Living

For quite a few years now Berlin's Senate Department has been promoting a traffic planning project that takes the needs of pedestrians and cyclists seriously. Goethe.de talked to urban planner, Heribert Guggenthaler, about the concept in traffic planning for the German capital.

Herr Guggenthaler, in 2004 the Senate set new priorities for cycle traffic in Berlin.

The following principles were laid down in order to systematically extend Berlin's cycling network: cycle path systems and bicycle lanes were to be created, one-way streets made accessible for bicycles, dead-end streets opened up for cyclists and considerably more bicycle parking facilities installed. Combining cycling with the public transport system was to be promoted, although transporting your bicycle on public transport in Berlin is in fact no problem whatsoever. Bicycles are allowed on suburban and underground trains, as well as on trams, and now there are more and more parking stands at the stations and stops.

We would like to see private homeowners, housing associations and businesses playing a more active role in creating adequate bicycle parking facilities. The signposting for cyclists was improved. Nevertheless the general transport climate in Berlin has to be bettered – in this respect we did not achieve our goal of reducing the number of car accidents, despite the fact that more and more people are cycling these days. We want to advertise and promote cycling and show what the advantages are of this form of transport and just what the city has to offer. We are also endeavouring to hold mobility training courses in schools to help young people adopt a more sensible approach to the way they get about. Every year we take stock and try to adapt our cycling strategy to new developments like electromobility or to address issues like the ever-ageing population.

What factors so far have made it difficult to accommodate the needs of pedestrians and cyclists?

To answer that question we will have to look back at transport development over the last ten years – the developing countries here serve as a good example. First of all, wide expanses of urban areas are sacrificed to create an infrastructure that is tailored to the needs of the motorist, urban highways and car parks are built. For environmentally friendly forms of transport there is either too little interest or too little money. This leads to negative developments in urban planning that at some point then make people wonder whether new ground will have to be broken, if urban mobility is to be guaranteed.

A rethink in favour of environmentally friendly transport

Since the International Builders' Fair (the IBA) took place in Berlin in 1987 there has been a return in thinking to the idea of the historical city. Sine then there have been discussions on just how much car traffic a city can take. The environmental movement has contributed greatly to this, along with the environmental legislation initiated by the EU that stipulates relatively strict limits in the field of air pollution control that have to be achieved by a certain point in time - for example, in the case of nitrogen oxides and particulate matter. I beg to doubt, however, whether electromobility is going to be the answer to all our traffic problems; the way we use up all the land most definitely not.

Are new areas of land in large cities these days being used in a different way to a few decades before?

It is not so much new development that is the key to the future, but more a restructuring of what is already there in the cities. We are giving thought to areas where car traffic takes up too much room and where pedestrian walkways too little or where there are no cycle paths. We have to rearrange areas in order to enhance roads and public areas, making them more attractive to pedestrians and cyclists.

How is the cooperation between you and those people who represent the interests of car traffic?

As is the case at all levels of society there is a need here for constant discussions due to all the various demands being voiced. With the aid of a mutual dialogue the pros and cons of all the various forms of transport can be sounded out. It is definitely not in the interests of the motorists to be stuck in traffic jams all the time. What is also necessary is that all the parties involved adopt the common goal of reducing the number of road accidents. Putting political policy statements into practice is a difficult process – I have colleagues who have been working in the field of traffic planning for 40 years, but they do not take to planning cycle traffic that easily. The new road planning regulations for cities are not just more sophisticated from a transport and traffic point of view, they are also geared to urban planning and environmental interests.

What other cities and countries have served as a source of inspiration for Berlin?

We have learned from other countries, for example, that zebra crossings do not necessarily have to be planned in line with German road traffic regulations that are very much geared to the needs of motorists. In Switzerland and in our neighbouring countries to the West there have been some interesting developments, too. For example, a general right of way for pedestrians on any road, not just in traffic-calmed zones, that stipulates that cars must drive more slowly. Encounter zones, in which pedestrians enjoy more rights, in which the cooperation is better and in which there are fewer accidents is a development that I consider to be very sustainable. German road traffic regulations will have to be adapted to this.