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

324SUMMARYpansion of Arlanda be utilised. According to RUFScontinuing to use Bromma as an airport and building aresidential area in Tullinge is clearly a less desirable solutionthan the opposite, and also results in greater negativeenvironmental impact than other alternatives.Part 5: The ResultHas the Region Been United?The assessment of the RUFS process, carried out by aconsultancy firm, revealed that it had been successful increating a new common vision of the region’s premisesand potential and in achieving co-operation between regionalactors on regional growth and development. TheRUFS process had also contributed to creating importantpremises for implementing the proposals ofRUFS 2001. At the same time, those interviewed pointedout the obstacles which remained and which had tobe dealt with in order to implement the proposals.RUFS 2001 did not make especially large waves in themass media either.One expression of the unity which was achieved in theregion was the interim report submitted by the parliament-appointedStockholm Transport Commission.The transportation measures that the broad majority ofthe Commission prioritised were practically all measuresalso included in RUFS. RUFS 2001 also serves as apoint of departure for a number of other processes, e.g.work on the regional growth programme, the CountyGovernor’s task of increasing housing construction, theCounty Council’s task of pointing out natural areasdeserving protection and work on the regional environmentalaction programme. The unity is in danger of dissolving,however, unless sufficient resources are alsodevoted towards implementing the actions highlightedin RUFS.Regional DirectionEver since the establishment of the Greater CountyCouncil in 1971, the County Council has been the headof regional planning. During work on RUFS, discussionsbegan on forming a regional association for developmentand planning issues, comprised of representativesof the municipalities and County Council. Theaim of the regional association would be to gather popularlyelected representatives in Stockholm County intoan effective governmental body which could addressissues on par with the national government. The regionalassociation would take over the responsibility forregional planning from the County Council togetherwith the County Administrative Board’s responsibilityfor transportation planning in the county and regionaldevelopment issues.Despite two rounds of soliciting comments on theregional organisation, however, no consensus could beachieved on what form a new regional governmentalbody should take. After the new majority enteringStockholm’s city hall following the 2002 elections saidno, the question of a municipal association has beenclosed for the moment.RUFS 2001 formally includes Stockholm County, butwith an eye towards the Mälaren Region. Future regionalplanning will have to deal with the planning organisationin a larger geographical perspective. Possiblealternatives include altered county boundaries, co-operationbetween corresponding bodies in neighbouringcounties or municipal unions in a larger geographicalarea within the framework of the current county boundaries.A decision on how a possible common planningprocess should be pursued would have to be taken beforethe actual testing.