In Australia, transit users commonly ask why we cannot have public transport of the quality seen in many cities of German-speaking Europe. Sadly, it seems that researchers less often attempt to answer this question. Detailed analysis shows that current high levels of car-use are not an inevitable consequence of the physical, cultural or social structure of Australasian cities (Mees 2010b). It should be possible to provide high-quality public transport, with correspondingly high ridership and improved economic efficiency. Since at least the early 1980s, various social movements have articulated the limits to auto-dependence, but Australian urban governments have not been able to achieve public transport outcomes comparable to those of European exemplars, nor even those of Canadian cities like Toronto and Vancouver. Research suggests that the fundamental problem lies in the way Australian cities have chosen to organise, plan and deliver their public transport services (Mees 2010b; Stone 2009). In most cities, there is a clear need for better mechanisms for planning and funding both operational expansion and infrastructure construction. This has been recognised in various policy investigations (IA 2009; Productivity Commission 2010; Senate Rural and Regional Affairs and Transport Committee 2009), and was reflected, in the policies at least, of the major opposition parties at recent state elections in Victoria and NSW. Much of the relative success in public transport in German-speaking Europe has been ascribed to the model for ‘organising cooperation’ adopted in almost all Swiss, Austrian and German urban regions (Pucher and Kurth 1996). Fragmented responsibilities and differences in motivation between governments, public transport operators and passengers have long been recognised as a major problem in public transport governance. In response, small coordinating authorities, called Verkehrsverbünde (or ‘transport alliances’), have been established to resolve the many competing priorities. The paper compares public transport performance in Melbourne and Sydney with that in four cities from German-speaking Europe. This is followed by a discussion of the political and institutional factors that have contributed to this variation. In the European examples, these factors range from broad-scale issues like the re-structuring of large state monopolies such as German National Railways (Deutsche Bahn) to local processes for timetable planning employed by individual Verkehrsverbünde. This analysis forms part of a three-year ARC Discovery project: New paradigms for urban public transport planning in Australia: assessing the capacity of institutions and infrastructure. The paper concludes with directions for later stages of this project.