Whether it comes or not – the FDP and the Greens are apparently quite in agreement on the goal of breaking up the federally owned Deutsche Bahn (DB) group. Rail traffic should be separated from the rail network and the stations. The FDP expects more competition from this. So far there has hardly been any, because the DB keeps track prices high; potential competitors are deterred by this. But if the infrastructure in a public company were kept cheap, large providers would enter the market for high-speed trains and compete with DB, for example from France or Italy. That is the calculation of the FDP. The Greens are said to have no objection because they want to double the number of passengers by 2030; True to the motto that it doesn’t matter whether the cat is black or white, the main thing is that it catches mice, that can be tried with the FDP method.
It is also interesting that the possible traffic light partners had agreed on strict silence about their coalition negotiations; but that only seems to apply insofar as it is of use to the FDP. She was pleased that the SPD and the Greens, unlike the Union parties before, did not allow a dispute to reach the public. With its current DB dismantling plan, the FDP is on a course of confrontation with the SPD, which is not so enthusiastic about him. In the media it is spread that the SPD is still against it because the railway and transport union belonging to the DGB would then get even more trouble with the union of the locomotive drivers. Couldn’t it also be that the SPD has a different idea of the optimal organization of long-distance rail traffic?
In order to understand what is currently the political struggle, one has to go back to the reorganization of the railway in 1994. At that time the former Federal Railway was merged with the railway of the former GDR and converted into a stock corporation. This stock corporation is fully owned by the federal government. The decisive factor, however, is that it has since been able to stand economically on its own two feet. Lately there has been a lot of talk about climate-damaging subsidies, the elimination of which the traffic light coalition could win money for ambitious climate plans. The FDP does not allow other ways of raising money – for example higher taxes for the rich or loosening the debt brake. Car commuting, for example, is and has to be subsidized because the rural areas have been increasingly neglected by the railways, making it difficult for many people to get to work. The railway itself is not subsidized directly (except through the current Corona aid). And so high line prices were one of their main means of staying afloat economically. These prices have not only scared off competitors, they have also made tickets for their own trains more expensive, which in turn has benefited the rail balance sheet.
The plan to smash the DB is justified with this misery, which undoubtedly calls for change. But is she crying out for the wisdom of Christian Lindner? It is amazing how far the Greens come to meet the FDP leader. To be more precise, he is accommodated by the green leadership, which apparently thinks it won’t hurt their party if they achieve little in a government. The fact that it might not harm the party, but the climate, would have to be objected by the party base. In view of the rapidly advancing climate change, the time has become too short to try again a method whose questionability has long been proven. Above all, it consists in entrusting the fight against climate change to private competition, instead of achieving this goal through political guidelines. But that has never worked.
So it is really surprising that the green leadership of all people gives the market radicalism of the FDP the green light, in an area that does not even suggest solving problems through competition. You just have to look at our neighbors. The separation of the rail network and rail traffic in Great Britain, for example, has led to major synergy losses. An integrated railway, like in Switzerland, would be much better; it would only have to become an institution under public law again from the DB Aktiengesellschaft. And the Bundestag would finally have to pass the long-distance traffic law required by the Basic Law. In any case, we need the statutory definition of content-related goals for rail traffic. Such things should have been politically prescribed to the current rail company long ago: Orientation towards the common good and thus stronger links to rural areas; Shifting traffic to rail and optimal service for customers.
How exactly the next government will act will only be shown in the course of a legislature. But the example of the railways raises the question: Do we need a federal government that is in fact shaped by the FDP? It is up to the Greens to prevent that. Either by insisting more on climate protection as the benchmark for all policy areas. Or by bringing about new elections. In both cases, the climate would ultimately benefit.
.