Belgrade: A Growing “City of Cars”

According to the Ministry of Internal Affairs of Serbia, Belgrade had 594,063 registered passenger cars in 2021. By 2023, that number climbed to 687,858, reflecting a growth trend of more than 16% in just two years. Local sources confirm that the figure has now surpassed 700,000 vehicles in 2024, with traffic experts warning that this growth is straining both the city’s streets and air quality (RTS).

The problem is compounded by the import of used cars: in the first half of 2025 alone, over 71,000 second-hand vehicles were registered across Serbia, many of which naturally end up in the capital. This means Belgrade is becoming increasingly car-dependent, with congestion and pollution already visible in daily life.

Vienna: Same Size, Different Direction

Vienna, with a population of around 2 million, faces similar challenges of growth, density, and mobility. Like Belgrade, it sits on the Danube, has a mix of flat and hilly landscapes, and shares the scale of a mid-sized European metropolis.

However, its mobility strategy is strikingly different. Instead of encouraging car use, Vienna has spent decades building alternatives. Public transport accounts for about a third of all trips, walking for another third, and cycling is steadily growing. Cars account for only about a quarter of mobility. Key measures include:

• Affordable transit: the €365 annual pass encourages daily use.
• Bike sharing: expansion of networks and integration with public transport.
• Traffic calming: restricting cars in central areas and investing in pedestrian zones.

The result is a city that grows while keeping congestion and emissions in check.

What Belgrade Can Learn

Belgrade cannot continue expanding its car fleet unchecked. With over 700,000 cars already, traffic jams and air pollution are not future problems, instead they are today’s reality. To avoid a full mobility collapse, the city must:

• Ban registrations of technically outdated vehicles (older Euro engines already banned in the EU).
• Strategically improve public transport, both in capacity and reliability.
• Develop modern cycling infrastructure and bike-sharing programs (similar to MOL Bubi in Budapest).
• Promote car sharing and other shared mobility models.
• Restrict car entry and passage through the city center to prioritize pedestrians, cyclists, and transit.

Conclusion

Belgrade is becoming more of a “car city,” while Vienna shows that another path is possible, one that improves mobility, sustainability, and quality of life. Both cities are similar in size, geography, and importance, but their mobility choices point toward very different futures.

Belgrade’s rapid rise in car numbers (700k+) fuels congestion and pollution. Vienna takes the opposite route: fewer cars, more transit, cycling, and walking. For Belgrade, turning to alternative mobility is not optional, it’s essential.