car-sharing services and the development of multimodal mobility platforms should help. Finally, the field of action “Settlement structure and development as well as urban and regional planning” shows scope for action at regional and urban level. The fundamental development of low-car and car-free residential areas, the integration of environmental planning and the creation of sustainable, inter-municipal business parks are exemplary measures.
In general, the Federal Environment Agency also advocates increased funding for innovative model projects and technologies. A distinction is made between push and pull measures in the individual subject areas. While push measures, such as speed limits, reduce the attractiveness of less sustainable modes of transport, pull measures, such as a needs-based cycling infrastructure, increase the attractiveness of sustainable alternatives. This combination of carrot and stick is considered by the authors to be particularly effective in terms of a successful transport transition.
Models of this kind can now be observed in many cities. Barcelona is a famous example. In Catalonia’s capital, cars are banned within designated superblocks. At the same time, the city is developing attractive, green spaces for the neighborhood. In addition to the ban, the population is thus experiencing a significant improvement in their everyday living space. As a result, the population reacts to the superblocks not only with criticism, but also with understanding that arises from positive experiences in public spaces.
Denmark’s capital Copenhagen is another well-known model city when it comes to sustainable mobility. The city has been investing heavily in cycling infrastructure since the 1970s. There are wide cycle paths on all main roads in Copenhagen. In addition, cycle highways lead from the suburbs into the city center, where cyclists rarely have to stop at red lights. On the other hand, there are some single-lane roads and few, but expensive, parking spaces. The push and pull measures interlock in a meaningful way. And they show how the transformation from a car-centric city to a more sustainable and liveable metropolis can succeed.
The Frankfurt-based Zukunftstinstitut sees the concession of space to alternative means of transportation as an important step. It predicts the spread of shared streets in the future, in which the separation of cars, pedestrians and cyclists is eliminated. Instead of separate streets, public spaces could be created that combine transportation and social activities, creating a shared and vibrant streetscape.
Not only shared streets, but also sharing services are increasingly on the rise in many places. From cars to cargo bikes and mopeds to scooters, there are hardly any means of transport, especially in urban centers, that cannot also be used via rental and sharing systems. However, this availability decreases drastically on the outskirts of cities or in rural regions, for example.
It’s not just sharing services that face difficulties there. In general, the mobility transition faces different problems in rural areas than in cities. The Association of German Transport Companies has published a position paper entitled “Good mobility in rural areas”. It sets out six guidelines for public transport services.
For example, the association is in favor of a comprehensive rail-bus system at least every hour. The transport network could be supplemented by on-demand services. The vehicles should offer sufficient seating and, for example, charging facilities for smartphones. In addition, the use of public transport services should be as easy as possible. It is therefore important to coordinate the individual means of transport and to develop uniform tariff systems across district boundaries. Car traffic away from major cities is now characterized by less congestion, hardly any restrictions and a sufficient number of free parking spaces. In order to encourage people to change their mode of transportation, significantly more incentives – and different tariff strategies – are needed than in metropolitan areas.
The Zukunftsinstitut also sees digitalization and automation as a possible solution. The so-called last mile could be served by autonomous cabs. In general, there is still a lot of potential in the “autonomous city”. For example, the institute envisions a city without parking spaces, in which autonomous vehicles are constantly in use and only have to stop to recharge their batteries.
In addition to the technical possibilities, however, the traffic turnaround also depends on the social acceptance of users. In 2020, Parastoo Jabbari and Don MacKenzie, two scientists from the University of Washington, investigated the willingness of Americans to share rides with strangers. They wanted to determine the extent to which people’s attitudes had changed as a result of the Covid-19 pandemic. However, the results showed that both before and after the pandemic, respondents preferred to use transportation options that avoided contact with other people. If money could be saved by sharing a ride, there was a willingness to share before Covid. After the pandemic, respondents were fundamentally against it.
The study may only depict a local and temporary situation, but it supports what other researchers have also emphasized. Switching to other means of transport can only be sustainable if people see a lasting personal added value in doing so. A monetary advantage alone or a restriction for climate protection does not seem sufficient.
Strategies for the future of mobility must therefore be considered at all levels and designed to appeal to all senses. And finally, we need to question the status quo as a society. Professor and mobility sociologist Katharina Manderscheid has a thought-provoking impulse: “Is it all about higher – faster – further or are we not at a point where we want to think differently about the question of a good life? […] It is also a form of freedom not to have to move.”
