Its traffic related goals are to reduce travel time and fuel consumption as well as noise and pollutant emissions. The herein described evaluation shall determine whether, to which extent and how economically the KOLINE system is able to address these goals. Three differently comprehensive quantifying evaluation procedures are applied to the outputs of a microscopic traffic simulation. Thus not only the ranking of all scenarios, but also comparisons between these procedures become possible. Unable to display preview.

Author:Mashura Tulmaran
Country:Pacific Islands
Language:English (Spanish)
Published (Last):8 October 2016
PDF File Size:16.51 Mb
ePub File Size:14.67 Mb
Price:Free* [*Free Regsitration Required]

Metrics details. In Germany, the most recent comprehensive transport policy program of the federal government was published in the year , followed by several sector specific programs.

Aims, strategies, and priorities specified in the different governmental transport policy documents are discussed in the paper, with a particular focus on the modal split between road and rail. Apart from the fiscal and the regulatory framework, the most important policy area for the federal government is the provision of transport infrastructure.

In , the federal government enacted a new investment masterplan. Therefore, the experience with the former plan is described and key elements of the new masterplan are presented. The overall investment into transport infrastructure as well as the share of the different modes of transport are analyzed in more detail.

Data on modal split and user costs is used to assess transport policy developments. The infrastructure masterplans are analyzed based on the planned allocation of investment for different modes of transport and types of investment.

Moreover, for the past masterplan actual budget data is used for the analysis. With respect to transport policy programs, a shift in the priorities can be observed, closely linked to the changing political majorities. Whereas the comprehensive program published in stresses the importance of a sustainable development and calls for a modal shift, more recent programs focus on the competitive situation of German transport service providers.

Moreover, more emphasis is put on the implementation of specific measures. With respect to infrastructure provision, in particular investment into road infrastructure was below the planned values. The recently enacted plan allocates more funds to the maintenance and replacement of infrastructure, and to inland waterways.

Although the priorities set by the government in published transport policy programs have changed, the effects on the overall traffic development remain rather limited. With respect to the federal transport infrastructure masterplan, an overestimation of the number of projects which might be completed within the given timeframe has been criticized several times.

Although the political progress is providing some incentives to include a high number of projects in the masterplan, a more realistic approach appears to be suitable, also signaling the need for a larger budget. In the past, budget increases have been the result of macroeconomic considerations rather than of transport policy requirements.

It remains to be seen whether these deficits will be at least partially eliminated during the lifespan of the recently enacted masterplan. Transport policy provides several areas for long-standing debates. Especially in the second half of the twentieth century, many economists argued in favor of liberalizing the heavily regulated transport sector for Germany see [ 29 ].

Today, at least in industrialized countries major transport markets are competitive or at least subject to tendering procedures, e. However, the fiscal framework i. Moreover, almost the entire transport infrastructure is provided by the state. Therefore, not only the overall level of investment but also the allocation of funds between the different modes of transport and the resulting effects on the modal split are key elements of debates on transport masterplans.

Against the background of a growing importance of climate change policies and differences in the specific CO 2 emissions of road and rail transport, the debate on modal split developments is getting more intense over the last years e. Despite the integration into the European transport policy framework, several decisions are still within the competencies of domestic policy makers, especially with respect to infrastructure provision and several elements of the fiscal framework.

In this paper, recent policy programs as well as the masterplan for investment into the federal transport infrastructure will be discussed, giving particular attention to aims and decisions related to the modal split, and concentrating on the period after reunification in In section 3 , recent policy programs published by the government are analyzed, starting with the integrated transport policy program published in Section 4 provides an overview of infrastructure investment masterplanning, concentrating on major controversies and actual developments.

Finally, section 5 concludes. Moreover, the federal state may decide to establish a uniform regulatory framework for maritime shipping, inland navigation, road traffic including user charges , and non-federal railways. In practice, the regulatory framework for each of these areas is dominated by federal laws and regulations.

Some states have further decentralized these competencies, especially with respect to regional and local bus services. For most areas, regulations and directives of the European Union provide a rather tight framework for transport policy decisions. The responsibilities for infrastructure provision also depend on the mode of transport. Every road in Germany is classified according to its user structure.

Whereas all expenses for those federal roads are financed through the federal budget, the tasks of planning, building and maintaining those roads are assigned to the states, leading to some principal-agent-issues [ 36 ].

In , the federal government and the states agreed in principle on transferring some of these competencies to a new federal infrastructure authority [ 20 ]. Only small parts of the railroad infrastructure with regional or local importance belong to railroad infrastructure companies owned by states or local municipalities.

Also the largest part of the infrastructure for inland navigation has to be provided and maintained by the federal government. With airports and seaports, the situation is more diverse. Only four of them are partially privatized, one low-cost airport is almost completely owned by a private investor. The other twelve airports are in full public ownership.

Whereas the federal government is holding shares of the airports in Munich, Cologne-Bonn, and Berlin, all others airports are owned by states and or municipalities in different combinations. The large German seaports are owned by the cities taking into account that two of those cities, Hamburg and Bremen, are states. In some cases the operators are partially privatized. Inland ports are usually owned by cities. On the federal as well as on the state level, competencies which are relevant for transportation usually are allocated to different ministries.

The following two examples show potential conflicts within the government. On the state level, the ownership rights for airports are usually executed by the ministries of finance, whereas the state ministries of transport serve as economic regulators. The German railroad system was already nationalized in the late nineteenth century, contributing with its profits to the state budget.

The upcoming of road haulage in the late s led to a severe economic regulation of this sector, intending to protect the state-owned railway operator from the new intermodal competitors. With respect to aviation, Germany was not allowed to provide air transport services for several years after the end of World War II.

The airline Deutsche Lufthansa was re-founded in as a state owned company. The separation of Germany into two states in led to severe challenges for infrastructure provision. Damages caused by the war had to be repaired, links to the former capital Berlin were capped, and new connections between the northern and the southern parts of West Germany had to be established.

As a consequence, in the passenger transport markets the railway system as well as the local public transport operators lost a large portion of their customers. Therefore, in the s and s huge investments into the federal motorway and highway system in order to reduce congestion were paralleled by a demolishing of railroad lines in rural areas and tram systems in many cities.

On the other hand, commuter rail systems have been extended in densely populated areas since the s. In the s the positive experience with deregulated transport markets in countries like the US and the UK as well as an increasing pressure from the European Communities EC to also open transport markets for firms established in other EC member states led to a change in the German transport policy.

The markets for air transport services as well as for road haulage have been liberalized, following a step-wise approach. Deutsche Lufthansa was fully privatized. The implementation of the European railway packages facilitated competition in railway markets. DB provides rail as well as several other transport services regional and local bus transport, worldwide logistics via its branch DB Schenker.

There is hardly any competition in the long-haul passenger market. Against this background, the Monopolies Commission an independent advisory body to the German government and parliament recommends a full vertical separation between infrastructure and operation in order to foster competition in the railway sector [ 38 ].

The prohibition of scheduled long-haul bus services, which had been introduced in the s to protect the railroad operator, lasted until the year [ 23 ]. Since then, the market for scheduled long-haul bus services has shown a tremendous growth [ 2 ]. German reunification in was followed by huge investments into the totally run down transport infrastructure in East Germany as well as a resurrection of links between the eastern and the western part of the country.

Already before reunification, the environmental effects of transportation had gained increasing attention. Whereas the first measures basically aimed at emission reductions by improved technology e. Also in the late s financing of transport infrastructure became more challenging. In order to get closer to a balanced budget, investments into infrastructure have been reduced in general, but were increased during economic downturns, especially in the year see section 4.

In a mileage-based user charge for trucks heavy goods vehicles - HGV on federal motorways replaced the toll sticker introduced in see also section 3.

The following facts, political priorities, and developments are crucial for understanding and assessing transport policy decisions in Germany:. Germany is characterized by a high degree of motorization, also leading to a rather high political attention for transport policy decisions affecting car users. As of January , Amongst the five largest EU member states in terms of population , only Italy has a higher motorization than Germany.

Not only because of its strong industrial basis but also due to its geographic position, logistics and especially road haulage play an important role in Germany. For building new infrastructure, Germany has rather strict regulations regarding environmental protection. Furthermore, a participation of the citizens as well as of many Non-governmental organizations NGOs in the planning process is required [ 17 ].

This typically leads to a rather long duration of planning processes as well as relatively high costs of providing infrastructure. Also in other areas, e. Within the framework of European climate policy, Germany has set targets for reducing CO 2 emissions which are above the European average [ 26 ].

Since the transport sector is one of the largest sources of CO 2 emissions, this political aim also affects transport policy. From a demographic point of view, the German population is aging and shrinking [ 27 ]. This process is far more advanced in rural areas than in larger agglomerations, where even population growth can be observed. Therefore, for rural areas the provision of public mobility options is an important political aim.

The share of the federal motorways was 1. Since the highway network is significantly larger than the motorway network, the length of the entire federal road network decreased by 3. One reason is the downgrading from federal highways to state roads, especially after the construction of new motorways running parallel to existing highways.

Therefore, an increasing share of infrastructure funding has to be allocated to repairing and replacing infrastructure rather than expanding it see section 4. However, the quality of the rail infrastructure increased significantly, e. In , the first high speed trains began their services in West Germany.

Since the s the high speed rail HSR network has been extended and the number of trains has been increased. Quite recently, cross border connections e. Like in all other political sectors, transport policy programs reflect the aims of political parties and their representatives.


Evaluation of Microsimulated Traffic Light Optimisation Using V2I Technology



Transport policy planning in Germany - An analysis of political programs and investment masterplans



Wie nachhaltig ist der Bundesverkehrswegeplan 2003?: eine Evaluation anhand ...



Bundesverkehrswegeplan 2003: Eine kritische Bestandsaufnahme


Related Articles