Comparative Domestic Policy Program
Policy Brief
June 7, 2010
Summary: Across the United
States, metropolitan regions are
increasingly turning to transit-
oriented development (TOD) as a
logical alternative to the auto-
dependent land development
patterns of the last six decades.
TOD projects, however, face
policy hurdles that could inhibit
their effectiveness, particularly
those that address land use
densities, parking, and the role
of traffic impact studies.
In this policy brief, Bay Area
transportation planner
Michelle DeRobertis undertakes
a comparative examination of
recent TOD developments in five
European cities and finds that
by planning land-use and transit
concurrently, planners in Europe
have created successful, vibrant
new communities from which
their American peers can learn.
1744 R Street NW
Washington, DC 20009
T 1 202 683 2650
F 1 202 265 1662
E info@gmfus.org
Land Development and Transportation Policies for
Transit-Oriented Development in Germany and Italy:
Five Case Studies
by Michelle DeRobertis1
Introduction
American transportation practitioners and
policymakers are often stymied by how and
where to enter the following causality loop:
Mass transit2 can help reduce traffic congestion.
However, mass transit is only tenable with high
ridership. High ridership is achieved through
denser land use. Yet, unless mass transit service
is already in place, density often leads to in-
creased traffic congestion.
Before World War II, most American cities had
well-developed transit systems. The transition
from transit-based to auto-based urbanized
areas was slow but steady. For many reasons,
including increased affluence, cheap gasoline,
and the development of the Interstate Highway
System,3 transportation planning gradually be-
came roadway planning, and transit planning
became an afterthought. This was especially
true in the western region of the United States,
and in particular California, where it seemed
there was an infinite supply of land. Auto-
dependency became the norm, and by the
1960s whole communities were built without
any transit, since roads and freeways could be
forever widened. Consequently, transit service,
ubiquitous before 1940, suffered. Although
toward the end of the 20th century transit
service improved in many parts of the country,
1
Michelle DeRobertis is a senior transportation planner at Valley Transportation Authority in San Jose, CA. The views expressed here
are those of the author and do not necessarily represent the views of the German Marshall Fund of the United States (GMF).
2
Bus Rapid Transit (BRT), Light Rail (LRT), subways, and commuter rail are collectively referred to here as “mass transit”, to differen-
tiate them from local bus service.
3
Established in 1944, funded in 1952 and expanded in 1956, the Interstate Highway System was completed after 35 years and
cost $114 billion, equivalent to $425 billion in 2006 dollars.
roadway capacity remained the main focus
of transportation analyses and investments in
most metropolitan areas.
Consensus has finally been reached that road-
ways can no longer be widened ad infinitem.
Traffic congestion was not eliminated even
with 12-lane freeways, 6- to 8-lane arterials and
double left-turn lanes. Transit’s role in reduc-
ing congestion and providing mobility is now
recognized. Yet transit cannot increase ridership
without significant geographic expansion
and improved service levels. However, transit
agencies cannot justify expansion unless it
would pay off with more riders. How can we
get around this chicken-and-egg conundrum?
Transportation planners and transit advocates
have realized that the missing element is land
use. Ridership will inevitably increase when
density is created near mass transit stations.
Likewise, denser developments benefit through
greater access for customers and increased
commuting options for tenants. This symbiosis
is transit-oriented development (TOD).
TOD brings us to a new location in the causal-
ity loop: mass transit needs denser land use,
but denser land use can overload the immedi-
ate area with traffic, especially when it is built
without transit infrastructure. Furthermore, the
National Environmental Protection Act (NEPA)4
Comparative Domestic Policy Program
Policy Brief
requires a traffic impact study for most developments. If road widening
is not an option, developers are sometimes asked to reduce the size of a
project (which of course reduces its density) to mitigate the “traffic impacts.”
In addition, local parking ordinances often require parking to be built at the
same car-centric ratios regardless of proximity to transit.
Over the past 15 years, California has seen an increasing trend of high-den-
sity, mixed-use projects, near and far from transit stations, both with and
without bicycle and pedestrian infrastructure. Generally, the same standards
for parking and traffic “impacts” were applied to TOD areas. During my
fellowship, I looked at how European planners made crucial decisions
regarding land use density, parking, and traffic studies in the planning and
approval of land-development projects. I studied projects in five Italian
and German cities to identify lessons for American policies and practices in
TOD.
I studied projects in Turin, Milan; Genoa, Italy; and in Stuttgart and Ham-
burg, Germany.5 All case studies were located within city limits at a mass
transit station: commuter rail in Hamburg and Genoa; light rail / tram sta-
tions in Stuttgart, Turin, and Milan; and a metro station in Milan and Turin.
All were built (or had components built) since 2000 and are currently oc-
cupied, with the exception of the Milan project that is under construction.
Turin, home to Fiat, and Stuttgart, home to Mercedes–Benz and Porsche,
are relatively auto-dependent as reflected in their auto-ownership rates
shown in Figure 1. Genoa and Hamburg are major seaports with many
port-related industries. The fifth city, Milan, also has a large industrial base.
In general, none of the cities are known for being particularly innovative
or aggressive in discouraging car use. Therefore, their policies may be more
transferable to car-centric American cities than those of other European
cities.
Figure 1. Vehicle Ownership Comparison (2005/2003*)
900
Cars Motorcycles
800
# of Vehicles per 1,000 Residents
700
621
600 560
500 464
400
300
202
200
100 67
32
0
Stuttgart Torino Genova
4
In California, the pertinent regulation is the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA)
5
Italy and Germany are similar in size and structure: Italy (pop. 60 million) has 20 states called
“regione;” Germany (pop. 82 million) has 16 states called “bundesländer”.
Lessons Learned from Italy and Germany
For each case study, I interviewed city planners, architects, and engi-
neers about the process for determining land use mix and densities,
as well as parking and traffic study requirements. I identified many
lessons for American practitioners. The lessons below reference
their applicability primarily to San Francisco Bay Area projects, but
can potentially be applied to other metro areas as well.
1. Mass transit is essential to a livable city.
My research of TOD projects was not specifically about transit
service, yet the transit setting in Italy and Germany cannot be
ignored. All five case studies had at least two forms of mass tran-
sit6 with excellent coverage throughout the entire urban area. The
commitment to provide and fund both mass transit and local bus
service was so ingrained that it is considered one of the essential
components of a livable city, along with clean water, sanitation, and
garbage collection. In short, frequent, affordable, and fast mass
transit enables hundreds of thousands to live in dense urban areas;
it is accepted that the government will provide (or contract for)
transit service.
2. Density and mass transit must be planned in concert.
Mass transit needs density, and density (and society) benefits from
mass transit. Allowing high densities where there is no mass transit
is as shortsighted as allowing low densities at mass transit stations.
Long-range transit planning is essential. This can be as visionary
and pro-active as Hamburg constructing five commuter rail lines
in the 1920s and preserving adjacent land for future infill develop-
ment, or late 20th century catch-up projects such as Turin opening
its metro line in 2006.
786 Furthermore mass transit must be an integral part of every develop-
ment project. In all my case studies, the underlying assumption was
565
that if a large project was being developed, then the train, metro, or
tram would be extended to serve it. However, this will only work if
there is a train, metro, or tram to extend.
In Santa Clara County, California, the proposed Coyote Valley
99
project in south San Jose is located along the Caltrain commuter rail
18
line; a new station is planned to serve the site. In Oakland, how-
Milano USA* ever, the largest redevelopment opportunity is the former Oakland
Army base; the only mass transit line (BART) is over one mile away.
6
This is in addition to regional train service provided by the state and interurban rail service
provided by the national railway.
2
Comparative Domestic Policy Program
Policy Brief
Although the redevelopment of this land is only in the planning
stages, there is not currently a plan to extend BART service to this
site. Since the base redevelopment project is on hold, it is hard to
criticize the lack of planning for BART. But when the project is
revived, the city of Oakland should ensure that it has mass transit so
that the mistakes of the past fifty years are avoided.
3. Density Should Not Be Feared or Avoided
In both Italy and Germany, the density and land use of a new
development are determined by assessing the surrounding area. The
proposed land-use mix then undergoes a public process to deter-
mine what land uses/services are missing from the neighborhood.
While cities are expected to have more multistory buildings than the
suburbs, density is not uniform throughout the city; it varies based
on factors such as topography and transportation infrastructure.
The two cities that chose more dense development, Stuttgart and
Milan, based decisions on proximity to major transit stations. Turin
and Hamburg justified the same densities for the same reason.
Genoa made the decision that the site should be less dense due to
the neighborhood’s lack of open space. (However it must be noted
that this “less dense” development was the equivalent of 63 dwelling
units (d.u.) per acre; for comparison, San Jose’s highest residential
density zoning is 20-50 d.u./acre.)
The most significant influence on density was proximity to transit.
It is accepted practice in both Italy and Germany that denser devel-
opments must be closer to mass transit. Surprisingly, this key TOD
practice was not officially adopted policy.
4. Parking Requirements cannot be “One Size Fits All”
Parking supply regulation is one area where U.S. policies appear
more effective than in Italy or Germany. German and Italian cit-
ies must comply with nationally mandated, overly high parking
requirements. Typically in the United States, each city has the flex-
ibility to set parking requirements for new development. However,
local control does not always result in effective parking policies; each
city must independently recognize the impacts of overly strict park-
ing standards and change its ordinances. For instance, Italian and
German cities are required to provide bicycle parking, in contrast
to the city-by-city ordinances in the United States that often fail to
address this need.
In sum, context is important: one size does not fit all cities or all
neighborhoods. Both Turin and Milan have realized that national
parking standards are too high for land uses next to mass transit.
The state of Baden-Württemburg, where Stuttgart is located, has
adopted, and the city of Milan is about to adopt, lower parking
ratios for office and retail developments located near mass transit.
The developer funds that would have built parking are now used for
other city services; the developer doesn’t benefit from building less
parking - the public does.
5. Developer fees for transportation impacts should be based on
a set formula applied equally across the metropolitan area rather
than on a case-by-case basis.
Italy and Germany have standard development fees for public
works projects, and Italy also has fees to improve the public space
(in addition to land donation). In California, traffic impact fees are
often determined through project-specific traffic studies, a method
which benefits those projects developed first, when roadways could
still absorb the traffic. It also encourages suburban sprawl. Thus,
many California communities have implemented or are considering
traffic impact development fees or ways to allocate costs propor-
tionately to fund future transportation improvements. However,
improvement projects are typically roadway projects; impact fees
to fund transit capital or operating costs are rare. Improvements
are almost always confined to one city, and regional cooperation is
extremely difficult. Finally, travel forecasting models used to predict
future traffic volumes and future roadway needs are calibrated on
historical trip-making patterns, which are the result of auto-depen-
dent land use.
Standard fees citywide would be more equitable than project-by-
project, but region-wide fees, which would keep developers from
playing one city against another to obtain the lowest fees, would be
even better.
Case Study: Turin
The major transportation project in Turin for the past decade has
been Spina Centrale (the Central Spine), a 12 km corridor that
contains the new metro, and includes undergrounding the railways
that provide commuter, regional, and intercity train service. It also
includes a complete redesign of Corso Inghilterra, the former indus-
trial frontage road to the railroad tracks. This project has made 2
million m2 (500 acres) of land available for redevelopment. The city
divided this large corridor into four project areas called Spina 1, 2,
3, and 4. This case study focuses on the site within Spina 2 called
“Spina 2-PRIN,” directly served by two tram lines and 300 me-
ters away from the existing Porta Susa train/metro station.
3
Comparative Domestic Policy Program
Policy Brief
Density: Land use and density for this project were determined
by the city’s General Plan (PRG7). The PRG specifies the Floor
Area Ratio (FAR, the ratio of building floor area to parcel size,)
and the land use mix for each building. Critically, Italy has a
national law requiring a significant percentage of property
be donated to the city for public facilities. A strict formula
allocates the donation into four categories, one of which is
public parking.7 This law in effect increases the density on an
individual parcel since the allowable building size is now built
on a smaller land area.
The plan was for Spina 2 to blend in with the existing neigh-
borhood in terms of land use, density, and the street network,
but with more public space; therefore the maximum allowable
FAR was 0.7. The PRG also required that the buildings have
both residential (60% -- 80%) and retail/office (40% -- 20%).
In the United States, housing densities are typically described
in terms of the number of dwelling units per acre; requiring
mixed use within a residential building is still uncommon.
In the case of the 12.7-acre Spina 2-PRIN, 4.1 acres were
developed by the private developer and 8.6 acres were donated
to the city. The allowable building area was 37,000 m2 (70% of
12.7 acres ) but in fact only 31,000 m2 was built: 260 apart-
ments in three multistory buildings with a total of 2,300 m2
retail and 5,000 m2 office. From an American perspective, this
comes to 20 d.u./acre over the full 12.7 acre site, or 64 d.u./acre
on the 4.1 acre parcel. Given that these buildings also contain
office and retail, the net use is even higher, equivalent to over
80 d.u./acre.
Parking: Parking is calculated using formulae set by the na-
tional government for both “private” and “public” parking.
New projects in areas that are already “built” need only provide
50% of the parking specified for “expansion zones.” Cities
and regional governments may increase parking supply, but
only regions may decrease nonresidential parking. Residential
buildings must supply approximately one parking space per
residential unit, and 2.5 m2 per inhabitant for public parking.
This public parking is part of the land donation required for
“public facilities.”
Public parking may also be provided offsite. In Spina 2-PRIN,
the public parking location is still being evaluated together with
7
Piano Regolatore Generale
8
The other three categories are parks, green spaces, and places for sport; education and child-
care facilities; and “facilities for the public interest.”
that required by the rest of Spina 2 and Spina 3, so its construction
has been deferred to the next phase of redevelopment.
Turin’s parking rates have not changed since 1977, and adhere to
regional and national standards, set in 1968. As planning contin-
ues for the remainder of Spina 2, it is apparent that the current
one-size-fits-all parking requirement will be extremely expensive
to provide. Given its proximity to Turin’s main transit hub, city
planners are recognizing the inefficiencies of spending hundreds of
millions of Euros on transit improvements only to require parking
at the same ratios as before.
Traffic Studies: While studies were conducted of future transpor-
tation conditions based on the redevelopment, increased railway
capacity, new metro line, and new boulevard atop the under-
grounded rail, there was no “traffic study “ of Spina 2-PRIN alone.
The boulevard serving the project was designed with four-lanes,
wide medians, sidewalks, and bike paths based on the city’s desire
for aesthetics and the needs of all users; the design was not based on
a series of traffic level-of-service (LOS) calculations, as is standard
practice in California and much of the United States
Finally, development fees for transportation are not determined
based on the project’s traffic impacts, but on formulas developed by
the city and state for all developments.
Milan
Milan’s old fairgrounds occupied a large site, about 0.6 square kilo-
meters (over 100 acres) in a central location less than 3.5 km from
the Duomo and the central train station. Given its prime location,
Milan decided the site was better suited for a mixed-use develop-
ment9, and held a competition for proposed designs. The winning
project is called City Life.
Density: To build City Life, Milan amended its zoning plan to
change the use from fairgrounds to mixed use, allowing a FAR of
1.0, under the premise that it should be denser than surround-
ing areas, but would offer more parks and open space. This den-
sity-open space combination was accomplished by concentrating
residential uses in three 27-story towers. Another key decision was
not to extend roadways through the project site; rather it is designed
as a campus with pedestrian and bicycle pathways and all parking
underground. Non-residential buildings, including a museum,
4
Comparative Domestic Policy Program

Policy Brief
shops, and offices, were determined through public meetings and
negotiations between the city and developers.

The three residential buildings each have 500 d.u. and total 148,000
m2 of floor area on 36 acres, equivalent to 41 d.u./acre. 55% of
this land area (19 acres) will be donated to the public, creating a net
density of 85 d.u./acre.

Parking: City Life was approved using national parking formulae for
residential parking and the Lombardia region formulae for public
parking. Parking for office alone requires one m2 of parking per one
m2 gross floor area. In total, about 4,000 public parking spaces were
required. Coincidentally, a new metro line had been sited near the
project. City planners realigned the metro and sited a new station
underneath City Life, and then re-analyzed the project’s traffic and
parking generation, concluding that parking could be drastically
reduced to 1,000 spaces. The funds that the developer would other-
wise have spent on parking will be paid to the city for other public
services.
Traffic Studies: Traffic studies for City Life concluded there would
be significant congestion on one of the main access roads and
recommended that it be undergrounded directly into the project’s
parking garage. Milan planned to use the €60 million in develop-
ment fees to fund this tunnel, but the community and neighbors
objected since these fees are intended to benefit the entire neigh-
Density: Genoa worked with the neighborhoods to select land uses
that were under-represented, particularly public recreation. Fiumara
has a movie theatre complex and a multi-sport fitness center in
addition to the typical housing, retail, and office buildings. Genoa’s
steep terrain concentrates the urbanized area on 64 of the city’s 240
km2. Thus, Genoa is one of the densest cities in Italy (and the dens-
est case study, as shown in Figure 2); significant open space was
therefore considered essential.
Figure 2. Population Density
10,000
9,000
Density (inh per SqKm) (Adjusted density (inh per SqKm)

borhood, and they deemed the underpass would only “benefit” the 8,000
project’s tenants and customers. Thus, it will not be built at this time 7,000
because it lacks funding. Currently, metro and other public trans- 6,000
portation provide alternatives to driving. 5,000

4,000
Genoa 3,000

2,000
In Genoa, the Fiumara site previously housed several factories near
1,000
the coast and port. In 1989, the city adopted a new general plan for
0
the redevelopment of this and other sites to reflect the changing econ- Torino Milano Genova Stuttgart Hamburg San Francisco San Jose Oakland

omy. Fiumara is not served by the 5.5 km metro, but is directly served
by a train service called “linea metropolitana.” It runs several times an
hour and is equivalent to commuter rail. By walking to the end of the
platform, one can take stairs directly into the Fiumara campus.
To maximize open space, city planners concentrated housing in
three 19-story towers; built few roads within Fiumara, netting more
land for green space and less for pavement and roadways; and like
Milan’s City Life, designed roadways to go directly into the parking
garage.

9
The fairgrounds were relocated beyond the terminus of an existing metro line which was
extended to serve the new site; Europe’s Expo 2010 will take place there.

5
Comparative Domestic Policy Program
Policy Brief
Aiming for less density compared to the surrounding neighborhood,
Genoa’s zoning plan was amended to allow 0.7 FAR. The resulting
270 d.u. on 9.2 acres is 29 d.u./acre. Adjusted for the land donation
to the public, the net density is 63 d.u./acre.
Parking: Parking in Genoa has always been at a premium, and as
redevelopment has been so rare, very little of the city’s land use meets
the national standards for “existing,” let alone expansion, sites. No
attempts were made to reduce parking, as in Milan, or delay building
it, as in Turin, since in Genoa very little street and off-street public
parking exists, compared to other cities.10 Genoa required all public
parking for Fiumara be concentrated in one five-story parking
garage. Residential and office private parking is located underneath
each building.
Stuttgart
Stuttgart’s Möhringen Station was historically a freight station and
rail yard. As the city built its tram lines, the station became impor-
tant in linking the former village of Möhringen to the city center.
Eventually the rail yard became defunct, and in 1995 Stuttgart began
to plan for its redevelopment.
Density: Since Stuttgart’s latest general plan was from 1990, an
amendment was needed for the Möhringen station area. Plan-
ners considered its location at a light rail station, and the services
required, including a supermarket, a kindergarten, senior residences,
and student housing. Stuttgart selected densities consistent with oth-
er city areas with these same characteristics, even though Möhringen
was much denser than the adjacent neighborhood. Furthermore in
the zoning amendment, the city rezoned the abutting low density
housing to this same higher density.
10
I suspect the reason for the high motorcycle /motor scooter use in Genoa compared to the
other case study cities, as shown in Figure 1, has more to do with limited parking supply than
traffic conditions or gasoline prices.
Land use density in Germany is set by two parameters: the FAR,
and the maximum building footprint ratio (GRZ in German). The
Möhringen apartments’ footprint was set at 60% maximum and the
FAR was 1.8. For the main residential buildings, the land use mix
was required to be 80% residential and 20% retail/office. The five
residential buildings have four stories with 36 d.u. each and ground
floor office/retail. This calculates to 42 d.u./acre.
Parking: Parking standards in Germany are set by the federal
bundesland, or state government, in this case the state of Baden-
Württemburg mandates 0.8 space per unit of multifamily housing,
and no public parking is required. For nonresidential uses, the for-
mula gets quite complicated depending on the specific type of retail
permitted. This supply is then divided into public versus private.
Stuttgart sets additional parking conditions on a project-by-project
basis. In the case of Möhringen’s residential buildings, virtually all
parking had to be underground; three handicapped spaces per build-
ing were allowed at-grade. Public parking for visitors and shoppers is
only available on the street.
Traffic Studies: Traffic studies and an Environmental Impact Report
(EIR) were performed but do not affect the density or the develop-
ment fees, which are based on a formula, and appears to be less than
Italy (especially considering the required land donations in Italy).
Since more housing is desired by the city of Stuttgart, residential de-
velopment is encouraged and thus is subject to fewer fees compared
to other land uses.
Hamburg
Hamburg, the largest city studied, is both a city and a state, and
therefore has more autonomy in setting development and parking
regulations. In the 1920s, Hamburg built a radial system of com-
muter lines in addition to an urban metro system. Over the years,
Hamburg bought land near the commuter tracks to preserve for
future residential uses. In the late 1980s, planning began for one of
these areas, known as Allermöhe. A new train station was built to
serve the planned population of 12,000. The total site includes retail,
apartments, lower density townhouses, four schools, and other com-
munity uses. In 1995, the first residents arrived and few undeveloped
parcels remain.
Allermöhe is essentially a stand-alone development since it is not
contiguous with an existing developed area of the city, and resembles
a California-style “subdivision” project, with four key differences:
6
Comparative Domestic Policy Program
Policy Brief
•It was deliberately sited next to a commuter rail line and a new train
station built for the development;
•It includes a mix of uses (retail, office, community center, sport fields,
schools from daycare through high school);
•There are two distinct styles of homes, for socio-economic and
demographic diversity;
•It was designed to make it easier to walk rather than drive to the
train station and shops. Canals that help with flood control and offer
recreational opportunities are also effectively used to facilitate bike and
pedestrian circulation, although car access to the shops and between
homes is possible.
Density: Allermöhe is sandwiched between a railroad line and a
freeway, and surrounding land uses will remain agricultural. Land
use densities were similar to Bergedorf, an established community at
the next train station. City planners also based decisions on lessons
learned from 1970s development, rejecting high-rise residential
buildings in favor of three and four-story apartment buildings to
enhance the sense of community. Density for the apartments was
set to 0.4 GRZ / 1.2 FAR, whereas townhome density was set at 0.4
GRZ / 0.8 FAR. This translates into 61 d.u. /acre and 23 d.u./acre,
respectively. Schools and retail areas were allowed higher building
footprints.
11
Another unprecedented and visionary public project was the state of California’s 1960 Master
Plan for Higher Education, which among other things, established tuition-free community (2-year)
colleges for all California residents.
Parking: Hamburg has the most local control of parking require-
ments of all the case studies because it is both a city and a state.
Although within the city center, required parking is 25 % of the city
formula, in Allermöhe, the full parking ratio was required: 0.8 space
per apartment and 1.0 space per townhouse.
Traffic Studies: An EIR was conducted for the project but the main
concern was mitigation of noise from the adjacent freeway. Traffic
was not an issue; it was estimated that internal traffic would be low
and that external trips would utilize the freeway or the train.
Conclusion
The population growth of the United States is, and will continue
to be, primarily concentrated in metropolitan areas composed of
several, if not dozens, of different political jurisdictions and transit
agencies. While some cities have gotten the message with respect
to density, many projects were built far from existing mass transit
stations (e.g. Santana Row in San Jose and Bay Street in Emeryville,
CA). However it is hard to find fault when there is a paucity of high-
capacity transit systems and no long-range plan of where such routes
might be.
To guide TOD, a bold new approach is needed to answer the ques-
tion of what comes first—transit or density. The solution lies in
region-wide master planning for mass transit networks without
regard to political boundaries. Just as in 1956, when the federal gov-
ernment committed to funding the Interstate System11, the United
States needs a similar visionary commitment to plan, construct, and
operate efficient, affordable mass transit systems in every urban area
as small as 200,000 residents. It should be possible to traverse
the metropolitan area via one or more mass transit modes
without regard to artificial boundaries, just as we can hop on
an interstate and drive unaware of city and county boundaries.
The larger the urban area, the more modes and lines per mode
are needed.12 Identification of these future mass transit routes
would provide the needed framework on which local govern-
ments would then base their land use zoning plans.
12
A note about the SF Bay Area where I live and work: the city and county of San Francisco is
well-served by multiple rail modes, but at 49 sq. miles and 800,000 residents, this is only 1% of
the land and 11% of the population of the metropolitan area. San Jose is the most populous city,
with almost 1,000,000 residents; portions have both commuter rail and light rail, but much of the
city has neither. While Alameda and Contra Costa Counties have BART lines, BART is functionally
a commuter-train; these two counties have no metro or light rail. To fill these gaps, BART planning
is underway in San Francisco, Alameda, and Santa Clara; however it suffers from typical American
transit planning limitations: short-range vision due to chronic budget crises endured by American
transit agencies. This situation is exacerbated by the current recession and budget crises faced
by many states including California. The current emphasis on jobs creation should recognize that
transit operations and construction create jobs just as building roads does. In the 2009 American
Recovery and Reinvestment Act, only 17% of the transportation funding was for transit.
7
Comparative Domestic Policy Program
Policy Brief
Clearly leadership and coordination at the state and federal lev-
els are needed. Successful models in the United States exist for
region-wide transit: New York’s MTA; Trimet in the Portland,
Oregon region; and the newly formed transit board in greater
Atlanta. European cities have had a regional perspective for
decades: state governments ensure interurban options such as
commuter and regional rail, while cities cooperate with their
suburbs on where and how to extend metros and LRT beyond
city limits. Fare reciprocity is standard procedure between
transit service providers within an urban area; this, along with
schedule coordination, is an essential component of effective
region-wide transit.
This approach could be the needed catalyst to free develop-
ment impact studies from their focus on intersection LOS.
Transportation impact studies, while still necessary, could
concentrate on multimodal solutions. Development fees and
savings from reduced parking should be set aside to pay for
regional transit’s capital and operating costs. Now that the
United States has a world-class interstate system, it is time to
catch up with rest of the world by providing high-quality mass
transit in all of our metropolitan areas.
About CDP
At the turn of the 21st century, metropolitan regions are home to
nearly three quarters of the population of the United States and
Europe and are projected to continue growing. The major economic,
environmental and social transformations shaping these nations over
the next century, as well as the severe economic crisis facing them
today, will necessarily play out in urban contexts. Thus, the
metropolitan built environment, its impact on the natural
environment, and the resources available to citizens will be crucial
for successfully meeting the complex challenges facing the
transatlantic community.
While cities in the United States and Europe face similar policy
challenges in related post-industrial contexts, individual
communities that attempt to implement creative strategies have
limited opportunities to learn from one another’s experiences.
Recognizing the necessity for communities to collaborate in crafting
approaches to local problems that have global implications, GMF’s
Comparative Domestic Policy (CDP) Program provides a framework
for dialogue between individuals who make, influence, and
implement urban and regional policy on both sides of the Atlantic.
At the core of the CDP program is the Transatlantic Cities Network,
a durable structure for ongoing exchange among a select group of
civic leaders representing 25 cities in the United States and Europe.
The CDP program is made possible by the support of the Compagnia
di San Paolo and Bank of America.
About GMF
The German Marshall Fund of the United States (GMF) is a non-par-
tisan American public policy and grantmaking institution dedicated
to promoting better understanding and cooperation between North
America and Europe on transatlantic and global issues. 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 sup-
ports a number of initiatives to strengthen democracies. Founded in
1972 through a gift from Germany as a permanent memorial to Mar-
shall Plan assistance, GMF maintains a strong presence on both sides of
the Atlantic. In addition to its headquarters in Washington, DC, GMF
has seven offices in Europe: Berlin, Bratislava, Paris, Brussels, Belgrade,
Ankara, and Bucharest.