Car Sharing & Public Transport: Mobility beyond traditional mass transit

Wiener Linien carries about 2,4 million customers to their destination on a daily basis as a public transport operator (PTO). However, you have been building something that, on paper, looks very different from running trams and buses. What convinced the classical PTO that car sharing belongs into the portfolio, and what was the internal turning point for you personally?

For Wiener Linien, as a public transport operator, short PTO, the establishment of a department dedicated to complementary mobility services in 2017 marked the initial step toward entering new business areas. This ensured the necessary organizational integration of complementary services into Wiener Linien. The strategic decision behind the establishment was based rather on inclusion of WL into public space related policies of sharing services and active mobility in the city of Vienna than on a “takeover strategy” for sharing mobility services. Several sharing service market related coincidences led to our growing service portfolio at Wiener Linien

As a PTO, we were driven by several factors to engage in sharing mobility: international trends indicated a growing interest among public transport providers in complementary services, limited engagement by public authorities in the operational aspects of sharing services led to confusion and, at times, unequal conditions for operators, e.g. the necessity to provide business conditions to operate a financially sound business or, and we recognized a gap in our portfolio for certain important customer use cases.

Finally, our ambition has slowly evolved to become a partner for all mobility needs in the daily lives of Vienna’s citizens.

With WienMobil, Wiener Linien has put car sharing, bike sharing and public transport under one roof and one app. Looking back, which design decision turned out to matter most for adoption? The integrated app, the pricing, the physical hubs at stations, or something less obvious?

Pricing is a key strength of our sharing services compared to other European cities, as we offer very affordable prices for customers (e.g. 35 cent/30 minutes for annual pass holders for renting a bike or an E-car starting at 3€/hour rental fee + 25cents/km). Bike sharing in particular competes directly with public transport tariffs in Vienna, as we stipulate a pricing scheme in harmony with public transport prices: For more than ten years, we have offered an annual public transport pass for €365. Starting in 2027, this price will increase to over €460 per year, which still represents very good value.

Overall, public transport remains an extremely affordable way to travel from A to B within Vienna. Therefore, bike-sharing tariffs must be aligned with this pricing environment for daily mobility by public transport. And if you are already a regular customer of Wiener Linien, you always get discounts.

Our integration into physical mobility hubs has also been beneficial, as it made our new services visible quickly and naturally. However, we have not been able to pursue digital integration as thoroughly as intended. That said, we do not observe any significant negative impact on usage resulting from operating multiple apps for different mobility services. This raises the question of whether the importance of digital integration may be somewhat overestimated.

Where does car sharing actually earn its keep in a city like Vienna that already has excellent public transport? Can you share a concrete use case where shared cars unlocked trips, customer segments, or neighborhoods that public transport alone could not serve?

There is still enormous potential for car sharing in Vienna. We clearly favor station-based car sharing, as we see it primarily being used for planned, longer trips in terms of both time and distance. As shown in many cities, station-based car sharing reduces the motorization rate, while free-floating car sharing proves to have a limited effect on car ownership. With this approach, we are able to address additional use cases, such as cargo transport, weekend trips, or transporting groups of children. Importantly, many of these users are also public transport customers.

However, by offering a suitable alternative for these types of occasional trips, we reduce the need for private car ownership, mainly aiming at infrequent trip purposes.

Every operator romanticizes the successes. What didn’t work as expected in your shared mobility journey? What did it teach you about scaling this responsibly?

We are very happy with the increasing usage rates of our bike sharing WienMobil Rad and customer resonance is very positive. We have the feeling that people love WienMobil Rad. Still, our baseline level of usage remains modest compared to many other large European cities. Cycling culture in Vienna still has considerable ground to cover to catch up with leading cities. As we know, factors such as topography and weather are not sufficient explanations—there are many cities with less favorable conditions that have achieved higher cycling rates.

With regard to car sharing, we have been surprised by the challenges associated with charging our vehicles, as WienMobil Auto operates a 100% BEV fleet. Balancing high demand with operational constraints, while maintaining our ambition to deliver service excellence, remains a significant challenge.

Within the UITP Shared Vehicles Committee you’ve been pushing the shift from “public transport” to “public mobility”. Why does the industry need a new paradigm?

There are different perspectives to examine this issue from. One is the lack of a truly comprehensive alternative to private car ownership. Public transport alone cannot meet all mobility needs. Therefore, the service offering must extend beyond traditional mass transit.

Another angle is to take the need for mobility transition seriously. Mere lip service has not produced satisfactory results in achieving a modal shift.

A third perspective focuses on customer journeys and mobility behavior. People increasingly travel in multimodal and intermodal ways, hence we should address this mobility behavior by designing our mobility services.

A fourth perspective concerns the organization of mobility governance. Transport systems are still structured around strictly separated responsibilities—by mode, infrastructure, and services, as well as by public and private or commercial and individual ownership. This fragmented approach continues to limit the efficiency and user experience of journeys from A to B.

In the Public Mobility concept, shared cars get closer to traditional mass transit. How do you see the role of car sharing evolving over the next five to ten years, and what makes it indispensable rather than just “nice to have”?

As mentioned, car sharing has significant potential. However, the expected rapid growth has yet to materialize. Both private and public stakeholders need endurance and patience in developing this market. As a result, car-sharing businesses – particularly in Europe – have grown cautiously and gradually.

If we take our political objectives in cities and towns in Europe seriously, car sharing will play an important role in the mix of mobility services. It provides an effective alternative to private car ownership, especially where car use is only occasional, where parking is scarce, and where the cost of ownership is difficult to justify for a vehicle that remains unused for most of the day.

To fulfill this role, car-sharing services must offer a level of reliability and availability comparable to public transport.

Some argue that shared cars compete with public transportation by pulling riders away. Based on your data and experience, what is your opinion on this? In which cases is this preventing cities from taking action?

This is simply not the case for stationed based car sharing, as use cases differ significantly from each other. Car sharing and public transport is the perfect match with distinctive strengths and weaknesses of each service. In my experience, cities do not perceive a strong rivalry between the two modes. However, they may be hesitant to actively promote car sharing, as it is typically operated on a commercial basis and may benefit from public subsidies. In this context, it can be more convenient to prioritize public transport, given the broad consensus that mass transit is a subsidized service serving the public interest.

If a mid-sized European city came to you tomorrow and ask for your recommendation on where to start when integrating car sharing into the public mobility offering, what are the two or three moves you’d tell them to make first, and which trap would you warn them to avoid?

• Create a brand that is clearly associated with you as a public institution.
• Ensure transparency of the business case between you as the public transport operator and (potential) car-sharing operators. Ultimately, all parties suffer if a service fails due to restrictive financial conditions.
• Ensure to integrate car sharing into long term public strategies, like SUMPs. While sharing services may be perceived by policymakers as optional add-ons, they should be treated as essential components of the mobility system, similar to public transport, even if the financing mechanism may differ.

Thank you, Vincent, for the interview and valuable insights on creating a mobility mix between Car Sharing and Public Transport!

Looking for even more insights on shared mobility? Browse our Blog.