SPD and Greens Misrepresent How the Transrapid Petition Unfolded
The Green parliamentary group in the Bundestag (German parliament) told the regional newspaper NOZ that there had been an exchange with me to coordinate a handover date for the Transrapid petition. The Berlin daily TAZ also spreads similar accounts from the SPD and the Greens. These claims do not correspond to the facts and contradict the documented communication.
The fact is: the petition was offered for handover to all parliamentary groups represented in parliament. Only the AfD parliamentary group promptly declared its willingness to take part in a handover with several members of parliament and ultimately accepted the petition on behalf of all committees, while the other groups either did not respond or canceled agreed handover dates.
The conclusion drawn in parts of the coverage, that the petition was “instrumentalized,” does not hold up given the actual sequence of events.
The actual chronology
The documented communication shows a different course of events from the ones presented publicly:
My attempts to contact Green members of parliament led to dismissive responses or none at all. From Green MdBs (members of the Bundestag) such as the transport policy spokesperson Matthias Gastel, I even received a dismissive reply.
June 23, 2025, 12:14 p.m.: The first response reaches me from the AfD parliamentary group (Manfred Schiller). By phone, we agree on a handover date with his advisor.
June 24, 2025, around 11:00 a.m.: Only after I had arranged my appointment with the AfD does Ruppert Stüwe (SPD) contact me via the Petitions Committee and his office manager. The next day, Stüwe says that an unnamed “representative of the Greens” would also attend a possible meeting. In fact, no communication ever took place between me and this unnamed “Green.”
June 25, 2025, 1:07 p.m.: I transparently inform Stüwe that a handover to the AfD has already been agreed and will take place first.
June 25, 2025, 4:53 p.m.: Friendly reply from Stüwe’s office manager, asking to arrange a new, additional appointment, knowing full well that an AfD handover date would take place first.
June 27, 2025: Handover of the petition to several members of the AfD parliamentary group.
July 9, 2025: Agreed appointment with Ruppert Stüwe.
July 8, 2025: I receive the cancellation of the appointment at a time when I had already traveled to Berlin.
Media outlets adopted the account of the Greens and SPD without checking the actual chronology of events. Instead, the accusation is now made that the petition was “instrumentalized.”
This account distracts from the actual point: a petition with 62,000 signatures was ignored for weeks, and after I had already traveled for the handover, an appointment was canceled at short notice. Only the AfD parliamentary group accepted the petition. That was not because I favored that group in any way, but because they were simply the only ones who wanted to see me at all.
Historical rejection, and yet the will to cooperate
The current stance of the SPD and Greens on the Transrapid is in direct continuity with their decades-long anti-Transrapid policy: As early as 1997, the Greens called for a “quick burial” of the Transrapid project. The then Green spokesman Matthias Schneider spoke of a “waste of billions” and urged Brandenburg to launch a “Bundesrat initiative to end it.” The SPD followed suit: In 1997, the Berlin SPD state executive decided on an “immediate halt to planning” and called the project “nonsensical” and “irresponsible.” State managing director Rudolf Hartung spoke at the time of “fiscal irresponsibility.”
This ideologically motivated opposition to the Transrapid ran through the entire history of the project, from the blockade of the Hamburg-Berlin line to the prevention of the Munich airport link and the final end of German maglev technology. While China has been running successfully for over 20 years with exactly this German technology, has developed it further to up to 600 km/h and is currently preparing the construction of several new lines, in Germany it was effectively ended by a series of political decisions.
Despite this historical rejection, it was and is important to me to work with all parties represented in parliament. The Transrapid petition is not directed against individual parties, but for an innovative transport technology that Germany urgently needs. I wanted to give the SPD and Greens the chance to rethink their historical position and engage constructively with the petition of 62,000 citizens in 2025. This willingness to talk was met with ignorance, cancellations and now with misrepresentations. It shows: the ideological blockade of back then apparently persists to this day, only the methods have changed. A pity!
Misrepresentations now hit activists too
What is evident in 2026: the misrepresentations now hit not only the Transrapid itself, but also those who advocate for this technology.
For decades, claims were spread that the Transrapid was supposedly too expensive or technically problematic, while China has been carrying millions of passengers with this technology since 2004. Now a similar tactic is being used against the petition and its initiator, with accusations of “instrumentalization” of the petition.
Non-partisan activism, personal consequences
On my part, there was and is complete willingness to cooperate with all parties represented in parliament. I believe in democracy, and that is why I consistently contacted all parliamentary groups, hoping for a substantive engagement with the petition.
In my private life, after the experiences, rejections, slander and defamation of recent months and years, I went my own way and joined the AfD. This personal decision, however, has no influence whatsoever on the maglevhub.com platform and my non-partisan activism for maglev technology. maglevhub.com remains a non-partisan initiative that advocates solely for innovative transport technology, regardless of party lines.
Other maglev organizations and associations also have board members with, among others, publicly known CDU and Green party memberships, yet there is no scandalizing or questioning of their “neutrality” there.
If other parties have a problem with my decision, that problem does not lie with me. My door remains open to everyone who wants to engage constructively with maglev technology. I would like to continue working with representatives of all parties represented in parliament in the future.
We keep working
Neither I nor maglevhub.com will let these misrepresentations distract us from our work. My work for a future-proof maglev technology in Germany goes on: factual, transparent and with the support of at least 62,000 people.
The Transrapid petition deserves a factual debate based on the facts. The 62,000 supporters have a right to have their voices heard and to have the actual course of events presented correctly.
