“To meet so many different goals requires political courage and a legislative effort. I’m curious how much of it the Federal Ministry of Transport can raise “, I wrote in March 2019 about the reform of the Passenger Transport Act (PBefG).

Gregor Honsel is since 2006 TR editor. He believes that many complex problems have simple, easy to understand, but wrong solutions.

Today, almost two years later, it turns out: Very little courage. At the 16. December the Federal Cabinet finally presented a reform proposal for the PBefG after much back and forth. But when trying to do justice to the interests of the taxi industry, municipalities, public transport, passengers and new mobility service providers such as Uber, CleverShuttle, Door2Door or Moia, the lead Ministry of Transport has created a bureaucratic brake block with built-in brake parachutes. Instead of creating a “level playing field” for the various mobility services, the BMVI is now simply dividing the large playing field into several smaller ones, on which the same game is played in principle, but according to different rules of the game.

Short leash So the PBefG now defines a “new form of regular service within public transport (regular service) “As well as a” new form of occasional traffic outside of local public transport (bundled demand traffic) “, each of which has its own regulations. The former denotes a kind of on-call bus without a fixed line at the conditions and tariffs of local public transport, the latter private ride pooling – but on a very short leash:

“The entrepreneur may only carry out the orders on prior order. The licensing authority can restrict the transport of people in bundled demand traffic in terms of time or space if this is required by public transport interests. (…) In bundled demand traffic, people may only be transported within the municipality in which the entrepreneur is based. (…) In urban and suburban traffic, the licensing authority, in agreement with the transport authority, must set a quota for the proportion of bundled transport orders that can be achieved within a certain period of time within the area in which the traffic is carried out (bundling quota). “

All of this is clearly directed against large platforms like Uber. In principle, it is okay to give the municipalities greater influence over who offers which services in their area – if only to avoid unnecessary car traffic and cannibalization of public transport. But with this tight corset up to a binding pooling quota? Which young company still wants to do that to itself?

Half-hearted Another crucial point is the reform only half-heartedly – the “obligation to return”. So-called “rental cars” (basically all chauffeur services that are not taxis) still have to drive back to their headquarters after every trip. It had long been apparent that this ecological and economic nonsense would continue to be part of the law under pressure from the taxi lobby. After all, authorities are now allowed to make exceptions in “municipalities with large areas of land” and allow further parking locations. However, you must be at least 15 kilometers away from the headquarters. Another more bureaucratic micro-regulation.

A few positive things should not be concealed here either: All services must provide their mobility data so that municipalities can evaluate what works well and what not. And the strict tariff rules for taxis are being relaxed. Authorities can now set a “tariff corridor” with minimum and maximum prices or fixed tariffs for frequently used routes.

The draft is now going into parliamentary proceedings and, according to the BMVI, is to be adopted during this legislative period.

(grh)