German urban public transport policy

7iiiiwpM 0--

German urban public transport policy Carmen Hass-Klau Joint Centre for Land Development Studies, University of Reading, UK

Since 1967, money for local authority roads and public transportation systems in Germany has been raised by an increase in petrol tax; 60% of these funds have gone into road building. and 40% to public transportation investments. Later this formula was changed slightly but there has never been any major change in favour of public transportation.’ Some critics have argued that the federal government, the Lander and the cities themselves have never been completely committed to public transportation. The failure to attract car drivers back to public transportatiol~ modes was partly due to extensive road building programmes in the city; which to some extent also favoured bus traffic, but which were mainly intended to improve car traffic. Therefore removing tram lines from the surface was a good way of adding addi-

tional car lanes to the road. However this was not done everywhere and there is growing opposition to doing so. By the end of the 1970s many cities had started ambitious construction programmes for .underground tram systems’ which could be changed later to ‘proper’ rapid rail systems. All construction programmes were based on overoptimistic forecasts of population and employment. It was generally believed that all large cities would experience further increases in industrial employment and much Iarger increases in tertiary sector employment, the latter especially would have its highest growth rate in the city centres. The progress of the construction of these new public transportation systems depended on either strong individual personalities such as city planners and mayor. or special events, or both. All cities which invested heavily in new public transportation systems showed an increase in passenger trips in general, and in all cases a significant growth of passengers in the newly improved lines. In Essen. the new U18 carried nearly 3 million passengers in 1978, and 5.2 million two years later. In Nuremberg the new underground line carried 26.4 million in 1978 and 34.3 million in 1980. Statistics in Hanover show passenger increases of 50% on one of the newly built lines. In Cologne, the line 16 shows a strong passenger increase varying be-

0264-27511841060551-06

& Co {Publishers)

Germany began to invest heavily in new public transpo~a tion sys terns after 1960. Car ownership had risen from just under 7 million in f 953 to 6.6 million in 1963 (by 7982 this had risen to 24.1 millions ’ and the city centres of large cities were suffering from severe traffic congestion. Unlike the UK, which got rid of its trams when traffic congestion became a serious problem, Germany pursued a more expensive policy of reducing traffic congestion by building mainly underground rights of way for trams.

$03.00 0 1984 Butterworth

Ctd

‘J.W. Woilatz and F, Tamms, eds, Die kommuna~en Verkehrsprobleme in der Bundesrepublik ~eutschtand, Essen, 1965, p 11; Verband ijffentlicher Verkehrsbetriebe, Statistiken, 1982. Verband Hfentlicher Verkehrsbetriebe, ~~entlicher Personennahverkehr, lnvestitionen ~a~leist~ngen - Erfolge 1967-1976, K&n, 1978, PG.

551

tween

Jl-X0’%

lowing 3Nuremberg, Essen: internal information of the transport authorities in Nuremberg and Essen; for Hanover see Hannoversche Verkehrsbetnebe AG, Statisfischer Ben’cht 1982. Hannover, 1982: for Cologne see, KBlner Verkehrs-Betriebe AG. Koln-Bonner Eisenbahner AG, Verkehrsztihlung 7979, Kbln, 1980. % Guhl, Schnelverkehr in 6allungsr~umen. Dijsseldorf, 1975, p 45. “Mijnchner Verkehrsverbund. Report ‘87, MDnchen. 1982. p 7.

its

between

on different

conversion 1977

and

be continued new

for

rapid

contrast. some

the

or

However, suffered

rail tram

have lost

very

public

man

fol-

west-east

line

railway

could

recently

length

of

about

313 km and the line

and

nearly

all Ger-

systems

have

because

loss of pupil further relatively higher

0

public

high than

increases

loss

fares

(fares

car petrol

has had ;I constant of trips

164

million

are much

I‘hcsc

losses

which

the

are

strongest

economic

The

Mlrtlich.

most

in Munich

S-Bahn tumn

cities

recession

is

in

biting

and

Olympic

underground before

Games.

portation

spectacular

transport

was the opening

1971, just

The

system

although

system

chains

make

them

increase

in

arcades. tion,

new

public

trans-

planning

combined

with

large-scale ccntre.

pcdestrianiz~ition although

the

some

had had experience

precincts

since

the

that

of

late

37 --

111 . which

was

standds.

The

improved

by The

main

lines

city

centre, town

~-eachthe

city

there

trees

just hall.

centre

in the middle in

The Iy

the

under-

front

of

S-Bahn ;I 1.3

km

by

This

the

its

got

l’cderal

the city centrc illegal

supporters

the govfine5 Until

for ‘anti

new

by car is

parking

parking.

policy

in

i-ail prog-

yet

the

(as

group

to finance

not

transport

some

be

structure

rapid

was very cc~nsistently arc

might

in (;crmany.

and high

fat-

even

incrcaxd

interest

from

enter

enforced

the city c;ir’

l’or more

but GII-

places in the city ccntre. and at illegal car parking ha\ bccomc

parking

and

of

and three

was placed

attractive

of

sta

ever- committed

have

impossible

recently ccntrc

buildings,

To

nearly

and

economic

It even has started

crnnient.

ICI72

main

it still

IW!

to continue

approval

by

an

yy5tcm

s~~cccss.

than

fi&ncial

was generally

the

is one of the soundest

city)

al-e

the

of

amusement

of passengers.

which

interchange lines

number

;I

and

ramme.

fountains.

new S-Bahn

ground the

restoration

schemes.

flowers. seven

ccntre

IWI

projects

of

less

transportation

been

German

enormous

city

public

far

the

the width

or

which

can be stopped

was

I’lanncrs

and

facades

around

these

shops.

streets

and

is CVCI-y political

pcdcstri~inizatic,n about

shops

in

retailing

a danger

it sccnis

of X00 m would never be accepted were worries

sex

pedestrian

1920s.

visible.

in callcd

more

city

afraid there

all

also

is

is more

length and

the

unified

Munich

were

colour

552

in

W

sim-

controls.

\o

which

as what

national

also due to Munich’s

‘I‘his kind of pcclcstrianization

unprecedented. cities

not

look

its and

have

of

especially

between its

De4pitc

la~-gc cities

centres

Munich’s has

pedes-

systems

pedestrian

in

coii-

of

city ccntre

the

although

of the

‘the scale of Munich’s pedestrianization was unprecedented’

arc

IW3.

and

out old cstablishccl

There

of the

in the

of other

~~/itrli.~icrlrttg.

city

the opening

was

to those

doniinatin~

increase

centre.

;I dangel-

giving

of the

system,

Munich’\

pushing

wme.

au-

city

they is

12. years

number

transportation

lar prc>blems

Gcrni;rny in

hardc\t.

event

the

is

30 km

;I year)’

in the

success.

There

in car ownership.

passengers

in

network

( 1972, 203 million;

increases

public

costs);

After

in I‘hc

reaches

transportation

Munich

obvious

in the city:

S-Bahn

number

trians

rolls;

population

the

the hinterland.

new

in unemployment;

0 0

into

stant

0

traffic.

total

lines

main

suburban

city with In

the declined

lines.

loss of passengers

increases

therefore somewhat

for

of: 0

tunnel.’ station

importance

passengers.

transportation

some

list

German

light

traditional

bus lines

rail

lc)7c).3 This

every

rail

stretches

to a light

present easier.

of the

Htrtro~v~.

lines

the

long

tarIts.

sire

Hanover. of

Munich

i\ another

which with

successful

CITIES

is ;Ibout 550000 city

half

inhabin terms

November

1984

of new public transportation systems. Hanover opted very early for a light rail system instead of a rapid rail system. The reasons were obvious: the light rail system could be developed from Hanover’s old tram system which was the most

‘Hanover’s public transport was planned in combination with a completely new city centre’ extensive in Germany. Trams would only need to go underground at the most congested streets and squares - mainly in the city centre - but otherwise the width of the tracks and many technical items stayed the same. Hanover today has a light rail network of 62 km, plus over 30 km outside the city where the trains have their own right of way. In c~~mparison, the new Tyne and Wear metro system in the UK will have a length of 54 km, when it is completely finished in 1984.” Hanover’s light rail system consists of four lines, of which two are completed (Line A in lY76, Line B in 1982) and a third is partly completed.’ The fourth line is not yet financed. As in Munich, on every political level there is a conviction about the future financial support for further construction of the public tr~lnsp~~rtation system. Hanover’s public transport~~ti(~n system was not planned in isolation; the system included a completely new city centre lay-out. For urban planners. Hanover’s city centre is probably the most interesting of all German city centres because of its variety of different features. There is a very modern two-level shopping area, in which the lower floor starts behind the main station - actually connecting the urban area in front of and behind the station - ft~rming a partly open and a partly covered shopping arcade which finishes in the middle of the main shopping area. Some parts of the city centre have been rebuilt in its old historic form which makes an interesting contrast with the modern architecture. There are also

CITIES

November

1984

several social housing ‘islands’, with gardens. only one minute away from huge department stores. Every Saturday on the banks of the river Leine, close to the city centre, probably the largest flea market in Germany is held. Hanover’s mixture in the city centre is ambitious, and some parts seem to work rather well: however, the underground passage is frighteningly empty by 8 o’clock in the evening, and it is not a place a woman would want to walk and look in shop windows. More impressive are improvements in inner city areas in connection with the construction of one of the light rail lines. Hanover’s East City is a good example of an improvement in living conditions of an inner city area. The main shopping street in which the tram ran has been changed to a pedestrian street. with the tram route running undergr~~un~l. The residential areas close by have all experienced Iarge schemes of VrrkehrsheruhiiSutlg, which seem to have made the whole area once again a place for good urban living. Hanover’s economic structure is not as healthy as Munich’s. Its unemployment rate is nearly double and therefore the number of public transportation passengers did drop about 2% from 1981 to lY82, after significant increases had occurred after 1975.” ~itrt~l~b~r~. The city of Nuremberg is a prime example of the extent to which political decisions can determine the choice of public transportation system. Nuremberg is one of the four cities in the Federal Republic which has a rapid rail system. although transportation planners strongly advised a light rail system.” Since the early 19th century, Nuremherg has been in the political shadow of Munich. After Mul1ich.s world-wide ‘success’ in public tr~~nsp~~rt, Nuremberg ‘had’ to have its own rapid rail system. despite the fact that the city has less than 500000 inhabitants. and even with the nearby city of Furth, the transportation area has still about 100000 less people than the transportation area of Hanover’s city transport

t-toward, ‘Integrated public transport in Tyne and 6D.F.

Wear’, paper given at Mass Transport in Asia, Hong Kong, 1980. 7Hannoversche Verkehrsbetriebe, AG, fg;t, Ref 3, p 9. ‘E. Wentzei, ‘U-Bahn Nirrnberq - Forth’, modern Tramways and fhhf Rat/ Transit. Vol 45, No 531, March 1982. pp 90-97.

553

Figure 1. Pedestrianization “Verband offentlicher Verkehrsbetriebe, op tit, Ref 1. “Stadt Nijrnberq und Stadt Ftirth, Baureferat, U-Bahn 7. NOrnbera. 1980and 1981. “NVG, internal statistics. ‘3Gesellschaft fljr Konsumforschung, Begutachtung der Entwick/ungsm~g/ichkeiten des Einzelhandels der Nijrnberger Slidsfadt, NDrnberg, 1983.

554

in the medieval

part of Nuremberg

authority. I” Nuremberg has planned three underground lines: the first line is nearly completed, and part of the second line was opened in January 1984.” As in Munich. Nuremberg’s pedestrianization area is large. covering nearly all of the medieval city. Nuremberg’s increase in passenger trips has been very successful despite a much higher unemployment rate than Munich. The trips in rapid rail cars have nearly doubled over the last four years (in lY7X there were about 21 million, in 1982 there were 3X million)” and have already exceeded the original forecast. The main beneficiary is the city centre where shops are booming. However. statistical proof is difficult or impossible because the only important statistics on retailing turnover in the city centrc were collected in 1978. exactly coinciding with the opening of the city centre stations. The next statistics will be collected in lYX5. There have been some negative effects in 21 shopping centre close to Nuremberg’s city centre. the so-called Siidstadt. According to a recent study,13 turnover and rents have dropped in this centre. Hano\,er East City (Oststadt) and

city centre.

Nuremberg South City (Siidstadt) are good examples of how different the ‘effect’ of rapid rail or light rail can be. One ma,jor difference is that Nuremberg’s city centre is much more attractive than Hanover’s and therefore people in inclined to go Nuremberg are more straight by underground or by car to the city centrc whereas in Hanover they stop in the East City. The other major difference is that the East City in Hanover is more attractive for shoppers than the South City in Nuremberg. Therefore both examples have much more to do with the general built environment, the ‘atmosphere in the city centre and in the inner city area. and with other planning policies than putting the tram underground. Other- cities. Cologne and Frankfurt both have similar large systems of light rail. Frankfurt even has one line which is a ‘real’ underground. In Cologne. there has been an interesting improvement of the old Rhein-Sieg railway which runs 44 km from Cologne-Mulheim to Bonn Bad Godesberg, and which showed a considerable passenger increase after it was improved to a light rail line in lY78.

CITIES

November

1984

Altogether Cologne’s light rail system has lost about 10% of passengers between 1979 and 1982. The Ruhr cities are the least impressive in terms of light rail systems. Isolated stretches have been built in several Ruhr cities, but there is not yet a good connecting system. The original plans were to build an S-Bahn network in an east-west direction, the same direction as the main roads and motorways and a light rail system in a north-south direction. Many of the S-Bahn lines are now finished and provide a good service. Not only are the light rail systems in the Ruhr cities disappointing, but the pedestrianized streets in the city centres somehow lack originality and special features. National shopping chains have already taken over the pedestrian streets

‘transport effects cannot be separated from the economic recession’ completely. Ruhr city centres all look more or less alike. which makes smaller historical cities in the area or close by more attractive for shoppers. Furthermore, it seems that car drivers still dominate the city centres. There is intense controversy about the accessibility of the city centre by car. and retailing interests demand even more parking spaces in the city centre - if necessary under the city centre - and no further increase in pedestrianization. Corzclusiotl. It is clear from the statistical data and from discussions with economists, urban planners. transportation experts. estate agents, etc that there are other factors which influence land use planning much more powerfully than a newly built rapid rail or light rail system. One of the major reasons for this might be that all these newly built lines used old transportation corridors. ” All research in this field shows the impossibility of separating the effects of rapid rail or light rail from the economic recession which has affected all German

CITIES November

1984

cities.

In addition. in most German cities public transportation systems were part of general city centre improvements such as large-scale pedestrianization. conservation of historic gentrification, _, buildings. more greenery, etc. What can one conclude from this kind of research? Is the car lobby right in suggesting a stop to investments in public transnortation svstems. as one cannot prove clearly its success in land use planning? What we can prove empirically is first, although passenger trips in German cities have declined. this decline is nowhere near as great as in most UK cities. Whereas in Glasgow the number of passenger trips in 1982-was less than one third. and in Greater Manchester less than one half, what they were in 1963, in German cities the strongest decline has been in Essen (over 30% over the same time period).” All German cities which have invested heavily in rapid rail or light rail can generally show an increase in passenger trips over recent years. often despite increases in unemployment rates. declines in population and declines in school rolls. Some of these passenger increases are also the result of the reorganew

nization

to large

transport

authorities,

so

Verkehrsverbund. ” Second, this increase in public transportation is even more astonishing if one considers that the car ownership in Germany is much higher than in the UK (Great Britain: 289.2, FRG: 391.0 per 1000 inhabitants in 1982).” Car ownership in German cities was nearly double called

that

of the British

cities

studied

- Bremen

,

14A recent study in Hanover investigated private investments and

poputation changes in

two inner city areas. One inner city area had a new light rail line (East Citv) and the other had none. The study showed that although there was a more favourable population

p,e,v,e,“$,m,e:,‘anthe tight rail tine, no mOre private investments were carried out. One could argue that the

endin otDooutatton loss inthe inner city

~~v~w’$$,“‘d,ai~~y other aeneral traffic impro;ements and

~~~tnrt$$‘!v$ch investment

was

(Hannoversche

~!~~$~,“,~n~~V~~, lnvestitionen

if77

6ffentlichen !=$?l]sp,snoenRd7ea,~verkehf~ Sekund~rinvestitionen und Struktureffekte, dargestellt am Beispiel der Stadtbahnstrecke A in Hannover, Materialband zum

~“,“,‘~~~~~~~~,), ‘qvcn if dne calculates passenger trips per

~~t’$‘~.!t!~~~~‘~h mOre Severethan in any of the German cities. “Hass-Klau, ‘New transport technologies in the Federal Republic of Germany’, Built Environment, Vol8, No 3, pp 190-196. “Verband offentlicher, op or, Ref 1

Figure 2. Advertisement for the opening of S-Bahn line between Bochum and

the new

Dortmund.

555

had 3%. Glasgow 142. Essen 347. Manchester ISO. Munich 366. Shcfficld Xi0 per 1000 inhabitants Third. light

rail

increase the even

rapid

opencd

transport

systems.

show

from

cxes

some

that the ori@nal

only

three planners

car movcnients In order whether

to answer German

Clearly

cannot

German

prosperous.

pedestrians, all trans-

out ii decline

of

the larger question city centres are

healthier

one

passenger inof cases come

Fourth.

point

con have

in the city centre.

economically tres.

they

forecasts

sourccs:

or car drivers.

portation

of

or

;IS csisting

corridor

In

been exceeded. These creases can in the mnjority bicycle

rail

can offer ;I puasenge~ of between 30 and IOO”!~, along lines

same

tram

in IYXI or IYX?.

all newly

than

give

city

but

overall st:irting

economic to fade

;Irc’ not

more

UK

an

centres

this

is

tit!

ccn-

;inswcr.

easy

look

more

becauac

of

;~n

SL~CCCSS which is now Germ:in pl:inncrs

away.

ima@native

than

UK

plan-

ners but somehow

getting ideas put into practice s~‘t’ms easier in German!; ~

although

there

wcen

arc great

German

economic centres

cities.

climate.

strongly

patterns.

field shopping

which

from and UK

German

are affected

in shopping

differences Apart

It is not only

mode.

green

city centre

quality

which

shops.

luck

prices

for

:~nd some very high-class have left Lrge citv centres

of high rents. in the

lower

large

To

city

improve

centres

the lost shoppers.

higher

shops h~cause

car nccessihility

\\;ill

h:trclly

It swms

bring

clear that

Gcrrnan and IJK large tit! ccntres ;ii-c in 2 process of rudefining their roles. pcrh;ips tow:irds ii nioi-e sptxialist shopping centre and cultural focus. There is another point which i\ very important in Gernianv. the cn\~ironniental costs car drivers impcjsc on society. This kind of awarcncw will qrow ~ even in the lJK ~ and in light transportation invcstnicnt moi-c clc:irly justified. both

556

because

two

in Gernianq

CJK cities

Their

amazed.

:rg;iinst could

the difurban which

the

Gcrmnn

argunicnt

I:lrgc

UK

m2iin tr~rnsport~itioii trnnsport~ltioii plnnners

a4

utterly

simplv

Wherever

to those

hllses

Lvere

city

policies.

I rcferrcd LISC

street in Dortmund

final point demonstr~ites between German and

transport

the

shopping, much more effcctivc seemed to he medium and snialI city ccntrcs which offer shoppers 17t’destrianizatic~ii. individual

One ference

bet-

by chanfcs

threatens

Figure 3. Main shopping with trams crossing.

not

husc5 financially

ncv,

strongest

w;~s

that

affoi-d

tramcars

with

thcb them. one

driver WOLIICI hc equiv:llent to thi-cc (;erman busts. It w;15 also generally helicvccl that

buses

;Irc much

congestion. light surface possible

with

e\‘cn rail

more \vith lines.

light

riiil

prone

to trirffic

bus lanes. It i4 Gmply lines

to

than not clut’uc

or for- deliver! \iin\ to 11x2 r;iil .j~imp. I:lnes fol- lxlrking sl~cc. Thirt! !c;lr\ ago. trams in the IJK were scrq?pcd; the m:lin :rrgument was that the> were conycstin!y the

street\.

This article anses out of a research project begun In 1983 at the Joint Centre for Land Development Studies, at the University of Reading, under the direction of Professor Peter Hall on the question of the effects of rapid rail or light rail on German and UK city centres. The research has been funded by the Anglo-German Foundation. The project has researched four German and four UK cities as case studies of two In each country which should have newly invested In rapld rail or light rail systems and two cities which should not.

CITIES

November

1984