Stockholm - SLL Tillväxt, miljö och regionplanering (TMR ...

SUMMARY319There was strong support for the emphasis on apolycentric region, and for the proposed traffic networkin general. The proposal for a new airport in Södertörn,however, was removed from the plan. The Committeealso decided against drafting any regional retail tradepolicy or including any proposals on automobile leviesin the plan. The regional development plan, revisedaccording to these instructions, was then placed on publicexhibition for three months, beginning in October2001.Towards the end of the exhibition period, the StockholmTransport Commission (Stockholmsberedningen)submitted its comments concerning prioritising ofurgent traffic measures in the Stockholm-Mälaren Region.This had a major impact on the final preparation ofRUFS, since following the exhibition the plan was alteredto accord with the Stockholm Transport Commission.Apart from this, changes made were only of marginalsignificance.RUFS 2001 was formally tabled in the Committee forRegional Planning and Urban Transportation in March2002 and approved by the county council representativeson 14 May the same year. The Moderate Party,Liberal Party and Christian Democrats supported theproposal. The Social Democrats accepted practically allof the RUFS contents. Objections were expressed, asexpected, both from the Left and Green Parties, whowished to send out the plan once more for comments,justifying this partly with environmental objectives.Part 3: The FormAnchoringSince the regional plan is only a guideline and is not bindingfor the municipalities’ planning, the municipalitieshad to be voluntarily involved in its preparation. Theproposal then had to be anchored in the municipalitiesand their backing ensured. Other actors responsible forthe implementation also had to be involved in the work.The RUFS process introduced a new, outward-orientedapproach, which involved anchoring the regionalplanning in the municipalities and other actors throughsteering and reference groups. The latter also fulfilled animportant function with regard to obtaining ideas andperspectives on different proposals during the course ofthe work. The steering and reference groups contributedto a high degree to the positive reception whichRUFS 2001 would meet in the region.GeographyThe functional region covers a larger area than thecounty of Stockholm. With improved communications,it is not unlikely that in 25 to 30 years’ time the functionalregion will include large parts of the StockholmMälaren Region, including the cities of Nyköping,Eskilstuna and Västerås.Despite the fact that the Mälardalen perspective ismore prominent in RUFS than in earlier regionalplanning, RUFS does primarily deal with the situationin Stockholm County. The Stockholm County Councilnaturally cannot decide upon actions for the rest of theMälaren Region. But in many respects the perspectivetaken concerns the entire Mälaren Region. This appliesto what is clearly becoming a common housing andlabour market and the consequences this will have,especially for the communications system. RUFS 2001points out urgent infrastructure investments for the restof the Mälaren Region, based on the priorities set by theStockholm Transport Commission. There are numerousindications that a future regional development planwill include the entire Mälaren Region to a greaterextent.Although the Iron Curtain had been lifted, andcommunism been ousted in Eastern Europe by the time