PDF - The German Marshall Fund of the United States

Transcrição

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 [email protected]
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 [email protected].
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.
1
Executive Summary
T
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 city’s “historic” streetcar and cable network,
developed originally by private firms and later
purchased by the city.1 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 city’s
transit system extensively.2
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
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
• 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
All opinions expressed in this paper are the author’s own and
should not been seen to reflect the views of the City of Seattle or
the German Marshall Fund of the United States.
2
Prioritizing Public Transit for Speed, Reliability, and Rider Satisfaction
1
• 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
2
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.
1
Background
T
he City of Seattle has embarked upon an
aggressive program to develop a high-quality
transit system for city residents, building
upon the city’s 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).
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, Seattle’s
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.
3
4
Ibid, p.1.
• 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,
3
Without high capacity
and better performing
transit services,
Seattle’s future
economic growth and
social livability will be
severely compromised.
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.
4
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
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.
5
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 Seattle’s maturation as a transit provider and regional leader.
5
2
Munich and Zurich:
A Wealth of Learning Opportunities
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.
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 Münchner Verkehrgesellschaft (MVG), p. 8.
6
6
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, Műnchner 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
Munich: percent all trips:1
2005
2011
Walking
24.9
25.5
Biking
11.0
14.7
Transit
26.5
28.8
Private Auto
37.6
31.0
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.
1
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. Munich’s 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 Switzerland’s 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 Munich’s
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 city’s transportation policy.
In 1973, faced with increasing surface traffic
congestion, Zurich voters were presented with a
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, today’s 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
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.
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.
10
11
Mercer’s Quality of Living Survey (2000 — 2010) Mercer LLC.
By statute and administration, a canton is most similar to a
state in the United States.
14
7
The people of Zurich
have a deep affinity with
their tram system.
Verkehrsbund) or ZVV.15 The city’s own transit
agency, Verkehrsbetriebe Zürich (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 system’s great
success.16
Like Munich’s MVV, the ZVV is a regional authority responsible for an integrated fare structure, scheduling, ticketing
systems, and partial funding of individual transit agencies.
Zurich: percent all trips1
15
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
8
2005
2011
Walking
24.5
26.0
Biking
3.5
4.0
Transit
32.0
34.0
Private Auto
40.0
36.0
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.
3
Key Policy, Technical, Outreach,
and Other Features of the Munich and
Zurich Transit Systems
Policy Actions: Unambiguous policy direction
that has established public transit as integral
to and essential for managing growth in a
sustainable manner
I
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.
Munich’s 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.
Shaping the future of Munich, PERSPECTIVE MUNICH,
Strategies, Principles, Projects (2005), pp. 58-61, City of Munich,
Department of Urban Planning and Building Regulation.
17
In 2012, the city’s message was that it will be
“compact, urban, and green.”18 When used together,
these three words strongly convey Munich’s
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, Munich’s
“best and brightest” transportation professionals
frequently present at conferences abroad to describe
and discuss the city’s ongoing attempts to maintain
Munich’s position as Germany’s leader in sustainable development and environmentally friendly
growth management.20 Such efforts strengthen the
city’s 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
Ibid, Principle 5, “To create future-oriented settlement
structures through qualified internal development — ‘compact
— urban — green’.”
18
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 Munich’s 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 Zurich’s Transit Priority System,
TRB 2003 Annual Meeting, p. 4.
19
9
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.
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
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
Ruedi Ott, (past) Head of Transport Planning, City of Zurich,
Strategies for a successful urban transport delivery system: Zurich’s
Transport Policy (paper), p. 3.
22
23
Ibid, p. 3.
24
Buck and Meier-Bukowiecki, p.5.
10
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 Munich’s Geog-Friedrich Koppen, Deputy Head of Transport Planning
explained:
“Thanks to the Munich Transport and Tariff Union,
one fare system applies to all of Munich’s 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
Georg-Friedrich Koppen, Regional Cooperation to solve
mobility problems in the Munich Region, presentation, 2012, and
personal discussion.
25
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
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 city’s 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 driver’s
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
Peter Noser, Vice Director Zurich Office for Urbanism,
Planning and Public Transportation in Zurich, presented at 2011
NTNU Conference, Trondheim — Byomforming, slide 22.
26
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.
11
In 2008, transportation
accounted for about 14
percent of household
expenditures [in
Germany] compared to
19 percent in the United
States.
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
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.
31
32
Interview with Marcel Burlet, Paul Schlaepfer and Christian
Porcenta, of “Pro-Bahn,” October 10, 2012.
33
12
MVG publication, Sustainable Mobility for Munich, 2010, p.
14.
35
MVG publication, Right at the heart, 2010, pp. 30-31.
34
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.
Zurich’s experience is somewhat unique in that the
public led the effort during the 1970s to reject the
government’s 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
Münchner Verkehrgesellschaft mbH, p.17.
36
38
39
Ibid, p. 17.
Nash, Implementing Zurich’s Transit Priority Program, p. 4.
13
Researchers have
claimed that Zurich
has zero waiting time
for public transport at
about 90 percent of
signalized intersections.
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.
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 Munich’s 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
Zurich transit promotion
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 city’s 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
Munich, International Sustainable United in Solidarity, City of
Munich publication (2011), p. 61.
41
40
Interview with Sabine Nallinger, MVG, September 26, 2012.
14
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, Zurich’s “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
Michael Kodransky and Gabrielle Hermann, Europe’s Parking
U-Turn: From Accommodation to Regulation, Institution for
Transportation and Development Policy, Spring, 2011, p.51.
42
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 city’s 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 city’s
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. Both Zurich and Munich are
dense cities when compared to Seattle. Zurich
has a residential density of 4,200 inhabitants/km2;
Munich’s 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.
43
Ibid, p.50.
44
Ibid, p.68.
46
Interview with Florian Paul, MVG, September 26, 2012.
45
Ibid, p.69.
47
Interview with Dave Durner, “Pro-Velo,” October 9, 2012.
15
Density of land use is
the single best predictor
of transit ridership.
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, Munich’s 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. Munich’s 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
To enhance safety, encourage transit use, and
help create more livable urban public spaces,
Munich and Zurich have employed a variety of
Interview with Gerhard Gross, Munich Department of Urban
Development and Planning, October 1, 2012.
48
49
Heipp interview.
16
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 Zurich’s
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
Andrew Nash, Swiss Institute of Technology, Traffic Calming
in Three European Cities: Recent Experience, 2003, p. 1.
50
51
Ibid, p. 5.
52
Personal site visit, October 5, 2012.
4
Immediate and Practible Steps
T
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.
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 department’s 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
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 Munich’s “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.
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 rationalIdeally, 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.
54
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
“Seattle Mayor, King County Executive Seek 8-cent Gas Tax
Hike,” Seattle Times (Mike Lindblom), December 21, 2012.
53
17
City officials should
be tireless advocates
for increased and
permanently dedicated
funds for transit and for
transit investments.
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
• 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:
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.
• 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.
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:
• The city should develop parking maximums for
private developments near good transit services.
18
• 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.
5
Conclusion
T
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 Seattle’s recent history for
the city to move forward along this front. Each
success benefits us locally, nationally, and globally.
19
Offices
Washington • Berlin • Paris • Brussels • Belgrade
Ankara • Bucharest • Warsaw • Tunis
www.gmfus.org

PDF - The German Marshall Fund of the United States

Transcrição

Documentos relacionados

Let`s Play Let`s Play Guidelines from the Guidelines from the

Jeffrey Hayman | Mitglied des Verwaltungsrats | Zurich Insurance

Rezension von N. Byrne

The science paper by J. de Wit et al. (PDF document)

Previous internships - TUM Wiki : studium-edu

Your accommodation in Munich

TE20.65 - City of Toronto

D-PHYS - IT Services of ETH Zurich

English abstracts of the articles in transit nuernberg #2

Mating Season Munich