URBAN PAPER SERIES 2013

PRIORITIZING PUBLIC TRANSIT FOR SPEED, RELIABILITY, AND RIDER SATISFACTION

TONY MAZZELLA

 2013 The German Marshall Fund of the United States. All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced or transmitted in any form or by any means without permission in writing from the German Marshall Fund of the United States (GMF). Please direct inquiries to: The German Marshall Fund of the United States 1744 R Street, NW Washington, DC 20009 T 1 202 683 2650 F 1 202 265 1662 E info@gmfus.org This publication can be downloaded for free at www.gmfus.org/publications. GMF Paper Series The GMF Paper Series presents research on a variety of transatlantic topics by staff, fellows, and partners of the German Marshall Fund of the United States. The views expressed here are those of the author and do not necessarily represent the views of GMF. Comments from readers are welcome; reply to the mailing address above or by e-mail to info@gmfus.org. About GMF The German Marshall Fund of the United States (GMF) strengthens transatlantic cooperation on regional, national, and global challenges and opportunities in the spirit of the Marshall Plan. GMF does this by supporting individuals and institutions working in the transatlantic sphere, by convening leaders and members of the policy and business communities, by contributing research and analysis on transatlantic topics, and by providing exchange opportunities to foster renewed commitment to the transatlantic relationship. In addition, GMF supports a number of initiatives to strengthen democracies. Founded in 1972 as a non-partisan, non-profit organization through a gift from Germany as a permanent memorial to Marshall Plan assistance, GMF maintains a strong presence on both sides of the Atlantic. In addition to its headquarters in Washington, DC, GMF has offices in Berlin, Paris, Brussels, Belgrade, Ankara, Bucharest, Warsaw, and Tunis. GMF also has smaller representations in Bratislava, Turin, and Stockholm. On the cover: A tram packed with commuters at peak time in Zurich.

Prioritizing Public Transit for Speed, Reliability, and Rider Satisfaction

Urban Policy Paper Series April 2013

Tony Mazzella1

Executive Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 Background . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 Munich and Zurich: A Wealth of Learning Opportunities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 Key Policy, Technical, Outreach, and Other Features of the Munich and Zurich Transit Systems . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 Immediate and Practible Steps . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .17 Conclusion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .19

Tony Mazzella is a strategic advisor for the Seattle Department of Transportation. He completed his research as an Urban and Regional Policy fellow in fall 2012.

Executive Summary

his research identifies the public transit priority features public policy and technological improvements that favor public transit over private auto traffic that are successful in Munich, Germany, and Zurich, Switzerland, and that have relevancy to improving transit performance in Seattle, Washington. Seattle is a city that has the potential to achieve a world-class transit system that is easy to navigate for riders, that offers numerous ways to reach a wide range of desired destinations, that is convenient, comfortable and safe, and that demonstrates fiscal efficiencies, and has recently taken significant steps toward reaching that goal. In fact, Seattle is now positioned to make transit investments of a magnitude not seen since the citys historic streetcar and cable network, developed originally by private firms and later purchased by the city.1

Important lessons from both cities for Seattle to adopt, expand upon, or advocate for the areas of policy, technical, and public education include:
Policy Actions

New, dedicated, and ongoing funding for public transit in Seattle in order to meet current and future demand One region-wide ticketing and fare system regardless of mode or transit provider Increased density near transit stations and key transfer points to build ridership Less required parking near major transit stations to reduce car use and create space for bicycle parking
Technical Actions

Munich and Zurich are excellent case studies for this research because while each city has a mature and highly developed public transit system, they face demands and challenges, such as the allocation of increasingly limited street space in the face of continuing competition from other travel modes, that are very similar to those in Seattle. At the same time, while Seattle has much to learn from Munich and Zurich in mobility policy and technical applications, these cities share a common goal of pursuing excellence in public transit. I based this research on interviews I conducted in both cities with transportation planners and engineers, urban planning professionals, elected officials, environmental activists and business representatives. In addition, I used each citys transit system extensively.2
1

Aggressive transit signal priority measures at intersections along the most productive transit corridors to prevent transit from getting stuck in traffic Extensive use of exclusive transit lanes to improve transit speed and reliability Real-time information, off-board payment, and level boarding at every stop
Public Education Action

Strong and ongoing public education campaign to describe the key economic, social, and environmental benefits of transit
Other Actions that Support Transit

High service frequency for all transit modes, allday/every-day and until at least midnight Absolute visibility, legibility, and accessibility throughout the system

By 1936, the Seattle Municipal Street Railway operated 410 streetcars on 26 electric routes, and three cable railways totaling 231 miles of track. Street Railways in Seattle, HistoryLink.org All opinions expressed in this paper are the authors own and should not been seen to reflect the views of the City of Seattle or the German Marshall Fund of the United States.

Prioritizing Public Transit for Speed, Reliability, and Rider Satisfaction

 Dense network and multiple transfer opportunities Highly-integrated bicycle and pedestrian facilities connected to transit All those committed to high-quality public transit and sustainable transportation solutions professionals in the field, environmentalists, citizen activists, elected officials, and business leaders face

similar challenges: fiscal constraints, limited street space in urban areas and the competitive demand of private auto use. By being a German Marshall Fund Fellow, I saw that I was part of an European and U.S. community committed to creating a more sustainable future and joined together by a common understanding of the key role transportation plays in making that vision a reality.

The German Marshall Fund of the United States

1
T

Background

he City of Seattle has embarked upon an aggressive program to develop a high-quality transit system for city residents, building upon the citys small 5.1 mile streetcar network and county and regional bus and light-rail systems. Beginning in 2005 with the first Seattle Transit Plan and culminating with the 2012 Transit Master Plan, Seattle has identified 16 priority transit corridors where ridership is currently high and expected to grow significantly over the next 20 years, particularly in the downtown commercial core and neighborhoods immediately adjacent (collectively known as Center City).

Added or early green time at signalized intersections so transit vehicles do not stop for red lights Exclusive or semi-exclusive transit lanes to improve transit speed and reliability High service frequencies to reduce the need for a schedule Easy to understand network, ticketing, and fare systems Real-time information on vehicle arrival to reduce rider uncertainty and facilitate smooth transfers Paying before boarding to speed up getting on the vehicle Level boarding at all stations and stops to speed up boarding and alighting and improve rider comfort Highly visible and comfortable transit facilities Traffic and parking controls to reduce interference from private autos High-quality pedestrian and bicycle facilities to get people to transit More broadly, the TMP outlines a clear and unambiguous policy direction that elevates public transit to the top tier and relegates private auto use to a significantly lower level of importance. As the project manager for the Transit Master Plan and current manager of a follow-up project to examine the benefits and challenges of building a new streetcar line in the Center City, I was uniquely positioned to help advance transit planning and project implementation. It was also my belief that Seattle was poised to make a milestone investment in transit comparable to the historic streetcar network developed in the early part of 20th century,

Without high capacity and better performing transit services, Seattles future economic growth and social livability will be severely compromised.

Today, Center City has 230,000 jobs and 50,000 residents, but is expected to grow to 360,000 jobs and 80,000 residents by 2030.3 Especially during peak hours, moving these added residents and employees with the existing transportation infrastructure would be physically, fiscally, and environmentally challenging.4 Without higher-capacity and better performing transit services, Seattles future economic growth and social livability will be severely compromised. The City Council unanimously adopted the Seattle Transit Master Plan (TMP) in April 2012. Of the 16 priority transit corridors identified in the TMP, four will warrant surface rail (i.e. streetcar) or bus rapid transit (BRT). The remaining 12 corridors will continue to operate as bus routes with greater transit priority measures and infrastructure to improve speed, reliability, and general rider comfort and convenience. Transit priority measures, defined broadly for this research, are applicable to both rail and bus technologies, and include a wide range of technical and infrastructure improvements such as:

City of Seattle, Department of Transportation, Transit Master Plan, How Transit Benefits Seattle (insert), p.1. Ibid, p.1.

Prioritizing Public Transit for Speed, Reliability, and Rider Satisfaction

Seattle will need to employ an aggressive suite of transit priority measures along with the policy and political backing necessary to help win public acceptance.

its decision to fund a county-wide bus system in 1972, and voter approval to join a four-county consortium to build a regional light rail system in 1996.

Seattle Center City neighborhood

However, for Seattle to develop a truly world-class transit system it must combine new initiatives and strategies with greater intensity in pursuing ongoing transportation improvements. Recent events have affirmed this belief. In the 2013-15 city budget passed shortly after I returned from my travel fellowship, the Seattle City Council included $9 million for capital investments in the bus network and extensive planning and design work for all four high capacity transit corridors identified in the TMP. Since it is very costly to build streetcar and BRT lines and recent federal reforms to its transit funding programs are more supportive of in-city investments, Seattle will be competing in the future for federal funds to help plan and build these streetcar and BRT lines. To achieve these investments and to make these investments result in transit service that is fast and reliable, Seattle will need to employ an aggressive suite of transit priority measures along with the policy and political backing necessary to help win public acceptance.

Therefore, it was a highly opportune time to investigate how two European cities similar to Seattle in their commitment to public transit Munich, Germany, and Zurich, Switzerland have developed public transit systems that have become the envy of much of the world. The excellence of these transit systems is regularly mentioned in the professional literature, and few cities have done more to connect public transit with sustainable urban growth.5 My research objectives were to learn how Munich and Zurich implemented comprehensive transit priority on the policy, community, and technical
5

For example, in 2010, a study carried out by the University of Stuttgart concluded that Munich had the best public transit system of the 23 European cities ranked for travel times, opportunities to make connections, customer information, and ticket prices.

The German Marshall Fund of the United States

The momentum for greater transit investment has continued to build in recent years, and what Seattle has already accomplished in making transit more productive, efficient, and effective has been impressive. In 2006, Seattle voters approved a transportation levy that included several million dollars for roadway projects to improve bus performance. In 2007, Seattle opened its first modern streetcar line in the fast-growing Center City neighborhood of South Lake Union, and in 2011, the city began construction of a second streetcar line to connect several Center City neighborhoods. The total construction cost for these streetcar lines is almost $200 million.

levels and what lessons could be brought back to Seattle at this critical juncture in Seattles maturation as a transit provider and regional leader.

Prioritizing Public Transit for Speed, Reliability, and Rider Satisfaction

2
M
The integration of all modes and all providers helps make the rider experience a seamless transition from ticket purchase, to mode of choice, to provider, to transfer, and to final destination.

Munich and Zurich: A Wealth of Learning Opportunities

in traffic congestion occurred during the early post-war era. In the 1970s, this direction shifted as citizens took to the streets to call for local solutions to national problems such as nuclear power proliferation, environmental threats, and urban gridlock. Soon, new leaders emerged that saw the value of alternatives to a growth model largely dependent upon the private automobile for most city trips. Munich began to reinvest in public transit with the opening of the subway, or U-Bahn, in 1971 and commuter/inter-city rail, or S-Bahn, in 1972 and in time for the summer Olympic Games. These new modes provided the city with a four-level transit system: suburban rail, subway, surface streetcar, and bus.8 Buses, trams, and the subway are operated by the municipal transit agency, Mnchner Verkehrsgesellschaft (MVG); the S-Bahn is operated by a subsidiary of the German national railway. Both agencies are integrated into the Munich Transport and Tariff Agency, MVV, which is a supra-regional public transit organization and authority and oversees most funding outside of fare collections, establishes fares and ticketing policies, develops common marketing strategies, and ensures quality performance for over 50 transit providers and operators within the regions (Ein ticket fur alles one ticket for everything). The idea is one network, one timetable, and one ticket.9 The integration of all modes and all providers helps make the rider experience a seamless transition from ticket purchase, to mode of choice, to provider, to transfer, and to final destination. Regardless of the mode, the performance of the system is superb. MVG, and its parent company, the City of Munich Public Works, work together to provide complete mobility services. Aspects such as high frequencies, reliable travel times, real-time
According to the Munich transit agency (MVG) publication, Right at the heart, in 2010, the system consisted of 100 trams, 11 lines, 75 km, 6 subway lines of 93 km and 457 km of bus routes. 9 Munich, International, Sustainable, United in Solidarity, City of Munich publication, 2011, p. 61.
8

y research method consisted of three phases. First, I read extensively in the English-language professional literature that dealt with both cities. Fortunately, many of the transportation and transit leaders in Munich and Zurich have published extensively and their articles and presentations were easily accessible. Second, I arranged to meet with many of these individuals during my time in each city, a task more easily accomplished by their fluency in English, extreme cooperativeness, and the assistance of several key individuals in opening doors.6 Third, I used the Munich and Zurich transit systems in a planned and strategic manner and experienced first-hand their benefits and key challenges. The following section briefly describes the characteristics of each city that that make them excellent case studies for my research. I then describe and analyze the primary reasons for their successes. I end by presenting important lessons learned in Munich and Zurich that could be applied in Seattle. Munich Munich is a city of 1.4 million residents and is the capital of the state of Bavaria in southern Germany. It is fast-growing (it had 85,000 new residents in 2011) and is a center for culture and commerce. Heavily damaged during World War II, the city was rebuilt largely along the architectural lines of what had existed before the Allied air bombing. While Munich has enjoyed an extensive streetcar (or tram) system since the late 19th century (on October 21, 1846, the first horse-drawn tram set out on its maiden voyage7), extensive roadway expansion, suburban development, and growth
Andrew Nash (Vienna, Austria, (andynash.com) and Jarrett Walker (Portland, Oregon, USA http://www.humantransit. org), transit consultants, and Darby Watson, now with Arup Consulting (San Francisco, California, USA), deserve special recognition for helping me establish initial contacts in Munich and Zurich. 7 Right in the heart, publication of the Mnchner Verkehrgesellschaft (MVG), p. 8.
6

The German Marshall Fund of the United States

Munich: percent all trips:1

2005 Walking Biking Transit Private Auto
1

2011 25.5 14.7 28.8 31.0

24.9 11.0 26.5 37.6

Sustainable Mobility for Munich: Sustainability Report 2010 of MVG, p. 13. Interview with Florian Paul, Bike & Ride Facilities and Mobility Manager, MVG, September 26, 2012. In 2010, 500 M passenger trips were taken on bus, tram and underground.

referendum to build an underground rail, first proposed in 1962 as a way to bury the tram system, and later described as a new subway system. Both referenda were defeated and were followed by citizens initiatives to fund an expansion and enhancement to the tram system (1977), and, in a later vote (1981), to develop an inter-city suburban rail network (S-Bahn).12 Both efforts passed with large majorities. One of the most interesting aspects of this reversal of transportation policy and choice of investment was the belief among many Zurichers that burying public transit would provide more incentive for cars to dominate the above-ground urban space, which would result in a degraded urban environment and increased air pollution. In addition, the people of Zurich have a deep affinity with their tram system, and they did not wish to travel underground to use transit nor have their trams lose the competition for precious surface street space.13 Somewhat ironically considering past citizen rejection of an underground system, todays S-Bahn has been expanded to include underground in-city stations, thereby creating a modest subway system that is effective for longer trips within the city and that complements the dense tram and bus network operating on the surface. As in Munich, Zurich has a high quality transit system and benefits from having an overarching agency that controls much of the funding, monitors system performance, and manages fares, ticketing, and marketing. In the Canton of Zurich,14 this agency is the Zurich Transport Agency (Zurcher

The people of Zurich have a deep affinity with their tram system.

information at stops and on board vehicles, extensive networks of bike lanes, and ample bike parking at stations all work together to help make transit the first choice for in-city travel. Munichs current mode-share numbers and continuing progress to shift trips away from private auto travel bear this out. Zurich Zurich is the largest city in Switzerland and the commercial and economic center of the country. Between 1990 and 2010, the city added 14,000 new housing units and 20,000 inhabitants.10 Half of Switzerlands 7.5 million inhabitants live in the greater Zurich area. Its population of 390,000 is prosperous and enjoys a high quality of life.11 Physically untouched by World War II, its post-war development was nevertheless similar to Munichs with a growing auto dependency, widespread suburbanization, and traffic gridlock. Similar to Munich though more direct and grassroots in nature, outcry from the local citizenry altered the direction of the citys transportation policy. In 1973, faced with increasing surface traffic congestion, Zurich voters were presented with a
10

12 13

Zurich Sustainability in Urban Planning, presentation by Peter Noser, Vice Director, Office for Urbanism, Zurich, slide 8. Also, Interview with Mr. Noser, October 11, 2012. Mercers Quality of Living Survey (2000 2010) Mercer LLC.

Personal communication by Andy Nash. Who Needs Cars, John Dyson, Readers Digest, p. 3. Also, interview with Ruedi Ott, former Chief, Traffic Planning, City of Zurich, October 4, 2012. By statute and administration, a canton is most similar to a state in the United States.

14

11

Prioritizing Public Transit for Speed, Reliability, and Rider Satisfaction

Verkehrsbund) or ZVV.15 The citys own transit agency, Verkehrsbetriebe Zrich (VBZ) is wholly owned by the city and integrated into ZVV. And, as in Munich, the mode-share numbers tell a convincing story testifying to the systems great success.16
15

Zurich: percent all trips1

2005 Walking Biking Transit Private Auto 24.5 3.5 32.0 40.0 2011 26.0 4.0 34.0 36.0

Like Munichs MVV, the ZVV is a regional authority responsible for an integrated fare structure, scheduling, ticketing systems, and partial funding of individual transit agencies. One telling difference between the two cities is the bicycle mode share. Munich enjoys a much higher bicycle ridership for several reasons: more kilometers of separated and continuous facilities, flatter topography, and a long-standing bicycling culture.

16

1 Ten Years of Zurich Mobility Strategy Lessons Learned and Outlook (paper), Martin Buck SNZ Engineering & Consulting, Zurich, Switzerland and Yvonne Meier-Bukowiecki, Mobility & Planning, Department of Infrastructure and Transport, Zurich, Switzerland, 2011, p. 3.

The German Marshall Fund of the United States

3
I

Key Policy, Technical, Outreach, and Other Features of the Munich and Zurich Transit Systems
In 2012, the citys message was that it will be compact, urban, and green.18 When used together, these three words strongly convey Munichs commitment to increase density and mixed-use development, develop accessible parks and open space, and give highest priority to the most environmentally favorable forms of transportation, specifically public transit, walking, and biking.19 In addition to its internal messaging, Munichs best and brightest transportation professionals frequently present at conferences abroad to describe and discuss the citys ongoing attempts to maintain Munichs position as Germanys leader in sustainable development and environmentally friendly growth management.20 Such efforts strengthen the citys sustainable mobility message by echoing it on a world stage. Zurich, too, has solidly anchored its actions in the area of public transit with clear and strongly worded policy language. The defeat at the polls of a 1973 government initiative to build a subway system led to a recommitment to the surface tram network through a 1977 initiative for transit priority21 and an urban transportation policy that emphasized restrictions on private vehicle use. This greater emphasis on public transit included new legislative action. The 1988 Zurich Cantonal Public Transport Act, for example, requires the
18

Policy Actions: Unambiguous policy direction that has established public transit as integral to and essential for managing growth in a sustainable manner

n transportation as well as all matters of governmental action, policy defines vision, establishes goals and objectives, determines strategies, and influences selection of the investments required for policy implementation. Policy also represents the decision framework established by elected representatives that reflects public aspirations and guides governmental actions. Both Munich and Zurich have firmly established public policy foundations to outline sustainable transportation initiatives and provide the overall context for specific strategies and projects. These policies were finely honed through years of public discussion and vetting and represent a consensus among wide-ranging interest groups. Munichs urban development plans, beginning in 1963 and continuing to the 1998 PERSPECTIVE MUNICH document, have stressed the importance of a transportation system that benefits all road users. PERSPECTIVE MUNICH was updated in 2005 and, in that same year, the city issued a Transport Development Plan. Both documents outlined guiding principles to manage new population and employment growth mainly through extension of public transit and non-motorized transportation, reduction of private auto traffic, management of freight traffic away from the inner city, and a general movement toward environmentally friendly forms of transportation.17 These principles were meant to provide a long-term framework for development of the city.

The transportation policies of both Zurich and Munich were finely honed through years of public discussion and vetting and represent a consensus among wideranging interest groups.

Ibid, Principle 5, To create future-oriented settlement structures through qualified internal development compact urban green.

17

Shaping the future of Munich, PERSPECTIVE MUNICH, Strategies, Principles, Projects (2005), pp. 58-61, City of Munich, Department of Urban Planning and Building Regulation.

Interviews with Geog-Friedrich Koppen, deputy director, City of Munich Department of Urban Planning, Division of Traffic Planning and Gerhard Gross, Division of Land Planning and Building Regulation, October 1, 2012. 20 Interview with Gunnar Heipp, Director of Strategic Planning and International Relations, MVG, October 2, 2012. See also, G. Heipp, Sustainable Planning for and with Munichs Public Transportation, Power Point presentation, available at http:// www.apta.com/mc/sustainability/previous/2009/Documents/ Sustainable-Planning-for-and-with-Munichs-Public-Transportation.pdf. 21 Andrew Nash, Implementing Zurichs Transit Priority System, TRB 2003 Annual Meeting, p. 4.
19

Prioritizing Public Transit for Speed, Reliability, and Rider Satisfaction

To make public transit truly competitive with private auto use requires a commitment to provide the transit rider with a convenient, comfortable, and safe experience to elevate transit as a better choice for most trips.

provision of good public transport services for all continuous built-up areas with at least 300 inhabitants, jobs, or trainees/students.22 Good is defined as a bus or tram stop within 400 meters or a train stop within 750 meters, with at least one service per hour but usually every half hour, all day and every day until midnight. This standard applies to the entire Zurich Canton, even in mountain areas. In the city of Zurich, tram frequencies are every 7.5 minutes and the walking distance to stops is typically less than 300 meters.23 Service operates 24 hours a day. More recently in 2001, the city government of Zurich enacted a Mobility Strategy stating that according to the Zurich City Council, all actions are to be aligned within the framework of sustainability, and the impacts of mobility should be considered holistically for the respective three dimensions (society, economy, and environment). Future mobility demands must be satisfied in a way that is environmentally friendly and compatible with the goals of a livable and prosperous city.24 Through the first decade of the 21st century, Zurich continued in this direction in transportation and environmental policy, culminating in 2008 as Zurich voters voted overwhelmingly (76 percent) in favor of an addition to the city constitution that committed the city to achieve a 1 ton CO2 per capita consumption level by 2050. This ambitious target will require an aggressive public transit agenda.
A Rider-First Policy

choice for most trips. This can only be achieved when the transit provider views the system from the perspective of the actual user who wants a system that is easy to understand or effective in connecting them to a wide range of destinations. I call such a system rider-first or rider-friendly. All major components of the system frequency, reliability, comfort, safety, mobility, etc. should meet this fundamental performance standard. Both Munich and Zurich transit systems are coordinated by overarching agencies responsible for fares, schedules, ticketing practices, and marketing within their respective metropolitan areas. The Munich Transit Corporation, or MVG, enjoys a close partnership with its coordinating agency, Munich Verkehrs und Trarifverbund (MVV). Others partners in the MVV include the regional rail system (S-Bahn) and many private bus companies who also deliver services in the metropolitan area. In the Zurich Canton, the Zurich transit agency, VBZ, is one of the 42 partners of the regional coordinating agency, Zuricher Verkehrsverbund (ZVV). These partnerships enable metropolitan-area service integration and coordination that provides a one-ticket-for all (ein ticket fur alles) approach. In practice, this allows a rider to purchase one ticket for all transit modes (bus, tram, subway, commuter rail, and, in Zurich, ferry). As Munichs Geog-Friedrich Koppen, Deputy Head of Transport Planning explained: Thanks to the Munich Transport and Tariff Union, one fare system applies to all of Munichs public transport. MVV is a transport network. There is only one timetable; one ticket will allow you to travel on the entire transport network, and you pay based on the same fare system no matter where you go, regardless of how many transport operators shuttle you around.25
25

To make public transit truly competitive with private auto use requires a commitment to provide the transit rider with a convenient, comfortable, and safe experience to elevate transit as a better
22

Ruedi Ott, (past) Head of Transport Planning, City of Zurich, Strategies for a successful urban transport delivery system: Zurichs Transport Policy (paper), p. 3. Ibid, p. 3. Buck and Meier-Bukowiecki, p.5.

23 24

Georg-Friedrich Koppen, Regional Cooperation to solve mobility problems in the Munich Region, presentation, 2012, and personal discussion.

10

The German Marshall Fund of the United States

Munich Verkehrs und Trarifverbund (MVV) ticket machine

dense transit networks in both cities, which create many transfer opportunities and travel route alternatives; and schedule integration and synchronization of surface, underground, inner-city and regional systems that offer the riding public convenient and reliable transfer opportunities.26 As Thomas Werner of the MVG explained, We look for any obstacle that might discourage someone from taking public transit and we seek to remove and reduce their effects.27
Fiscal Policy

In 2008, transportation accounted for about 14 percent of household expenditures [in Germany] compared to 19 percent in the United States.

Other rider-first elements include: high service frequencies for example, Zurich trams run every 7.5 minutes every day until midnight; in Munich, trams come every 3 minutes during peak hours and a subway is usually no more than 10 minutes away; real-time arrival information at almost all tram stops and on board each bus and tram, including video displays of upcoming stops, voice announcements, and real-time disruption information for passengers; ample bicycle parking at main stations to connect to each citys bike network and to integrate with other transit modes; required fare payment before boarding to speed boarding and alighting, low-floor vehicles with ramps and lifts to make it easier for the mobility-impaired;

National funding policy is the first place to look when evaluating the priority a nation places upon public transit within the whole transportation system. The overall cost of owning and operating a similar car is about 50 percent higher in the Germany than in the United States. Much higher taxes and fees account for most this difference. Higher sales and gasoline taxes, higher registration fees, and the high cost of obtaining a drivers license in Germany are all used to curb auto use and encourage taking transit, reduce pollution, and promote walking and biking.28 For example, in early 2011, a gallon of regular gasoline cost over US$7, more than double the average price in the United States. However, this significant difference in fuel taxes has not translated into higher household expenditures for transportation. In 2008, transportation accounted for about 14 percent of household expenditures compared to 19 percent in the United States.29
26

Peter Noser, Vice Director Zurich Office for Urbanism, Planning and Public Transportation in Zurich, presented at 2011 NTNU Conference, Trondheim Byomforming, slide 22.

Interview with Thomas Werner, Project Manager, Infrastructure Bus Strategy and Planning, MVG, October 2, 2012. 28 Ralph Buehler and Uwe Kunert, Making Transportation Sustainable: Insights from Germany, Metropolitan Policy Program at Brookings Institution, April 2009, p. 12.
27 29

Ibid, p. 8.

Prioritizing Public Transit for Speed, Reliability, and Rider Satisfaction

11

To receive funding assistance, individual transit agencies must demonstrate their capacity to meet performance metrics (ridership, reliability, cost-effectiveness) and MVV and ZVV hold them to those standards.

Higher fuel taxes are also an incentive to purchase more fuel efficient and less polluting cars. On average, cars used by Americans in 2005 were less fuel efficient than cars driven by Germans in 1980. The gap between German and U.S. fuel taxes has increased over time.30 The higher cost of car use in Germany provides funding for both highways and public transit. The German federal government provides dedicated matching funds for local transit, bicycle, and pedestrian projects, and German states distribute federal funds for regional rails systems and programs that coordinate transit services.31 At the local and regional levels, voters also play a critical role in setting fiscal priorities by allocating public funds to transit services and facilities. The Swiss public has consistently supported funding for public transit at the city, canton, and national levels. For example, in 2003, they approved an expensive project to build a new underground rail line between the main rail station and a large outlying station, a project that will be completed between 2013 and 2015.32 In addition, private citizen groups such as Pro-Bahn (For Rail) played a leading role in the important discussions surrounding the great transit debates of the 1970s and 1980s and advocate for ongoing and significant investment in public transit (especially rail transit) and for its continuing affordability for all citizens.33 A common challenge all public transit operators face is how to deliver high-quality service with as limited reliance as possible on public subsidies and by demonstrating highly efficient use of the transit facilities, vehicles, and labor force. Both MVV and ZVV are able to ensure performance accountability
30 31 32

Munich tram running in exclusive transit lane

from their transit agency partners (such as MVG and VBZ) through their role as the fiscal conduits for national and regional taxes revenues that support system expansion and agency operations and maintenance. To receive funding assistance, individual transit agencies must demonstrate their capacity to meet performance metrics (ridership, reliability, cost-effectiveness), and MVV and ZVV hold them to those standards. MVG and VBZ are also themselves exceedingly fiscally efficient. For example, MVG fares and fees for service outside the municipal area account for over 75 percent of operating expenses34 (compared to the typical U.S. transit agency where fares typically cover no more than 35 percent of operating expenses). Tram and bus priority measures in the MVG network have led to increased ridership, improved punctuality, shorter travel times, and a lower number of vehicles needed on those routes. New underground trains in Munich consume 60 percent less energy than the trains introduced into service in the 1970s.35

Ibid, p. 15.

Ibid, p. 13. From Railway Technology web site, Zurich Tramway Developments, Switzerland, author unknown, p.3. Interview with Marcel Burlet, Paul Schlaepfer and Christian Porcenta, of Pro-Bahn, October 10, 2012.

33

MVG publication, Sustainable Mobility for Munich, 2010, p. 14. 35 MVG publication, Right at the heart, 2010, pp. 30-31.
34

12

The German Marshall Fund of the United States

Technical Actions: Transit priority measures that take space and time from the private auto In both Munich and Zurich trams and priority bus lines (known as Metro-Bus) operate in exclusive center lanes (not open to private vehicular traffic) except on very constrained streets or where mixing in traffic would not cause unacceptable delays to transit. Further, trams and high ridership buses in both cities receive extra or early green time from traffic signals as they approach a signalized intersection, thereby reducing delay to the transit vehicle and maintaining reliability. Even where trams and other vehicular traffic shares lanes, special signals stop vehicle traffic if riders must cross a lane of traffic to board or get off the tram car. Since the 1980s, Zurich has used a highly sophisticated and innovative traffic signal priority system to provide an early green or extension of green time as trams or priority buses approach a traffic signal. A transit vehicle sends a request to the traffic signal controller for priority treatment as it approaches each intersection (sensors embedded within roadways 300 and 100 meters before the intersection identify exact vehicle location), and a central command system determines the best combination of signal phases and timing to allow the vehicle to receive a green light exactly when it needs it. Green time is not wasted and people or transit are always moving through the intersection. Roadways sensors just beyond the intersection (check-out) tell the controller exactly when to return to normal operation. Other types of signal priority treatments that are in place in Zurich and Munich include the Queue Jump, which allows a transit vehicle to go first into the next segment of the roadway or go first into a shared lane segment. Detection information is also passed to adjacent intersections so that more strategic decisions are made for the whole transportation network. Metering (the management of traffic volumes through traffic signals) is also used

to keep public transport routes free of congestion. Researchers have claimed that Zurich has zero waiting time for public transport at about 90 percent of signalized intersections.36 In Munich, priority for transit vehicles at signalized intersections is achieved using similar technologies. Travel time savings for transit of 14 percent are standard on prioritized routes as compared to those that are not prioritized. In addition, tram speeds on prioritized routes in Munich average about 20 km/hr and bus speeds average about 18.2 km/hr. By international standards, these speeds are considered to be excellent and make transit a much more attractive transportation option.37 Prioritized routes have increased in ridership between 7 and 26 percent.38 Creating a Constituency for Transit Priority: Creative public outreach campaigns Strong public support is essential for all measures that encourage transit use and reduce auto trips. While both Munich and Zurich have long histories of reliance on quality public transit, these cities continue to work hard to maintain and enhance community acceptance for transit investments. Zurichs experience is somewhat unique in that the public led the effort during the 1970s to reject the governments proposal to build a U-Bahn system but supported the expansion of the tram system. However, it is not guaranteed that public support will be maintained unless agencies make smart decisions about the delivery of transit services. For example, Zurich conducted a test study on one tram line to determine how transit priority measures would improve speed, reliability, and travel times.39 The benefits of transit priority were widely shared
Peter G. Firth, Public Transport Priority for Brussels: Lessons from Zurich, Eindhoven, and Dublin, Report, July 19, 2005, p.1. 37 Sustainable Mobility for Munich, Sustainability Report of Mnchner Verkehrgesellschaft mbH, p.17.
36 38 39

Researchers have claimed that Zurich has zero waiting time for public transport at about 90 percent of signalized intersections.

Ibid, p. 17. Nash, Implementing Zurichs Transit Priority Program, p. 4.

Prioritizing Public Transit for Speed, Reliability, and Rider Satisfaction

13

and discussed with the public prior to their wider application. This dialogue allowed the public to better understand the trade-offs necessary (e.g. parking removal) to make transit better.

Zurich transit promotion

It is not guaranteed that public support will be maintained unless agencies make smart decisions about the delivery of transit services.

Zurich has also heavily invested into its transit priority program (signal priority, exclusive lanes) in order to reach very high levels of efficiency and effectiveness through the creative use of technology and traffic control. For example, sophisticated traffic management meters traffic entering the city so as to always operate slightly below capacity; and the signal system itself does not waste green time for transit. It provides only the green time needed for transit to cross the intersection. General traffic does not see a significant impact and many drivers do not even realize that transit vehicles have priority. In addition, Zurich publicizes and promotes the ease and benefits of taking transit and other elements of sustainable transportation through eye-catching and provocative public information campaigns that employ humor and style. In Munich, officials begin building and maintaining public support for transit and other modes of sustainable transportation by mailing a welcome package to every new household. Known as Meine Neue Stadt (My New City), this handsomelybound, 70-page booklet provides an introduction to Munichs sustainability culture with descriptions of the public transit system and how to use it to get to local and regional destinations and attractions. It also includes sections on bike-sharing and car-sharing, frequently asked questions, and contact information for further assistance. In 2011, over 50,000 households received this booklet.40 Munich also takes a proactive and long-term view of sustainable transportation engagement. MVG sponsors a program to give schoolchildren the skills needed to use public transit on their own. Known
40

as Mobi-Race, the program lasts three days and involves classroom instruction about public transit, the environment, noise, and land consumption. On the final day, the children explore the city in small groups by bus, tram, and subway and participate in a treasure-hunt rally to answer quiz questions and perform tasks. Since 2005, almost 5,000 4th and 5th graders have taken part in this program.41 Other Policy Actions in Support of Transit: Wide range of complementary programs that support public transit and reduce auto trips
Parking Management

As in a growing number of European cities, over the past several decades, Zurich and Munich began to view congestion and the impacts of long-term parking as detrimental to the citys quality of life. They have adopted parking policies to reduce auto trips and to reclaim scarce public space for transit lanes, bicycle facilities, and pedestrian plazas. Munich has removed on-street parking wherever it was seen as impeding tram and priority bus movement. To manage parking demand for those who need to drive and wish to take transit, the city has provided over 120 parking garages at rail stations outside of the Middle Ring Road. Users pay
41

Interview with Sabine Nallinger, MVG, September 26, 2012.

Munich, International Sustainable United in Solidarity, City of Munich publication (2011), p. 61.

14

The German Marshall Fund of the United States

according to distance of the garage from the inner city the closer the garage, the greater the cost to park. For example, the nine lots closest to the city charge 1.50 per day; those furthest away and adjacent to commuter rail and subway lines are free. On an average work day in 2006, 26,100 vehicles were parked at the suburban Park and Ride lots.42 A more complex and challenging issue was balancing residential, visitor, and commercial parking. In 1995, the City of Munich and BMW began a joint effort known as the Inzell Initiative to find that right balance. As a result, all Munich neighborhoods today have parking regulations in place that guarantee residents and neighborhood businesses on-street spaces for a relatively small fee and charge visitors by the hour or day.43 These actions have removed incentives for driving into the city center (e.g. free parking) and yet have allowed driving and taking transit to work together for longer trips. The overwhelming majority of parking spaces in Zurich are privately owned (220,000 out of a total of 270,000).44 In addition to the parking controls measures that exist in Munich, Zurichs Historischer Parkplatz Kompromiss, or Historic Parking Compromise of 1996, put a cap on the inner-city parking supply. Every private parking space created must be off-set by the removal of an on-street space. Outside the city center, new developments can include parking, but locations with good access to public transit have lower parking minimums and must also comply with reductions in parking maximums.45

Non-Motorized Travel Modes

In Munich, bicycling captures a high percentage of all trips due to factors that include a long-standing bicycling culture, favorable (flat) topography, an extensive network of bicycle lanes (1,200 km), and a large number of bike racks (22,000 in downtown) and parking spaces (25,000 Bike & Ride facilities in the metropolitan region). Munich is also in the process of removing on-street parking spaces to create additional bike parking at transit stations due to increasing demand.46 In October 2012, the Zurich City Council directed its traffic and transit departments to take additional steps to increase bicycle mode-share by building more bicycle lanes and bicycle parking facilities such as secure and structured parking. Currently, secure bike parking spaces exist at the citys main train station and the waiting list for spaces is growing. The use of electric bikes is on the rise since it is an excellent way of overcoming the citys hilly terrain and to encourage the elderly to ride. In 2011, 6,000 electric bikes were sold in Zurich, and planners anticipate that 30 percent of all bikes in the city will be electric by 2030.47 Both cities also coordinate extensive and highly successful bike-sharing programs, which planners anticipate will continue to grow in membership over the coming years.
Land Use

Density of land use is the single best predictor of transit ridership.

42

Michael Kodransky and Gabrielle Hermann, Europes Parking U-Turn: From Accommodation to Regulation, Institution for Transportation and Development Policy, Spring, 2011, p.51. Ibid, p.50. Ibid, p.68. Ibid, p.69.

Density of land use is the single best predictor of transit ridership. Both Zurich and Munich are dense cities when compared to Seattle. Zurich has a residential density of 4,200 inhabitants/km2; Munichs is 4,574/km2. Comparatively, Seattle is only 2,664/ km2. Most of the buildings in each of the European cities are five to seven stories in height.
46 47

43 44 45

Interview with Florian Paul, MVG, September 26, 2012. Interview with Dave Durner, Pro-Velo, October 9, 2012.

Prioritizing Public Transit for Speed, Reliability, and Rider Satisfaction

15

However, Munich and Zurich are attempting to increase residential densities further to meet expected growth in employment and residential populations. This will principally be achieved by allowing mid- and high-rise buildings on vacant land. In Zurich, planners are pursuing this strategy in former industrial areas such as Zurich West. In Munich, planners are concentrating on corridors running alongside decommissioned military installations. In addition, Munichs Department of Urban Planning is working neighborhood by neighborhood to re-zone low-density garden communities to accept higher densities in return for public benefits such as new parks, schools and other amenities.48 In newly developing areas, both cities are building new tram and bus lines to channel and shape growth. Ridership projections are often exceeded as buildings fill up with residents and workers. In this sense, Zurich West is symbolic as a formerly industrial area undergoing a rapid conversion to commercial and residential uses, and is now served by enhanced tram service. Munichs new tram #23 is an example of a transit service so productive that peak hour headways will soon be increased to 2-3 minutes to meet growing demand and capacity requirements.49
Traffic Calming and Placemaking

traffic calming methods, including lowering speed limits, implementing street design treatments that narrow the roadway, and closing streets to private auto traffic.50 The Tempo 30 program has been implemented throughout Europe as a key traffic calming initiative. This includes Munich and Zurich, and most neighborhoods in both cities have speed limits of 30 km (19 miles) per hour that are enforced through a combination of signs and standard pavement markings, particularly at the entrances to neighborhood and school zones. These steps have helped create an environmentally friendly and publically accepted culture of walking, cycling, and transit use.51 Urban intersections where arterial and neighborhood commercial streets meet are often the most challenging environments for traffic calming. At the same time, they are the most fruitful spaces to retrofit since new and inviting pedestrian plaza areas can be created. The reconstruction of Zurichs Schaffauserplatz is one outstanding example of this type of project. Zurich planners employed a wide range of techniques to calm traffic in this area and relocated transit stops for greater rider convenience; improved cycle connections through the plaza; widened sidewalks; installed sidewalks, benches, and art work; and planted tress to beautify the area.52

To enhance safety, encourage transit use, and help create more livable urban public spaces, Munich and Zurich have employed a variety of
48

50

Interview with Gerhard Gross, Munich Department of Urban Development and Planning, October 1, 2012. Heipp interview.

Andrew Nash, Swiss Institute of Technology, Traffic Calming in Three European Cities: Recent Experience, 2003, p. 1. Ibid, p. 5. Personal site visit, October 5, 2012.

51 52

49

16

The German Marshall Fund of the United States

4
T

Immediate and Practible Steps

he primary purpose of my fellowship was to learn from Munich and Zurich how to strengthen the policy foundation, improve public education strategies, and enhance the operational characteristics of public transit in Seattle. What follows is a series of actions drawn from my fellowship experience that, if implemented, could increase ridership and public acceptance of public transit. Beginning implementation of these actions should occur simultaneously, though I recognize that the public education and technical and investment actions will likely move at a faster pace than policy actions that require multi-agency agreement and coordination. Public Education

Undertake a creative, comprehensive, and ongoing public education campaign to communicate the critical importance of public transit in promoting sustainable growth.

within a constrained right-of-way.54 Transit should be identified as the most effective and efficient mobility choice for a growing Seattle. Leaders should echo those messages in written newspaper articles, on-line postings, briefings of city opinion-makers, television and radio interviews, and through social media. Every two years, the city should host an all-day conference for citizen leaders, transportation, and related professionals and the general public on its sustainability accomplishments and current and future challenges. Public transit should be a key conference topic. Something along the lines of Munichs My new city should also be distributed widely to current and new residents alike with particular focus on those for whom English is not their native language. Policy
Work with partner transit agencies to develop a suite of rider-focused features and tools that enhance ease and use of public transit.

City officials should be tireless advocates for increased and permanently dedicated funds for transit and for transit investments.

City officials should be tireless advocates for increased and permanently dedicated funds for transit and for transit investments. Where possible, city advocacy efforts should include additional funding for all city transit partners at the regional level. As this policy brief was being written, Seattle-area elected officials, facing major revenue shortfalls, petitioned the state legislature for authorization to raise taxes for local and regional transportation.53 The Seattle transportation departments senior management, in conjunction with city elected officials, should be regular speakers before policy, business, and citizens groups and deliver strong and compelling speeches on the difficult choices that must be made in order to make public transit perform in a fast, reliable, and convenient manner

While the Sound Transit issued-ORCA card allows riders to travel on all of the Seattle - Puget Sound transit systems, fare structures and ticketing systems are not integrated among all providers.55 In addition, off-board payment, real-time information technologies, and all-door boarding are limited throughout the region and network maps lack clarity. Creating a regional transit coordinating agency such as ZVV or MVV is highly unlikely given the particular histories of these agencies, their different governing structures and accountabilities, and the political interest in maintaining the status quo. However, a regional integrating body that rational54

Ideally, this campaign should be carried out in partnership with other transit providers such as county bus agencies and the regional light-rail and commuter-rail agency. Sound Transit is the Puget Sound regional provider of light rail, commuter rail, and express bus service. The ORCA features are described here: http://www.orcacard.com/ERG-Seattle/ p3_001.do

55 53

Seattle Mayor, King County Executive Seek 8-cent Gas Tax Hike, Seattle Times (Mike Lindblom), December 21, 2012.

Prioritizing Public Transit for Speed, Reliability, and Rider Satisfaction

17

Seattle must build upon its past achievements in the areas of parking management, pedestrian/bicycle, facility construction, and zoning changes that increase density.

izes service integration and radically simplifies the rider experience could be beneficial to the transit system and user experience. Therefore, the leadership of the Seattle-Puget Sound transit agencies and the elected officials to whom they report has a responsibility to seriously examine the ingredients that make using their various transit systems confusing and inefficient for the rider, and work to eliminate or reduce these obstacles. One area partner that might support such an examination is the Puget Sound Regional Council (PSRC), the municipal planning organization for the region. PSRC has regional and national legitimacy as a planning and integrating agency, though its actual authority is mainly limited to conducting planning studies, enforcing compliance with features of the State Growth Management Act, and awarding federal transportation and community development grants. However, in its planning role, PSRC might serve as a neutral investigator of the organizational barriers that inhibit transit use and suggest solutions. Technical Actions
Utilize current and upcoming transit studies to analyze the benefits and challenges of aggressive transit priority measures that use transit performance, pedestrian/bicycle safety, and freight operations as the key evaluation criteria.

Degree of improvement to transit speed and reliability (speed, travel-time, schedule adherence). Person- rather than vehicle-based mobility. Impacts to pedestrian waiting time to cross the street. If priority measures are considered on major truck streets, freight movements should not suffer as result. Negative impacts on private-motor vehicle and parking should be the lowest of rankings for consideration. Other Actions that Support Transit
Make capital investments and programmatic improvements that support transit and reduce auto trips

Seattle must build upon its past achievements in the areas of parking management, pedestrian/bicycle facility construction, and zoning changes that increase density. Specifically: The mayor and city council should agree to support higher densities in all areas within a 1015 minute walk to high capacity transit stations or highly productive bus stops. The city should develop parking maximums for private developments near good transit services. Significant new funding should be dedicated to improving pedestrian and bicycle access to transit including bike-share programs. The city should lead efforts on the part of all transit providers to improve transit system signage and wayfinding to increase visibility and legibility.

Seattle has begun a multi-year series of transit studies analyzing four corridors for high-capacity transit. All of these corridors will travel through the city center where congestion is most severe. The Seattle Department of Transportation should use these studies to examine the benefits and impacts of employing aggressive transit priority measures such as exclusive lanes and signal priority. In considering whether to employ these methods, the key criteria should be:

18

The German Marshall Fund of the United States

5
T

Conclusion

ransportation is an issue of global importance as it affects mobility, health, and economic growth. Munich and Zurich enjoy world-class public transit systems that are the foundation of their sustainable transportation initiatives. Their systems provide riders with excellent performance, safety, comfort, and convenience and offer a wide range of mobility choices. While recognizing differences in history, culture, and institutions, these two cities and Seattle face many similar transportation challenges: funding constraints, limited street space, and an increasing demand for effective transit to manage growth. However, clear differences emerge in the way in which Munich/Zurich and Seattle embrace and confront these challenges. Seattle has a good transit system which is getting better, and could be a leader among North American cities. However, to reach that level will require the city to take the steps described earlier in the brief, including:

Public education to clearly and powerfully articulate the substantial benefits of excellent public transit. Technical approaches to significantly improve transit speed and reliability. Policy actions to create a more integrated, coordinated, and rider-friendly transit system. Supportive land use and parking actions to increase ridership and reduce car use. With the adoption of the Seattle Transit Master Plan and the inception of several planning studies to analyze high capacity transit routes, there has been no better time in Seattles recent history for the city to move forward along this front. Each success benefits us locally, nationally, and globally.

Prioritizing Public Transit for Speed, Reliability, and Rider Satisfaction

19

Offices
Washington Berlin Paris Brussels Belgrade Ankara Bucharest Warsaw Tunis

www.gmfus.org