write two action memos (roughly 750-1000 words) on (Non-Motorized transportation In Vienna, Austria). It can focus on walking, biking, electric vehicles, pick one. The memo should make clear and specific recommendations that consider the opportunities and challenges presented in the cases. Be sure to organize your memo clearly with headings or other devices to effectively separate and highlight key ideas, use evidence from the case to support your argument, and use crisp jargon-free English. Please Look at the sample below by someone else.
Action Memo 2: Updated Arlington Hike and Bike System Master Plan
Anna Laura Harmjanz
PLAN 4395
Due
Date: 4/7/21
MEMORANDUM
To: City of Arlington
From: Anna Laura Harmjanz
Subject: Updated Arlington Hike and Bike System Masterplan
Date: 4/7/21
Revisiting 2011 Arlington Hike and Bike System Masterplan
Arlington’s Hike and Bike System Masterplan created in 2011 has not been updated since its publishing year. The masterplan visioned for “Hike and Bike facilities [to be] built properly with safety as a priority in all cases”; however as of 2021, Arlington has been ranked as the 13th deadliest city for cyclists (carinsurance.org). The plan also visioned for “more people will choose to hike or bike to their destination instead of driving”, yet only 0.2% of Arlington’s population uses a bike as their commuting method (bestplaces.net). Such discrepancy addresses the need for an updated masterplan using strategies and guidelines to allow for safer bicycle travel and increase the share of commuter trips through non-motorized forms of transportation.
The following recommendations are given for an updated Masterplan:
1. Increase availability of protected bicycle lanes.
2. Increase bike parking in Downtown Arlington.
3. Re-form the Hike and Bike Advisory Committee (HBAC)
4. Changes in Zoning- High Density Mixed Use
Protected Bicycle Lanes
The Hike and Bike System Masterplan only includes bicycle lanes such as: sharrows (shared bike/car bicycle lanes), paved shoulders, wide outside lanes, and unprotected bike lanes. Studies have shown that protected bicycle lane infrastructure increases perceived safety of users and attracts greater ridership of all levels. Protected bicycle lanes should be placed on busy streets as to reduce the risk of collision with nearby vehicles. For lower bicycle lane infrastructure costs, a buffered design with bollards or flexible delineators would be recommended for streets above the 30mph speed limit. In combination with protected bicycle lanes, painted bike lane paths should be considered to alert drivers of cyclists. For an example of a suggested protected bicycle lane design in Arlington, see Figure 1.
Figure 1
Picture courtesy of NACTO
Bike Parking and Showers/Lockers
The 2011 Hike and Bike System Masterplan promised to “ensure high-quality, placement, and function of bike parking to ensure practical, safe, and functional use” as well as considering “end of trip facilities and lockers”. Some of the important parking locations listed in the masterplan include Downtown Arlington, key shopping centers, and key places of employment. As of 2021 Downtown Arlington does not offer any bicycle parking nor showers or lockers for users. For greater security and convenience of cyclists, bike stations are recommended to be adopted in the updated masterplan. Studies have shown that secure indoor bike parking with shower facilities have increased ridership levels for workers. For lower cost options, installation of simple bicycle racks would allow for safer bike parking and encourage residents to bike for transportation. Racks must be conveniently installed close to users’ destinations and regularly checked on for signs of damage.
Hike and Bike Advisory Committee
The Hike and Bike System Masterplan of 2011 included the creation of the recommended program called the Hike and Bike Advisory Committee, also known as HBAC. The HBAC was loosely organized until 2012, and since then has not been reformed. According to the Masterplan, the HBAC would “provide a communications link between the citizens and the City, as well as an avenue for reviewing/revising project priorities”. Some of the responsibilities of the HBAC include participating in education outreach, advocacy, partnerships, events and community service. The HBAC was loosely organized for about a year after the plan was adopted (2012), but currently there is no “HBAC.” Given the low ridership in Arlington and lack of community participation in the Hike and Bike System Masterplan, an HBAC will be crucial to involve the community and allow citizens to voice their needs and ideas to have safer pedestrian and cycling infrastructure. Marketing has shown to increase levels of bicycling in cities around the world through advertisements, community events, and educational training. The HBAC would play a critical role in encouraging community members to cycle as a main form of transportation.
Zoning Changes
Leading cyclist cities such as Vienna have benefited from its mixed-use development. Higher density development in Arlington will allow residents to have shorter commutes to work, school, shopping, and entertainment and as a result decrease traffic congestion and pollution. High-density mixed-use development would also allow for a greater variety of mobility options through sidewalks, public transportation (if Arlington were to explore this area) and encourage higher cycling levels.
Next Steps and Discussion
The city of Arlington has to address many of the gaps in its Hike and Bike System Masterplan to allow for safer and increased cycling through protected bicycle lanes, increased bike parking and facilities, starting the HBAC, and making necessary changes in its zoning. Financing the transformation of Arlington’s bike system will require a variety of funding sources including national, state, local, as well as private donations and support from advocacy groups. Some examples of federal funding include Fixed Guideway Capital Investment Grants, Transportation Alternatives, and Safe Routes to School program. Different from the 2011 plan, the updated masterplan must put greater emphasis on cycling as a transportation method rather than recreational use. Although the former masterplan had envisioned many improvements to its cycling infrastructure, few have been successfully implemented. It will be crucial for city leadership and community members to hold the political will to follow through the plans in order to have more sustainable transportation options in Arlington.
Sources and statistics mentioned:
Hike and Bike System Masterplan 2011:
https://arlingtontx.gov/UserFiles/Servers/Server_14481062/File/City%20Hall/Depts/Office%20of%20Strategic%20Initiatives/Citywide%20and%20Area%20Plans/Hike%20and%20Bike%20System%20Master%20Plan/Hike_and_Bike_System_Master_Plan
Arlington 13th deadliest city:
https://www.carinsurance.org/deadliest-cities-for-cyclists/
NACTO design:
https://nacto.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/05/2-4_FHWA-Separated-Bike-Lane-Guide-ch-5_2014
Percent of Cyclists in Arlington Texas
https://www.bestplaces.net/transportation/city/texas/arlington
image1
Vienna’s path to sustainable transport
Ralph Buehler a, John Pucher b, and Alan Altshuler c
aUrban Affairs and Planning, Virginia Tech, Alexandria, VA, USA; bBloustein School of Planning and Public Policy, Rutgers University, New Brunswick,
NJ, USA; cKennedy School and Graduate School of Design, Harvard University, Cambridge, MA, USA
ARTICLE HISTORY
Received 15 February 2016
Revised 17 October 2016
Accepted 19 October 2016
ABSTRACT
Vienna, Austria reduced the car share of trips by a third between 1993 and 2014: from 40% to 27%. The key
to Vienna’s success has been a coordinated package of mutually reinforcing transport and land-use
policies that have made car use slower, less convenient, and more costly, while improving conditions for
walking, cycling, and public transport. During 32 in-person interviews in Vienna in May 2015, a wide range
of politicians, transport planners, and academics almost unanimously identified the expansion of the U-
Bahn (metro) and parking management as the most important policies accounting for the reduction in car
mode share since 1993. Implementation of sustainable transport policies in Vienna has been a long-term,
multi-staged process requiring compromises, political deals, and coalition-building among political parties
and groups of stakeholders. This consensual approach to policy development has been time-consuming.
Vienna has not been the first city to introduce any particular policy, but it has masterfully adopted
successful policies from other cities. The continuity of social democratic governments in Vienna since 1945
has provided a crucial political basis for long-term implementation. The Greens have vigorously pushed
for accelerating implementation of sustainable transport policies since becoming part of the ruling
coalition government in 2010. The progressive political environment in Vienna has been essential to its
increasingly sustainable transport system. Other major cities in Western Europe have also reduced the
share of trips by car since 1990. Together with Vienna, they provide useful lessons for other cities
throughout the world on how to reduce car dependence.
KEYWORDS
Car dependence; cycling;
politics; public transport;
sustainable transport;
walking
Several studies suggest a stagnation or decline in car owner-
ship, use, and driver licensing rates in recent years in high-
income countries in Western Europe, North America, and
Australia. Millard-Ball and Shipper (2011) examined annual
national data from 1970 to 2008 for the USA, Canada,
Australia, France, the United Kingdom, Sweden, Germany,
and Japan. Controlling for income levels, they found steady
increases in car ownership and use per capita until about
2000, but a leveling off or decline since 2000. Kuhnimhof
et al. (2012) compared car ownership and driver licensing
rates across generations in Germany, France, Great Britain,
Japan, Norway, and the USA, finding that, for the first
time, the younger generation is driving less than previous
generations and using public transport, walking, and cycling
more. In 2013 Transport Reviews published an entire issue
examining the topic of peaking of car ownership and use
(Goodwin & van Dender, 2013). Most of the articles con-
firmed the recent leveling off or much slower growth in car
ownership and use in Western countries.
Data on travel mode choice for some specific high-income cit-
ies also reveal a decrease in the share of trips by car and an increase
in the mode share of walking, bicycling, and public transport over
the past two decades (Cervero, 1998; Newman & Kenworthy,
2015; UN Habitat, 2013). Vienna, Austria, for example, reduced
car mode share by a third—13 percentage points—more than any
other major city in Western Europe for which travel surveys are
available over the past 25 years (see Figure 1). By comparison, the
next largest reductions in car mode share were in Paris (¡10 per-
centage points) and Copenhagen (¡9 percentage points). Reduc-
tions in the other eight cities were, in order: Amsterdam and
London (¡8 percentage points); Munich, Stockholm, and Zurich
(¡7 percentage points); Hamburg (¡6 percentage points); and
Berlin (¡5 percentage points). It is impressive that so many major
cities in Western Europe (including seven national capitals) have
significantly reduced car mode share since 1990. Although these
reported reductions are derived from travel surveys that are only
roughly comparable (see footnote to Figure 1), they all point in the
same direction of declining car mode share. Table 1 provides a
general overview of the types of policies the cities have imple-
mented to reduce car mode share while promoting public trans-
port, cycling, and walking.
It is noteworthy that both the Mercer and Monocle quality
of life indices (based on very different criteria) rank eight of the
ten cities in Figure 1 among the twenty cities in the world with
the highest quality of life (Mercer, 2005–2015; Monocle Survey,
2010–2015). In 2015, Vienna was ranked #1 by Mercer and #3
by Monocle. Vienna’s ranking has improved as its car mode
share has fallen, suggesting that its increasingly sustainable
transport system may have contributed to rising quality of life.
The falling car mode shares in all ten of the cities in Figure 1
suggest the same positive impact on quality of life.
CONTACT Ralph Buehler ralphbu@vt.edu Urban Affairs and Planning, Virginia Tech, Alexandria, VA 22314.
© 2017 Taylor & Francis Group, LLC
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF SUSTAINABLE TRANSPORTATION
2017, VOL. 11, NO. 4, 257–271
http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/15568318.2016.1251997
http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/15568318.2016.1251997
Fi
gu
re
1.
Tr
en
d
in
pe
rc
en
ta
ge
of
da
ily
tr
ip
s
by
ca
r,
pu
bl
ic
tr
an
sp
or
t,
bi
cy
cl
e,
or
fo
ot
in
m
aj
or
W
es
te
rn
Eu
ro
pe
an
ci
tie
s,
19
90
–2
01
4.
So
ur
ce
:C
ity
of
Am
st
er
da
m
(2
01
5)
,C
ity
of
Be
rli
n
(2
01
5)
,C
ity
of
Co
pe
nh
ag
en
(2
01
5)
,C
ity
of
H
am
bu
rg
(2
01
5)
,C
ity
of
M
un
ic
h
(2
01
5)
,C
ity
of
Zu
ric
h
(2
01
5)
,K
al
en
de
r
(2
01
2)
,K
ra
us
e
(2
00
9)
,O
m
ni
tr
en
d
(2
01
5)
,O
M
N
IL
(2
01
1)
,P
irh
of
er
an
d
St
im
m
er
(2
00
7)
,S
oc
ia
ld
at
a
(2
01
5)
,T
ra
fa
(2
01
5)
,a
nd
Tr
an
sp
or
t
fo
r
Lo
nd
on
(2
01
1,
20
15
).
N
ot
e:
Th
es
e
tr
av
el
su
rv
ey
s
on
ly
re
po
rt
tr
ip
s
m
ad
e
by
ci
ty
re
si
de
nt
s,
th
us
ex
cl
ud
in
g
su
bu
rb
an
re
si
de
nt
s
as
w
el
la
s
vi
si
to
rs
to
th
e
ci
ty
.C
ar
us
e
is
co
ns
id
er
ab
ly
hi
gh
er
in
th
e
su
bu
rb
s
th
an
sh
ow
n
he
re
fo
r
ci
ty
re
si
de
nt
s
al
on
e.
Th
e
m
od
e
di
st
rib
ut
io
ns
fo
r
Pa
ris
an
d
Zu
ric
h
ar
e
so
m
ew
ha
t
in
co
m
pa
ra
bl
e
w
ith
th
os
e
of
th
e
ot
he
r
ci
tie
s.
Th
e
Ci
ty
of
Pa
ris
ac
co
un
ts
fo
r
on
ly
on
e-
si
xt
h
of
th
e
po
pu
la
tio
n
of
th
e
G
re
at
er
Pa
ris
re
gi
on
,a
nd
th
e
Ci
ty
of
Zu
ric
h
fo
r
on
ly
on
e-
fo
ur
th
of
its
m
et
ro
ar
ea
.
Th
e
ot
he
r
ci
tie
s
in
th
is
fi
gu
re
ge
ne
ra
lly
in
cl
ud
e
ov
er
ha
lf
of
th
e
m
et
ro
po
lit
an
po
pu
la
tio
n.
Th
us
,t
he
ca
r
sh
ar
es
of
tr
ip
s
fo
r
Pa
ris
an
d
Zu
ric
h
ar
e
es
pe
ci
al
ly
lo
w
be
ca
us
e
th
ei
r
ci
ty
lim
its
ex
cl
ud
e
vi
rt
ua
lly
al
lc
ar
-d
ep
en
de
nt
ou
tly
in
g
ar
ea
s.
Th
us
,o
nl
y
ap
pr
ox
im
at
e
co
m
pa
ris
on
s
ca
n
be
m
ad
e
am
on
g
th
e
ci
tie
s
be
ca
us
e
th
e
av
ai
la
bl
e
tr
av
el
su
rv
ey
s
va
ry
in
m
et
ho
do
lo
gy
an
d
tim
in
g.
M
or
eo
ve
r,
th
e
tr
av
el
su
rv
ey
s
on
ly
re
po
rt
th
e
m
ai
n
m
od
e
of
tr
an
sp
or
t
fo
r
a
tr
ip
an
d
no
t
th
e
sh
or
ta
cc
es
s
tr
ip
s
by
ot
he
rm
od
es
.T
hi
s
es
pe
ci
al
ly
un
de
re
st
im
at
es
th
e
sh
ar
e
of
w
al
k
tr
ip
s
in
al
lc
iti
es
.
258 R. BUEHLER ET AL.
Such indices comparing quality of life among different world
cities are inherently controversial and incomparable, since they
rely on different measures: overall quality of life survey assess-
ments as well as measures of employment possibilities, quality
and cost of housing, mobility options, accessibility, and envi-
ronmental quality. Nevertheless, there appears to be a correla-
tion between virtually all such indices and having a well-
balanced transport system, where walking, cycling, and public
transport are convenient and safe alternatives to the private car
and account for a majority of total trips (EU, 2009 & 2012;
Mercer, 2005–2015; Monocle Survey, 2010–2015; Siemens
Green City Index, 2009; Smart City Index, 2015).
This article focuses on a detailed analysis of Vienna because
it has reduced car mode share more than any of the other cities.
It examines not only the range of policies implemented but also
the political process that enabled their implementation. As
shown in this article, the implementation of sustainable trans-
port policies has been a long-term, multi-staged process requir-
ing compromises, political deals, trial and error, and coalition-
building among political parties and groups of stakeholders.
Table 1. Overview of similarities in transport and land-use policies implemented in major Western European cities.
Policies that restrict car use
Price of gasoline In 2015, the retail price of gasoline in most Western European countries was more than twice
the price in the United States and over half of the retail price was due to taxes
Traffic calming and speed limits Residential streets in many Dutch and German cities are traffic-calmed at 30 km/h or less,
with speeds reduced to 20 km/h on shared streets, and to 7 km/h on some residential
streets (home zones). Except for motorways and major arterials, the general speed limit on
urban streets is 50 km/h
Road supply Motorways rarely penetrate into city centers; many neighborhood streets discourage
through-traffic by 30 km/h speed limits and infrastructure modifications, such as
narrowing roads and installing curves, diverters, chicanes, speed bumps, raised
intersections, and artificial dead ends
Parking Many European cities have reduced car parking supply in downtowns, increased parking fees,
and imposed time limitations for on-street parking since the 1960s
Driver licensing Strict and expensive driver training and licensing; probational licenses for young drivers
Road revenues and expenditures Revenue from roadway user taxes and fees are higher than roadway expenditures by all
levels of government, providing an important source of revenues for every European
national government
Congestion charging In London and Stockholm, fees imposed on motor vehicles to drive in designated central
zones
Environmental zones In many German cities, only certified low-emissions vehicles allowed in designated central
zones
Policies that promote public transport
Quantity of service Most cities have increased public transport service since 1990: expanded route network,
increased operating hours, and more frequent service
Quality of service Public transport systems have modernized their vehicles and stations and better coordinated
schedules, fares, and routes across modes and operators, enabling quicker and easier
transfers
User information Online information about regional, state-wide, and national routes, timetables, and fares;
real-time information at most rail and some bus stops, and on-board most trains and
buses
Discounts Discounts for children, university students, and seniors; deeply discounted monthly and
annual tickets available to all groups
Region-wide integration Most large cities have regional public transport authorities which integrate fares, ticketing,
operations, and financing across operators and jurisdictions
Policies that make walking and cycling more attractive
Car-free zones Many cities have pedestrianized large areas of their city centers that are off-limits for
automobiles with parking garages at the periphery
Traffic calming As noted above, many residential streets discourage through-traffic and greatly reduce car
speeds
Pedestrian facilities Widening, curb cuts, and improved pedestrian amenities on sidewalks; pedestrian priority in
car-free zones, traffic-calmed streets, and shared streets
Bikeway networks Expanding networks of paths and lanes for cyclists, including special provisions at
intersections (traffic signals, advanced stop lines); extensive bike parking on sidewalks and
on-street bike-corrals; bikesharing systems in most cities
Integration with public transport Walking and cycling routes that lead to bus stops and rail stations; improved bike parking at
public transport stations
Traffic education Especially in northern European cities, traffic education is offered in many schools, with
emphasis on safe walking and cycling from home to school; avoiding endangerment of
pedestrians and cyclists included in drivers’ training and testing
Land-use planning and policies that facilitate compact,
mixed-use developments
Coordination with public transport Scandinavian countries, the Netherlands, Germany, Switzerland, and Austria impose strict
land-use controls that help limit low density sprawl and encourage compact development
around public transport stops; provision of public transport services to new compact
developments
Planning process Especially Scandinavian countries, the Netherlands, and Germany coordinate land-use plans
among levels of government and across jurisdictions; and integrate land-use, transport,
and environmental planning at all levels of government
Sources: Alterman, 2001; Buehler et al. 2017; European Driving Schools, 2015; IEA, 2015; and information collected by the authors from local governments in each of the
ten cities.
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF SUSTAINABLE TRANSPORTATION 259
The research team assembled information about transport pol-
icy and politics in Vienna from numerous articles, books, and
online documents. Additional unpublished information was
obtained directly from the City of Vienna’s transport planning
office and the Vienna transit system.
The information obtained from these sources was supple-
mented by 32 in-person 60- to 90-min semi-structured inter-
views conducted in Vienna in May 2015. To facilitate the
interview process, an identical set of written questions was sub-
mitted to all persons interviewed roughly 2 weeks before the
in-person interviews. A broad range of interviewees were cho-
sen: elected city officials, political party representatives, and
political appointees; city planners, transport planners, and
regional planning directors; transit agency officials; transport
consultants for the City of Vienna; federal transport and
finance officials; non-governmental organizations (NGOs) and
lobbying groups; transport journalists; and senior professors of
transport at Vienna universities. The interviewees were con-
tacted through a snowball sampling process, where one contact
led to another. Initial contacts were established through the
Austrian Embassy in Washington, DC, the Austrian Chamber
of Commerce, two Vienna transport professors (already known
by the authors), and internet searches. Follow-up questions
were posed when necessary, either in additional personal inter-
views or via email or phone.
In instances where interviewees were the sources of specific
information reported in the text, they are cited by their last
names and included in the alphabetical listing of references at
the end of the article. In many cases, the majority of interview-
ees provided similar information. In such cases, only the most
important interviewees are listed as sources. In the few cases
where information was conflicting, follow-up questions were
posed and additional sources were consulted in order to clarify
and/or resolve the differences.
Finally, self-guided site visits were made throughout Vienna
in May 2015 to examine the various types of public transit,
pedestrian facilities, cycling facilities, parking management,
and transit-oriented developments. Those site visits provided a
visual, qualitative perspective and personal experience to sup-
plement the information supplied by other sources.
3. Overview of Vienna’s transport history,
demographics, and economy
Vienna has long been reluctant to adapt to the car. Most streets in
the historic central city have remained narrow. Themain exception
is the monumental Ringstrasse, a 19th century boulevard, which
replaced the historic city walls, encircling the oldest part of the city
(District 1). Throughout its history, Vienna has been a compact,
monocentric city with mixed-use development, generating many
trips short enough to walk and placing most locations within easy
walking distance of public transport (Csendes & Opll, 2006;
Pirhofer & Stimmer, 2007; Sammer, 2015). It has also protected
large areas from development, for use as parks, forests, and even
working vineyards within the city (Schicker, 2015). As a result, the
share of land area used for urban development and transport infra-
structure has remained below 50% (City of Vienna, 2015a).
Increasing affluence from 1960 to 1990 (roughly a tripling of
real per-capita income) led to a quadrupling in motorization
rates, from 90 to 357 cars per 1,000 population (Csendes &
Opll, 2006; Pirhofer & Stimmer, 2007). The result was worsen-
ing roadway congestion, parking problems, air pollution, noise,
and traffic injuries and fatalities (Knoflacher, 2015). Transport
plans from the 1960s and 1970s envisioned the construction of
high-speed motorways (autobahns) in the city, but widespread
public opposition—including anti-highway demonstrations in
the 1970s and 1980s—blocked nearly all of these proposals
(ASFINAG, 2012; Csendes & Opll, 2006; Pirhofer & Stimmer,
2007; Sammer, 2015). The main exception was the 18 km
S€udosttangente, a cross-town motorway (A23) in the southeast-
ern part of the city, which at its closest passes 5 km from the
historic city center (ASFINAG, 2012). Starting in the late
1960s, preservation of the old town, with its extremely narrow
streets and historic town squares, became a top priority, sup-
ported by the public and the ruling coalition parties, the Social
Democrats and Conservatives. In 1974 the City of Vienna
established its first car-free pedestrian zone in the old town.
Vienna’s population shrank from 1.63 million in 1961 to
1.49 million in 1990, but then increased to 1.80 million in 2015
(City of Vienna, 2015b). Currently, the City of Vienna accounts
for 70% of the 2.6 million residents of the metropolitan area
(City of Vienna, 2015b). Part of the recent population growth
has been due to immigration from other countries. As of 2012,
according to official Austrian statistics, more than one-third of
Vienna’s residents were of full or partial immigrant origin,
including 460,000 with foreign citizenship (Statistics Austria,
2015). Over 90% of Vienna’s immigrants and foreign residents
come from eastern and southeastern Europe, reflecting
Vienna’s location southeast of Europe’s center and its historical
ties to that region during Vienna’s days as capital of the Aus-
tro-Hungarian Empire (Statistics Austria, 2015). The influx of
immigrants from eastern and southeastern Europe—with
much lower rates of car ownership than Austrians—may have
contributed to the growth in public transport use and cycling
since 1993.
Vienna has a special governmental status as both a city and fed-
eral state, with a unicameral parliament serving both as city
council and state legislature. The mayor of the city is also the
prime minister of the state (City of Vienna, 2015c; Pelinka,
2013). Vienna is the capital of Austria and seat of the Austrian
federal parliament.
Table 2 provides a chronological overview of key politicians
in Vienna over the past five decades and their specific roles in
the evolution of Vienna’s transport policies. The listing starts
with Mayor Bruno Marek because it was under his leadership
that the construction of the U-Bahn (metro system) was finally
approved in 1968. The table ends with the current coalition
government of Social Democrats and Greens lead by Mayor
Michael H€aupl.
As shown in Table 2, all mayors of Vienna have been Social
Democrats since 1945, and all transport ministers were Social
Democrats until 2010, when a Green became transport minister
and vice-mayor (City of Vienna, 2015c). In the 16 elections
260 R. BUEHLER ET AL.
Table 2. Key politicians in evolution of Vienna’s sustainable transport policies, 1965–2015.
Person Official role Influence on transport policy
Marek, Bruno (SP€O) Mayor (1965–1970) � Oversaw construction of underground tunnels for the tramway, expansion of the S-Bahn (regional rail),
removal of some tramway lines in favor of buses, underpasses for pedestrians, and construction of a few
urban motorways (based on transport plans from the late 1950s).
� During his tenure, the Vienna City Council voted for the construction of the U-Bahn (metro) in January 1968.
Slavik, Felix (SP€O) Finance Minister (1957–1970)
Vice Mayor (1959–1970)
� Supported financing, construction, expansion, and modernization of the federally-owned and operated S-
Bahn.
Mayor (1970–1973) � Oversaw initial construction of the U-Bahn during his 3-year term as mayor, but as finance minister for
13 years was long-time opponent of the U-Bahn until the late 1960s— mainly because of its high cost.
Favored less expensive alternatives like underground tunnels for the tramway or a monorail system.
� Negotiated with the federal government in December 1968 to provide limited federal funding for U-Bahn
construction over the first 12-year period (2.4 billion Schillings).
� As mayor, opposed urban motorways (G€urtelautobahn; Donaukanalautobahn).
Gratz, Leopold (SP€O) Mayor (1973–1984)
Head of Vienna SP€O (1976–1988)
� Oversaw completion of Vienna’s main Autobahn (A23) in the southern part of the city (S€udosttangente).
� Called attention to the many problems being caused by increasing car use. Commissioned 1980 Transport
Plan, which has provided the basis for all subsequent transport plans (1993, 2003, 2014) and thus for future
improvements to walking, cycling, and public transport while restricting car use.
� Instituted the first car-free zone in Vienna in 1974.
� Oversaw completion of the basic 30km U-Bahn network (lines U1, U2, U4) in 1982, setting the stage for future
expansions.
� Increased citizen participation in the political process in the late 1970s and decentralized some city
government functions to the district level, such as parking and traffic calming. This was crucial for the later
implementation of parking management, which was thus decided at the district level.
Mayr, Hans (SP€O) Finance Minister (1973–1994)
Vice Mayor (1984–1994)
� As a very powerful finance minister and vice-mayor, his approval was crucial for financing U-Bahn extensions
and other large infrastructure projects.
Head of Vienna SP€O (1988–1993) � In 1978, he secured long-term commitment from the federal government to finance 50% of future
construction costs for U-Bahn extensions.
� The 1978 agreement he negotiated was crucial even to the completion of the basic 30km U-Bahn network in
1982. Without his negotiated federal share the U-Bahn system would never have reached its current 80km
length.
� Both Mayor Gratz and Zilk had to negotiate with Mayr to obtain funding for all major projects.
Busek, Erhard (€OVP) Vice Mayor (1978–1987)
Head of Vienna €OVP (1976–1989)
� Supported car-free zones, traffic calming, environmental protection, preservation of Vienna’s green space,
and revitalization of the central city.
� Opposed construction of additional motorways and new greenfield developments.
� Even though a politician of the conservative party, many of his positions were parallel to those of the
emerging Green Party.
� Not re-elected as €OVP party head after the share of Vienna €OVP votes fell from 34% in 1983 to 28% in 1987.
As a result many members and voters in the environmental wing of the €OVP subsequently switched to the
Green Party, boosting its share of the vote from 4% in 1987 to 9% in 1991.
Zilk, Helmut (SP€O) Mayor (1984–1994) � Vigorously pursued policies recommended in the 1980 Transport Plan, including both U-Bahn expansion and
parking management.
� Co-opted the sustainable transport policies advocated by the €OVP and the Greens at the time.
� Started big surge in building cycling facilities (bike paths, lanes, and parking); pushed hard to improve
pedestrian facilities (e.g. car-free zones expanded); expanded traffic calming in residential neighborhoods;
and expanded the U-Bahn network.
H€aupl, Michael (SP€O) Mayor (1994-today)
Head of Vienna SP€O (1993-today)
� H€aupl has guided overall policy, but he has left specific transport policy development and implementation to
his transport ministers.
� Powerful and influential during his 22C years as mayor: Transport policies have not been adopted or
implemented without his support.
� Approved the continuation of sustainable transport policies initiated by his predecessors (e.g. expansion of
parking management from only 1 to 16 districts; further expansion of the U-Bahn to 78km by 2015, with
more expansion currently underway).
� H€aupl has adopted many aspects of the Green transport agenda in order to gain the Green Party’s support in
parliament to remain mayor, including formal coalition governments in 2010 and 2015.
� Called for a public referendum in 2012 on whether to centralize control of parking management. To avoid
political risk, he did not express a preference and accepted the result, which was to leave the decision about
parking management at the district level.
Vassilakou, Maria
(Green Party)
Vice Mayor & Transport Minister
(2010-today)
� Negotiated with her Social Democratic coalition partners to drastically reduce the cost of the annual transit
pass in 2011 (from €449 to €365).
� Has strongly supported U-Bahn expansion, vast improvements in cycling facilities (bike paths and lanes, bike
parking, and bikesharing), improved walking conditions (car-free zones, shared streets, traffic calming of
residential streets), and on-street parking management, while opposing new motorways.
� Advocated central control of parking management throughout the city, but lost public referendum on this
issue in 2012. Thus, parking management has remained at the district level.
� As Greenminister of transport, she has taken the lead in actively implementing sustainable transport policies.
Sources: Blum, 2015; City of Vienna, 2015e; Gansterer, 2015; Herry, 2015; H€odl, 2015; Knoflacher, 2015; €OVP, 2015; Schicker, 2015; Snizek, 2015; SP€O, 2015; Wetz, 2015;
Technical Museum Vienna, 2015; Pirhofer and Stimmer, 2007; Csendes and Opll, 2006; Gr€une Wien, 2002; Arbeiterzeitung, 1958.
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF SUSTAINABLE TRANSPORTATION 261
since 1945, the Social Democrats have always won the highest
percentage of votes, but they formed coalition governments
with the Conservative Party (€OVP) from 1945 to 1973 and
from 1996 to 2001, and with the Green Party since 2010 (City
of Vienna, 2015c). As part of the coalition negotiations in 2010
and 2015, the Greens won control of the Ministry of Transport
(indeed the only ministry they control), with Maria Vassilakou
appointed both Minister of Transport and vice-mayor.
Social Democrats (SP€O) have been strong, long-time sup-
porters of labor, social housing, and public transport
(Lindenmayr, 2015; Schicker, 2015; Zabrana, 2015). Their core
base of support has been the working class and labor unions.
The Greens (part of the governing coalition since 2010) have
been most committed to environmental protection and pro-
moting bicycling, public transport, and walking (Jens, 2015;
Maresch, 2015; Vassilakou, 2015). They have also strongly
favored restrictions on car use and parking, about which the
Social Democrats have been far more hesitant for fear of losing
working-class votes (Blum, 2015; Gansterer, 2015; Rohracher,
2015). The role of the Greens has recently been crucial in trans-
port policy, and they have sometimes proposed extreme poli-
cies to prod their Social Democratic partners at least partly in
their preferred policy direction (Maresch, 2015; Vassilakou,
2015). The Social Democrats, in turn, have sometimes allowed
the Greens to serve as a lightning rod for criticism of new policy
proposals while taking credit for such policies if they later win
broad acceptance (Wetz, 2015). Even in 1994, long before the
Greens became part of the governing coalition (2010), the cur-
rent mayor Michael H€aupl made concessions to the Greens to
obtain their support in the city parliament for his first-term
candidacy (Gr€une Wien, 2002; Lindenmayr, 2015).
The Conservative Party (€OVP) supported the construction
of a U-Bahn already in the 1950s and 1960s. The Social Demo-
crats, who were in power, opposed the U-Bahn until 1968,
when they reversed their position and joined all other parties in
a unanimous parliamentary vote for the U-Bahn (Pirhofer &
Stimmer, 2007). Especially in the late 1970s and 1980s, the
€OVP had a strong environmentally-oriented wing that opposed
construction of more autobahns while supporting public trans-
port, car-free zones, traffic calming, parking restrictions, green-
space protection, and inner city re-development over new
developments on the urban fringe (Csendes & Opll, 2006).
Parking management was first implemented in 1993 in
Vienna’s first district, then led by the €OVP (Herry, 1997;
Schmitz, 2015).
When the Social Democrats and Conservatives were over-
whelmingly dominant and often allied in a governing coalition
(1945–2010), controversies were resolved behind closed doors.
The leadership strategy was to seek internal consensus before
inviting public and parliamentary discussion. Many key deci-
sions are still made in this fashion (Faast, 2015; Gansterer,
2015; Rohracher, 2015; Wetz, 2015). These internal delibera-
tions are typically informed by private consultations with all
key stakeholders (e.g. unions, chambers of commerce, neigh-
borhood groups) (Herry, 1997, 2015). The SP€O is particularly
committed to this approach (Lindenmayr, 2015; Zabrana,
2015), which complicated the research for this case study. Poli-
ticians, agency directors, and government bureaucrats were
generally accessible but unwilling to talk about conflicts,
controversies, mistakes, and the inevitable give-and-take of the
political process of implementing policies. It was difficult to
elicit criticisms of any kind. This has been less true of the
Greens, even though they have been members of the governing
coalition (with the Social Democrats) since 2010.
The Freedom Party (FP€O), populist and right wing in its ori-
entation, has strongly opposed any restriction on car use
(including traffic calming and on-street parking fees), while
supporting expansion of the U-Bahn (Knoflacher, 2015). The
FP€O has not yet had an impact on actual transport policy
because it has never been part of the governing coalition. How-
ever, it has won a sharply increasing percentage of votes in
recent elections (from 26% in 2010 to 31% in 2015).
Almost all of Vienna’s suburbs are in the state of Lower
Austria, which surrounds Vienna on all sides. In contrast to the
City of Vienna, its suburbs are much less dense and more car-
oriented. Correspondingly, public transport service and facili-
ties for walking and cycling are much less available and less
attractive than in Vienna. That is partly the result of car-
oriented policies throughout the state of Lower Austria, which
has been governed by the Conservatives (€OVP) for over 50 years
(Zibuschka, 2015). The Conservative government in Lower
Table 3. Timeline of key transport developments in Vienna, 1968–2016.
1968: Vienna city council voted unanimously to build a U-Bahn (metro system)
1969: City negotiated with federal government to contribute 2.4 billion
Schillings toward construction of first phase of U-Bahn (only 20% of actual
cost due to inflation)
1974/1975: First car-free pedestrian zone implemented in historic old town
(first district)
1975: First charges for on-street parking (on busiest commercial streets)
1978: First segment of U-Bahn line U1 (3 km) opened for passenger service
1978: City re-negotiated with federal government to cover 50% of actual U-
Bahn construction costs (vs. fixed amount)
1980: Transport Plan of 1980, adopted by city council, laid groundwork for
future sustainable transport policies
1982: First phase of U-Bahn network completed (30 km)
1984: Vienna Regional Public Transport Association (VOR) began operations,
coordinating public transport in Vienna and two surrounding states (8,900
sq. km service area; 2.4 million population)
1987: Traffic calming first implemented on 33 km of local streets
1993: Transport Plan of 1993 expanded on main goals of 1980 plan, but added
a new goal of reducing the car mode share of trips in Vienna to 25% by
2010
1993: Parking management first implemented: in first district (historic city core)
1995–1999: Parking management implemented in Districts 2–9, and 20 (inner
districts)
2000: Second phase of U-Bahn extension completed (61 km)
2003: Transport Plan of 2003 re-iterated themes of 1980 and 1993 plans but
delayed achievement of 25% car mode share goal to 2020
2003: Bike-sharing system (CityBike) opens
2007: Hours of operation for parking management extended from 8 to 10 pm
2010: Third phase of U-Bahn extension completed (75 km)
2012: Introduction of €365 annual ticket for unlimited public transport travel
within city boundaries
2012: Five additional districts (12 and 14–17) adopted parking management
2013: Decision on adoption of parking management kept at the district level as
result of city-wide referendum in which voters overwhelmingly preferred
retaining district control
2013: U-Bahn extended to new town of Seestadt (79 km)
2014: Transport Plan of 2014 adopted new goal of reducing car share of trips to
20% by 2025
2014: Almost 80% (1,657 km) of local roads in Vienna traffic calmed
2016: VOR expanded to 23,500 sq. km service area and 3.8 million population
2016: 18th district adopted parking management (16 of 23 districts)
Sources: City of Vienna (1980, 2014, 2015b), Csendes and Opll (2006), H€odl (2015),
Knoflacher (2015), Kurier (2015), Pirhofer and Stimmer (2007), Prillinger (2015),
Riedel (2014), and Sammer (2012).
262 R. BUEHLER ET AL.
Austria has invested heavily in autobahns and only weakly sup-
ported public transport investments, which are mostly targeted
to benefit commuters from Lower Austria to Vienna (Blum,
2015; Russ, 2015; Sammer, 2015). As a result, the car accounts
for 64% of daily trips in Vienna’s suburbs, compared to only
27% in the city itself (Omnitrend, 2015). Several of our inter-
viewees emphasized the very different land use pattern, trans-
portation system, travel behavior, and transport policies in
Vienna’s suburbs (Ossberger, 2015; Sammer, 2015; Wetz,
2015).
When asked what they considered the most important
explanations for the dramatic modal shift within the city since
1993—away from the car and toward public transit—nearly all
our informants highlighted public transport improvements, in
particular expansion of the U-Bahn, and parking management.
Both of these policies had been evolving over several decades
(Knoflacher, 2015). The expansion of the U-Bahn since 1990,
for example, would not have been possible without construc-
tion of its initial segments during the 1970s and 1980s. Simi-
larly, the city had experimented with various kinds of parking
time limits, mainly in commercial areas, long before parking
management was implemented in its current form (Faast, 2015;
Riedel, 2014; Sammer, 2015).
Table 3 provides a chronological overview of the most
important transport policy developments in Vienna since 1968,
starting with the decision to build the U-Bahn. As is evident in
the table, transport policies have evolved gradually over time in
Vienna, with one policy building on another. Figure 2 quanti-
fies the expansion of public transport service, parking manage-
ment, and traffic calming from 1990 to 2014, and declining car
mode share over the same period.
The continuity of transport policy is evident in the city’s
Transport Plans of 1980, 1993, 2003, and 2014 (see Table 3).
These plans were mainly conceptual. Nevertheless, they were
formally adopted by Vienna’s parliament and have served as
important policy guides (Rosinak, 2015; Schicker, 2015; Snizek,
2015). The 1980 plan was the most important because all subse-
quent plans built upon it (City of Vienna, 1980; Knoflacher,
2015). Its main stated goals were to expand and speed up public
transport, to limit roadway expansion, to restrict on-street
parking, to move through traffic out of residential neighbor-
hoods, to improve walking and cycling facilities, and to expand
both car-free zones in commercial areas and traffic-calmed
zones in residential neighborhoods (City of Vienna, 1980). The
1993, 2003, and 2014 transport plans established specific per-
centage targets for successively reducing the car share of trips
over time. Each encouraged further expansion of the U-Bahn
and parking management, improvements in walking and
cycling conditions, and better regional coordination of public
transport, including suburban rail lines into Lower Austria.
Roadway recommendations have been focused on diverting
traffic around the city center (City of Vienna, 2014).
Vienna has one of the best public transport systems in the
world. The construction and expansion of the U-Bahn since
1968 has been central to its improvement, but Vienna already
had an extensive tramway system by 1910 (H€odl, 2015;
Knoflacher, 2015; Sammer, 2015). The tramway provided most
public transport services for decades and is still a key part of
Vienna’s transit system (Ossberger, 2015). Tramway tracks, sta-
tions, and vehicles have been thoroughly modernized in recent
years, including protected, separate rights of way on many
routes (Knoflacher, 2015). The tramway provides extensive ser-
vice outside U-Bahn corridors, and on feeder routes to U-Bahn
stations. It is an integral part of the streetscape in Vienna, and
no political party advocates its elimination. Tram ridership has
actually risen during the expansion of the U-Bahn, from
242 million in 1990 to 294 million in 2013 (Wiener Linien,
Figure 2. Time-trend comparison of key transport policies and falling car share vs. rising public transport share of trips, 1990–2014. Sources: City of Vienna (2015b),
Csendes and Opll (2006), Herry (1997), H€odl (2015), Pirhofer and Stimmer (2007), Prillinger (2015), Riedel (2014), Sammer (2012), and VOR (2015).
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF SUSTAINABLE TRANSPORTATION 263
2000–2015). Over the same period, U-Bahn ridership has risen
from 246 to 429 million. Mainly due to its greater speed, the
U-Bahn has superseded the tram as Vienna’s main transit
mode and is currently considered the backbone of its public
transport system (Ossberger, 2015; Steinbauer, 2015).
Construction of the Vienna U-Bahn started in 1969. The
first line was opened in 1978, and the basic 30 km network of
three U-Bahn lines (U1, U2, and U4) was completed by 1982
(H€ofling, 2010). The U-Bahn was further expanded to 41 km
during the 1980s. From 1990 to 2015, the period of special
interest for this article, the U-Bahn network almost doubled
again in length, to 80 km (Prillinger, 2015). In addition, head-
ways were reduced to only 2–3 min between trains on each line
during the peak, and peak service hours were expanded. Fre-
quencies and hours of service were also increased during off-
peak, especially on weekends and at night (Faast, 2015; Steinba-
uer, 2015; Vassilakou, 2015). Additional improvements during
this period included new, more comfortable vehicles and mod-
ernized, more accessible stations (Maresch, 2015; Ossberger,
2015; Rohracher, 2015).
The U-Bahn cannot be viewed in isolation from the tram-
way, bus, and regional rail systems (S-Bahn and Regionalbahn)
(Bohrn, 2015). They form an integrated network of comple-
mentary services coordinated by the Vienna Verkehrsverbund
(regional transit association). All types of public transport have
been improved since 1990: new bus and rail vehicles; modern-
ized rail stations; better bus and tram shelters; shorter head-
ways; separate rights of way for trams and buses (tram tracks
grade-separated from the roadway; exclusive bus lanes); signal
priority at some intersections; and real-time information, both
on-line and at stations (including bus stops) (Bohrn, 2015).
Both the Vienna Verkehrsverbund and Wiener Linien (city
transit agency) have improved the coordination of schedules,
routes, and fares among different lines, different kinds of tran-
sit, and different parts of the region (Bohrn, 2015; Steinbauer,
2015).
5.1
Funding for construction and expansion of the U-Bahn has
always been an important issue (Madreiter, 2015; Schicker,
2015; Steinbauer, 2015). In 1978 Hans Mayr, Vienna’s SP€O
finance minister from 1973 to 1994, was able to negotiate a
50% federal share of funding for future U-Bahn investments.
This federal contribution was facilitated through the support of
Mayr’s SP€O colleagues federal chancellor Bruno Kreisky
(1970–1983) and finance minister, Hannes Androsch (1970–
1981) (H€odl, 2015; Mayerhofer, 2015; Schicker, 2015; Snizek,
2015). The agreement of 1978 remains in effect to this day
(Bohrn, 2015; Sammer, 2015; Schalko, 2015).
Whereas the City of Vienna owns and operates the U-Bahn,
the federal government owns and operates the regional S-Bahn
rail system. It also finances 80% of S-Bahn capital costs, exclud-
ing station upgrades, and 100% of S-Bahn operating subsidies
for a basic level of service, defined by the 1999 Federal Public
Transport Act as the level existing in 2000 (Mayerhofer, 2015;
Schalko, 2015; €OVG, 2009). All other costs are borne by the
City of Vienna and the State of Lower Austria, which have been
reluctant to pay for service increases above the basic level
(Bohrn, 2015; Ossberger, 2015; Zibuschka, 2015). Although the
S-Bahn mainly provides longer-distance service to the sur-
rounding suburbs, its nine lines include 49 station stops within
the city limits of Vienna; thus, it also serves many shorter trips
within Vienna. The main problem with the S-Bahn is that it is
greatly in need of modernization to bring it up to current
standards (Faast, 2015). Austrian Railways, with limited fund-
ing and other priorities, has been hesitant to make the neces-
sary investments.
There are three sources of federal government support for
public transport. Federal subsidies cover 100% of the cost of
public transport fares for daily commutes of school students
and apprentices (Bohrn, 2015; Zibuschka, 2015). Second, the
federal government pays for the administrative and planning
costs of the regional coordination of public transport provided
by the Vienna Verkehrsverbund (Mayerhofer, 2015; Schalko,
2015). Third and most significantly, the city receives general
revenue sharing funds from the federal government, which lev-
ies all major taxes in Austria (most notably, income and value-
added taxes) and distributes most of the proceeds to states and
localities (Rohracher, 2015; Sammer, 2015). Because it is the
national capital, Vienna receives twice as much revenue sharing
per capita as the average for the rest of Austria (Wetz, 2015).
This is officially justified with reference to the many nation-
wide services–governmental, cultural, and educational–located
in the city. Overall, 90% of Vienna’s revenue derived from taxa-
tion comes from the federal government: about €6.4 billion vs.
€0.8 billion in locally raised tax revenue (City of Vienna,
2015d). Thus, even U-Bahn operating subsidies, and the city’s
50% share of U-Bahn capital costs, are financed mainly with
federal revenue sharing funds, although indirectly through allo-
cation from the city’s general budget.
There are three local sources of public transport finance.
Passenger fare revenues (€480 million) cover about 55% of
transit operating costs (Ossberger, 2015). The City of Vienna
levies a public transport tax on large employers (roughly €100
per employee per year) producing annual revenue of
€70 million (City of Vienna, 2015d; Snizek, 2015). Finally, reve-
nues from on-street parking and city-owned parking garages
(roughly €100 million per year) are earmarked for public trans-
port, park and ride, parking garages, and bicycling (Vassilakou,
2015).
5.2 Fare policy
In contrast to most other major European cities, Vienna has
for many years had a policy of charging low transit fares, but
these have recently been reduced even further (Civity, 2011).
In 2012, Vienna reduced its price for an annual ticket for
unlimited travel within the city boundaries by 20%, from €449
to €365 (Ossberger, 2015; Vassilakou, 2015). Maria Vassila-
kou, the vice-mayor for transport (Green Party), was the prin-
cipal advocate of this price reduction (Maresch, 2015;
Vassilakou, 2015). Indeed, she initially proposed reducing the
price to €100. The €365 price emerged from the Social Demo-
crat–Green coalition negotiation following the election of
2010. The renewal of this negotiation following the 2015 elec-
tion included an agreement to maintain the €365 annual ticket
price.
264 R. BUEHLER ET AL.
In 2012 as well, Vienna reduced the price for monthly passes
by 10%, from €49.50 to €45. Moreover, the age requirement for
senior discounts was reduced from 65 to 60 years, enabling
more of Vienna’s population to take advantage of the further
40% senior discount on the annual ticket (€224). School stu-
dents pay €60 per year, and university students €75 per semes-
ter (5 months) (Maresch, 2015; Vassilakou, 2015). Overall, 92%
of all transit trips in Vienna are paid for with annual, monthly,
weekly, or semester passes. Only 6% of trips are taken with sin-
gle trip tickets (Wiener Linien, 2000–2015). The Vienna mode
share of public transport rose 3 percentage points (36%–39%)
from 2011 to 2013, the years immediately before and after the
fare reductions. That was five times the annual rate of increase
during the previous decade (2001–2011).
There was some opposition to these fare cuts from managers
of the city’s public transport system until the city government
pledged to cover any revenue losses (Steinbauer, 2015;
Vassilakou, 2015). In fact, ridership grew so much that total
fare revenue increased. But operating costs increased as well
because of services added to accommodate the increased
demand. As a result, the percentage of operating costs covered
by fares fell from 60% in 2011 to 55% in 2015 (Die Presse,
2012, 2015; Ossberger, 2015; Sammer, 2015).
5.3 Public and political support
Support for public transport in Vienna is strong and wide-
spread (Gansterer, 2015; Rohracher, 2015; Steinbauer, 2015;
Vassilakou, 2015). Even the right-wing Freedom Party (FP€O)
supports further expansion of the U-Bahn system, probably
because it is widely believed to have reduced roadway conges-
tion, which appeals to FP€O’s motorist constituency (FP€O
Wien, 2015). The business community and labor unions have
been vigorous supporters (Faast, 2015; Schicker, 2015). Many
public transport construction firms and suppliers are located in
Vienna and the surrounding area (Knoflacher, 2015; Rosinak,
2015; Snizek, 2015). Moreover, public transport is itself a major
employer, whose unionized employees are central to the politi-
cal base of the SP€O (Lindenmayr, 2015; Rosinak, 2015;
Schicker, 2015; Zabrana, 2015).
As previously noted, the public transport mode share for
trips within the City of Vienna rose from 29% in 1993 to 39%
in 2014. In addition, annual passenger trips in the regional
Vienna Verkehrsverbund as a whole increased by 44% from
1990 to 2012 (22% increase per capita) (Bohrn, 2015; VOR,
2015). In a 2014 survey, 98% of Viennese residents described
public transport service as either good or very good
(Omnitrend, 2015). Moreover, 52% of residents reported using
transit daily, 76% at least once a week, and 88% at least once a
month (Omnitrend, 2015).
Although short-term parking zones along commercial streets
were introduced in 1959, no charges were imposed until 1975
(Riedel, 2014). In 1986, federal transport law was revised to
allow exemptions for neighborhood residents from the short-
term parking requirements (Riedel, 2014). This enabled the
implementation of parking management in Vienna as it exists
today (Faast, 2015; Herry, 1997, 2015). Entire city districts are
short-term parking zones with district residents having access
to exemption passes for a fee that varies by district (€90–€120
per year in 2014) (Riedel, 2014). From 1975 to 2015, hourly
fees for short-term, non-district-resident parking have more
than doubled (C140%) in real, inflation-adjusted Euros.
On-street parking is generally limited to 2 h (€2 per hour) for
non-district residents, while there are no time limits or hourly
charges for residents who display an annual parking decal
(Herry, 2015; Riedel, 2014; Sammer, 2012).
Parking management was first implemented in 1993 in the
city’s first district (historic city core) because it had the most
severe parking and roadway congestion problems. Even there,
controversy about its introduction was intense until it went
into effect. Acceptance then rose quickly, however, because
parking management sharply reduced traffic volumes and
made it much easier to find a parking space (City of Vienna,
2015f; Herry, 1997; Lindenmayr, 2015; Rosinak, 2015; Schmitz,
2015). By 2016, parking management had spread to 16 of
Vienna’s 23 city districts, covering 34% of the developed land
of Vienna but 54% of its population (City of Vienna, 2016).
From 1995 to 2013, as parking management spread, the per-
centage of residents reporting severe problems finding parking
during the day fell from 47% to 27%, and during the evening,
from 58% to 37% (City of Vienna, 2015f).
For motorists without resident decals, there are variations
among districts in the parking time limit and the specific hours
of enforcement. In general, longer parking duration is permit-
ted in the outer districts (3 h) than in the inner districts (1.5–
2 h). In addition, on-street parking regulations are in effect for
a shorter time period in the outer districts (9 am to 7 pm) than
in the center (9 am to 10 pm) (Raab, 2015; Riedel, 2015;
Zibuschka, 2015).
6.1 Garnering public support
Developing the system of parking management, generating politi-
cal support for it, and implementing it have been time-consum-
ing and difficult. It took many revisions and compromises to
overcome the opposition of key groups and politicians. Before
parking management was introduced in 1993, the measured
parking occupancy rate in the first district was 121% between 9
and 11 am (more than 100% because of illegal parking) and 95%
between 8 and 10 pm (Herry, 1997). The average time to find an
on-street parking space was 15 min (Herry, 2015). District resi-
dents provided the main impetus for action. They wanted prior-
ity access to the district’s limited on-street parking spaces, which
had been largely occupied by non-resident commuters and shop-
pers (Schmitz, 2015). At first, most local businesses were
opposed, anticipating that their employees and customers, as
well as the operators of delivery, service, and company vehicles,
would have greater difficulty parking. The district government,
led by the business-oriented Conservatives, took this objection
seriously (Faast, 2015; Herry, 2015).
In 1991 a commission was formed to address these con-
cerns. Seeking consensus, it included representatives of all local
political parties, the chamber of commerce, the unions, and
city planning staff (Herry, 1997). The concerns of local busi-
nesses were addressed by offering them special parking permits.
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF SUSTAINABLE TRANSPORTATION 265
In addition, resident exemptions from parking time limits were
not applied to commercial streets, thus freeing up more spaces
for businesses and their customers (Faast, 2015; Schicker,
2015). There were still numerous points of detailed contention,
but sufficient agreement to move forward with a pilot project
(Herry, 1997).
6.2 Initial implementation and expansion
Parking management in the first district began with a pilot
project, during which the measured occupancy rate of on-street
parking fell from 121% to 82% between 9 and 11 am, and from
95% to 87% from 8 to 10 pm (Herry, 1997). Thus, there were
almost always a few empty parking spaces available (Herry,
1997). Daily traffic counts showed a reduction of 20% in km of
car travel within the first district, including a two-third reduc-
tion in cruising to find parking spaces (from 10 to 3.3 million
vehicle km per year) (Herry, 1997). Air pollution and noise
also decreased (Lindenmayr, 2015; Schmitz, 2015; Zabrana,
2015). With these findings in hand, the first district govern-
ment adopted parking management as a policy for the long
term.
On the other hand, adjacent city districts suffered from the
overflow of motorists formerly parked in the first district
(Schicker, 2015; Zabrana, 2015). Consequently, a second com-
mission was formed in 1994 to consider expanding parking
management to Districts 2–9 and 20 (Herry, 1997). Its recom-
mendations expanded upon those of its predecessor. Most
notably, it urged that the city build off-street, self-financing
parking garages to supplement available on-street parking. The
city has, in fact, built 25 such garages as of 2015, with 18 more
planned (Herry, 2015). The commission recommended addi-
tional concessions to local enterprises: special curbside spaces
reserved for truck deliveries and certain types of business park-
ing, and the elimination of resident exemptions from time lim-
its and hourly charges on busy commercial streets (Authried,
2015; Faast, 2015). The commission also urged the construction
of more and larger park-and-ride lots at outlying rail transit
stations to facilitate transit use by those diverted from travel
into the city by car (Herry, 1997; Schicker, 2015; Vassilakou,
2015; Zibuschka, 2015).
Parking management was subsequently implemented in Dis-
tricts 2–9 and 20 between 1995 and 1999 (Herry, 1997; Raab,
2015; Riedel, 2015). In Districts 2–9, the average occupancy
rate of on-street parking fell from 100% before parking man-
agement to 70% after implementation (Herry, 1997). As in the
first district, vehicle traffic also fell due to reduced cruising in
search of parking spaces (Herry, 2015). Studies found that the
number of on-street parked cars with non-Vienna license plates
dropped by two-thirds (Raab, 2015; Riedel, 2015). Most of
those diverted from driving into central Vienna came by transit
instead (Herry, 2015; Rosinak, 2015).
6.3 Public acceptance due to success
Opinion surveys in the sixth and ninth districts prior to and
after implementation showed significant increases in support
for parking management, both among residents and non-
residents, since even the latter found it easier to park with the
new arrangement (City of Vienna, 2015f). Among district resi-
dents, the percentage approving of parking management rose
from 46% before implementation to 67% afterward. Among
non-district residents, approval rose from 16% to 40%. In con-
trast to pre-implementation forecasts, a greater share of district
residents bought the parking pass, fewer residents parked ille-
gally, more non-residents switched to public transport, and
fewer drivers shifted to parking in other districts. In 2007, the
hours of operation were extended from 8 to 10 pm in all ten
districts with parking management. The aim was to keep more
spaces available for residents needing to park overnight (Raab,
2015; Riedel, 2015).
In 2011/2012, the City mounted an informational campaign
to encourage the adoption of parking management by addi-
tional districts (Raab, 2015; Riedel, 2015; Sammer, 2015). There
were town-hall style meetings in local neighborhood restau-
rants, with exhibits portraying the advantages of parking man-
agement and how it would operate. Planning staff were
available to answer questions at such events, including one-on-
one consultation with individual residents (Raab, 2015;
Sammer, 2015; Snizek, 2015; Vassilakou, 2015).
As a result of feedback from these community outreach
efforts, several alterations were adopted. For example, parking
management now includes resident-only parking zones. Previ-
ously, all curbside spaces had been available to non-residents,
though subject to time limits and hourly charges (Bubak, 2014;
Raab, 2014; Vassilakou, 2015). In response to these conces-
sions, five additional districts (12 and 14–17) adopted parking
management in 2012. Most of these are adjacent to the districts
that had adopted it earlier (Maresch, 2015; Riedel, 2015).
6.4 Prospects for further expansion
Seven districts continued to reject parking management as of
September 2016. These are mostly outlying districts with
lower-density development, longer trip distances, higher
motorization rates, ease of free curbside parking, and less public
transport service (Faast, 2015; Zibuschka, 2015). Of the 16 dis-
tricts that had implemented parking management as of Sep-
tember 2016, 12 are governed by the Social Democrats, two by
the Conservatives, and two by the Greens. Thus, the acceptance
of parking management is determined not simply by party affil-
iation but other factors as well. Of the seven districts still with-
out parking management, four are run by the Social
Democrats, three by the Conservatives, and one by the FP€O
(City of Vienna, 2016).
The Greens have strongly advocated extension of parking
management to the entire city, but they are minority members
of the governing coalition, and the Social Democrats have been
unwilling to alienate their constituencies in outer districts
(Gansterer, 2015; Maresch, 2015; Rohracher, 2015; Vassilakou,
2015; Wetz, 2015). In 2013, Mayor H€aupl called for a non-
binding referendum to determine public opinion about
whether decisions to adopt parking management should
remain with the districts; 64% of Vienna’s residents voted in
favor of continued district control (Sammer, 2015; Wetz, 2015).
Since then, Mayor H€aupl has strongly supported continued
decentralized control of parking management (City of Vienna,
2013). With similar intent to minimize political risk, some local
266 R. BUEHLER ET AL.
district councils held referenda on the adoption of parking
management before deciding to implement it, even though
they were not required to do so.
Other policies have reinforced the impacts of public transport
improvements and parking management. As previously noted,
these include improvements in pedestrian and cycling infrastruc-
ture, transit-oriented development, and various measures to
restrict motor vehicle travel (Blaha, 2015; Blum, 2015; Gansterer,
2015; Jens, 2015; Knoflacher, 2015; Vassilakou, 2015). As shown
in Table 1, many other European cities have undertaken the
same sorts of policies. The following sections provide further
detail on Vienna’s implementation of these policies.
7.1 Improving walking conditions
Over 95% of access trips to and from bus stops and rail stations
in Vienna are by walking. Thus, the provision of safe, conve-
nient, and pleasant walking facilities is crucial to facilitating
public transport use (Jens, 2015). Moreover, walking accounts
for over a fourth (28%) of all trips, so it is clearly an important
travel mode in its own right (Jens, 2015). Vienna established its
first car-free zone from 1974 to 1975, including much of the
historical core in the first district. It was adopted in the context
of intense concern, across party lines, that rising traffic levels,
congestion, pollution, noise, and illegal parking (usually on
sidewalks) were destroying the unique character of the historic
city core (Schicker, 2015).
Between 1990 and 2013, Vienna roughly tripled the total
area of its pedestrian zones from 102,126 to 295,938 square
meters (from 25 to 73 acres) (City of Vienna, 2015a). In addi-
tion, 3 km of major streets were converted to shared streets
(“Begegnungszonen”), with a 20 km/h speed limit, and with
pedestrians and cyclists having the same right as motorists to
use the entire street surface. Motor vehicle parking on shared
streets is prohibited except while loading and unloading (Jens,
2015; Lindenmayr, 2015; Maresch, 2015; Vassilakou, 2015).
Even more significantly, 75% of all other city streets (mainly
residential) were traffic-calmed, with a 30 km/h speed limit.
Starting in 1979, there was a gradual decentralization of deci-
sion-making on certain issues from the city level to the district
level (Herry, 2015). Since 1988, decisions on car-free zones,
shared streets, and traffic calming have been made at the dis-
trict level—although often implemented and coordinated with
planning assistance at the city level.
Traffic calming began in the late 1980s on a small scale, with
only 30 km of traffic-calmed streets in 1987. By 2014, there
were 1,600 km of traffic-calmed streets—a 50-fold increase in
27 years (Die Presse, 2014). Traffic calming spread rapidly
because traffic diverted from one traffic-calmed residential
street was largely displaced to adjacent streets without traffic
calming. Thus, one neighborhood after another was essentially
forced to adopt traffic calming because of the overflow effect.
Even more so than with parking management, traffic calming
has been a bottom-up movement. The demand for traffic calm-
ing emanated primarily from neighbors on local residential
streets, with the necessary measures then approved by the dis-
trict governments.
Except for the FP€O, which opposes nearly all restrictions on
car use, traffic calming is now widely accepted (Knoflacher,
2015). By comparison, shared streets are controversial because
some are major commercial streets (1.4 km in 2015). The
Vienna public transport system initially opposed shared streets
because they slow down buses, but it solved that problem by
rerouting buses to parallel streets with higher speed limits
(Raab, 2015). The first shared street in Vienna was imple-
mented on a major commercial street connecting the sixth and
seventh districts. Although the decision was made formally by
their district councils, it was supported by the majority of resi-
dents in a non-binding public referendum. The Greens have
been the principal advocates of shared streets, and are eager to
expand the current network. Their governing coalition part-
ners, the Social Democrats, on the other hand, allowed creation
of the existing shared streets only with reluctance and have
made clear their reservations about further expansion
(Maresch, 2015).
7.2 Improved cycling conditions
While support for improved pedestrian facilities has been wide-
spread and long-standing, only recently has Vienna made seri-
ous efforts to improve cycling conditions (Knoflacher, 2015).
By comparison, cycling facilities in Dutch, Danish, and German
cities were initiated decades ago and on a far more extensive
scale than in Vienna (Buehler, Pucher, Gerike, & Goetschi,
2017; Pucher and Buehler, 2008). Business groups and moto-
rists have long opposed the installation of bike lanes on major
streets because they compete for limited space with traffic lanes
and parking spaces (Authried, 2015; Gansterer, 2015; Roh-
racher, 2015). In 2013, Mayor H€aupl commented publicly that
he did not believe any sensible person could think of cycling as
a major mode of transport in Vienna. He also advocated stricter
enforcement of traffic regulations for cyclists as well as banning
cyclists from pedestrian zones (Wetz, 2015; Wiener Zeitung,
2013).
Nevertheless, advocates of cycling among the Greens, the
SP€O, and in Vienna’s transport planning department (which
has a special division for cycling) have succeeded in vastly
improving cycling conditions in recent years. Between 1990
and 2014, the bikeway network expanded sixfold from 190 to
1,200 km (Blaha, 2015; Winkler, 2015). During the same period
bike parking increased from 3,700 to 36,400 spaces (Blaha,
2015). While the city builds and maintains bike facilities on
major streets, implementation of facilities on local neighbor-
hood streets is left to the discretion of district governments. As
a result, there is much variation from district to district in the
extent and quality of bikeway and bike parking facilities (Blaha,
2015; Winkler, 2015). The Greens have been enthusiastic sup-
porters of cycling not just because of its environmental benefits
but also because their voters tend to be young and among the
most active cyclists (Faast, 2015; Vassilakou, 2015).
The expansion of traffic calming to 75% of streets provides a
vast network of cycling routes on lightly traveled neighborhood
streets without any special facilities such as bike lanes or paths.
To further facilitate their usefulness for cycling, bi-directional
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF SUSTAINABLE TRANSPORTATION 267
travel is officially permitted (as in most Dutch and German cit-
ies) on almost all one-way neighborhood streets, as well as on
shared streets, increasing the route flexibility and convenience
of cycling (Blaha, 2015). Vienna also has a modest bike-sharing
system (CityBike), first introduced in 2003, which as of 2014
included 96 docking stations and 1,200 bikes (Blum, 2015). The
net result of these policies has been a doubling in the share of
trips by bike, from 3% in 1993 to 6% in 2014.
7.3. Transit-oriented development
The modernization and expansion of Vienna’s main train sta-
tion (2007–2012) were combined with extensive mixed-use
development in and around the renovated station (City of
Vienna, 2015a; Madreiter, 2015; Sammer, 2015). That, in turn,
has spurred even more urban redevelopment in adjacent areas,
which is still continuing. On a much larger scale, the City of
Vienna is currently building a completely new district (Sees-
tadt)—2.4 square km in area—on currently undeveloped land
7 km east of the city center (City of Vienna, 2015e). When
completed, Seestadt is projected to house about 20,000 resi-
dents and offer about 20,000 jobs clustered around 3 rail transit
stations, and will restrict car use while promoting walking and
cycling (City of Vienna, 2015e; Herry, 2015; Winkler, 2015).
These two ongoing developments will probably encourage con-
tinued growth in public transport ridership in future years
(Schicker, 2015). However, they do not explain the growth
from 1990 to 2014.
7.4 Car-restrictive measures
Politically, the most challenging approach to reducing car use is
to make it more difficult or more expensive (Knoflacher, 2007,
2015). In Austria as throughout Western Europe, high taxes
and fees on car purchases, ownership, use, and parking provide
strong incentives to drive less and to walk, bike, and take public
transport more (Authried, 2015). It is perhaps the main reason
that policies to promote walking, cycling, and public transport
have been so much more effective in Western Europe than in
the United States. Since 1990, for example, the price of gasoline
in Austria has averaged more than twice the price in the United
States (IEA, 2015). Moreover, taxes and fees on car purchases
are much higher than that in the United States, ranging from
20% to 52% of the retail price, with the tax rate depending on
fuel efficiency and CO2 emissions (Authried, 2015). Obtaining
a driver’s license is also expensive in Austria (about €1,500 in
2015), mainly due to the cost of mandatory lessons at private
driving schools (European Driving Schools Association, 2015).
As most other European countries, Austria has to import
almost all of its petroleum from abroad. High taxes, first
imposed when few Austrians owned cars, are viewed as essen-
tial instruments to limit petroleum consumption and help
manage the national balance of payments, and are also major
sources of general government revenue.
The City of Vienna has imposed its own restrictions on car
use and parking, as discussed above. In addition to traffic calm-
ing, shared streets, and car-free zones, a few districts have
recently banned vehicular traffic from some neighborhood
streets at certain times so that they can be used by children for
play (Madreiter, 2015). Another restriction on car use since the
1970s has been the limited construction of new high-speed
motorways, with a virtual moratorium in the central city since
1993. In general, new motorways are viewed as being too dis-
ruptive, too expensive, and environmentally unfriendly in a
dense city like Vienna (Knoflacher, 2015). The one motorway
still under consideration in Vienna would tunnel underneath a
nature preserve to minimize its disruption at the street level. It
would provide a key connection to autobahns in Lower Austria,
the state surrounding Vienna. Its fate, however, is uncertain:
although supported by the Social Democrats, it is opposed by
the Greens (ORF, 2015; Zibuschka, 2015).
The implementation of sustainable transport policies in Vienna
has been a long-term, multi-staged process requiring compro-
mises, political deals, trial and error, and coalition-building
among political parties and groups of stakeholders. This con-
sensual approach to policy development has been very time-
consuming. Thus, Vienna has not been the first city to intro-
duce any particular policy, but it has masterfully adopted and
integrated successful policies from other cities. For example,
Vienna is one of the last major European cities to have built a
metro, but it is now one of the best. Similarly, parking manage-
ment had already been implemented in many Dutch, German,
and Swiss cities before Vienna started its pilot project in the
first district in 1993. Vienna’s risk-averse approach to adopting
new transport policies has delayed their implementation but
has increased the probability of success by learning from the
experience of other cities. It has also tended to minimize politi-
cal risk, and may help explain the Social Democrats’ continuous
electoral success over the past seven decades, which has in turn
facilitated the long-term development and implementation of
transport policies.
Vienna has cautiously introduced new policies in stages, ini-
tially with small pilot projects, later expanded and made perma-
nent only if deemed effective and popular. Vienna has regularly
conducted before and after studies measuring the success of
policies as they are implemented, thus providing feedback for
future improvements. Parking management is perhaps the best
example of this. Only after studies documented its success, and
surveys showed overwhelming public approval, was parking
management expanded in stages from the 1993 pilot in the first
district to 16 of Vienna’s 23 districts in 2016.
In addition to surveys, advisory public referenda have been
used—both at the city and district level—to measure public
support for controversial policies. For example, in 2013 Vienna
held a city-wide referendum on whether to keep decision-
making on parking management at the district level. Moreover,
several districts held referenda to poll their own residents on
whether to adopt parking management. Similarly, the first
shared street in Vienna was implemented only after a favorable
outcome of a referendum held in the two districts where it is
situated. Such referenda reduce the political risk of introducing
new or controversial policies, while at the same time democra-
tizing important policy decisions.
Local political support for neighborhood-level transport pol-
icies, such as parking management and traffic calming, has
268 R. BUEHLER ET AL.
been facilitated by leaving the decisions on those policies to dis-
trict councils. To enhance citizen participation, the City of
Vienna, together with interested district governments, orga-
nized town hall meetings to discuss how parking management
would work, and to address resident concerns. Similarly, traffic
calming has been a response to neighborhood resident
demands, with decisions by district councils. Traffic calming
has been popular among residents because it reduces through
traffic, air pollution, and noise on local streets while improving
traffic safety. Thus, the combined length of traffic-calmed
streets increased from 33 km in 1987 to 1,657 km in 2016.
Another key to Vienna’s success has been the implementa-
tion of a multi-modal package of policies providing excellent
alternatives to the car. That coordinated approach has been
essential to garner the public and political support for adopting
parking management, traffic calming, and car-free zones while
greatly limiting construction of new roads. These policy com-
ponents have been mutually reinforcing. For example, Vienna’s
U-Bahn provides such convenient, fast, and cheap access to the
city center that car-free zones and parking management have
been widely accepted there. Moreover, with the expansion of
the U-Bahn, such policies have been increasingly adopted in
other parts of the city.
The package of sustainable transport policies in Vienna has
garnered widespread support among the public, key stakehold-
ers, and political parties by offering benefits of some kind to
almost all groups. For example, three-fourths of Vienna’s resi-
dents (and voters) use public transport at least once a week,
reaping obvious benefits from good service and low fares.
Moreover, businesses rely on public transport to get their
employees to work and customers to their stores. Local con-
struction firms, transit vehicle manufacturers, transit workers,
labor unions, and even motorist groups (due to reduced road-
way congestion) have all supported the further expansion of
public transport. Similarly, parking management has spread to
16 of 23 districts because it has succeeded in reducing traffic
congestion and noise while making it easier for motorists to
find a parking place, even though it has become more expensive
for non-residents of the district. Neighborhood residents and
businesses, in particular, have benefited from the exemptions
that favor them. Since district councils decide, those local bene-
fits are key. The same is true of traffic calming, which mainly
benefits local residents.
Finally, the improved sustainability of Vienna’s transport
system has been greatly facilitated by federal government poli-
cies. Without generous federal funding of the U-Bahn, for
example, it probably would not have been built, as that was a
pre-condition for the city council’s approval. Moreover, the
federal government played a crucial role in creating the Vienna
Verkehrsverbund and has borne 50% of its ongoing adminis-
trative cost. Indeed, the success of Vienna’s Verkehrsverbund
led the Austrian federal government to pass a law requiring all
Austrian states to establish a Verkehrsverbund. The federal
government also had to pass a law permitting parking manage-
ment to be implemented—both in Vienna and other Austrian
cities—as it violated existing laws prohibiting preferential treat-
ment of district residents. The extraordinarily generous finan-
cial support and regulatory cooperation of the federal
government is attributable to Austria’s highly centralized fiscal
system and Vienna’s special place within it as the nation’s polit-
ical, economic, and cultural capital.
Vienna’s multi-faceted approach to increasing the political and
public acceptance of sustainable transport policies has facilitated
the large reduction in the mode share of car use since 1990, from
40% to 27%. Vienna’s successful implementation strategies provide
useful lessons for other large cities seeking to reduce car use and
increase walking, cycling, and public transport use.
Funding
The preparation of this article was financed by Harvard University, as part
of its Graduate School of Design research project entitled “Transforming
Urban Transport: The Role of Political Leadership (Principal Investigator:
Diane Davis), pursuant to a grant from the Volvo Research and Educa-
tional Foundations.”
ORCID
Ralph Buehler http://orcid.org/0000-0002-1254-2224
John Pucher http://orcid.org/0000-0002-9499-2383
Alan Altshuler http://orcid.org/0000-0002-1781-3425
Alterman, R. (Ed.). (2001). National-level planning in democratic countries:
A comparative perspective. Liverpool: Liverpool University Press.
ASFINAG. (2012). Austria’s highway system at 30. A historical review.
Vienna, Austria: ASFINAG.
Authried, N. (2015). Head Legal Services, Austrian Automobile Club
Vienna Chapter (€OAMTC). In-person interview conducted by Ralph
Buehler in Vienna, Austria, May 13, 2015.
Blaha, F. (2015). Head bike planner, City of Vienna. In-person interview
conducted by Ralph Buehler in Vienna, Austria, May 5, 2015.
Blum, M. (2015). Director of Vienna Mobility Agency, City of Vienna. In-
person interview conducted by Ralph Buehler in Vienna, Austria, May
5, 2015.
Bohrn, T. (2015). Managing Director, Vienna Regional Public Transport
Association. In-person interview conducted by Ralph Buehler in
Vienna, Austria, May 12, 2015.
Bubak, L. (2014). Expansion of parking management. Vienna, Austria: City
of Vienna.
Buehler, R., Pucher, J., Gerike, R., and Goetschi, T. (2017). Reducing car
dependence in the heart of Europe: Lessons from Germany, Austria,
and Switzerland. Transport Reviews, 37(1), 4–28. doi: 10.1080/
01441647.2016.1177799
Cervero, R. (1998). The transit metropolis. A global inquiry. Washington,
DC: Island Press.
City of Amsterdam. (2015). Trends in mode share in the city of Amsterdam.
Amsterdam, The Netherlands: City of Amsterdam.
City of Berlin. (2015). Travel trends in Berlin. Berlin, Germany: Berlin
Ministry of Urban Development.
City of Copenhagen. (2015). Mode share trends. Copenhagen, Denmark:
City of Copenhagen.
City of Hamburg. (2015). Hamburg travel surveys. Hamburg, Germany:
City of Hamburg.
City of Munich. (2015). Modal split in Munich. Munich, Germany: City of
Munich.
City of Vienna. (1980). Transport plan. Vienna, Austria: City of Vienna.
City of Vienna. (2013). Results of referendum on parking management.
Vienna, Austria: City of Vienna.
City of Vienna. (2014). Transport plan. Vienna, Austria: City of Vienna.
City of Vienna. (2015a). Transport planning. Vienna, Austria: City of
Vienna.
City of Vienna. (2015b). Statitics for Vienna. Vienna, Austria: Statistik
Wien.
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF SUSTAINABLE TRANSPORTATION 269
http://orcid.org/0000-0002-1254-2224
http://orcid.org/0000-0002-9499-2383
http://orcid.org/0000-0002-1781-3425
http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/01441647.2016.1177799
http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/01441647.2016.1177799
City of Vienna. (2015c). Political system and history of Vienna govern-
ments. Vienna, Austria: City of Vienna.
City of Vienna. (2015d). Revenue sources for the city. Retrieved from
https://wien1x1.at/site/wo-kommt-das-geld-her/. Accessed on 28
August 2015.
City of Vienna. (2015e). Aspern—Vienna’s city at the Lake. Vienna, Aus-
tria: City of Vienna.
City of Vienna. (2015f). Life quality survey, 1995–2013. Vienna, Austria:
City of Vienna.
City of Vienna. (2016). Statistics on Vienna’s districts: Land area, popula-
tion, politics. Vienna, Austria: Statistik Wien.
City of Zurich. (2015). Modal split trends in Zurich. Zurich, Switzerland:
City of Zurich.
Civity. (2011). Audit of transit fares in Europe. Vienna, Austria: €OVG Sem-
inar, Austrian Transport Science Association.
Csendes, P., and Opll, F. (2006). Vienna. History of a city. Vienna, Austria:
Boehlau.
Die Presse. (2012). Verkehr: U-Bahn und Parken aus einer Hand. Retrieved
from http://diepresse.com/home/panorama/wien/752216/Verkehr_U
Bahn-und-Parken-aus-einer-Hand. Accessed on 9 February 2016.
Die Presse. (2014). Tempo 30 in Wien: Eine Stadt bremst ab. Retrieved
from http://diepresse.com/home/panorama/wien/1579825/Tempo-30-
in-Wien_Eine-Stadt-bremst-ab. Accessed on 11 February 2016.
Die Presse. (2015). 365 Euro: Tr€agt sich die Jahreskarte von allein?
Retrieved from http://diepresse.com/home/panorama/wien/4839954/
365-Euro_Traegt-sich-die-Jahreskarte-von-allein. Accessed on 9 Feb-
ruary 2016.
Dimitrou, H. T., & Gakenheimer, R. (2011). Urban transport in the devel-
oping world. Chetenham, UK: Edward Elgar.
EU. (2009 & 2012). Quality of life in cities (Flash Barometers 277 & 366).
Brussels, Belgium European Commission.
European Driving Schools Association. (2015). Driver’s license costs in
Europe. Munich, Germany: EFA.
Faast, A. (2015). Head of City Planning and Transport, Vienna Chamber of
Commerce. In-person interview conducted by Ralph Buehler in Vienna,
Austria, May 12, 2015.
FP€O Wien. (2015). Fundamental goals for the election in October 2015.
Vienna, Austria: FP€O.
Gansterer, M. (2015). Director of Transport Alternatives Group (VC€O). In-
person interview conducted by Ralph Buehler in Vienna, Austria, May
6, 2015.
Goodwin, P., & van Dender, K. (2013). Peak car—Themes and issues.
[Special issue]. Transport Reviews, 33(3), 240–375.
Gr€une Wien. (2002). One decade of green party in city parliament. Vienna,
Austria: Green Party. Retrieved from http://kurier.at/chronik/wien/
michael-haeupl-kaerntner-strasse-waere-mein-vorbild/24.694.768.
Accessed on 28 August 2015.
Herry, M. (1997). Parking management in Vienna. Vienna, Austria: Herry
Consulting.
Herry, M. (2015). Consultant, Director, Herry Consulting. In-person inter-
view conducted by Ralph Buehler in Vienna, Austria, May 12, 2015.
H€odl, J. (2015). Division Head, Wiener Linien. Personal email communica-
tion with Ralph Buehler, August 13, 2015.
H€ofling, K. (2010). Expansion of the Vienna subway. Vienna, Austria: Wie-
ner Linien.
IEA. (2015). Energy prices and taxes. New York: International Energy
Agency.
Jens, P. (2015). Head of Pedestrian Activities, Vienna Mobility Agency, City
of Vienna. In-person interview conducted by Ralph Buehler in Vienna,
Austria, May 5, 2015.
Kalender, U. (2012). History of transport planning in Berlin. Cologne, Ger-
many: FGSV.
Knoflacher, H. (2007). The car drives us crazy. Die Zeit, 38, 12. Retrieved
from http://www.zeit.de/2007/38/Interv_-Knoflacher. Accessed on 28
August 2015.
Knoflacher, H. (2015). Professor Emeritus, Vienna Technical University. In-
person interview conducted by Ralph Buehler in Vienna, Austria, May
5, 2015.
Krause, R. (2009). History of Hamburg’s Regional Transport Association,
1965 to Today. Hamburg, Germany: HVV.
Kuhnimhof, T., Armoogum, J., Buehler, R., Dargay, J., Denstadli, J., &
Yamamoto, T. (2012). Men shape a downward trend in car use among
young adults—Evidence from six industrialized countries. Transport
Reviews, 32(6), 761–779.
Kurier. (2015). Gr€une forcieren in W€ahring das Parkpickerl. Der Kurier,
newspaper. Retrieved from http://kurier.at/politik/inland/wien-wahl/
wien-wahl-gruene-forcieren-in-waehring-das-parkpickerl-vp-chef-blue
mel-wird-stadtrat/158.287.831. Accessed on 10 February 2016.
Lindenmayr, S. (2015). Member of Vienna City Parliament and Former
Vice Mayor of District 3, Social Democratic Party. In-person interview
conducted by Ralph Buehler in Vienna, Austria, May 5, 2015.
Madreiter, T. (2015). Director of Planning, City of Vienna. In-person inter-
view conducted by Ralph Buehler in Vienna, Austria, May 11, 2015.
Maresch, R. (2015).Member of Vienna City Parliament, Green Party. In-person
interview conducted by Ralph Buehler in Vienna, Austria,May 13, 2015.
Mayerhofer, S. (2015). Infrastructure Unit, Austrian Federal Ministry of
Transport. In-person interview conducted by Ralph Buehler in Vienna,
Austria, May 5, 2015.
Mercer. (2005–2015). Quality of life rankings. Retrieved from https://www.
imercer.com/content/quality-of-living.aspx. Accessed on 10 February
2015.
Millard-Ball, A., & Schipper, L. (2011). Are we reaching peak travel?
Trends in passenger transport in eight industrialized countries. Trans-
port Reviews, 31(3), 357–378.
Monocle Survey. (2010–2015). Monocle quality of life surveys. Retrieved
from http://monocle.com/film/affairs/the-monocle-quality-of-life-sur
vey. Accessed on 10 February 2015.
Neuwahl. (2015). Opinion surveys, Vienna. Retrieved from http://neuwal.
com/wahlumfragen/stream.php?cidD2#facts. Accessed on 28 August
2015.
Newman, P., & Kenworthy, J. (1999). Sustainability and cities: Overcoming
automobile dependence. Washington, DC: Island Press.
Newman, P., & Kenworthy, J. (2015). The end of automobile dependence.
Washington, DC: Island Press.
Omnitrend. (2015). Market analysis for Wiener Linien. Vienna, Austria:
Omnitrend.
OMNIL. (2011). Mobility in the Isle de France Region 2010 (EGT—
Enquêtes Globales Transport). Paris, France: Observatoire de la mobilit�e
en l̂le de France (OMNIL).
ORF. (2015). Zwist um Lobautunnel. ORF, Austrian Television. Retrieved
from http://wien.orf.at/news/stories/2742330/. Accessed on 10 Febru-
ary 2016.
Ossberger, M. (2014). Mass transit in Vienna. Vienna, Austria: Wiener
Linien.
Ossberger, M. (2015). Director of Infrastructure Asset Management, Wiener
Linien. In-person interview conducted by Ralph Buehler in Vienna,
Austria, May 8, 2015.
€OVG. (2009). Handbook of public transport in Austria. Vienna, Austria:
€Osterreichische Verkehrswissenschaftliche Gesellschaft.
€OVP. (2015). History of Vienna’s €OVP. Retrieved from http://oevp-wien.at/
ueber-uns/geschichte
Pelinka, A. (2013). Policial system of Austria. In: Ismayr, W. (Ed.), Political
systems of Western Europe (3rd ed., pp. 521–553). Wiesbaden, Ger-
many: VS Verlag f€ur Sozialwissenschaften.
Pirhofer, G., and Stimmer, K. (2007). Plans for Vienna 1945 to 2005.
Vienna, Austria: City of Vienna.
Prillinger, H. (2015). The Vienna subway. Vienna, Austria: University
Library Vienna.
Pucher, J., & Buehler, R. (2008). Making cycling irresistible: Lessons from
the Netherlands, Denmark, and Germany. Transport Reviews, 28(1),
495–528.
Raab, M. (2014). Effects and policies for parking management expansion.
Vienna, Austria: City of Vienna.
Raab, M. (2015). Head of Traffic Organization, City of Vienna. In-person
interview conducted by Ralph Buehler in Vienna, Austria, May 6, 2015.
Riedel, R. (2014). Principles of parking management. Zeitschrift f€ur Ver-
kehrsrecht, 12a, 453–461.
Riedel, R. (2015). Head of Parking Management, City of Vienna. In-person
interview conducted by Ralph Buehler in Vienna, Austria, May 11,
2015.
270 R. BUEHLER ET AL.
https://wien1x1.at/site/wo-kommt-das-geld-her/
http://diepresse.com/home/panorama/wien/752216/Verkehr_UBahn-und-Parken-aus-einer-Hand
http://diepresse.com/home/panorama/wien/752216/Verkehr_UBahn-und-Parken-aus-einer-Hand
http://diepresse.com/home/panorama/wien/1579825/Tempo-30-in-Wien_Eine-Stadt-bremst-ab
http://diepresse.com/home/panorama/wien/1579825/Tempo-30-in-Wien_Eine-Stadt-bremst-ab
http://diepresse.com/home/panorama/wien/4839954/365-Euro_Traegt-sich-die-Jahreskarte-von-allein
http://diepresse.com/home/panorama/wien/4839954/365-Euro_Traegt-sich-die-Jahreskarte-von-allein
http://kurier.at/chronik/wien/michael-haeupl-kaerntner-strasse-waere-mein-vorbild/24.694.768
http://kurier.at/chronik/wien/michael-haeupl-kaerntner-strasse-waere-mein-vorbild/24.694.768
http://www.zeit.de/2007/38/Interv_-Knoflacher
http://kurier.at/politik/inland/wien-wahl/wien-wahl-gruene-forcieren-in-waehring-das-parkpickerl-vp-chef-bluemel-wird-stadtrat/158.287.831
http://kurier.at/politik/inland/wien-wahl/wien-wahl-gruene-forcieren-in-waehring-das-parkpickerl-vp-chef-bluemel-wird-stadtrat/158.287.831
http://kurier.at/politik/inland/wien-wahl/wien-wahl-gruene-forcieren-in-waehring-das-parkpickerl-vp-chef-bluemel-wird-stadtrat/158.287.831
https://www.imercer.com/content/quality-of-living.aspx
https://www.imercer.com/content/quality-of-living.aspx
http://monocle.com/film/affairs/the-monocle-quality-of-life-survey
http://monocle.com/film/affairs/the-monocle-quality-of-life-survey
http://neuwal.com/wahlumfragen/stream.php?cid=2#facts
http://neuwal.com/wahlumfragen/stream.php?cid=2#facts
http://neuwal.com/wahlumfragen/stream.php?cid=2#facts
http://neuwal.com/wahlumfragen/stream.php?cid=2#facts
http://wien.orf.at/news/stories/2742330/
http://oevp-wien.at/ueber-uns/geschichte
http://oevp-wien.at/ueber-uns/geschichte
Rohracher, M. (2015). Secretary General, Austrian Association for Trans-
port. In-person interview conducted by Ralph Buehler in Vienna, Aus-
tria, May 7, 2015.
Rosinak, W. (2015). Consultant, Director, Rosinak and Partners. In-person
interview conducted by Ralph Buehler in Vienna, Austria, May 9, 2015.
Russ, M. (2015). Managing Director, Austria Tech an Austrian Federal
Government Agency. In-person interview conducted by Ralph Buehler
in Vienna, Austria, May 4, 2015.
Sammer, G. (2012). Data and information to support the decision for or
against expansion of parking management. Vienna, Austria: ZISCP
Verkehrsplanung.
Sammer, G. (2015). Professor Emeritus, BOKU University, Vienna. In-per-
son interviews conducted by Ralph Buehler in Vienna, Austria, May 4
and May 8, 2015.
Schalko, M. (2015). Head of Infrastructure, Austrian Federal Ministry of
Transport. In-person interview conducted by Ralph Buehler in Vienna,
Austria, May 5, 2015.
Schicker, R. (2015). Leader of Social Democratic Party in Vienna Parlia-
ment and Former Minister of Transport for the City of Vienna 2001–
2010, Social Democratic Party. In-person interview conducted by Ralph
Buehler in Vienna, Austria, May 13, 2015.
Schmitz, R. (2015).Mayor of District 1, 1987–2001, City of Vienna, Conser-
vative Party. Personal email communication with Ralph Buehler, July
8, 2015.
Siemens Green City Index. (2009). Green city index. Retrieved from http://
www.siemens.com/entry/cc/en/greencityindex.htm. Accessed on 10
February 2015.
Smart City Index. (2015). The smartest cities in the world. Retrieved from
http://www.fastcoexist.com/3038765/fast-cities/the-smartest-cities-in-
the-world. Accessed on 10 February 2015.
Snizek, S. (2015). Consultant, Director, Snizek and Partners. In-person
interview conducted by Ralph Buehler in Vienna, Austria, May 7, 2015.
Socialdata. (2015). Mobility indicators of cities. Munich, Germany:
Socialdata.
Statistics Austria. (2015). Characteristics of the population in Austria’s
states. Vienna, Austria: Statistics Austria.
Steinbauer, G. (2015). Director, Wiener Linien. In-person interview con-
ducted by Ralph Buehler in Vienna, Austria, May 8, 2015.
The Economist. (2006–2015). The Economist Intelligence Unit’s quality-of-
life index. Retrieved from http://www.economist.com/topics/econo
mist-intelligence-unit. Accessed on 10 February 2015.
Trafa. (2015). Stockholm travel survey results. Stockholm, Sweden: Trafa.
Transport for London. (2011). Travel in London. London, UK: TFL.
Transport for London. (2015). London travel demand survey. London, UK:
TFL.
TRB. (2001). Making transit work. Special Report 257. Washington, DC:
Transportation Research Board.
UBA. (2015). Environmental zones. Berlin, Germany: German Federal
Ministry of the Environment.
UN Habitat. (2013). Planning and design for sustainable urban mobility:
Global report on human settlements. New York: Routledge.
Vassilakou, M. (2015). Vice-Mayor and Minister of Transport for the City
of Vienna, 2010–2015, Green Party. In-person interview conducted by
Ralph Buehler in Vienna, Austria, May 9, 2015.
VOR. (2015). Public transport ridership. Vienna, Austria: Regional Public
Transport Association for the Vienna Region (VOR).
Wetz, A. (2015). Transport Journalist, Die Presse Newspaper. In-person
interview conducted by Ralph Buehler in Vienna, Austria, May 6, 2015.
Wiener Linien. (2000–2015). Annual report. Vienna, Austria: Wiener
Linien.
Wiener Zeitung. (2013). H€aupl wants pedestrian zone without bicycles.
Retrieved from http://www.wienerzeitung.at/dossiers/mariahilfer_
strasse/576478_Haeupl-will-Fuzo-ohne-Radler.html. Accessed on 28
August 2015.
Winkler, A. (2015). Deputy Head Department of Urban Development, City
of Vienna. In-person interview conducted by Ralph Buehler in Vienna,
Austria, May 11, 2015.
Zabrana, R. (2015). Vice-Mayor of District 3, Vienna. In-person interview
conducted by Ralph Buehler in Vienna, Austria, May 11, 2015.
Zibuschka, F. (2015). Director of Transport, Environmental, and Spatial
Planning, State of Lower Austria. In-person interview conducted by
Ralph Buehler in Vienna, Austria, May 11, 2015.
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF SUSTAINABLE TRANSPORTATION 271
http://www.siemens.com/entry/cc/en/greencityindex.htm
http://www.siemens.com/entry/cc/en/greencityindex.htm
http://www.fastcoexist.com/3038765/fast-cities/the-smartest-cities-in-the-world
http://www.fastcoexist.com/3038765/fast-cities/the-smartest-cities-in-the-world
http://www.economist.com/topics/economist-intelligence-unit
http://www.economist.com/topics/economist-intelligence-unit
http://www.wienerzeitung.at/dossiers/mariahilfer_strasse/576478_Haeupl-will-Fuzo-ohne-Radler.html
http://www.wienerzeitung.at/dossiers/mariahilfer_strasse/576478_Haeupl-will-Fuzo-ohne-Radler.html
Copyright of International Journal of Sustainable Transportation is the property of Taylor &
Francis Ltd and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a
listserv without the copyright holder’s express written permission. However, users may print,
download, or email articles for individual use.
- Abstract
- 3. Overview of Vienna’s transport history, demographics, and economy
1. Introduction
2. Data sources and methods of analysis
4. Continuity of politics, policies, and transport plans
5. Improving public transport
5.1. Funding
5.2. Fare policy
5.3. Public and political support
6. Parking management
6.1. Garnering public support
6.2. Initial implementation and expansion
6.3. Public acceptance due to success
6.4. Prospects for further expansion
7. Other policies contributing to declining car use
7.1. Improving walking conditions
7.2. Improved cycling conditions
7.3. Transit-oriented development
7.4. Car-restrictive measures
8. Political lessons from Vienna
Funding
References
Order an Essay Now & Get These Features For Free:
Turnitin Report
Formatting
Title Page
Citation
Outline
