Routes to Seamlessness
The following is the executive summary of UC Berkeley Master of City Planning student Kenji Anzai’s final capstone research project, which analyzes how different German regions developed different forms of network managers, or verkehrsverbünde, and lessons these regions can provide for the Bay Area. You can download Kenji’s full capstone project here.
Bay Area public transport is fragmented. The reasons for this stem from the history of transport provision in the region and the constant battle between the forces of regionalization and local control. The problems with this fragmentation are well documented. Besides making transit less effective at competing with the automobile in a region where trips increasingly cross city and county boundaries, fragmentation has detrimental effects for disadvantaged communities, the environment, and the regional economy. By contrast, the benefits of a more integrated system are well-understood and range from greater patronage of public transport to higher public approval of transit agencies and greater impetus for public support for transit. It is time to shift the conversation from whether to pursue these reforms to how to make them happen.
Germany can teach us about network managers and how to establish them
Germany has developed a range of different network managers (region-wide organizations that coordinate transport agency activities), making it an excellent place to seek insights on what such an organization might look like in the Bay Area. The particular interest in looking to Germany and German-speaking countries is that they bear many similarities to the U.S. in terms of travel behavior, federal governance, as well as a penchant for local control and local decision making. German examples can also provide clues on operational best practices and logistics, as well as on how to establish such an entity here.
A German network manager is known as a Verkehrsverbund (plural: Verkehrsverbünde). Verkehrsverbünde tend to be less centralized than network managers in places like Toronto or Vancouver, where network managers also happen to be large transit agencies in their own right. Verkehrsverbünde can be government-owned companies which have the power to fund and control all transit service within a region and grant concessions to operators. They can also be transport agency alliances akin to an airline alliance. Or they can exist on the spectrum between the two. The beauty of the Verkehrsverbund is that it makes the transit networks in a region behave like one entity without requiring the members to merge into one agency (though as with network managers more generally, this is also an option). Thus, a Verkehrsverbund has the benefit of regionalizing transit while allowing for local autonomy. These properties, the success at improving transit performance, and the spread of theVerkehrsverbund model to nearly every urban region in Germany are intriguing and point to a versatility that merits closer examination.
Like in the Bay Area, every German region that now has a Verkehrsverbund initially saw heavy resistance to pursuing a regional approach to transit management. There was an implicit assumption that regional transit would be a zero-sum endeavor—that if an individual agency puts its money into a bigger pool, this will mean that this money will be handed over to a larger bureaucracy. Over the years, it has become clear to all involved that regionalization doesn’t merely redistribute the pie; it can make it bigger. Today, Verkehrsverbünde have proven to be so effective in delivering public transportation that meets the needs of passengers that they are ubiquitous. It would now be considered strange for a metro region in Germany not to have one. This means that there are many examples of methods the Bay Area could use to create one.
Four methods for establishing network managers
From the six German regions studied, four distinct methods for creating a network manager emerged.
Munich passed its network manager reforms in 1971 as part of a massive infrastructure program that created the subway and commuter rail systems in preparation for the 1972 Olympics. Therefore, the Munich Method creates a network manager as part of a large construction package, using the influx of funds from the construction package to entice agencies to agree to create and join the network manager. Because the large influx of resources ameliorates agencies’ fears of potential losses, agencies are more willing to accept more changes relating to network management. As a result, this is the method that results in the most comprehensive reforms and has the side benefit of delivering a massive amount of beneficial transit infrastructure.
The Rhein-Ruhr region created its network manager in 1980 by convincing the state government to pass a law requiring it. Therefore, the Rhein-Ruhr Method involves convincing the state to pass legislation mandating the formation of a network manager, then using that legal mandate as the impetus for creating one. This method requires building a coalition among political leaders to advance state legislation.
Figure ES.1. The locations of each region studied in Germany.
Hannover created its network manager in 1970 as part of a package of transit reforms in response to large-scale transit protests in the city. Berlin, meanwhile, created its network manager in 1996 as part of the effort to reunify the city after the fall of the Berlin Wall in 1989. The Hannover-Berlin Method, therefore, takes advantage of political moments to spur reforms or expedite reforms already underway. The political moments in question can be any major event that causes social upheaval or jeopardizes agency funding. This can be the quickest and most successful method but is the least reliable as it depends on the advent of unpredictable events.
Hamburg established Germany’s first network manager in 1965 by striking a deal with its commuter rail operator, Deutsche Bahn. This deal involved Hamburg giving the Deutsche Bahn large sums of money and influence in exchange for Deutsche Bahn conceding its fare policy and schedule planning authorities for Hamburg commuter rail lines to the network manager. Frankfurt established its network manager in 1974 in a similar manner. Therefore, the Hamburg-Frankfurt method involves convincing two large agencies to create a network manager which the other agencies then join. For best results, network management supporters should convince leaders in the two largest transit agencies in the region to form a network manager which other agencies can join under the premise that such an alliance would actually benefit the original two the most (though all involved would be expected to benefit). This could motivate them to create one with an incentive structure that encourages others to join. While this is the most methodical ground-up method, it can be quite slow to pursue since it relies on agencies to build trust with each other over time. This method is a decent fallback in the event the state or region is unwilling to step in with the resources or legislation to power the Munich or Rhein-Ruhr methods. This approach is the most incremental of the four and is therefore likely to produce the least comprehensive and regionally-integrated network manager, at least initially. But an incremental approach that yields a network manager is better than nothing. And it can be reformed later to produce a better long-term arrangement.
Which method should supporters of integration in the Bay Area pursue?
Creating a strategy for supporters to follow in pursuit of a network manager in the Bay Area is not a matter of simply selecting one of the German methods presented here. Rather, it should involve building a coalition that can mobilize to use any of these methods depending on the needs and opportunities that arise. For all methods, supporters of transit integration will need to cultivate strong leadership to spearhead the creation of a network manager and identify a source of funds to underwrite the integration to address agencies’ risk concerns.
The Munich method (with reforms accompanying major new funding), if successful, could result in the biggest transit improvements for the region. Therefore, the Bay Area should push for the Munich method as a first choice, as supporters of regional integration are currently doing. If it becomes clear that there is support at the regional or state level for a network manager but not the resources for the Munich method, the Rhein-Ruhr method would be a good fallback option since this option requires state legislation to create the network manager, but not the massive infrastructure expenditure like the Munich Method. Simultaneously, supporters should put pressure on two of the largest operators in the Bay Area to open bilateral negotiations to form a network manager. Finally, supporters should be prepared to use the Hannover-Berlin method if a political moment opens a policy window to do so. This strategy is displayed in visual form in Figure ES.2.
Before 2020, supporters of a network manager in the Bay Area were building support for a regional measure to fund a large transit infrastructure package, and argued that major new funding should be accompanied by the creation of a network manager. This means they were using something close to the Munich method. Now, activists are calling attention to the looming fiscal cliff caused by the pandemic and the expected need by agencies to find new sources of funding to avoid service cuts to push for a network manager and fare integration. In taking advantage of unique windows of opportunity where rapid change is possible, advocates are more closely following the experience of the Hannover-Berlin region. By studying and formalizing the various methods by which a network manager could be established, it will be possible to adopt a strategy that can identify and take pathways at the earliest opportunity, giving the region the best chance of success.
After the network manager is established, the region should push to improve upon it. For example, it is possible that the network manager will by political necessity need to be established as an alliance of agencies, which is similar to an airline alliance but with transit agencies instead. This model is useful as an interim solution for establishing the network manager, but better governance can be had with a network manager set up as an alliance of governments, which is a similar concept but with local governments at the helm. If the region sets up the network manager as an alliance of agencies, it should work to convert it to an alliance of governments at the earliest opportunity.
Conclusion
Fragmentation of the Bay Area’s transit services continues to result in negative impacts on riders and the entire region. While the staff at the region’s 27 agencies who run these services work hard and have good intentions, it will be very difficult for them to deliver high-quality transit until a greater degree of regional coordination can be achieved. Advocates are pushing for the Bay Area to adopt a network manager and have made enough progress that the Metropolitan Transportation Commission - the Bay Area’s regional transportation planning agency and the designated Metropolitan Planning Organization - is formally studying it. Going forward, supporters and the region have a lot to learn from research into the best practices of network management as implemented in regions all over the world. This report focuses on Germany, specifically on the way that German regions established their network managers. By understanding the tools, paths, and best practices available, supporters of integration in the Bay Area will give themselves the best chance of delivering the best possible network manager. In so doing, they will put Bay Area transit in a position to grow into the high-quality regional transit network the region needs.
Want to read more? Download Kenji Anzai’s full capstone project here.
Figure ES.2. Visual representation of the strategy that the region should follow for creating a network manager in the Bay Area.