Sustainable Transport in Freiburg Lessons From Ger
Sustainable Transport in Freiburg Lessons From Ger
Sustainable Transport in Freiburg Lessons From Ger
net/publication/228675356
CITATIONS READS
124 767
2 authors:
Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:
All content following this page was uploaded by Ralph Buehler on 04 June 2014.
ABSTRACT
This article examines changes in transport and land-use policies in Germany over
the last 40 years that have encouraged more walking, bicycling and public trans-
port use. It focuses on a case study of policy changes in the city of Freiburg, where
over the last three decades, the number of bicycle trips tripled, public transport
ridership doubled, and the share of trips by automobile declined from 38% to
32%. Since 1990, motorization rates have leveled-off and per-capita CO2 emissions
from transport have fallen—despite strong economic growth. The analysis ident-
ifies policies that are transferable to car-oriented countries around the world.
Key Words: climate change, Freiburg, Germany, land-use planning, sustain-
ability, transport policy
1. INTRODUCTION
Transport is responsible for about a third of all Greenhouse Gas (GHG) emissions
in the USA and one fifth of worldwide GHG emissions, mainly in form of CO2 (Inter-
national Energy Agency 2006; Sperling and Cannon 2009; U.S. Department of
Transportation 2009b). Governments throughout the world have recognized that
the reduction of transport related CO2 emissions plays an important part in combat-
ing climate change (Banister 2005; European Commission 2009; USDOT 2009b;
World Bank 1996). Many studies suggest that growing reliance on the automobile
for urban travel is an important reason for increased energy use and CO2 emissions
as well as other problems such as traffic congestion, air pollution, and traffic
Address correspondence to Ralph Buehler, Virginia Tech, School of Public and Inter-
national Affairs, 1021 Prince Street, Suite 200, Alexandria, VA 22314. E-mail: [email protected]
43
Sustainable Transport in Freiburg, Germany
rail fuel consumption. CO2 emissions per capita in Western European countries
are less than half as high as in Canada and Australia and less than a third as high
as in the USA.
The USA has led the world in motorization since the early 20th Century. Among
European countries, however, Germany has the highest motorization rate, the
strongest automobile industry, and the most extensive highway network. The
USA and Germany have many similarities: high per-capita incomes, almost univer-
sal car ownership, and similar economic and political systems. Yet travel behavior
in the two countries is very different, with far greater car dependence and more
CO2 emissions in the USA. Germans not only drive less, but the German vehicle
fleet is also more energy efficient and less polluting. It is the combination of less
car use and more advanced technology that accounts for Germany’s sustainability
edge over the USA. Our analysis of sustainable transport and land use policies
in Germany provides useful lessons not only for the USA but also for other car-
dependent countries—such as Australia and Canada—seeking to improve the
sustainability of their transport systems.
Germany’s transport, land use, housing, and taxation policies at all government
levels have increasingly promoted sustainability since the 1970s. The German
federal government has provided the framework for more sustainable transport,
but cities and states have played a crucial role in developing and implementing
innovative policies.
The southwestern city of Freiburg has been Germany’s leader in sustainable
transport and land-use. Many policies pioneered in Freiburg have spread to other
cities in Germany and worldwide. Today, Freiburg is considered Germany’s
‘environmental capital’ and its most sustainable city. Over the last three decades,
Freiburg’s coordinated transport and land-use policies have tripled the number
of trips by bicycle, doubled transit ridership, and reduced the share of trips by
car from 38% to 32%. Since the early 1990s, the level of motorization has leveled
off, and per-capita CO2 emissions from transport have fallen, in spite of strong
economic and population growth. Those are impressive accomplishments in a
country such as Germany with a powerful car industry, influential car lobbies,
and a love affair with the car perhaps even more passionate than in the USA,
Canada, and Australia.
This article first compares the overall sustainability of the American and
German urban passenger transport systems. Next it identifies key sustainable trans-
port and land-use policies implemented at the federal level in Germany over the
last 40 years. We then turn to a detailed case study of the city of Freiburg. The
paper concludes with lessons from Freiburg for other cities.
part of local comprehensive transport plans, comply with land-use plans, and
address the needs of the disabled and the elderly (BMVBS 2005a; Bundesregier-
ung 1999; Rönnau 2004; Rönnau, Schallaböck, Wolf, and Hüsing 2002).
The German federal government only plays a minor role in promoting walking
and cycling—mainly limited to federal traffic laws protecting cyclists and pedes-
trians and making their safety an integral part of the German driver’s license test.
Most innovations, such as car-free pedestrian zones and integrated city-wide
bicycling networks were pioneered and then widely implemented at the local level.
The federal government supported these efforts with technical guidance and flex-
ible funding mechanisms, which allowed municipalities to divert highway funds
towards non-motorized modes.
Figure 2. Trend in cars and light trucks per 1,000 population in Freiburg,
Germany, and the USA, 1950–2006. (BMVBS 1991–2008; City of
Freiburg 2009b, FHWA 1990–2008)
Figure 3. Trend in percent of trips by car, public transport, bicycle, and foot in
Freiburg, 1982–2007. (City of Freiburg 2007c; University of Dortmund
2001)
Figure 4. Share of trips by public transport, cycling, and walking in Freiburg and
cities of comparable population size (200,000) in Europe and North
America, 2006=2007. (City of Freiburg 2007c; Gutzmer 2006, Social-
data 2009; Statcan 2009; U.S. Census Bureau 2009)
(Continued )
Table 1. Continued.
1996: Regional rail service ‘‘Breisgau S-Bahn 2005’’ begins operation
1997–2008: Three new light rail lines and four regional rail lines (Breisgau S-Bahn) begin
operation
1999: Land Use Plan with broad citizen participation – citizen’s demanded more mixed use
and dense development than the city administration had proposed
2007: 410 km of bike paths and lanes in the city; plus two kilometers of bicycle only streets
2008: Land Use Plan focuses on high density development along transport routes,
sustaining local neighborhood centers, and mix of uses; this plan was closely
coordinated with the 2008 Transport Plan
2008: Transport Plan with three main goals: (1) shifting car trips to green modes, (2)
making necessary=unavoidable car trips more sustainable, (3) local accessibility with
short trip distances
2008: 90% of residents live in traffic calmed areas of 30 km=h and slower; there are 177
home zones with speed limits of 7 km=h
2009: 6,040 bike parking spots in the city
2009: Four new light rail lines=extensions planned
of the city, based on automobile transport. During this period, old streetcar lines
were abandoned and service was cut back, since buses and the automobile were
deemed the modes of transport of the future (Nahverkehr Breisgau 2008). Land-use
plans gave priority to new greenfield developments with wide streets and ample car
parking. Even the old town was adapted to the automobile—with new parking lots on
historic squares and a direct highway connection from downtown to the Autobahn.
During this time, car ownership and use increased, and so did air pollution, traffic
fatalities, and traffic congestion (Gutzmer 2006; Pucher and Clorer 1992).
Freiburg’s second auto oriented land-use plan of the 1960s was never approved
by the city council and got shelved in the early 1970s after long controversial
discussions between the public, council members, and the administration (City
of Freiburg 2008b). By then, public opinion had shifted away from supporting
automobile centered growth—due to various environmental and social problems
caused by the car and the oil crisis of 1973.
Moreover, during the early 1970s, the planned construction of a nuclear power
plant just 30 km from Freiburg’s old town made environmental protection a critical
issue (Hopwood 2007). Protests against the state government’s plan to build the
nuclear power plant lasted for years and forged an unlikely alliance of leftist students,
Catholic and Protestant church leaders, the conservative party, and local farmers.
Highly respected civic leaders were at the center of the local opposition to the state
government’s plan. Their role in the protests legitimized environmental protection
and alternative development ideas for the local population (Chaney 2008; Hopwood
2007). Over the last 40 years Freiburg has developed a strong tradition of cooperation,
negotiation, and consensus among city administration, citizen groups, and local busi-
nesses (Bratzel 1999). Public discourse, citizen participation, and cooperation paved
the way for a gradual change towards sustainability in Freiburg (Bratzel 1999).
Freiburg’s first integrated transport plan of 1969 had inadvertently laid the
foundation for the changes to come. Although still focusing on car use, the plan
Figure 5. Policy changes in the 1970s have restricted car use in Freiburg and
increased accessibility by non-motorized modes and the quality of life.
parking requirements provided that enough green space was preserved for poten-
tial future construction of parking lots. Building permits in Vauban are issued for
residential units without parking spots. Residents who decide to own a car can
purchase a parking spot in one of the parking garages at the edge of the develop-
ment for the equivalent of $25,000. Residents who wish to live car-free simply pay
a one-time fee of $5,000 to preserve open space at the edge of the development—
in lieu of a parking spot. This arrangement has proven successful. A recent survey
showed that there are 150 cars per 1,000 inhabitants in Vauban, compared to roughly
420 for the City of Freiburg and over 560 for Germany (Forum Vauban 2009).
Most daily shopping trips of Vauban residents are by walking or cycling and occur
within the neighborhood itself (Forum Vauban 2009). But there are good travel
options to destinations in other parts of the city and region. Vauban is well connec-
ted to Freiburg’s extensive bicycling network. In 2006, a new light rail line was com-
pleted down Vauban’s main street. It provides a direct connection to the center of
Freiburg in less than 15 minutes, with trains running every ten minutes. The Vau-
ban line connects with numerous other light rail and suburban rail lines that pro-
vide access to the entire region. Vauban also offers a car sharing program for
residents needing to make an occasional trip by automobile (Forum Vauban 2009).
Freiburg’s most recent land-use and transport plans of 2008 were developed sim-
ultaneously and are fully integrated. Both reiterate the earlier goals of reducing car
use, but they are more explicit about prohibiting car-dependent developments and
actively support car-free neighborhoods. The plans focus on compact development
along light rail routes, strengthening local neighborhood commercial and service
centers, and mixing housing with stores, restaurants, offices, schools, and other
non-residential land uses (City of Freiburg 2008b). Central development is explicitly
favored over peripheral development on the suburban fringe. The city has banned
all car-dependent big-box retailers such as home improvement stores, furniture
stores, and garden centers, not only because of the car traffic they generate but also
because they draw customers away from central city and neighborhood retailers.
Moreover, the new land-use plan identifies 30 priority locations for small retail busi-
nesses in Freiburg’s neighborhood centers, with the goal of keeping trip distances
short and assuring local accessibility on foot and by bicycle (City of Freiburg 2004).
The city coordinated its plans with 19 neighboring municipalities and 12 special
purpose governments in the region. Moreover, the plans were developed with
extensive citizen participation at every stage and reflect widespread support for
environmental protection. In fact, Freiburg’s citizen groups considered the city
administration’s initial draft of the land-use plan too car-oriented and the planned
development densities too low. In a second round the city and 900 citizens jointly
developed land-use strategies and goals and developed a new draft of the land-use
plan. This plan focused on higher density and more mixed-use infill development,
had broad citizen support, and was finally approved by the city council (City of
Freiburg 2004).
Through the political process, Freiburgers have consistently supported restric-
tions on the overall amount of land available for development outside of already
built-up areas. In the Freiburg region, as in most other German regions, large areas
of land in and near the city have been explicitly zoned for agriculture (many vine-
yards and fruit orchards), forest preserves, wildlife sanctuaries, or simply as undevel-
oped open space. Freiburgers value these undeveloped ‘green corridors’ throughout
the city as important destinations for everyday recreational activities. As documented
in the following sections, the complete turnaround in Freiburg’s transport policies in
the 1970s resulted in dramatic improvements for public transport, bicycling, and
walking, while making car use more expensive, slower, and less convenient.
Since 1996, Freiburg has also improved regional suburban rail and regional bus
services (from 2.7 billion to 3.4 billion seat kilometers annually), which are
centered on Freiburg (Zweckverband Regio-Nahverkehn Freiburg (ZRF) 2008).
Passenger km of regional rail use rose 6-fold between 1997 and 2006 and total pub-
lic transport demand in the city of Freiburg and the surrounding region increased
by 70% (Regio-Verkehrsverbund (RVC) 2008a).
Light rail, regional rail, and bus services and timetables are fully integrated in
Freiburg. Real-time information is provided by digital displays at rail stations, light
rail stops, and key bus stops (City of Freiburg 2008f; ZRF 2003, 2008). Both light
rail and bus services are faster and more reliable because of traffic signal priority,
with lights turning green for oncoming trains and buses at key intersections.
These policies were complemented with an attractively priced, unified ticketing
system, which enables riders to use a single ticket for several trip segments and
different types of service. In 1984, Freiburg’s public transport system offered
Germany’s first monthly ticket transferable to other users—called the ‘‘environ-
mental ticket’’ (Bratzel 1999; Hilliard 2006). In 1991, the geographic coverage
of the ‘‘environmental ticket’’ was expanded to include the two adjacent counties
(ZRF 2008). These monthly tickets have offered bargain fares for regular public
transport users for unlimited travel within the entire region (Gutzmer 2006;
RVF 2006). The percentage of public transport riders using monthly tickets rose
from only 39% in 1974 to 92% in 2006 (RVF 2006; RVG 2008d). The environmen-
tal ticket introduced in 1984 contributed to the 42% increase in ridership between
1984 and 1990. Similarly, the introduction of the regional ticket in 1991 helped
increase public transport trips region-wide by 70% between 1991 and 2007
(Gutzmer 2006; RVG 2008b).
Services, fares, and subsidies for the entire Freiburg region are coordinated by a
regional public transport association (ZRF), which serves 625,000 residents in 75
towns. ZRF sets the overall public transport policy in the region and develops
and updates the regional public transport plan for 187 different bus and rail
operators, 90 different lines, and 3050 km of routes (RVG 2008e, 2008f; ZRF
2008). It is also responsible for receiving funding from federal, state and local gov-
ernments and then distributing those funds among public transport operators to
cover investment and operating expenses (RVF 2008).
In summary, Freiburg and its surrounding region significantly increased the
quantity and quality of public transport services. A higher share of trips by public
transport has increased its financial sustainability and reduced CO2 emissions.
Since January 1, 2009, Freiburg’s light rail system runs solely on electricity gener-
ated by wind, solar, and water power, thus further decreasing the carbon footprint
of transport in Freiburg.
to cycling and public transport. Since 1990, however, the walk share has remained
stable in Freiburg, while it has been declining in Germany as a whole.
The decline in walking in the 1980s may have resulted from the city’s focus on
cycling. Freiburg expanded its network of separate bike paths and lanes from only
29 km in 1972 to 160 km in 2007 (City of Freiburg 2008a; FitzRoy and Smith 1998).
Together with 120 km of bike paths through forests and agricultural areas, 400 km
of traffic calmed roads, and 2 km of bicycle streets, Freiburg’s cycling facilities have
been fully integrated into a 682 km bikeway network (City of Freiburg 2008a).
Cyclists can ride on separate facilities and safe, lightly traveled streets between
virtually any two points in the city.
The city has traffic-calmed almost all residential streets. In 2008, about 90% of
Freiburgers lived on streets with speed limits of 30 km=hr or less (City of Freiburg
2008f). Speed limits are even further reduced to 7 km=hr in 177 home zones—
where cyclists and pedestrians have priority over cars, as illustrated in Figure 6
(City of Freiburg 2008f, 2009a). Traffic calmed neighborhood streets and home
zones encourage more cycling and walking and make them safer (Herrstedt
1992; Morrison, Petticrew, and Thomson 2003; Tolley 2003; Webster and Mackie
1996). Freiburg allows cyclists to use half of the city’s 120 one-way streets in either
direction, while motorists are restricted to one—thus shortening bike trips com-
pared to car travel distances (City of Freiburg 2008a).
Over the past three decades, the city has been increasing the supply of bike
parking, improving its quality, and integrating it with public transport stops.
Between 1987 and 2009, the number of bike parking spaces in the city center
almost tripled, rising from 2,200 to 6,040 (City of Freiburg 2008a, 2008f; Gutzmer
2006). There are now 1,678 bike parking spots at public transport bike and ride
facilities. In addition, there is a major bike station at Freiburg’s main train station
offering secure, sheltered parking for 1,000 bikes (for 41 per day or 410 per
month), bike rental, bike repair, travel advice, and bike shipment to other cities
(City of Freiburg 2008a). Not only does the city provide bike parking directly,
but it also requires bike parking in all new buildings with two or more apartments,
as well as schools, universities and businesses (City of Freiburg 2008d).
Freiburg has encouraged walking primarily through the car-free zone in the
center, traffic calming of residential streets, and compact new developments that
generate short, walkable trips (City of Freiburg 2008b). Walking in Freiburg’s
pedestrianized old town has been thriving, with 69% of all trips on foot in 2007.
The latest transport plan foresees a westward extension of the pedestrian zone
by about 0.5 km toward the main train station (City of Freiburg 2008f). The city
acknowledges that its policies so far have only succeeded in stabilizing overall walk-
ing levels. In the future, Freiburg plans to improve the connectivity and safety of its
citywide pedestrian network and intends to establish more pedestrian friendly
neighborhood centers.
the city combines disincentives to car use in the town center and residential neigh-
borhoods with improvement of arterials that have been widened or altered in vari-
ous ways to increase their carrying capacity (City of Freiburg 2008f; Gutzmer 2006).
Freiburg’s parking policy is designed to make car use less convenient and more
expensive. Parking garages are relegated to the periphery of the city center, thus
forcing motorists to walk or take public transport to access their cars. In many
residential neighborhoods, parking is reserved for residents only and requires a
special permit. On-street parking in commercial areas of the city becomes more
expensive with proximity to the center: 42.20 per hour in the innermost zone,
41.60 per hour in the intermediate zone, and 4.60 per hour in the outermost zone
(City of Freiburg 2006, 2008f). Almost all on-street car parking is limited in
duration to prevent long-term parking by commuters. Building codes have
reduced parking requirements for cars in new residential developments at the
same time they increased parking requirements for bikes (City of Freiburg 2008e).
proven successful, more new light rail lines followed. This phased approach can be
found in many American cities, such as the light rail extensions in Portland, Oregon
or the planned second light rail line in Minneapolis, Minnesota—where the success-
ful Hiawatha Line triggered public demand for a second light rail line connecting
Minneapolis to St. Paul (Metropolitan Council 2009).
probably the best example in the USA, with a history of extensive citizen partici-
pation in transport, land-use, and environmental planning. Public involvement
has been institutionalized into Portland’s transport planning process through a
city-funded network of neighborhood associations. Virtually every transport project
includes public meetings, citizen advisory boards, focus groups, surveys, and public
hearings to ensure citizen participation at every stage (Abbott and Margheim 2008;
City of Portland 2007; Ozawa 2004; Shandas and Messer 2008).
5.6. Support From Higher Levels of Government is Crucial to Making
Local Policies Work
Starting in the 1970s, the German federal government reduced funding for
highways and provided more flexible funds for improvements in local transport
infrastructure—including public transport, walking and cycling. Similarly, the state
of Baden-Wuerttemberg provided funds for the initial trial of Freiburg’s flat rate
monthly transit ticket. Federal government support for public transport, walking,
and bicycling has increased sharply in the USA since the early 1990s (America
Bikes 2006; Clarke 2003). Successive federal transport laws (i.e., ISTEA, TEA-21,
and SAFETEA-LU) have strongly encouraged, or even required, state and local
governments to promote alternatives to the car, coordinate land use with trans-
port, consider the needs of persons with disabilities, and mitigate the environmen-
tal, energy, and safety problems of urban transport (USDOT 2004, 2009a; Weiner
2008). The federal transport law is currently being revised for renewal, but indica-
tions are that there will be even more emphasis on promoting sustainability. That
includes improvements to motor vehicle technology as well as policies to encour-
age public transport, walking, and bicycling.
5.7. Sustainable Transport Policies Must be Long Term, with Policies Sustained
Over Time, for Lasting Impact
Changes in the transport system and travel behavior take time. Freiburg started
its journey towards more sustainable transport almost 40 years ago. For example,
the initial expansion of the light rail system took over a decade. Thus, planners
should curb their expectations for quick success. Clearly, some policies can be
implemented quickly, but changes in travel behavior and a more sustainable trans-
port system take much longer. No large American city can claim such a long track
record of sustainable transport policies. Nevertheless, the experience of Portland,
Oregon over the past decades suggests that successful policies there have been
self-reinforcing, generating increasing public support and thus enabling even
more sustainable policies in successive years (Abbott and Margheim 2008; City
of Portland 2009; Ozawa 2004).
6. CONCLUSIONS
Admittedly, Freiburg is not a typical city. Even within Germany it is viewed as the
most sustainable city, and that is a country that appears to have far more sustain-
able transport and land-use systems than the USA, Canada, or Australia. Thus,
many readers might be tempted to dismiss the impressive example of Freiburg
as being irrelevant to cities in more car-dependent countries.
Yet even in the most car-dependent countries like the USA, Canada, and
Australia, many cities have been implementing bits and pieces of the Freiburg
policy package over recent decades. In cities throughout these three countries
policies have increasingly promoted alternatives to the car: through improved pub-
lic transport, bicycle paths and lanes, better sidewalks, traffic calming of residential
neighborhoods, and pedestrian zones. The biggest difference is that American,
Canadian, and Australian cities rarely implement measures that restrict car use by
making it more costly, slower, and less convenient. Freiburg has implemented both
carrot policies to encourage alternatives to the car and stick policies to discourage
car use. While incentives for public transport, walking, and cycling can work alone
to some extent, combining them with policy sticks for car use has the potential to
amplify the beneficial impacts of policy carrots.
Changes in transport and land use policies towards limiting car use and promot-
ing more sustainable modes of transport often face barriers such as political and
public acceptability, institutional inertia, splintered institutional responsibilities
and lack of cooperation, financial constraints, municipal competition, legislative
limitations, and public resistance to culture and lifestyle changes (European
Commission 2005; May 2008). As we have shown in this article, Freiburg also faced
many barriers along its way to more sustainability, but it was able to overcome each
of them through innovative approaches. Below we list a few specific examples of
how Freiburg overcame financial, institutional, legislative, political, and
acceptability barriers over time:
. In the early 1970s local business leaders opposed the implementation of the
downtown pedestrian zone—fearing a loss of customers and revenue. Local
business opposition only subsided when citizens and the city government
agreed to build parking garages at the edge of the proposed pedestrian
zone, thus ensuring access for customers.
. In 1984, Freiburg’s transit provider (VAG) opposed the introduction of a
flat fare monthly public transport ticket—fearing declining revenues and
financial disaster. To overcome that resistance, the state government
provided financial guarantees during the initial implementation phase.
Freiburg’s city council then forced VAG to implement the ticket, which
turned out to be a huge success. Today VAG covers 90% of its operating bud-
get with fare revenues—making Freiburg’s transit system among the most
financially sustainable in Germany.
. Many residents were initially skeptical about traffic calming for neighborhoods.
However, successful implementation in a few neighborhoods convinced doubt-
ful citizens to demand traffic calming for their own neighborhood. The strategy
has been so successful that 90% of neighborhoods are now traffic calmed at
30 km=hr or less. Freiburgers can now apply online to suggest that their street
become a home zone with car travel speeds of less than 7 km=h.
. In the 1990s, car-free living in Vauban could only be realized after the city
had negotiated an exemption from state-wide minimum parking standards.
The state government agreed to count parts of Vauban’s recreational park
land as space holder for automobile parking. This satisfies state require-
ments for parking space provisions and citizen demand for open space.
Portland, Oregon probably is the best example of sustainable transport and land-use
policies in the USA. Although it does not restrict car use nearly to the extent of Frei-
burg, it has pursued a well integrated program of improvements to public transport,
walking, and cycling while promoting compact, mixed use development and discour-
aging car-dependent sprawl (Abbott and Margheim 2008; Ozawa 2004; Shandas and
Messer 2008). Most studies deem Portland’s policies a success (Abbott and Margheim
2008; Ozawa 2004). Trends in travel behavior also point towards increasing sustainabil-
ity of the transport system. Between 1990 and 2008, the mode share of workers com-
muting by car, truck, or van fell from 78% to 69%, while the share of bike and
public transport commuters increased from 12% to over 18%. The growth for bicycling
is particularly impressive: the average number of daily bike commuters increased
six-fold (þ586%) between 1990 and 2008. During the same time period, the average
number of daily public transport commuters increased by 55% (U.S. Census Bureau
1990, 2009). Portland’s success provides hope that other car-dependent cities in the
USA and around the world can also become more sustainable.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
The authors are indebted to Uwe Schade, Bernhard Gutzmer, Wulf Daseking
(all City of Freiburg), Andreas Hildebrandt (VAG Freiburg), and Tobias Bernecker
and Dagmar Glaser (State of Baden-Württemberg) who provided much of the
information presented in this article. We would also like to thank Martin Wachs,
Robert Noland, Dale Medearis, and Kris Wernstedt for their suggestions for
improving earlier drafts of the article.
REFERENCES
Abbott C, Margheim J. 2008. Imagining Portland’s urban growth boundary: Planning regu-
lation as cultural icon. Journal of the American Planning Association 74(2):196–208.
Altshuler AA, Womack JP, Pucher J. 1979. The Urban Transportation System: Politics and
Policy Innovation. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
America Bikes. 2006. SAFETEA-LU provisions for cycling and walking. Washington, D.C.:
America Bikes.
American Public Transport Association. 2006. Transportation factbook. Washington, D.C.:
American Public Transport Association.
Banister D. 2005. Unsustainable Transport: City Transport in the New Century. London and
New York: Routledge.
Bassett D, Pucher J, Buehler R, Thompson D, Couter S. 2008. Walking, cycling, and obesity
rates in Europe, North America and Australia. Journal of Physical Activity and Health
5(6):795–814.
Beatley T. 2000. Green Urbanism: Learning from European Cities. Washington, D.C.: Island
Press.
Blatter J. 1995. Möglichkeiten und Restriktionen für umweltorientierte Maßnahmen im
Personennahverkehr – Analyse der Freiburger Verkehrspolitik (Opportunities and
threats for environmental transport policy – analysis of Freiburg’s transport policy).
EURES discussion paper, dp-47.
BMVBS (Federal Ministry of Transport, Building and Urban Development). 1991–2008.
Verkehr in Zahlen (German transport in figures). Berlin: German Federal Ministry of
Transportation and Urban Development.
BMVBS. 1993. Law and practice of urban development in the Federal Republic of Germany.
Bonn: German Federal Ministry of Transportation and Urban Development, Bundesamt
fuer Bauwesen und Raumordnung.
BMVBS. 2000. Urban development and urban policy in Germany. Bonn: German Federal
Ministry of Transportation and Urban Development, Bundesamt fuer Bauwesen und
Raumordnung.
BMVBS. 2004. Mobilitaet in Deutschland (Mobility in Germany Survey). Bonn: German
Federal Ministry of Transportation and Urban Development.
BMVBS. 2005a. Bericht fuer das Jahr 2005 ueber die Finanzhilfen des Bundes zur Verbesser-
ung der Verkehrsverhaeltnisse der Gemeinden nach dem Gemeindeverkehrsfinanzier-
ungsgesetz (Federal Subsidies for Local Transportation Projects). Berlin: German
Federal Ministry of Transportation and Urban Development.
BMVBS. 2005b. Raumordnungsbericht 2005 (Federal land use report). Bonn: German
Federal Ministry of Transportation and Urban Development.
Bratzel S. 1999. Conditions of success in sustainable urban transport policy – Policy change
in ‘relatively successful’ European cities. Transport Reviews 19(2):177–190.
Bureau of Transportation Statistics. 2006. Energy efficiency of the vehicle fleet. Washington,
D.C.: Bureau of Transportation Statistics, FHWA.
Buehler R, Pucher J, Kunert U. 2009. Making Transportation Sustainable: Insights from
Germany. Washington, D.C.: The Brookings Institution.
Bundesregierung (German Federal Government). 1999. Bericht der Bundesregierung
ueber den Oeffentlichen Nahverkehr in Deutschland nach Vollendung der Deutschen
Einheit (Federal government report about public transport since German reunification).
Berlin: German Federal Government.
CEMT (European Conference of Ministers of Transport). 2003. Implementing sustainable
urban travel policies: National reviews. Paris: European Conference of Ministers of
Transport.
Chaney S. 2008. Nature of the miracle years: Conservation in West Germany, 1945–1975.
New York: Berghahn Books.
City of Freiburg. 2004. Zukunft Freiburg Flaechennutzungsplan 2020 (The future Freiburg
land use plan). Freiburg: City of Freiburg.
City of Freiburg. 2005. Drucksache G-05=234 Klimakonzept (Freiburg climate change plan
2005). Freiburg: City of Freiburg.
City of Freiburg. 2006. Parkleitsystem in der Innenstadt (Parking in the city center).
Available at http://www.bis.freiburg.de/1/109/10906/index.php
City of Freiburg. 2007a. Drucksache G-07=102 Klimakonzept (Freiburg climate change plan
2007). Freiburg: City of Freiburg.
City of Freiburg. 2007b. The new district of Freiburg-Rieselfeld: A case study of successful,
sustainable urban development. Freiburg: City of Freiburg.
City of Freiburg. 2007c. Verkehrsentwicklungsplan 2020 (Transportation Planning in
Freiburg). Freiburg: City of Freiburg.
World Bank. 1996. Sustainable transport: Priorities for policy reform. Washington, D.C.: The
World Bank.
World Health Organization. 2009. Global burden of disease. New York: World Health
Organization.
ZRF (Zweckverband Regio-Nahverkehr Freiburg) (Regional public transport authority for
the Freiburg region). 2003. Nahverkehrsplan 2004–2008 des ZRF (Public transport plan
2004–2008). Available at http://www.regioverbund.de/cms/Regioverbund/de/nav/zrf/
1,300408,9677.html
ZRF (Zweckverband Regio-Nahverkehr Freiburg) (Regional public transport authority for
the Freiburg region). 2008. Mobilitaet fuer die Region (Mobility for the region).
Available at http://www.regio-verbund.de/projects/