Beyond polarisation and simplified storylines: Exploring discursive struggles over a transport infrastructure project in Vienna, Austria

Abstract

Major transportation infrastructure projects are often associated with public disputes and polarised debates. However, by using the example of a controversial infrastructure project in Vienna (the “Lobau highway”), we show that a binary “pro-versus-con” framing does not do justice to the complex realities of such debates. Based on a Q methodological analysis, we reveal four distinct perspectives, which reflect a broad spectrum of “generally pro” and “generally against” positions: (i) More roads, more traffic, (ii) Less politics, more facts, (iii) Better roads, better city, and (iv) The highway must be built. While our analysis points at unexpected overlaps between perspectives and some entry points for consensus building, it also highlights disagreement on fundamental beliefs such as the impact of roads on the environment, the phenomenon of induced traffic, or the right to drive a car. Against this background, we discuss the wider socio-political context of the analysed debate, reflect on the basic premise of consensus building, and derive policy implications.