Reducing car dependence in the heart of Europe: Lessons from Germany, Austria, and Switz erland

Abstract

Munich, Berlin, Hamburg, Vienna, and Zurich – the largest cities in Germany, Austria, and Switzerland – have significantly reduced the car share of trips over the past 25 years in spite of high motorisation rates. The key to their 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 increasing the safety, convenience, and feasibility of walking, cycling, and public transport. The mix of policies implemented in each city has been somewhat different. The German cities have done far more to promote cycling, while Zurich and Vienna offer more public transport service per capita at lower fares. All five of the cities have implemented roughly the same policies to promote walking, foster compact mixed-use development, and discourage car use. Of the car-restrictive policies, parking management has been by far the most important. The five case study cities demonstrate that it is possible to reduce car dependence even in affluent societies with high levels of car ownership and high expectations for quality of travel.

Full text

Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at
http://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=ttrv20
Download by: [Rutgers University] Date: 16 November 2016, At: 15:08
Transport Reviews
ISSN: 0144-1647 (Print) 1464-5327 (Online) Journal homepage: http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/ttrv20
Reducing car dependence in the heart of Europe:
lessons from Germany, Austria, and Switzerland
Ralph Buehler, John Pucher, Regine Gerike & Thomas Götschi
To cite this article: Ralph Buehler, John Pucher, Regine Gerike & Thomas Götschi (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
To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/01441647.2016.1177799
Published online: 04 May 2016.
Submit your article to this journal
Article views: 671
View related articles
View Crossmark data
Citing articles: 2 View citing articles

Reducing car dependence in the heart of Europe: lessons from
Germany, Austria, and Switzerland
Ralph Buehler
a
, John Pucher
b
, Regine Gerike
c
and Thomas Götschi
d
a
Urban Affairs and Planning, School of Public and International Affairs, Virginia Tech, Alexandria Center,
Alexandria, VA, USA;
b
Bloustein School of Planning and Public Policy, Rutgers University, New Brunswick, NJ,
USA;
c
Institute of Transport Planning and Road Traffic, Technische Universität Dresden, Dresden, Germany;
d
Epidemiology, Biostatistics, and Prevention Institute, University of Zurich, Zurich, Switzerland
ABSTRACT
Munich, Berlin, Hamburg, Vienna, and Zurich –the largest cities in
Germany, Austria, and Switzerland –have significantly reduced
the car share of trips over the past 25 years in spite of high
motorisation rates. The key to their 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 increasing the safety, convenience, and
feasibility of walking, cycling, and public transport. The mix of
policies implemented in each city has been somewhat different.
The German cities have done far more to promote cycling, while
Zurich and Vienna offer more public transport service per capita
at lower fares. All five of the cities have implemented roughly the
same policies to promote walking, foster compact mixed-use
development, and discourage car use. Of the car-restrictive
policies, parking management has been by far the most
important. The five case study cities demonstrate that it is
possible to reduce car dependence even in affluent societies with
high levels of car ownership and high expectations for quality of
travel.
ARTICLE HISTORY
Received 24 January 2016
Accepted 8 April 2016
KEYWORDS
Car dependence;
sustainability; public
transport; walking; cycling;
parking management;
Western Europe
Introduction
Car ownership and use have been increasing over the past few decades in most of the
world’s countries. The rate of growth in car ownership and use has been especially fast
in the developing world (Dimitrou & Gakenheimer, 2011; UN Habitat, 2013). Recent
studies, however, suggest a stagnation or even decline in car ownership, use, and driver
licencing rates in some of the highest-income countries. Millard-Ball and Schipper
(2011) examined annual national data from 1970 to 2008 for the USA, Canada, Australia,
France, the UK, Sweden, Germany, and Japan. Controlling for income levels, they found
steady increases in car ownership and use per capita until about 2000, but a levelling
off or decline since 2000. Kuhnimhof et al. (2012) compared car ownership and driver
licencing 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
© 2016 Informa UK Limited, trading as Taylor & Francis Group
CONTACT Ralph Buehler ralphbu@vt.edu Urban Affairs and Planning, School of Public and International Affairs,
Virginia Tech, Alexandria Center, 1021 Prince Street, Suite 200, Alexandria, VA 22314, USA
TRANSPORT REVIEWS, 2017
VOL. 37, NO. 1, 4–28
http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/01441647.2016.1177799

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. Most of the articles confirmed the recent levelling off or much slower growth in car
ownership and use in Western countries (Goodwin & van Dender, 2013).
Data on travel mode choice for some specific high-income cities 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. Perhaps the most famous examples are Sin-
gapore, Hong Kong, Seoul, London, Paris, Copenhagen, and Stockholm (Cervero, 1998;
Newman & Kenworthy, 2015; UN Habitat, 2013). Even in the USA, the two most recent
national travel surveys report a fall in car mode share of daily trips (all trip purposes)
from 86% in 2001 to 83% in 2009 (USDOT, 2010). The US Census reports a decline in
the car share of work commuters from 88% in 2000 to 86% in 2014 (US Census Bureau,
2000–2015). For some American cities, however, the reduction from 2000 to 2014 was
much larger: 76–67% in Portland, Oregon; 73–68% in Minneapolis, Minnesota; 49–41%
in Washington, DC; 33–27% in New York City.
Although their cities have not attracted as much worldwide media attention, Germany,
Switzerland, and Austria have been at the forefront of promoting walking, cycling, and
public transport through a range of innovative programmes –both at the national and
local level –while discouraging car use, especially in city centres and residential neigh-
bourhoods. Many of the key programmes to improve alternatives to the car were intro-
duced, or first widely implemented, in these three countries. Moreover, the countries
are important because they are home to almost 100 million residents and constitute an
important core of Europe’s economy.
This article focuses on five cities: Zurich and Vienna, the largest cities in Switzerland and
Austria, and Berlin, Hamburg, and Munich, the three largest cities in Germany. The article
examines travel trends since 1990 in each of the cities to determine to what extent they
have, in fact, achieved their goal of reducing car dependence. It then describes the range
of policies the cities have implemented to create a more balanced transport system,
including the car but providing safe, convenient, and inexpensive walking, cycling, and
public transport alternatives, and thus increasing travel choices. The objective is to identify
similarities and differences among the cities in transport policies they have implemented
and to offer the experience of these five cities for consideration by other cities seeking to
reduce car use.
As shown in Figure 1, car ownership per 1000 inhabitants has roughly doubled since
1970 in most North American and Western European countries, as well as in Australia
and New Zealand. For all countries combined, the average annual rate of growth in car
ownership per 1000 population was 3.9% from 1970 to 1980, 1.9% from 1980 to 1990,
1.3% from 1990 to 2000, and 0.9% from 2000 to 2012. Thus, the rate of increase in the
most recent period is less than a fourth the rate in the earliest decade. Although
Germany, Austria, and Switzerland are among the Western European countries with the
highest rates of car ownership, their motorisation rates have also been levelling off in
recent years, with much smaller average annual increases since 2000 (0.5%) than in the
decades from 1970 to 1980 (5.5%), 1980–1990 (2.8%), 1990–2000 (1.4%).
Perhaps more importantly, the mode share for private cars in the three case study
countries is less than 60% of daily trips, among the lowest of the countries shown in
Figure 2. Walking, cycling, and public transport account for over 40% of all daily trips in
TRANSPORT REVIEWS 5

the three countries. The high levels of car ownership per 1000 population in Germany
(539), Austria (542), and Switzerland (529) in 2012 did not deter their residents from
making almost half of their trips by walking, cycling, and public transport. By comparison,
levels of car ownership in 2012 were highest in the USA (765), and walking, cycling, and
public transport together accounted for only 14% of all daily trips. The seeming incompat-
ibility of high motorisation levels and high rates of walking, cycling, and public transport
use, as suggested by the US example –and to a lesser extent by Australia, Canada, and
New Zealand –does not apply to our three case study countries.
Overview of case study cities
Table 1 provides an overview of the demographics, socio-economics, and travel behaviour
indicators in the five case study cities. The differences among the cities in their size and
political boundaries of their cities vs. their metro areas can greatly affect transportation
statistics. That is important for the analysis that follows, which focuses on the city and
not the metropolitan area. As shown in this article, suburban residents have different
travel behaviour than residents of the city.
In this article we use three terms to distinguish three portions of the metro area of
special interest: “city centre”also called city core or inner city; “city”as defined by political
boundaries; and the greater “metropolitan area”, usually coinciding with the service area of
the regional public transport association (Verkehrsverbund), which includes substantial
amounts of suburban areas outside of the city limits.
Although the cities are the largest in their respective countries, they vary greatly in
population. The metropolitan populations of the five cities vary in roughly the same
Figure 1. Trend in motorisation in OECD countries, 1970–2012 (cars and light trucks per 1000 popu-
lation).
Sources: EUROSTAT (2005–2014) and OECD (2003–2015).
6R. BUEHLER ET AL.

proportions, with about twice the population of the central city, except for Zurich, whose
metropolitan population is three times larger than the city population.
The northern cities of Berlin (−3%) and Hamburg (+3%) have experienced stagnation in
their populations since 1992 while Vienna (+14%), Munich (+10%), and Zurich (+9%) have
grown by about a tenth. Vienna, Munich, Zurich, and Hamburg are all affluent cities. Cal-
culated on the basis of purchasing power parities (adjusting for cost of living) instead of
currency exchange rates, GDP per capita in 2012 (in US dollars) ranged from $56,666 in
Zurich and $56,322 in Munich to $52,555 in Hamburg and $45,600 in Vienna. The excep-
tion is Berlin, with a much lower per-capita GDP of $36,259.
The variation in per-capita income is only partly reflected in motorisation levels in the
five cities. Berlin has by far the lowest rate (324), which would correspond to its much
lower per-capita income. Hamburg and Vienna have roughly the same per-capita GDP,
but Hamburg’s motorisation rate is much higher (474 vs. 395). One possible explanation
is that Vienna’s population density is almost twice as high as Hamburg’s. Similarly,
Munich and Zurich have roughly the same GDP per capita, but the motorisation rate in
Figure 2. Percentage share of daily trips by car, public transport, bicycle, and foot in 15 OECD countries,
2009–2012.
Notes: Survey methods and data collection periods vary across countries. Data for Australia, Canada,
and Ireland are for the commute to work only and marked with an asterisk (*). The Swiss travel
survey captures a much higher share of very short trips than other surveys.
Sources: Data collected from national statistical offices of each country. All of the surveys are samples of
populations and thus only approximations of actual travel behaviour. Most surveys only report the main
mode of transport for a trip and not the short access trips by other modes. Small differences between
countries should not be over-interpreted (BFS, 2011; CBS, 2014; DfT, 2014; DMT, 2014; HERRY, 2012;
MOP, 2010; SIKA, 2014; SOeS, 2010; StatCan, 1996–2010; TOI, 2011; USDOT, 2010; WSP, 2014).
TRANSPORT REVIEWS 7

Table 1. Demographic, economic, geographic, and daily travel characteristics of case study cities.
Statistical indicator Unit of measure Berlin Hamburg Munich Vienna Zurich
Population city (2012) Millions of residents 3.4 1.7 1.4 1.8 0.4
Population metro region (2012) Millions of residents 5.1 3.2 2.7 2.6 1.2
Population change city (%) 1992–2012 −3% 3% 10% 14% 9%
Average household size 1.7 1.8 1.8 2.0 1.8
GDP per capita (2012) Euros 29,864 52,555 60,084 45,600 75,402
US$ (using PPP) 36,259 49,757 56,322 48,546 56,666
Major industry sectors Government;
administration
Large port; media;
publishing houses
Car/truck industry; IT;
tourism; technology
Government; headquarters Austrian
and Eastern EU companies
Banking;
insurance
Land area city km
2
892 755 311 415 88
Population density People per km
2
of total land
area
3800 2300 4500 4300 4200
Share of land area for transport
infrastructure and
settlements
0.7 0.6 0.8 0.5 0.8
Population density People per km
2
settlement and
transport area
5400 3900 6000 8500 6900
Households without a car %41 32 30 34 48
Households with only 1 car %46 53 55 50 42
Households with 2+ cars %13 15 15 16 10
Motorisation Cars and light trucks per 1000 324 404 475 395 368
Number of trips per person per
day
3.0 3.3 3.4 2.7 3.5
Average trip length (trips <
100 km)
km 6.7 6.7 7.0 6.7 6.2
Average trip length km 6.9 7.8 10.0 n.a. 8.9
Public transport trips per capita
per year (linked-passenger
trips)
Verkehrsverbund serivce area 222 209 239 318 438
Note: Unless otherwise noted, information in the table refers to the city itself and not the surrounding area outside the political boundaries of the city.
Sources: City of Munich (2015c), City of Vienna (2014b), City of Zurich (1990–2014), HVV (1990–2013), MVV (1990–2013), Northern Germany Statistics (2014), Statistics Berlin-Brandenburg (2015),
VBB (2000–2014), VOR (2012), and ZVV (2014).
8R. BUEHLER ET AL.

Munich is much higher (550 vs. 368). As noted earlier, Zurich is an exception among the
five metropolitan areas because its city boundaries only include a very small area (88
km
2
), housing only one-third of total metro area population compared to more than
half in the four other cities. In addition, Zurich has twice as high a share of students
among its population (17% vs. 8% in Munich) (Randelhoff, 2013). As discussed later in
this article, differences in transport policies also account for some of the variation in motor-
isation rates.
As documented in the extensive review by Ewing and Cervero (2010), many studies
show that population density helps explain the variation in public transport use and
motorisation rates among the cities. Population density per sq km of developed land
(excluding parks, woods, lakes, and greenspace) is by far the highest in Vienna (8500)
and Zurich (8900), the 2 cities with the highest rates of public transport use. Hamburg
has the lowest density (2300) as well as the lowest rate of public transport usage of the
5 cities (209 trips per capita per year), less than half the rate in Zurich (438).
Trends in motorisation and travel behaviour in five cities
Motorisation rates in the five case study cities have trended similarly to their respective
countries, with sharp increases from 1970 to 1990 and much smaller increases since
1990 (Figure 3). Motorisation rates would be expected to affect travel behaviour, as docu-
mented in the comprehensive reviews by Ingram and Liu (1999), Dargay and Gately (1999),
and Buehler (2011). The relationship is only partially confirmed among our five cities.
Figure 3. Trend in motorisation in Berlin, Zurich, Vienna, Hamburg, and Munich, 1970–2010 (cars and
light trucks per 1000 population). Sources: City of Munich (2015c), City of Vienna (2014b), City of Zurich
(1990–2014), Kalender (2012), Krause (2009), Northern Germany Statistics (2014), Pirhofer and Stimmer
(2007), and Statistics Berlin-Brandenburg (2015).
Notes: 2010 data are available for the three German cities, but they are not comparable with previous
years due to a 2008 Germany-wide change in methodology for reporting statistics on car ownership.
Thus, the graphic above shows rates in 2007 which are comparable with data reported for the earlier
years.
TRANSPORT REVIEWS 9

Munich has the highest motorisation rate, but its car mode share of trips is lower than
Hamburg’s, which has the highest car mode share of all five cities. Conversely, Berlin
has the lowest motorisation rate, but its car mode share is higher than in Zurich and
Vienna, which have higher motorisation rates. Nevertheless, the trend toward stable or
falling motorisation rates (Figure 3) is consistent with the falling car mode share of trips,
especially since about 2000 (Figure 4).
In Berlin, Munich and Zurich, there was a slight increase in the car share of trips from
about 1990 until 2000, and then a decrease from 2000 to the most recent survey year
(see Figure 4). Vienna and Hamburg have experienced a decline in the mode share of
car use since about 1990. These travel surveys only report trips made by city residents,
thus excluding suburban residents as well as visitors to the city. As noted in Figure 5,
car use is considerably higher in the suburbs than shown here for city residents alone.
Only approximate comparisons can be made among the five cities because the available
travel surveys vary in methodology and timing. Except for Hamburg (42%), the car’s mode
share has fallen to less than a third of all daily trips: Vienna (27%), Zurich (30%), Berlin
(30%), and Munich (33%). The reduction in car mode share has been largest in Vienna
(40% in 1993 to 27% in 2012). Car mode share in the other four cities declined as well:
40–33% in Munich, 39–30% in Zurich, 48–42% in Hamburg, and 35–30% in Berlin.
Four of the five case study cities in this article have travel survey data spatially disag-
gregated enough to compare travel behaviour in the city centre, the rest of the city,
Figure 4. Trend in percentage of daily trips by car, public transport, bicycle, or foot in Berlin, Hamburg,
Munich, Vienna, and Zurich (1990–2013).
Notes: These travel surveys only report trips made by city residents, thus excluding suburban residents
as well as visitors to the city. As noted in Figure 5, car use is considerably higher in the suburbs than
shown here for city residents alone. Only approximate comparisons can be made among the five cities
because the available travel surveys vary in methodology and timing. As noted in Figure 2, these travel
surveys only report the main mode of transport for a trip and not the short access trips by other modes.
This especially underestimates the share of walk trips in all cities. Zurich data for 1994 combine the
modal share for walking and cycling.
Sources: BMVBS (2010), City of Berlin (2014a), City of Munich (2015b), City of Zurich (1990–2014),
Kalender (2012), Krause (2009), Omnitrend (2015), Pirhofer and Stimmer (2007), Socialdata (2015),
and Staedtepegel (2007).
10 R. BUEHLER ET AL.

and the suburbs. As shown in Figure 5, car mode share rises in all four of the cities from the
city centre to the outer ring of the city, and is even higher in the suburbs. Conversely,
the combined share of walking, cycling, and public transport falls from the centre
toward the periphery. The existing literature suggests that this is the usual spatial variation
in cities of Western Europe, North America, and Australia (De Palma & Rochet, 2000; Ewing
& Cervero, 2010; Pucher & Buehler, 2012; Saelens, Sallis, & Frank, 2003; Vandenbulcke et al.,
2011). The higher density, mixed-use land-use pattern, shorter trip distances, narrower and
more congested streets, proximity to frequent public transport, and difficulty (and high
cost) of car parking in the city centre all help explain lower levels of car ownership and
use there. Correspondingly, the existing literature shows that levels of walking are
highest in the city centre, falling from there to the city periphery, and lowest in the
suburbs. Similarly, bike use is generally highest in the centre of the city or in the intermedi-
ate ring, and falls off sharply toward the city periphery and suburbs.
In contrast to that general pattern, bicycle use in Hamburg, Berlin, Munich, and Vienna
is just about the same in outer portions of the cities and in the suburbs as in the city centre.
Comparable travel mode distributions are not available for Zurich, but the Swiss National
Travel Survey reports that, in aggregate, Swiss suburbs have higher bike mode share than
Swiss cities (BFS, 2011). The spatially disaggregated travel surveys suggest that, although
decentralised (usually along public transport lines), suburbs of all five case study cities
Figure 5. Spatial variability in percentage of daily trips by car, public transport, bicycle, or foot, 2008–
2012.
Notes: In contrast to Figure 4, the modal distributions in Figure 5 include suburban residents of the
same metropolitan area, as shown in a separate category. The category “outside of centre”is still
within the political city limits, but outside the city centre. The category “city centre”refers to the
core area or inner city, which is differently defined in each of the four cities. In Munich, it is the
area within the “Altstadtring”; in Vienna, it includes inner districts 1–9 and 20; in Berlin, it includes
the area in the so-called “Hundekopf”; and in Hamburg it includes the city’s own officially designated
“Kerngebiet”. Sources: Calculations by authors based on (BMVBS, 2010; City of Berlin, 2014a; Omnitrend,
2015; Socialdata, 2015) and information collected directly by the authors from each of the five cities.
TRANSPORT REVIEWS 11

have compact, mixed-use land-use patterns generating trips short enough to make by
bike. In contrast, the walking and public transport shares of trips fall with distance from
the centre.
In short, there is important spatial variation in travel behaviour within each of the
metropolitan areas, with much greater use of sustainable transport modes in the
centre and far more reliance on the private car with distance from the centre, especially
in the suburbs. Our data do not permit a spatial regression analysis that would allow a
rigorous examination of the reasons for the spatial variation. As indicated by other
studies, however, it seems likely that the higher density and more mixed-use develop-
ment in the city centre generate many short trips that can be made by walking, thus
explaining the higher walk mode share in the centre. The much greater availability, fre-
quency, and proximity of public transport services in the city centre helps explain the
higher mode share of public transport there. Suburban residents use public transport
mainly for daily rail commutation trips to jobs in the city centre and for less frequent
travel for shopping, specialised services, cultural activities, and recreation in the city
centre.
Public policies that reduced car dependence
There is no single policy measure that alone can explain the decline in car use in the five
case study cities. That is consistent with an extensive literature documenting the need for
a coordinated set of transport, housing, land-use, and taxation policies to induce a modal
shift from the private car to walking, cycling, and public transport (Arnott et al., 2014;
Cervero, 1998; Newman & Kenworthy, 2015; Pucher, Dill, & Handy, 2010; UN Habitat,
2013; Van Wee, Annema, & Banister, 2013).
Comprehensive, multi-modal transport planning evolved over decades in the five case
study cities, starting in the 1970s and 1980s. There was also a steady shift from roadway
construction to promoting walking, cycling, and public transport. Rapid increases in car
use in cities throughout Western Europe had been causing worsening problems of conges-
tion, air pollution, noise, parking overflow, traffic injuries and fatalities, and reduced viabi-
lity of businesses in the city centre. In combination with the energy crises and increasing
environmental awareness in the 1970s, these problems highlighted the need to restrict car
use and mitigate its many adverse impacts. They generated the public and political
support necessary to implement the necessary policies.
In the sections that follow, we group by mode the measures undertaken in the five
cities to improve walking, cycling, and public transport and the restrictive measures
implemented to discourage car use. The focus is on policies during the period from
1990 to 2015, but many of the policies are refinements and expansions of policies first
implemented in the 1970s or 1980s, as noted in such instances.
Walking
Although walking is the oldest and most fundamental of transport modes, only in recent
decades has it gotten the attention it deserves. Conditions for walking in European cities
have been far superior to those in North America and Australia, but even in Europe, ped-
estrians were largely ignored or marginalised in the car-oriented transport plans of the
12 R. BUEHLER ET AL.

1950s and 1960s (Banister, 2005; Hass-Klau, 1993,2015). Already in the 1970s, many Euro-
pean cities realised the crucial importance of good walking facilities for the viability of a
city, and with each decade since then, pedestrian facilities have been expanded and
improved (Pucher & Dijkstra, 2003).
Table 2. Policies that promote walking in the case study cities.
Car-free pedestrian zones
Vienna, Munich, and Zurich introduced pedestrian zones in the 1970s; considerable expansion since then, with city cores
now mostly car-free
Number of pedestrian zones: Munich (22), Hamburg (20), and Berlin (16)
Total length of pedestrian streets and plazas: Munich (6 km), Hamburg (7 km), Zurich (11 km)
Total area of pedestrian zones in 2014: Hamburg (103,223 m
2
); Vienna (295,938 m
2
, tripled since 1990)
Traffic calming
a
All five cities have traffic calmed (speed limit of 30km/h or less) an increasing percentage of streets over time, especially
since 1990
Percentage of roadway network traffic calmed: Munich (85%), Berlin (78%), Vienna (75%), Zurich (50%), Hamburg (50%)
All cities have plans to traffic-calm almost all residential streets in future years
Play streets/home zones
Munich, Hamburg, and Berlin have many “play streets”(speed limit of 10km/h or less) in neighbourhoods, but cities do
not have statistics about their number and extent because they are often part of overall traffic-calming schemes
Vienna tripled the length of its “play streets”from 11 km in 1990 to 32 km in 2013
Shared streets/encounter zones
Length of shared streets, with a speed limit of 20 km/h: Zurich (17 km) and Vienna (3 km)
Berlin has three shared street pilot projects. Hamburg has planned for at least one “shared space”in each of the seven
city districts
Improving walking facilities
b
Widening of sidewalks and improvement of sidewalk surface, lowering of curbs, better street furniture, trees and shrubs,
and human-scale lighting
Improvements in street crossings and intersections: highly visible zebra stripes with improved lighting, raised crosswalks
at intersections to slow cars, median refuge islands, pedestrian-activated crossing lights, and curb extensions to shorten
the length of the road crossing by widening the sidewalk at crosswalks
Reduced wait times for pedestrian crossing lights and more time for pedestrians to cross
Mid-block cut-through walkways for pedestrians on long blocks
Signage and accessibility for all
Improved directional signs for pedestrians indicating the direction and distance to important locations
In Hamburg’s central city, signs at 300 locations indicate directions and distance to various points of interest, cultural
attractions, rail transit stations, and ferry terminals
Berlin improved signage for children to guide them to school and other destinations
Removal of barriers to facilitate access by people in wheelchairs, walking baby carriages, and anyone with a mobility
disability
Wheelchair accessibility is a goal in every new roadway, sidewalk, and plaza construction project
Education and enforcement
Mandatory traffic education in most schools
Rigorous training and testing of motorists to obtain a driver’s licence
Most residents obey no-walk signals due to training in schools and enforcement by police and parents
Strict enforcement of traffic laws for motorists to protect pedestrians, including speed limits, parking, and yielding to
pedestrians
a
Traffic calming reduces the legal speed limit to 30 km/h or less on particular streets. This can be done either with posted
speed limits alone or in combination with a wide range of infrastructure changes to the street. Some of these infrastruc-
ture changes make it impossible for motorists to drive from one side of the neighbourhood to the other. Even streets
without such infrastructure changes discourage through traffic due to the lower speed limit, which encourages
through traffic to use higher speed arterials at the edges of neighbourhoods. Traffic calming reduces the speed of
traffic and traffic volumes. Thus, it increases the safety of neighbourhood streets, while also reducing noise and air pol-
lution. Play streets/home zones and shared streets/encounter zones are two special types of traffic calming. Play streets/
home zones reduce the legal speed limit to 10 km/h or less and often include infrastructure modifications to the street.
Shared streets/encounter zones impose a speed limit of 20 km/h. Both shared streets/encounter zones and play streets/
home zones give pedestrians and cyclists the same right as motorists to use the entire width of the street.
b
Many of these improved infrastructure measures for pedestrians can also be included as part of traffic-calming schemes.
But they are found throughout the cities, even in areas with no traffic calming and along major arterials with much higher
speed limits.
Sources: City of Berlin (2013,2014a), City of Hamburg (2015b), City of Munich (2012,2015a), City of Vienna (2014b), City of
Zurich (2014), Hass-Klau (1993,2015).
TRANSPORT REVIEWS 13

As shown in Table 2, each of the five case study cities has implemented a wide range of
policies to promote walking, but the emphasis has varied from one city to another.
Perhaps the most visible evidence of improved pedestrian facilities has been the establish-
ment of car-free pedestrian zones. Available statistics on the extent of pedestrian zones are
not entirely comparable, but they suggest that Vienna and Zurich have the largest (see
Table 2). While pedestrian zones tend to be most important in city centres –and some out-
lying sub-centres –traffic calming is widespread. This involves not only the imposition of a
30 km/h speed limit on cars but also the partial redesign of streets, through physical infra-
structure modifications to reduce car speeds even without police enforcement (e.g. street
narrowing, on-street car parking on alternate sides, speed humps and speed tables, chi-
canes, and diverters). All five cities have traffic calmed an increasing percentage of their
streets, especially since 1990. As of 2013, Munich, Berlin, and Vienna had traffic calmed
about 80% of their road networks compared to 50% in Zurich and Hamburg, with plans
for future increases in all cities.
Further advancing the goal of traffic calming, most German, Austrian, and Swiss cities
have been experimenting with various versions of shared streets, which generally have a
lower speed limit (10–20 km/h) and give pedestrians and cyclists the legal right to use the
entire width of the street. In addition, motorists are required to drive with special care to
avoid endangering non-motorists (Hass-Klau, 2015; Pucher & Buehler, 2008).
There are many other measures that have been undertaken by all five of the cities over
the past few decades to improve walking conditions (see Table 2). For example, the quality
of the sidewalk environment has generally been improved, with better street furniture,
improved pavement, installation of trees and shrubs, better human-scale lighting (vs.
roadway lights at the top of tall poles), and often wider sidewalks. All five of the cities
have set as a goal the removal of barriers to facilitate use by people in wheelchairs,
walking baby carriages, and anyone with a mobility disability. In addition, tactile guidance
strips are increasingly being introduced for the sight-impaired.
All five cities have made numerous improvements in pedestrian facilities for crossing
streets and intersections. Crosswalks have been made safer and more convenient by
adding highly visible zebra stripes, with crosswalks sometimes raised from the street
surface to slow cars. Other improvements to crosswalks include median refuge islands,
better lighting, pedestrian-activated crossing lights, and curb extensions that shorten
the length of the road crossing by widening the sidewalk at crosswalks. Similar techniques
are used at intersections –especially curb extensions, zebra crosswalks, better lighting,
and sometimes speed tables, which raise the level of the entire intersection, thus
slowing down cars. In addition, some cities are reducing wait times for the pedestrian
crossing light and lengthening the time for pedestrians to cross (see Table 2).
All five cities have implemented many of these improved infrastructure measures for
pedestrians as part of traffic-calming schemes. They are, however, by no means limited
to traffic-calmed areas. Indeed, they can be found throughout the cities, even in areas
with no traffic calming and along major arterials with much higher speed limits.
In spite of increases in income, car ownership, and trip distances since 1990, the walk
share of daily trips has increased or remained stable in all five cities, with similar levels in
the latest survey year (27–31%). Moreover, the reported walk share of daily trips, as
measured by travel surveys, almost certainly underestimates total walking levels. Most
city travel surveys undercount total walk trips because they do not capture short trips
14 R. BUEHLER ET AL.

on foot made to access other modes, especially public transport, which is primarily
accessed on foot. As walking levels have increased or remained stable, pedestrian
safety has greatly improved, with a dramatic reduction in fatalities. Between 1990 and
2013, for example, pedestrian traffic fatalities fell by 68% in Munich and 85% in Berlin
(City of Berlin, 2013; City of Munich, 2015a).
Cycling
Munich clearly outshines the other cities when it comes to cycling. In the most recent
survey year, 17% of trips in Munich were by bike, compared to 13% in Berlin, 12% in
Hamburg, 6% in Vienna, and 4% Zurich (see Figure 3). For all of the cities, however, the
share of trips by bike has increased over the past few decades. Since the mid-1970s,
the bike share of trips has tripled in Munich and roughly doubled in Berlin, Hamburg,
and Vienna, while only slightly increasing in Zurich. The growth in cycling has been facili-
tated by the expansion and improvement in cycling facilities, bike parking, integration
with public transport, cycling safety and training in the schools, and a wide range of pro-
motional programmes (see Table 3).
The much lower bike mode shares in Vienna and Zurich are due to several factors: (1)
Both Vienna and Zurich have long traditions of walking and using public transit, and
cycling has not been part of their transport culture. The superb transit systems in
Vienna and Zurich out-compete cycling in most cases, especially with inexpensive
monthly, semester, and annual passes, which make the marginal price of a transit trip
zero; (2) Parts of Vienna and Zurich are hilly and not conducive to cycling, while Berlin,
Hamburg, and Munich are mostly flat; (3) Only over the past 10 or so years has Vienna
greatly increased investment in its cycling infrastructure, which remains less extensive,
less well connected, and lower quality than in the 3 German cities. Likewise, cycling infra-
structure has been neglected in Zurich, leading to an incomplete network with many gaps.
The increases in bike mode share in Zurich and Vienna over the past two decades have
been due to expansions in bike infrastructure, but both cities are decades behind
Munich, Hamburg, and Berlin, which were heavily investing in bike infrastructure
already in the 1970s.
The statistics on the extent of cycling facilities in the five cities shown in Table 3 are not
directly comparable. In particular, they do not reflect the different age, design, type, and
quality of cycling facilities. Nevertheless, all cities report expansion and improvement in
cycling facilities over recent decades (see Table 3). Most of the cycling facilities in
Munich are newer and better designed than in Hamburg and Berlin. Both Hamburg and
Berlin already had extensive bikeway networks in the 1970s, but many of their facilities
were old and substandard (City of Berlin, 2014b; City of Hamburg, 1999/2007; Pucher &
Buehler, 2008). Thus, much of the effort in Berlin and Hamburg has been invested in
upgrading and widening existing facilities and improving intersection treatments to
enhance safety.
In all the cities, many bike routes are on lightly travelled, traffic-calmed residential
streets with directional signage for bikes but without separate bike facilities. Such
routes have become increasingly important as all five cities have raised the percentage
of their roadway networks that is traffic calmed to 30 km or less. The five cities permit
bi-directional cycling on many one-way traffic-calmed streets, but with special signage
TRANSPORT REVIEWS 15

Table 3. Policies that promote cycling in the case study cities.
Bike route networks
Expansion of bikeway networks 1990–2012: 190–1200 km in Vienna; 750–1400 km in Munich; 150–340 km in Zurich
Hamburg and Berlin mainly focused on upgrading and widening existing facilities and improving intersection treatments
to enhance safety along their already extensive bike networks mostly built from 1960 to 1990 (1700 km in Hamburg;
3500 km in Berlin)
Km of bike routes per 100,000 inhabitants: Hamburg, Berlin, Munich (∼100 km), Zurich (85 km), and Vienna (67 km)
On-road bike lanes
In Berlin on-street bike lanes increased from 50 km in 2002 to 174 km in 2012; combination bus–bike lanes rose from 50
to 80 km
Hamburg has built over 100 km of on-street bike lanes since 2000, with more planned
About 40% of Munich’s bicycle network are painted on-street bike lanes (∼500 km) compared to 25% of Vienna’s
network (∼300 km)
Traffic calming,bicycle priority streets,and shared-use paths
Many bike routes on lightly travelled, traffic-calmed residential streets
All five cities have raised the share of their roadway network that is traffic calmed to 30 km/h or less
All five cities permit bi-directional cycling on many one-way traffic-calmed streets, often with special signage alerting
motorists of cyclists riding in the opposite direction
Number of bicycle priority streets with minimal car traffic and cyclist right of way over the entire street: Munich (55),
Berlin (16), and Hamburg (7)
In all five cities, there are extensive mixed-use paths shared by cyclists and pedestrians, especially in parks and
agricultural areas within the city (e.g. 260 km in Munich)
Signage and branding of bike routes
Varying street markings, pavement colour, and route designations depending on type of route
Munich has 4000 signs at over 750 intersections, indicating direction, distance, route number, and connections
60% of Zurich’s bike routes have uniformly designed directional signs for bikes
Berlin and Hamburg are building specially marked radial bike routes for long-distance bike trips from the outer portions
of the city to the centre
Route planning
Online bike route planners enable the choice of optimal routes based on preferences of the traveller regarding directness
of route, speed, on-road vs. off-road facilities, and the availability of bike parking and bike sharing facilities, conveniently
accessed via smartphone technology
Bike sharing
Munich, Berlin, and Hamburg have versions of German railway’s (DB) Call-a-Bike programme with 1260, 1750, and 1650
bicycles, respectively. Hamburg and Berlin have 129 and 130 docking stations for bikes, while Munich has a free-floating
system without docking stations, where bikes can be returned to any major intersection in the middle ring of the city
Munich and Berlin each has 300 NextBike bike sharing bikes in addition to DB’s Call-a-Bikes
Vienna’s CityBike system offers 1200 bikes at 96 docking stations
In Vienna the first hour of bike use is free, compared to only the first 30 minutes for the Call-a-Bike and Next Bike systems
Zurich’s bike-rental programme is free of charge and offers a variety of 300 bicycles, including e-bikes, cargo bikes, and
bicycles with children’s seat
Bike parking
Number of bike parking spaces (2012): Munich (33,000 bike parking spaces in public spaces and 50,000 bike parking
spaces at public transport stops throughout the region), Berlin (26,600 bike parking spaces at U-Bahn and S-Bahn rail
stations), Hamburg (26,000 bike parking spaces at 235 bike-and-ride lots along rail lines), Vienna (32,000 bike racks in
public spaces), Zurich (17,200 bike racks in public spaces and 2,400 bike parking spaces at train stations)
Full-service bike parking stations and secure lockers: Hamburg (1 full-service bike parking station, 6 bike parking garages
at key rail stations, and 710 secure bike lockers), Berlin (1 full-service bike parking station with 566 spaces in Bernau),
Zurich (2100 bike parking spaces in 5 bike stations and 300 secure bike lockers at train stations)
Zoning ordinances require that newly constructed buildings above a certain size provide a prescribed minimum number
of bike parking spaces, based either on the number of residential apartments or the number of workers in commercial
buildings
Hamburg has 340 bike parking sheds (12 parking spaces each) in neighbourhoods throughout the city to provide
sheltered, secure bike parking for an annual fee of 250 Euros
Promotional events and education
Trafficsafety lessons in schools, first in the classroom, then on special training test tracks, and then on regular streets –
often supervised by police officers
Voluntary cycling training courses specially adapted for adults, seniors, and new residents or immigrants from countries
without a tradition of cycling
Large promotional public bicycling events
Mass bike rides: Berlin’s annual “Sternfahrt”attracted 200,000 bicyclists in 2014; Hamburg’s“Sternfahrt”attracted 20,000
riders in 2014
As part of Munich’s campaign to become Germany’s cycling capital, the city offers special bike tours for new residents,
bike fashion shows, bike-theme film competitions, car-free roads in the city centre for night bike rides in the summer,
and bike flea markets, where used bikes can be sold and purchased
16 R. BUEHLER ET AL.

alerting motorists of cyclists riding in the opposite direction to cars. An especially innova-
tive development –pioneered in Germany –is the establishment of bicycle streets –
narrow streets with minimal or no car traffic where cyclists have right of way over the
entire width of the street. In all five cities, there are extensive mixed-use paths shared
by cyclists and pedestrians, especially in parks, nature preserves, and agricultural areas
within the city. On such paths, pedestrians have priority over cyclists unless there are pave-
ment markings specifically allocating space between pedestrians and cyclists.
The upgrade in the quality of virtually all cycling facilities –both off-road and on-road –
is not reflected in the statistics. One aspect of this upgrade is the installation of way-finding
signage for cyclists indicating the direction and distance to other locations as well as route
labelling (see Table 3). Both Berlin and Hamburg are building specially marked radial bike
routes for long-distance bike trips from the outer portions of the city to the centre. All five
cities have online bike route planners that enable the choice of optimal routes based on
the preferences of the traveller regarding directness of route, speed, on-road vs. off-road
facilities, and the availability of bike parking and bike sharing facilities. The nearly universal
availability of smart phones with internet access has greatly enhanced the convenience
and flexibility of such online route planning.
All five cities have been expanding the supply of public bike parking and improving its
quality and security (see Table 3). In addition to these publicly provided parking spaces, all
five cities have requirements that newly constructed buildings above a certain size provide
a prescribed minimum number of bike parking spaces, based either on the number of resi-
dential apartments or the number of workers in commercial buildings. Moreover, the
German cities and Vienna have implemented and expanded modern bike sharing
systems with currently over 1200 bike sharing bicycles in each city. Zurich has a free
bike-rental programme with 300 bicycles, but plans to introduce a modern bike sharing
system.
An important aspect of cycling promotion and safety is traffic education in the schools
(Pucher & Buehler, 2008). There are variations from city to city, but most schools include
cycling training as part of traffic education. In addition, most of the cities offer voluntary
cycling training courses especially adapted for adults, seniors, new residents, and immi-
grants from countries without a tradition of cycling.
There is a wide range of informational and promotional programmes and events in the
five cities to engender enthusiasm and interest in cycling. As shown in Table 3, these
efforts range from individual one-day events to fully coordinated year-long city-wide
Vienna has a special mobility agency for coordination of bicycle promotion
Zurich installed 36 free air pumps around the city for cyclists
Staffing and funding
Munich had 11 full-time city staff working on bicycling issues in 2014. Between 2009 and 2014, the city tripled its annual
expenditures on cycling infrastructure and programmes from 1.5 million Euros to 4.5 million Euros. From 1992 to 2014,
the city invested 32 million Euros in cycling. In 2015, the city council decided to increase funding for cycling to 10 million
per year
Zurich recently adopted a new master plan for cycling which includes about 50 different measures, improving cycling
infrastructure as well as expanding various pro-bike programmes with approved funding of 110 million Euros over the
next decade
Berlin increased annual expenditures on cycling infrastructure and programmes from one million Euros in 1995 to 15
million Euros in 2015
Sources: City of Berlin (2014a,2014b), City of Hamburg (1999/2007), City of Munich (2015c), City of Vienna (2014b), City of
Zurich (1990–2014), Northern Germany Statistics (2014), and Pucher and Buehler (2008).
TRANSPORT REVIEWS 17

campaigns to increase cycling. In addition, all five cities have devoted increasing amounts
of money and personnel to encouraging more and safer cycling.
Public transport
Walking and cycling both depend on a good, extensive, affordable public transport
network as an alternative to the car for trips that are too long to make by walking or
cycling. Conversely, public transport depends on walking to get most passengers to
and from public transport stops. Cycling can greatly expand the service radius of public
transport stops, but for some trips of intermediate or short distance, cycling competes
with public transport.
All five cities provide public transport through a fully integrated, region-wide system of
public transport operators called a “Verkehrsverbund”. Hamburg was the first metropolitan
area to form a Verkehrsverbund (in 1967), but the other four cities followed: Munich (1972),
Vienna (1984), Zurich (1990), and Berlin (1999) (Krause, 2009; VDV, 2009). Since trips on
public transport often cross the boundaries of local jurisdictions within metropolitan
areas, it is crucial to coordinate fares, ticketing systems, routes, timetables, and different
modes of public transport throughout the entire region. Without exception, the creation
and expansion of Verkehrsverbünde has led to increased public transport passenger
trips –both total and per capita –in each of the five metropolitan areas examined in
this article.
In contrast to the city travel surveys shown in Figure 4, the regional public transport
systems (Verkehrsverbund) report the number of passengers throughout the metropolitan
area and include residents as well as non-residents (such as visitors). Public transport use
per capita increased in all five Verkehrsverbund service areas: +24% in Hamburg, +11% in
Munich, +22% in Vienna, and +35% in Zurich (from 1990 to 2012); and +28% in Berlin
(1995–2012). In 2012 Zurich’s Verkehrsverbund had roughly a third more passengers
per capita than Vienna (438 vs. 318) and roughly twice as many passengers per capita
as in Munich (239), Berlin (222), and Hamburg (209).
It is noteworthy that public transport trips in the three German Verkehrsverbund service
areas increased considerably even though the share of trips by public transport within the
cities of their metropolitan areas fell slightly, as shown in Figure 4. The two statistics refer
to different geographic areas (city vs. extended metropolitan area) and measure different
things (number of public transport trips vs. public transport share of trips by all modes). In
combination, these different statistics suggest that in the German cities many short trips
are now being made by walking or cycling, while longer trips between the suburbs to the
central cities are generating the increase in overall public transport use for the region as a
whole.
All five of the Verkehrsverbünde have increased the amount of public transport service
supplied, as measured by “place kilometres of service per capita”. That statistic reflects
total seating and standing capacity of vehicles as well as the number of kilometres all
the vehicles in the fleet cover each year. It also adjusts for the increasing population of
expanded service areas. From 1990 to 2012, the increases in service supply were 59% in
Munich, 46% in Vienna, 36% in Hamburg, and 21% in Zurich (see Table 4). The increase
in Berlin’s Verkehrsverbund (founded in 1999) was 1% from 2000 to 2012. Expanded
service over a larger Verkehrsverbund area has not only increased the total amount of
18 R. BUEHLER ET AL.

service but has also provided riders with more connections, more route options, and more
extensive geographic coverage. Since they were founded, the Verkehrsverbünde have
been continuously improving the coordination of public transport services and fares
throughout the metropolitan region.
The Verkehrsverbünde offer rail services of various kinds: U-Bahn (metros mainly within
political boundaries of the city); S-Bahn (mainly radial trips from the suburbs to the city, but
also used for trips within the city); Regionalbahn (longer-distance trips to further-out
Table 4. Policies that promote public transport in the case study cities.
Expanded service supply
Increase in place kilometres of service per year (1990–2012): Munich (88%), Hamburg (86%), Vienna (74%), and Zurich
(36%)
Increase in place kilometres of service per capita per year (1990–2012): Munich (59%; 8200–13,100 km), Vienna (46%;
10,600–15,400 km), Hamburg (36%; 7700–10,500 km), Zurich (21%; 12,000–18,000 km); from 2000 to 2012 in Berlin (1%;
9000–9200 km)
Expanded route km of urban rail systems (U-Bahnen) (1990–2012): Vienna (41–76 km: 85%); Munich (63–103 km: 63%);
Hamburg (90–104 km: 16%), Berlin (134–146 km: 9%)
Expanded regional rail service (S-Bahnen and Regionalbahnen) (1990–2012): Munich (9.0–21.2 billion place km: 135%),
Vienna (14.3–22.5 billion place km: 58%), Hamburg (887–1302 route km: 46% (2000–2012 only)), Zurich (13.0–22.1
million vehicle km: 70%), and Berlin (276–396 route km: 43% (2000–2012 only))
Extent of tram networks in 2012: Berlin (191 km), Vienna (172 km), Zurich (119 km), Munich (79 km), and Hamburg (0 km)
Expansion of regional bus services (mainly in the suburbs): Munich (0.8 billion place km in 1990 to 2.2 million place km in
2012: 146%) and Hamburg (5.7 billion place km in 2000 to 8.7 billion place km in 2012: 51%)
Expansion of separate bus lanes to avoid delays from roadway congestion: Berlin (67 km in 1992 to 101 km in 2012) and
Hamburg (22 km in 1987 to 31 km in 2009). In 2014, Munich had 22 km of exclusive bus lanes
Improved quality of service
Verkehrsverbünde have steadily expanded their service area and improved coordination of public transport services and
fares throughout the metropolitan region and even beyond the region to include entire states
All five cities modernised buses and trains, making them more comfortable, more attractive, including special features
such as on-board WIFI and real-time information. Bus and rail stops have also been modernised, improving comfort and
safety while providing more information to the passenger. Rail stops usually include real-time arrival and departure
information
Physical connections between different bus and rail routes have been improved, and schedules coordinated, thus
making transfers faster and easier
All five of the Verkehrsverbünde have fully multi-modal, real-time, interactive online trip planners that help travellers to
find the best origin-to-destination public transport routing, including access to public transport by foot, bike, and car at
both ends of the trip
All five Verkehrsverbünde conduct citizen surveys to monitor satisfaction with public transport service, generally on a
scale from 1 to 6: Hamburg (3.2 in 1994 and 2.5 in 2014), Munich (2.8 in both 1996 and 2014), Berlin (2.7 for first survey in
2014), Vienna (2.4 in 1996 and 1.8 in 2014 (on a scale from 1 to 5)); for Zurich satisfaction rose from 73 points in 2000 to
77 points in 2012 (with a maximum of 100 points)
More attractive fare systems for regular users
Share of passenger trips by holders of monthly, annual, and semester tickets: ∼80% in German cities and ∼90% of all
trips in the Vienna region
Price of a monthly ticket: Vienna (€48), Munich (€64), Zurich (70SFR/∼€68), Berlin (€74), and Hamburg (€76)
Number of single tickets to equal price of a monthly ticket: Hamburg (27), Munich (26), Vienna (27), Berlin (31), and
Zurich (19)
Price of annual ticket: Vienna (€365), Zurich (SFR630/∼€610), Munich (€642), Hamburg (€726), and Berlin (€740)
Price of annual ticket as % of GDP per capita: Vienna (0.8%), Zurich (0.8%), Munich (1.1%), Hamburg (1.4%), and Berlin
(2.5%)
Number of monthly tickets to equal cost of annual ticket: Vienna (8), Zurich (9), and 10 months in the German cities
Additional discounts for senior and student tickets compared to regular monthly tickets: 42% and 53% in Hamburg; 35%
and 64% in Berlin; 40% and 30% in Munich; 46% and 28% in Zurich; 61% and 83% in Vienna
Both single and monthly ticket prices have risen in all five of the Verkehrsverbünde over the period 1990–2012, but
gasoline prices have increased about 1.5 times faster
Percentage of operating expenses covered by passenger fares: 80% for Munich, 74% for Berlin, 72% for Hamburg, 63%
for Zurich, 55% for Vienna
Sources: Buehler, Zimmerman, and Lukacs (2015), HVV (1990–2013), MVV (1990–2013), VBB (2000–2014), VOR (1990–
2013); and ZVV (2014).
TRANSPORT REVIEWS 19

suburbs and nearby cities in the region); and Strassenbahn (tram or light rail, mainly within
the city). In addition to rail system expansions, vehicles and stations have been moder-
nised throughout all five metropolitan areas. In addition, the Strassenbahn has been
speeded up through priority traffic signals. Verkehrsverbünde have also improved their
bus services by modernising the vehicle fleet with low-floor vehicles and by expanding
their networks of bus-only lanes, priority traffic signals for buses at intersections, and
express services (including some bus rapid transit) (see Table 4).
At the same time as public transport services have been expanded and improved, fare
systems have been better coordinated and made easier to use and less expensive,
especially for regular passengers (see Table 4). Monthly, annual, and semester tickets
have been so attractively priced that most passenger trips in all five cities are now
made by holders of such tickets (see Table 4). Annual tickets have become popular
because they offer a further discount off the cost of monthly tickets. Assuming an
average of ten trips per week, annual tickets offer a discount of two-thirds to three-
fourths off the price of a single ticket depending on which city. As shown in Table 4,
seniors and students benefit from even more deeply discounted monthly or semester
fares.
Averaged over the five cities, the price of single tickets (+74%) and monthly tickets
(+70%) rose from 1990 to 2012, but that was less than half of the average increase in gaso-
line prices (+169%). Thus, relative to the price of gasoline, public transport fares became
considerably less expensive. The attractive fares in all five cities have been made possible
by operating subsidies. As shown in Table 4, the extraordinarily low price of annual tickets
in Vienna (€356) comes at the cost of larger operating subsidies, which cover 45% of oper-
ating costs. The higher ticket prices in the German cities, ranging from €642 in Munich to
€740 in Berlin, require smaller subsidies as a percentage of operating costs, ranging from
20% in Munich to 28% in Hamburg.
Four of the five cities have surveyed residents over the past two decades to determine
how satisfied they are with public transport services. Although these ratings of public
transport systems in different cities are subjective and not directly comparable, they are
a useful barometer of service quality over time in each city. Overall, the citizen surveys
suggest a large improvement in Vienna, some improvement in Zurich and Hamburg,
and no change in Munich (see Table 4).
Taxation, fees, and car-restrictive policies
The high prices of petrol in Germany, Austria, and Switzerland are mostly due to federal
taxes, which account for about two-thirds of the retail price, greatly increasing the cost
of driving (see Table 5). Federal taxes and fees on new car purchases and ownership
increase the cost of purchasing and owning a car, thus directly discouraging car owner-
ship, but indirectly discouraging car use as well. Including sales taxes, registration fees,
motorway tolls, import fees, and gasoline taxes, the total annual taxes paid in 2009 for
a small Volkswagen Golf (1.6 L gasoline engine) were estimated at €1690 in Austria,
€1520 for Germany, and €1240 for Switzerland (DIW, 2009). The corresponding taxes
and fees for larger cars were much higher.
Driver licencing is also regulated at the federal level in all three countries, with extensive
training and strict testing required for obtaining a licence. In general, the age for obtaining
20 R. BUEHLER ET AL.

a licence is 18, but Germany issues temporary licences at the age of 17 years, which require
a licenced adult to accompany the driver. The average cost of obtaining a licence, includ-
ing mandatory driving lessons and fees, ranges from €1400 to €1900 in Germany and
Austria. It costs less in Switzerland (€600–€1000) because there are no mandatory
driving lessons (European Driving Schools Association, 2015). These national policies
lead to a high base cost of car ownership and use, and local policies add further to the
cost and inconvenience of driving.
At the local government level, parking charges are the main fee assessed on car use. Local
governments also impose restrictions on the supply of parking, the allowed time of parking,
speed limits, and car access to certain zones. As discussed in the section on walking, ped-
estrian zones prohibit car use altogether. Traffic-calmed residential streets make car use
slower (30 km/h or less), more circuitous, bumpier, and less convenient. Traffic-calming
diverters and dead ends for cars (with pass-throughs for pedestrians and cyclists) are for
the explicit purpose of preventing through traffic on local streets. Shared streets (10–20
km/h) further reduce the speed limit for cars and require motorists to share the road with
non-motorised users. Bicycle streets (30 km/h) limit motor vehicle access to local residents
and businesses and require motorists to yield right of way to bicyclists.
These restrictions on car use make walking and cycling safer and more convenient,
partly by providing them with more space. The reduction of through traffic also reduces
noise and air pollution in city centres and residential neighbourhoods. Berlin and
Munich have also designated parts of their central city as Umweltzonen (environmental
zones) which only permit use of especially low-emission cars (UBA, 2015). Such cars
must be officially certified in advance and display a special green low-emissions decal
on the windshield of the car.
Table 5. Policies that restrict car use and make it more costly in the case study cities.
National government policies increase cost of car ownership and use
Share of taxes in gasoline retail price: 56% in Germany, 49% in Switzerland, and 48% in Austria
Increase in gasoline (petrol) prices (1990–2012): 178% in Switzerland, 170% in Germany, and 155% in Austria
Total annual taxes paid in 2009 for a small Volkswagen Golf (1.6 L gasoline engine): €1690 in Austria, €1520 for Germany,
and €1240 for Switzerland. Taxes and fees for larger cars were much higher
Driver licencing is regulated at the federal level in all three countries, with extensive training and strict testing required
to obtain a licence, including a 2- or 3-year probation period, and a minimum age of 17 or 18 years old
In Germany and Austria there are a required minimum number of hours of private driving lessons, which cost about
€1200–1700 (on top of about €200 for licence fees) depending on the country and whether or not the licence applicant
passes the test on the first try or fails and is required to take additional lessons before taking the test a second time
Local government restrictions on car use
Car-free pedestrian zones prohibit motor vehicle use, except at certain restricted times (e.g. commercial delivery vans)
Traffic-calmed residential streets make car use slower, more circuitous, bumpier, and less convenient
Diverters and other on-street barriers (e.g. bollards) discourage through traffic on local streets
Berlin and Munich have designated parts of their central city as Umweltzonen (environmental zones) which only permit
use of especially low-emission cars
Parking a car has become more difficult and more expensive since 1990
Reduction in total supply of on-street parking spaces, sometimes off-set by construction of off street parking garages
City-wide parking time limitations of 1–2 h for on-street parking, except for residents
Parking management in all five cities: coordination of parking supply, price, and duration. Since 1990, parking
management has expanded from the city centres to include almost the entire city, while parking prices have increased
While roadway construction has been restricted in city centres, all five of the cities have invested heavily in building
circumferential roadways to divert traffic around the city centre
Especially in Vienna and Zurich, limited supply of motorways and major arterials within the city makes it difficult to
access the central city by car, thus encouraging more public transport use. Limited motorway construction within cities
has prevented the destruction of central city neighbourhoods
Sources: City of Berlin (2015a), City of Hamburg (2015b), City of Munich (2015d), City of Vienna (2015b), and City of Zurich
(2014).
TRANSPORT REVIEWS 21

One of the most effective localgovernment efforts to limit car use is through parking man-
agement: increasing hourly parking charges toward the city centre and limitingthe number of
parking spaces and the allowable parking time (see Table 5). In general, cities have imposed
time limitations of 1–2 h for on-street parking, but with exceptions for residents and
businesses. In general, the closer to the city centre, the shorter the parking time allowed
and the higher the price per hour of parking. Fines are charged for not paying the parking
charge in advance and for exceeding the maximum allowable parking time. Special residential
and commercial parking permits prevent the use of local on-street parking spaces by outsi-
ders driving into the city for work or shopping. Garages and parking lots near the periphery
of the city (or inthe suburbs) are often located near U-Bahn, S-Bahnor regional railstations to
encourage use of public transport for the trip to the city centre.
In all five cities parking management is a key policy for discouraging car use overall, and
in the city centre in particular (see Table 5). Parking management started off in the centres
of each of the 5 case study cities and over the past 25 years has expanded to include large
portions of the 5 cities, while parking prices have increased. In Zurich there is no free on-
street parking at all. Thus, parking a car has become more difficult and more expensive
since 1990, an important deterrent to car use.
Limitations on new road construction have also been important. Similar to cities
throughout central and northern Europe, there have been few limited access motorways
built in cities since the 1980s. Partly due to the massive destruction of German cities in the
Second World War, which opened up large areas of undeveloped land, they were able to
build more motorways in the 1960s and early 1970s than Vienna and Zurich. Those two
cities experienced far less destruction and preserved their historical patterns of buildings
and streets, thus sharply restricting the available space for wider or additional roadways.
During the 1960s and 1970s, all five cities had plans for even more motorways in the
coming years. However, intense public opposition, especially in the 1970s, blocked most
motorway plans and provided grassroots support for the car-restrictive policies mentioned
in this section as well as the pro-walking, pro-cycling, pro-public transport policies docu-
mented in the preceding sections (Csendes & Opll, 2006; Kalender, 2012; Merckens, 2014).
Overall, the limited supply of motorways and major arterials in the centres of Vienna,
Zurich, Munich, Berlin, and Hamburg has made it more difficult to access the central
city by car and avoided the destruction of inner city neighbourhoods that motorway con-
struction would have caused.
While roadway construction has been restricted in city centres, all five of the cities have
invested heavily in building circumferential roadways to divert traffic around the city centre
and thus reduce congestion, noise, and other traffic problems there. They not only divert
traffic around the centre city, but also provide crucial connections to the long-distance
motorway network of each country. In some instances, such as Berlin, Vienna, and
Hamburg, tunnels serve the same function by removing traffic from centre city streets.
Land use and urban development
Land use and urban development crucially influence travel behaviour, mainly because
they are the most important determinant of trip distance, and whether walking, cycling,
and public transport are feasible (Ewing & Cervero, 2001,2010). At the national, state/pro-
vincial, and local government levels, Germany, Austria, and Switzerland have coordinated
22 R. BUEHLER ET AL.

systems of land-use planning which generally discourage low-density development of
agricultural land, forests, nature preserves, and other undeveloped greenspace (Alterman,
2001; Buehler, Jung, & Hamre, 2015). Vienna, Munich, Hamburg, Berlin, and Zurich all have
formal development plans which specifically encourage mixed-use, compact develop-
ment focused around public transport lines and well supplied with walking and cycling
facilities (City of Berlin, 2015b; City of Hamburg, 2007; City of Munich, 2011; City of
Vienna, 2014a; City of Zurich, 2015). They include provisions for building up mixed-use
neighbourhood centres throughout the city that enable residents to fulfil most of their
daily needs with short trips to nearby shops, schools, and offices. That especially
encourages more walking and cycling. With such neighbourhood centres built around
rail stations and along tramlines, longer trips can be made by public transport to the
city centre for more specialised goods and services.
There are variations from country to country and from city to city. Most importantly,
there are large differences between the city and the surrounding metropolitan areas in
the degree to which their land-use patterns encourage car use. As already shown in
Figure 5, the car share of trips is much higher in the suburbs than in the city centre:
57% vs. 9% in Munich, 64% vs. 16% in Vienna, 54% vs. 19% in Berlin, and 63% vs. 35%
in Hamburg. Compact mixed-use development is mainly limited to the cities themselves,
with different land-use patterns and travel behaviour in the surrounding region. There are
instances of relatively compact mixed-use development in those suburbs centred around
rail stations with public transport service to the city. There is considerable population
growth in the suburbs, providing the potential to shape new development in a way
that is more conducive to walking, cycling and public transport use and less dominated
by the car. The future of the suburbs rests on the political will to implement the necessary
land-use and transport policies. In spite of this potential, the actual trend over recent
decades has been toward more car-dependence in the suburbs, while the shift toward sus-
tainable travel has been restricted mainly to the cities.
Each city has undertaken specific development projects that coordinate land use and
transportation to ensure the convenience and safety of walking, cycling, and public trans-
port while discouraging car use (through car-free zones, traffic calming, limited parking,
etc.). As part of this strategy, cities have also improved public transport and facilities for
walking and cycling.
In Vienna, for example, the modernisation and expansion of the main train station were
combined with extensive mixed-use development in and around the renovated station
(City of Vienna, 2013,2015b). On a much larger scale, the City of Vienna is currently build-
ing a completely new district (Seestadt) on formerly undeveloped land within the existing
city limits (City of Vienna, 2015a). Seestadt is 7 km east of the city centre and, when com-
pleted, will be 2.4 km
2
in area, housing 20,000 residents and offering 20,000 jobs. The
development is focused along public transport corridors (three rail transit stations with
feeder bus services) and will restrict car use, while promoting walking and cycling.
There are, however, plans for a new roadway at the northern periphery of Seestadt to
connect it with two existing motorways. Thus, Seestadt will also be served by roadways,
but not dependent on car use.
Hamburg is currently building a large new mixed-use development (HafenCity) with
6000 new housing units and about 40,000 jobs on the site of a former harbour area
(City of Hamburg, 2015a). HafenCity already has a direct metro rail connection to the
TRANSPORT REVIEWS 23

city centre. The plans for HafenCity include provisions to create a safe, pleasant environ-
ment for pedestrians. About 70% of pedestrian walkways will be separated from roadways.
Cycling will be encouraged through an integrated network of bike paths and lanes as well
as a bike sharing system. HafenCity will have maximum parking allowances for new devel-
opments and relegate public car parking garages to the fringes of public spaces to keep
cars out and encourage more walking and cycling.
As shown by many studies, minimum parking requirements lead to excess parking
supply, make driving cheap and convenient, and thus encourage a shift toward more
car use. Implementation of maximum parking allowances is an important recent policy
development to discourage car use (Knoflacher, 2007; Shoup, 1999,2011; Topp, 1993).
Conclusions
As documented in this article, the largest cities in Austria, Switzerland, and Germany have
succeeded in reducing the car share of trips over the past 25 years: from 40% to 27% in
Vienna, from 40% to 33% in Munich, from 35% to 30% in Berlin, from 39% to 30% in
Zurich, and from 48% to 42% in Hamburg. All five cities have implemented a coordinated
package of mutually reinforcing transport and land-use policies that, in combination, have
made car use slower, less convenient, and more costly, while increasing the safety, conven-
ience, and feasibility of walking, cycling, and public transport.
The specific mix of policies, and relative emphasis among modes, varies from one city to
another, reflecting the different situations and preferences in each city. For example,
Munich, Berlin, and Hamburg have invested far more, and over a longer period, in
cycling infrastructure and programmes than Zurich and Vienna. In each of the five
cities, a Verkehrsverbund has been crucial for integrating services, timetables, routes,
and fares across all types of public transport throughout the entire metropolitan region.
Zurich and Vienna, however, outperform the three German cities by providing more
public transport service per capita and offering annual tickets costing less relative to
average income (see Table 4). In all five cities parking management has been the most
important local government policy to discourage car use, especially in the central city.
The case study analysis in this article cannot prove that the long-term shifts in the cities’
transport and land-use policies achieved the observed reductions in car mode share, but
they almost certainly played an important role by shifting the monetary and time cost of
travel in favour of alternatives to driving. The success of the cities’policy measures is
largely attributable to their coordinated implementation, integrated with each other to
reap the interactive, synergistic impact of the package of measures as a whole. And
that includes, of course, the fully integrated regional public transport systems (Verkehrs-
verbünde) in each metropolitan area. The importance of integrated policy packages is
documented in several studies (Feitelson, 2003; Givoni, Macmillen, Banister, & Feitelson,
2013; Kelly, May, & Jopson, 2008; May & Roberts, 1995).
Shifts in land-use patterns and travel behaviour cannot be explained entirely by govern-
ment transport and land-use policies. Experts interviewed by the authors suggested that
there has also been a qualitative shift in cultural attitudes and preferences toward less
reliance on the automobile and increased demand for living in mixed-use, compact devel-
opments in or near the city centre. Studies in both North America and Europe similarly
suggest underlying changes in lifestyle preferences of the newer generations (Goodwin
24 R. BUEHLER ET AL.

& van Dender, 2013; Kuhnimhof et al., 2012; Newman & Kenworthy, 2015). For example,
many city centres in Europe and North America have experienced a revival and, in particu-
lar, the influx of new residents in their 20s and 30s in neighbourhoods that are amenable
to walking, cycling, and public transport use. Studies also suggest that these younger gen-
erations are less attracted to cars than their parents, and more willing to walk, bike, and
ride public transport.
Although our five case study cities have been successful in reducing car dependence,
the story in the suburbs is very different. Travel behaviour and land-use patterns in the
suburban parts of their metropolitan areas have remained car-oriented. Transport and
land-use policies in suburban areas are usually beyond the control of city governments.
Instead, they have been determined by state and local governments less focused on
urban development and typically facilitating car use and lower-density development.
The role of politics is crucial in developing, adopting, implementing, and disseminating
sustainable transport policies, as shown in a forthcoming book dealing exclusively with
this topic (Altshuler & Davis, 2016).
The five case study cities demonstrate that it is possible to reduce car dependence even
in affluent societies with high levels of car ownership and high expectations for quality of
travel. These cities have been especially successful at reducing car dependence, but many
of the same policy measures they used have been implemented to varying extents in other
European cities. For example, five other major western European cities, all of which are
national capitals, have significantly reduced the car mode share of trips since 1990:
Paris (−10 percentage points), Copenhagen (−9 percentage points), Amsterdam and
London (−8 percentage points), and Stockholm (−7 percentage points) (Buehler &
Pucher, in press). Given a mixed-use, compact land-use pattern, an integrated combination
of high-quality public transport, walking, and cycling conditions can out-compete the car,
gaining back some of the modal share they lost from 1960 to 1990.
Acknowledgements
The authors thank Prof. Alan Altshuler (Harvard University), Prof. David Banister (Oxford University),
Prof. Gerd Sammer (University for Natural Resources of Vienna), Prof. Hermann Knoflacher (Technical
University of Vienna), Dr Måns Lönnroth (Volvo Foundation), Prof. Robert Cervero (University of Cali-
fornia at Berkeley), Dr Uwe Kunert (German Economic Institute), Dr Reinhard Merckens (City of
Hamburg), and Dr Markus Ossberger (Vienna Public Transport System) as well as three anonymous
referees, for their detailed suggestions for improvement of this article. We also thank the many trans-
port planners in Vienna, Zurich, Hamburg, Berlin, and Munich for their cooperation in sharing infor-
mation and data about transport trends and policies in each of their cities.
Funding
The research for this article was funded in part by the multi-year international project “Transforming
Urban Transport: The Role of Political Leadership”coordinated by the Harvard University Graduate
School of Design and sponsored by the Volvo Research and Educational Foundations (OP-2012-03).
Disclosure statement
No potential conflict of interest was reported by the authors.
TRANSPORT REVIEWS 25

ORCID
Ralph Buehler http://orcid.org/0000-0002-1254-2224
John Pucher http://orcid.org/0000-0002-9499-2383
Regine Gerike http://orcid.org/0000-0002-8063-6636
Thomas Götschi http://orcid.org/0000-0002-1202-7863
References
Alterman, R. (Ed.). (2001). National-level planning in democratic countries: A comparative perspective.
Liverpool: Liverpool University Press.
Altshuler, A., & Davis, D. (2016). Transforming urban transport: The role of political leadership.
Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Arnott, B., Rehackova, L., Errington, L., Sniehotta, F., Roberts, J., & Araujo-Soares, V. (2014). Efficacy of
behavioural interventions for transport behaviour change: Systematic review, meta-analysis and
intervention coding. International Journal of Behavioral Nutrition and Physical Activity,11.
Retrieved from https://ijbnpa.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s12966-014-0133-9
Banister, D. (2005). Unsustainable transport: City transport in the new century. London: Routledge.
BFS. (2011). Mobility and transport 2010. Bern: Bundesamt fuer Statistik/Swiss Federal Office for
Statistics.
BMVBS. (2010). Mobilitaet in Deutschland 2008/2009. Bonn: German Federal Ministry of
Transportation.
Buehler, R. (2011). Determinants of transport mode choice: A comparison of Germany and the USA.
Transport Geography,19, 644–657.
Buehler, R., Jung, W., & Hamre, A. (2015). Planning for sustainable transport in Germany and the U.S.:
A comparison of the Washington, DC and Stuttgart Regions. International Planning Studies,20(3),
292–312.
Buehler, R., & Pucher, J. (in press). Sustainable transport in Vienna. In A. Altshuler & D. Davis (Eds.),
Transforming urban transport: The role of political leadership. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University
Press.
Buehler, R., Zimmerman, M., & Lukacs, K. (2015). Regional coordination in public transportation: Lessons
from Germany, Austria, and Switzerland. Washington, DC: Mid-Atlantic University Transportation
Center, US Department of Transportation, Research and Innovative Technology Administration.
Cervero, R. (1998). The transit metropolis. A global inquiry. Washington, DC: Island Press.
CBS. (2014). Transport statistics. Amsterdam: Statistics Netherlands.
City of Berlin. (2013). Planning for walking in Berlin. Berlin: Author.
City of Berlin. (2014a). Berlin transport in figures. Berlin: City of Berlin, Transport Planning.
City of Berlin. (2014b). Cycling strategy for Berlin. Berlin: Author.
City of Berlin. (2015a). Transport planning in Berlin. Berlin: Berlin Minsitry of URban Development.
City of Berlin. (2015b). Urban development plan. Berlin: Author.
City of Hamburg. (1999/2007). Bicycling concept. Hamburg: Author.
City of Hamburg. (2007). Goals for urban development. Hamburg: Author.
City of Hamburg. (2015a). Hafen city. Hamburg: Author.
City of Hamburg. (2015b). Transport planning in Hamburg. Hamburg: Author.
City of Munich. (2011). Perspetive Munich. Munich: Author.
City of Munich. (2012). Bicycling and walking in Munich. Munich: Author.
City of Munich. (2015a). Bicycling and walking in Munich. Munich: Author.
City of Munich. (2015b). Radlhauptstadt München. Munich: Author.
City of Munich. (2015c). Statistics for Munich. Munich: Statistical Office Munich.
City of Munich. (2015d). Verkehrsplanung. Verkehrsberuhigung. Retrieved from www.muenchen.de
City of Vienna. (2013). Transport plan. Vienna: Author.
City of Vienna. (2014a). Smart city Wien. Vienna: Author.
City of Vienna. (2014b). Statitics for Vienna. Vienna: Statistik Wien.
26 R. BUEHLER ET AL.

City of Vienna. (2015a). Aspern –Vienna’s city at the lake. Vienna: City of Vienna.
City of Vienna. (2015b). Transport plan. Vienna: Author.
City of Zurich. (1990–2014). Yearbook of the city. Zurich: Author.
City of Zurich. (2014). Transport planning. Zurich: Author.
City of Zurich. (2015). Strategies for Zurich 2035. Zurich: Author.
Csendes, P., & Opll, F. (2006). Vienna. History of a city. Vienna: Boehlau.
Dargay, J., & Gately, D. (1999). Income’s effect on vehicle ownership, worldwide: 1960–2015.
Transportation and Research, Part A,33(2), 101–138.
De Palma, A., & Rochet, D. (2000). Mode choices for trips to work in Geneva: An empirical analysis.
Journal of Transport Geography,8,43–51.
DfT. (2014). National travel statistics. London: Department for Transport.
Dimitrou, H. T., & Gakenheimer, R. (2011). Urban transport in the developing world: A handbook of
policy and practice. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar.
DIW. (2009). CO2-Besteuerung von Pkws in Europa auf dem Vormarsch. Berlin: Author.
DMT. (2014). Danish national travel surveys. Copenhagen: Danish Institute of Transport Research.
European Driving Schools Association. (2015). Driver’s license costs in Europe. Munich: EFA.
EUROSTAT. (2005–2014). Energy and transport in figures. Brussels: European Commission, Directorate
General for Energy and Transport.
Ewing, R., & Cervero, R. (2001). Travel and the built environment. A synthesis. Transportation Research
Record,1780,8
7–114.
Ewing, R., & Cervero, R. (2010). Travel and the built environment: A meta analysis. Journal of the
American Planning Association,76(3), 265–294.
Feitelson, E. (2003). Packaging policies to address environmental concerns. In D. A. Hensher & K. J.
Button (Eds.), Handbook of transport and the environment (pp. 757–769). Amsterdam: Elsevier.
Givoni, M., Macmillen, J., Banister, D., & Feitelson, E. (2013). From policy measures to policy packaging.
Transport Reviews,33(1), 1–20.
Goodwin, P., & van Dender, K. (2013). Peak car - themes and issues. Transport Reviews,33(3), 243–375.
Hass-Klau, C. (1993). The pedestrian and city traffic. New York: Belhaven Press.
Hass-Klau, C. (2015). The pedestrian and the city. New York: Routledge.
HERRY. (2012). 2011 Verkehr in Zahlen. Vienna: HERRY Consult.
HVV. (1990–2013). Annual report. Hamburg: Hamburger Verkehrsverbund.
Ingram, K. G., & Liu, Z. (1999). Determinants of motorization and road provision. Washington, DC: World
Bank.
Kalender, U. (2012). History of transport planning in Berlin. Cologne: German Transport Science
Association (FGSV).
Kelly, C., May, A., & Jopson, A. (2008). The development of an option generation tool to identify
potential transport policy packages. Transport Policy,15(6), 361–371.
Knoflacher, H. (2007). Grundlagen der Verkehrs- und Siedlungsplanung. Wien: Boehlau.
Krause, R. (2009). The Hamburger Verkehrsverbund from 1965 until today. Hamburg: Hamburger
Verkehrsverbund (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.
May, A., & Roberts, M. (1995). The design of integrated transport strategies. Transport Policy,2(2), 97–105.
Merckens, R. (2014). Trends in Hamburg’s transport over the last 20 years. Hamburg: City of Hamburg.
Millard-Ball, A., & Schipper, L. (2011). Are we reaching peak travel? Trends in passenger transport in
eight industrialized countries. Transport Reviews,31(3), 357–378.
MOP. (2010). The German mobility panel. Karlsruhe: Karlsruhe Institute of Technology.
MVV. (1990–2013). Annual report. Munich: Munich Regional Public Transport Association (MVV).
Newman, P., & Kenworthy, J. (2015). The end of automobile dependence: How cities are moving beyond
car-based planning. Washington, DC: Island Press.
Northern Germany Statistics. (2014). Statistics for Hamburg and surroundings. Hamburg: Statistikamt
Nord.
OECD. (2003–2015). OECD statistics. Paris: Author.
TRANSPORT REVIEWS 27

Omnitrend. (2015). Market analysis for wiener Linien. Vienna: Omnitrend.
Pirhofer, G., & Stimmer, K. (2007). Pläne für Wien: Theorie und Praxis der Wiener Stadtplanung von 1945
bis 2005. Vienna: City of Vienna.
Pucher, J., & Buehler, R. (2008). Making cycling irresistible: Lessons from the Netherlands, Denmark,
and Germany. Transport Reviews,28(1), 495–528.
Pucher, J., & Buehler, R. (Eds.). (2012). City cycling. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Pucher, J., & Dijkstra, L. (2003). Promoting safe walking and cycling to improve public health: Lessons
from The Netherlands and Germany. American Journal of Public Health,93(9), 1509–1516.
Pucher, J., Dill, J., & Handy, S. (2010). Infrastructure, programs, and policies to increase bicycling: An
international review. Preventive Medicine,50(Suppl. 1), S106–S125.
Randelhoff, M. (2013). Fahrradstädte: Häufig mittelgroße Universitätsstädte –oder in den
Niederlanden? » Zukunft Mobilität. Retrieved January 20, 2016.
Saelens, B. E., Sallis, J. F., & Frank, L. D. (2003). Environmental correlates of walking and cycling:
Findings from the transportation, urban design, and planning literature. Annals of Behavior
Medicine,25,80–91.
Shoup, D. C. (1999). The trouble with minimum parking requirements. Transportation Research Part A,
33, 549–574.
Shoup, D. C. (2011). The high cost of free parking. Chicago, IL: Planners Press, American Planning
Association.
SIKA. (2014). SIKA statistics: The national travel survey. Östersund: Swedish Institute for Transport and
Communications Analysis.
Socialdata. (2015). Mobility indicators of cities. Munich: Author.
SOeS. (2010). Enquête nationale transports et déplacements (ENTD) 2008. LaDefense: Ministère de
l’Écologie, de l’Énergie, du Développement durable et de la Mer (Meeddm), Service de l’observa-
tion et des statistiques (SOeS).
Staedtepegel. (2007). System repräsentativer Verkehrsbefragungen. Mobilitaet in Staedten 2007.
Muenchen: Socialdata.
StatCan. (1996–2010). Where Canadians work and how they get there. Ottawa, ON: Statistics Canada.
Statistics Berlin-Brandenburg. (2015). Statistics for Berlin and Brandenburg. Berlin: Amt fuer Statistik
Berlin-Brandenburg.
TOI. (2011). Norwegian travel survey key results. Oslo: Institut of Transport Economics, TOI.
Topp, H. (1993). Parking policies to reduce car traffic in German cities. Transport Reviews,13(1), 83–95.
UBA. (2015). Environmental zones/Umweltzonen. Berlin: German Federal Ministry of the Environment.
UN Habitat. (2013). Planning and design for sustainable urban mobility: Global report on human settle-
ments. New York: Routledge.
US Census Bureau. (2000–2015). American fact finder (Vol. 2010). Washington, DC: U.S. Department of
Commerce.
USDOT. (2010). National household travel survey 2008/2009. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of
Transportation, Federal Highway Administration.
Vandenbulcke, G., Dujardin, C., Thomas, I., de Geus, B., Degraeuwe, B., Meeusen, R., & Int Panis, L.
(2011). Cycle commuting in Belgium: Spatial determinants and ‘re-cycling’strategies.
Transportation Research A,45(2), 118–137.
Van Wee, B., Annema, J., & Banister, D. (2013). The transport system and transport policy. Cheltenham:
Edward Elgar.
VBB. (2000–2014). Annual report. Berlin: Regional Public Transport Authority for Berlin and
Brandenburg (VBB).
VDV. (2009). Transport alliances. Cologne: German Public Transport Association.
VOR. (2012). Public transport authority eastern region.Vienna, Austria: Regional Public Transport
Association for the Vienna Region.
VOR. (1990–2013). Annual report. Vienna: Regional Public Transport Association for the Vienna Region
(VOR).
WSP. (2014). Finnish national travel survey. Helsinki: WSP Finnland.
ZVV. (2014). Public transport in the Zurich region. Zurich: Reginal Transport Association (ZVV).
28 R. BUEHLER ET AL.