The city that the metro system built: Urban transformations and modalities of integrated planning in Stockholm

Abstract

Chinese

This paper investigates how housing and public transport planning in Stockholm has been integrated during the past 20 years through multi-level collaboration. Drawing upon how Stockholm has been portrayed in the literature on transit-oriented development (TOD), that is, as a successful case of integrated land use, housing and public transport planning, this paper suggests that multi-level collaboration in Stockholm’s urban transformations has had its own challenges related to de-integration and reintegration. By including an exploration of the development of the metro system since the 1960s and onwards, the more recent processes of de-integration and reintegration emerge as endemic but often marginalised aspects of achieving TOD-like urban development. The paper contributes to previous studies by proposing three modalities of integration: (1) de-integration by agreement, (2) integration by collaboration, and (3) reintegration by intervention. These modes are not evaluative but should rather be used as a point of departure for future studies empirically investigating how integrated planning is achieved in contexts where transit-oriented development is contingent on multi-level collaboration.

Keywords

integrated planning multi-level collaboration public transport Stockholm transit-oriented development

Introduction

This paper discusses public transport and urban transformations in Stockholm, by drawing upon the historical achievements of Stockholm’s integration of housing and public transport. Stockholm has been heralded as a ‘best practice’ case when it comes to transit-oriented development (TOD) (e.g. Cervero, 1998). However, the period that formed the backbone of TOD in Stockholm was followed by a loss of the close connection between public transport and housing planning. This de-integration was sparked by a parliamentary decision and a multi-stakeholder agreement (the Hörjel agreement) in 1963, where municipalities transferred the authority over public transport planning to the County Council but kept the authority over land use and housing development (Svallhammar, 2008). As these levels were, and still are, dependent on each other for achieving integrated planning, the question explored in this paper is how actors on these levels have integrated housing and public transport planning through multi-level collaboration. This question is of broader relevance since many cities around the world face similar problems when it comes to achieving integrated planning and TOD.

TOD and integrated planning are two sides of the same coin. Without integrated planning, TOD would be difficult, if not outright impossible, to achieve in urban contexts and metropolitan regions where a multitude of interdependent organisations must collaborate to make urban development happen (Pettersson and Hrelja, 2018). It is therefore not surprising to find that integrated planning has become established in planning studies during the past decades (Rotmans et al., 2000), along with policy integration (Albrechts, 2006; Hull, 2008; Geerlings and Stead, 2003; Stead and Meijers, 2009; Candel, 2017; Tosun and Lang, 2017; Vigar, 2009) and collaborative planning (Healey, 1997, 2010). Whilst these concepts overlap to some extent, none of them have been developed specifically for understanding the processes of achieving TOD.

Integrated planning often denotes horizontal collaboration between different organisations within one policy field. In this context, collaborative planning is used to describe and acknowledge that governmental organisations cannot implement their plans or policies alone, but that they are interdependent on other actors in society (Healey, 1997, 2010). Integrated planning may also refer to vertical collaboration, where governmental organisations placed at different levels in the governance structure (e.g. local, regional and national) must coordinate their activities to achieve a common objective (Bulkeley and Betsill, 2005; Newig and Fritsch, 2009). Vertical collaboration is discussed here under the rubric of multi-level collaboration (cf. Innes and Booher, 2003; Stewart, 2004).

TOD is a normative planning and urban development concept that proliferated in the 1990s. By the early 2000s, it had achieved an almost hegemonic status among urban planners (e.g. Bertolini, 2010; Dittmar et al., 2012). Cervero’s (1998) book, The Transit Metropolis, certainly contributed to launching the concept more broadly. It drew heavily on Stockholm as a ‘best practice’ case of how housing and public transport could be successfully integrated. Stockholm, Cervero contended, ‘is arguably the best example anywhere of coordinated planning of rail transit and urban development’ (Cervero, 1998: 109). His research implicitly referred to the development that took place after the Second World War until the late 1960s. Since the mid-1980s, however, the metro system has not expanded significantly.¹ A reorganisation of authority between the municipalities and the County Council during the 1960s (as part of the so-called Hörjel agreement) meant that the close connection between public transport and housing planning was lost. Since the dissolution of that agreement, different forms of multi-level collaborations between the municipalities (including the City of Stockholm) and the County Council (including AB Stockholms Lokaltrafik, the public transport authority) have sought to solve the problems of lack of integrated planning. As there is modest knowledge about the integration of housing and public transport planning after Stockholm’s original TOD period, this paper seeks to fill this gap in the literature.

The purpose of this paper is to investigate how housing and public transport planning in Stockholm have been integrated during the past 20 years through multi-level collaboration. Authority over land-use planning and development is dispersed across the City of Stockholm and the other municipalities in the county, whilst the public transport authority (PTA) is under the authority of the County Council (Paulsson and Isaksson, 2019). The County Council collects tax to fund the PTA and municipalities collect tax to fund welfare services, including housing and land-use planning. To achieve a close integration between (commercial as well as publicly owned) housing and public transport planning, they must all collaborate. This paper explores how this has been done by revisiting both the original scholarship on TOD and the recent urban transformations in Stockholm.

Following this introduction I present a theoretical discussion of TOD and multi-level collaboration as a method to achieve integrated planning. This is followed by a description of the research design and the methods used to gather the empirical material. The case description is then detailed, which is built up around official documents and narrative accounts of staff working at the PTA in Stockholm.

An old idea but a new concept: Revisiting transit-oriented development

TOD is a fairly new concept, but the idea is much older (see, e.g., Qviström and Bengtsson, 2015). As a concept, there is a vast and growing literature on TOD. Searching transit-oriented development in Web of Science’s core collection – the largest database of scientific papers there is – yields 543 hits.² In many ways TOD has become a dominant ideal among scholars and practitioners in planning (e.g. Suzuki et al., 2013) and for good reasons. As is often said in the case of TOD, for a long time urban growth and public transport were like a married couple, being dependent on each other, although not necessarily always best friends (Cervero, 1998; Dittmar et al., 2012). In fact, early urbanisation during the 20th century would not have been possible without an expanding public transport system. With the growth of the automobile system (Urry, 2004), urban growth was stymied in many urban centres across the globe and public transport followed suit. Auto-oriented development was a social fact during much of the post-Second World War period, shaping urban and regional planning and development (Brown et al., 2009; Newman et al., 1995; Urry, 2004).

When TOD as a concept was launched by Calthorpe (1993) and more broadly by Cervero in 1998, it came with the promise of ‘promoting smart growth, injecting vitality into declining inner-city settings, and expanding life-style choices’ (Cervero, 2004: 3). TOD was proposed as a solution to problems with urban sprawl, lack of public investment in disenfranchised and struggling areas, as well as a sustainable urban transport policy (Cervero and Sullivan, 2011). Whilst Cervero certainly breathed new life into the debates about urban growth as well as housing and transport integration, his followers, who are plentiful, have sought to transfer this concept to cities other than those originally included in his study, including Perth, Australia (Curtis, 2012); Los Angeles, USA (Houston et al., 2014; Loukaitou-Sideris, 2010), San Diego, USA (Duncan, 2010) and Dalian, China (Mu and de Jong, 2012) to name but a few examples.

Cervero (1998), in his brilliantly detailed study and argumentation, drew upon several types of transit metropolises. There were the adaptive cities, such as Stockholm, Copenhagen, Tokyo and Singapore, which had managed to integrate transport with the urban form. Then there were the adaptive transit cities, such as Karlsruhe in Germany, Adelaide in Australia and Mexico City – these cities had managed to adapt their transit to the urban form. Additionally, there were cities with a strong urban core, such as Zurich and Melbourne, where public transport authorities had managed to provide good services. Hybrids, that is, adaptive cities and adaptive transit systems, included places such as Munich in Germany, Ottawa in Canada and Curitiba in Colombia in Cervero’s typology. Typologies based on ideal-types like these are effective when it comes to learning through and illustrating the power of ‘best practices’ (Pojani and Stead, 2014; Thomas et al., 2018; Wood, 2014).

Stockholm is a unique case in the TOD literature, for it exhibits a remarkable integration between rail-bound public transport and settlement patterns. This integration, Cervero (1998: 111) states, was ‘the product of perhaps the most comprehensive and ambitious regional planning efforts yet in the free, industrialised world’. A proactive and progressive group of politicians in the City of Stockholm are given the credit for this development, as they orchestrated and coordinated the purchase of land for future housing development.

Even though Cervero (1998) targeted an American audience with his now seminal book, TOD and TOD-like policies have moved swiftly across time and space (McCann and Ward, 2012; Wood, 2014). Finding a larger city which has not been exposed to some aspects of TOD policies would probably pose a challenge. TOD and integrated planning have both mushroomed and travelled as concepts and policy solutions around the globe (Thomas and Bertolini, 2015; Thomas et al., 2018). Surprisingly, however, few studies have returned to the original case studies used by Cervero and investigated what happened after he used them as ideal-types to make his case for TOD (for a few exceptions though, for example, on Copenhagen, see Knowles, 2012; Melbourne, see Dovey et al., 2015; Tokyo, see Chorus and Bertolini, 2016).

As mentioned above, this paper will seek to fill this gap by contributing new knowledge about the developments following Stockholm’s original TOD period. More broadly, the contribution of this paper lies in articulating how integrated planning and TOD-like developments have been achieved through multi-level collaboration. In the rich and heterogeneous literature on TOD, multi-level collaboration as a condition for achieving integrated planning has been investigated, for example, by Curtis (2008) and Bertolini (2012), both of whom have argued for a need to integrate urban development and public transport planning to achieve TOD. Bertolini et al. (2012) echoed this when zooming in on the collaborative efforts involved in a study of how station areas were developed, whilst Pettersson and Frisk (2016) suggested that such collaborative efforts could be understood through the concept of soft planning. What these and other similar studies (see, e.g., Curtis et al., 2009; Dittmar and Ohland, 2012) have in common is their unanimous endorsement of TOD as a normative concept and the instrumentalisation of TOD as a ‘best practice’. Unlike these studies, this paper does not seek to describe a ‘best practice’ or argue for its importance, but rather contributes to the literature by proposing a conceptualisation of different modalities of integrated planning.

Research design and methods

Since the municipalities in Sweden are the sole authorities over land-use development, and public transport is under the County Councils’ authority, it is particularly interesting to explore the integration of housing and public transport, as it depends not only on multi-level collaboration between several municipalities and the County Council but also on the private commercial housing developers and the Swedish Transport Administration, who is responsible for national railway and road infrastructures.

Qualitative, interpretative interviewing gives access to the observations, experiences and understanding of other people (Alvesson, 2010). With the right group of interviewees, it is possible to learn about ‘the work of occupations and how people fashion their careers, about cultures and the values they sponsor, and about the challenges people confront as they live their lives’ (Weiss, 1995: 1). A colleague and I interviewed 15 persons in Stockholm: including seven civil servants working for the PTA, six traffic planners working in five different municipalities, one in the Swedish Transport Administration, and the CEO of Business Region Sweden, the Capital of Scandinavia, a private corporation owned by the County Council to promote and market the region of Greater Stockholm internationally (see Appendix 1). The civil servants in the PTA were selected because they held key positions in the Department of Strategic Planning and had experience of engaging in collaboration with municipalities. When representatives from the municipalities were to be sampled, we approached the PTA and asked if they could provide us with a list of names. Based on this list, six municipal transport planners were selected because they represented five municipalities in four different geographical areas of the region, each with its own socio-economic fabric, urban form and related planning challenges. The municipal transport planners often work closely with land-use planners and the transport planners are generally also involved in the development of the municipal Master Plan, which determines land-use and zoning restrictions. Since transport planners tend to be knowledgeable about, as well as involved in, land-use planning, which was also the case in the five municipalities we covered, we decided not to interview land-use planners.

Interviews were carried out between 2014 and 2016. Each interview lasted between approximately 45 minutes and 1 hour. By developing and following an interview protocol, we managed to lead the content of the interviews to ensure they remained on the same topic, that is, the integration between housing and public transport development (e.g. Weiss, 1995: 78). All interviews were conducted as part of a larger project exploring critical interfaces in collaboration between regional public transport authorities and municipalities. Since we began to recognise the same representations and perspectives towards the end of the 15 interviews, we felt we did not gain any new insights. Because of this saturation, we decided that no more interviews were necessary. Taken together, these interviews provided a rich source of material for exploring the purpose of this paper.

The interviews were fully transcribed and analysed on several occasions. For this paper, the interviews were analysed with a focus on multi-level collaborations in the context of urban transformations and the de-integration and reintegration of public transport and housing planning. An interpretative approach has been drawn upon, meaning that interviewees’ narrative accounts are understood as representing their embedded experiences and understanding, not as giving a complete representation of the world ‘out there’ (Alvesson, 2010).

Revisiting integration during the original TOD period

In December 1964, the so-called Hörjel agreement between Stockholm County Council, the City of Stockholm and the national Government was finalised. The Hörjel agreement was an agreement of principles, which bore the name of the Government’s negotiator, State Secretary of the Ministry of Communications, Nils Hörjel. As Malmsten and Carle (2007) write in their brief history of public transport planning negotiations in Stockholm, the Hörjel agreement sought to solve problems with coordination, limits to expansion and problems with the operation of the public transport system in the Greater Stockholm region.³

With this agreement, all public transport in Stockholm County was gathered under one organisation: AB Stockholms Lokaltrafik (AB SL). Hörjel also managed to convince the government that they should subsidise the development of the metro system, as was already the case with the expanding road network. The agreement was to be gradually complemented by a large number of agreements between involved stakeholders.

The Hörjel agreement was sealed during a time when the many tramlines in Stockholm were closed. A planned transition to right-hand traffic in 1967, together with demands for new investment in technology and infrastructure, provided good arguments for terminating the allegedly slow and inflexible tramlines. In addition, the municipalities surrounding the city proper did not provide (enough) capital, which meant that the City of Stockholm subsidised tramlines to these suburban areas (Svallhammar, 2008: 111–112, 121–122). Subsequently, buses and metro were deemed superior to tramlines and, by removing them, the space for cars in the city would also expand.

The metro lines built before the Hörjel agreement were funded and built on land purchased by the City of Stockholm (Svallhammar, 2008: 94–95). After years of debate, planning and construction, the first metro line opened in 1950 between Slussen and Hökarängen, extending south out of the city (Svallhammar, 2008: 99–102). The subsequent years saw the opening of new stations in new suburban housing areas, called ABC cities, similar to the New Towns in the UK (Svallhammar, 2008: 97). ABC was short for Arbete (Work), Bostad (Housing) and Centrum (Centre) and reflected the idea that towns should be able to provide and integrate all these functions and services. The green line included extensions to and stations in the newly built ABC cities of Vällingby (1952), Högdalen (1954), Hässelbystrand (1958) and Hagsätra (1960) (Sidenbladh, 1981: 291).

Urbanisation and shortage of housing during the 1960s meant a shift in the scale of housing. Before, three- or four-storey buildings were built based on the concept of ‘Houses in the Park’, but now this was replaced with large-scale housing settlements, in which parks and green spaces were adjusted to the housing plans. So, when the red line opened, including stations in Bredäng (1962), Skärholmen (1968) and finally Mörby Centrum (1978) (Sidenbladh, 1981: 291), housing settlements were generally of a larger scale, although often mixed with lower-rise buildings (Svallhammar, 2008: 131–132). But when the blue line was constructed between 1975 and 1985, it connected the large-scale housing suburbs, which had been built as part of the publicly financed ‘One million programme’, with the rest of the metro system (cf. Hall and Vidén, 2005). According to Cervero, this development constitutes the backbone of TOD in Stockholm.

One notable exception to the development occurred during the latter part of the 1970s. In 1975, Stockholm County Council had decided that the metro would be extended to Täby Centrum and thereby replace parts of Roslagsbanan, an existing light-rail covering the suburban and rural north-eastern parts of greater Stockholm (Svallhammar, 2008: 177). In the suburban municipalities of Täby and Vallentuna, local referendums were held in 1980 on whether or not the metro extension should be built. The majority voted ‘no’, but voted ‘yes’ to keeping and investing in an upgrade of Roslagsbanan (Motion, 1979/80:900; Motion, 1980/81:1354). However, the County Council did not consider these referendums as legitimate, as public transport planning was a matter for the County Council not the municipalities, in line with the Hörjel agreement. As the two municipalities refused to rezone and plan for the extension, the County Council was unable to proceed with the plans, even though a formal decision was made in October 1980 to build the metro extension (Riksdagens protokoll, 1981/1982: 49; Svallhammar, 2008).⁴

When Cervero (1998: 116) summarises the development and impact of the rail-bound public transport system in Stockholm, he describes it as a system that works as ‘the window to the rest of the region, the glue that binds one’s own place of residence or work to the greater metropolis’. The metro stops at the suburban town centres and this makes it an integral part of community living, he contends. The design and layout of suburban town centres and their integration with the rail-bound public transport has evolved over time, reflecting different political ideologies and planning ideals, where the earliest conurbations were commuter suburbs, the intermediate ones were built around the idea of the ABC city, whilst the later ones were large-scale high-rise housing.

Overcoming de-integration through multi-level collaboration

From the 1980s to the 2000s, rail-bound investment in Stockholm was modest, including only the completion of the blue line in 1985 and an extension to Skärholmen in 1994. The Dennis agreement of 1990, another formal agreement between the County Council, the City of Stockholm and its surrounding municipalities as well as the national government, included several proposals to invest in new rail-bound public transport infrastructure. It also included new, heavy road infrastructure and the implementation of user fees. The agreement was heavily criticised and formally cancelled in 1997, although one proposal, that to build a C-shaped tramline around the city, was eventually constructed during the 2000s (Svallhammar, 2008: 203). It is also around this time Cervero’s analysis of Stockholm ends. But given the historical tensions when it comes to multi-level collaboration, it is interesting to interrogate how the PTA and the municipalities in the county of Stockholm have collaborated since the period designated as TOD by Cervero.

Since the year 2000, Stockholm has been growing rapidly whilst the average age of the population has dropped. Supply of and demand for public transport has increased over the years, although fluctuations have covaried with economic cycles (Svallhammar, 2008: 193). Since 2014, there have been ambitious plans for building 140,000 new dwellings by 2030 within the city proper (City of Stockholm, 2014). Despite the implementation of a congestion charge system in 2007, crowding and competition for space have continued to increase (Dagens Nyheter, 2017).

Several of the people interviewed for this study said that public transport is all the more important in a Stockholm that is growing (I2, I4, I10, I14). As has been the case historically, there is still a consensus among the main political parties in the County Council that public transport is required for urban development, even though disagreements occasionally emerge on where and what mode of public transport is desired, as well as what the level of fare prices should be.

In Stockholm, as elsewhere in Sweden, planning and development take place in what might be described as a fragmented governance landscape. Winning municipal support for new plans and projects is key for the PTA. Without this, plans for development face the risk of being stymied or even permanently obstructed as the municipalities have sole authority over land-use and housing development. This is precisely what happened with the plans to extend the metro to Täby Centrum in the late 1970s. One civil servant, working in the Planning Department of the City of Stockholm, described the fragmented governance landscape as follows:

The different municipalities surrounding the City of Stockholm all have different characteristics. They see their role as being a little different than that of Stockholm, and this is essentially based on the political perception of what the municipality is. They say, for example, that Nacka is not the same as Solna, and that Stockholm is not as any of those. I have a wish, and that is to see more unity among the municipalities in the County. It would be much nicer, because now we do not have it and the political priorities differ. (I9)

As this quote suggests, different municipalities have their own interests and these are embedded in interdependent relationships with the PTA. Since 2011, the PTA has had a formal policy on how these collaborative relationships should be organised. The municipalities are divided into four geographical sectors, with whom the PTA keep an ongoing collaborative dialogue. Even though these formalised, sectoral collaborations have been around for at least 10 years, the staff at the PTA still express concern that public transport does not develop as a functional and integrated system (I1, I4). Some municipalities are too much driven by their own interests and do not consider the functionality of the entire system, we were told. These interests sometimes lead astray and result in de-integration, making public transport less of a functional system than it possibly could have been, one planner explained (I5).

The quote above also suggests that there are socio-economic differences across the county. In fact, the staff at the PTA suggested that it is generally easier to work with the less well-off municipalities south of the City of Stockholm, compared with the wealthier ones in the north (I6). The northern municipalities have historically been geared towards auto-oriented planning and have sprawled settlement structures (standalone residential houses, higher average household income and higher car ownership). There are also regional ‘lobby groups’, such as Stockholm North-East, which is a group of wealthy municipalities (including Danderyd, Norrtälje, Täby, Vallentuna, Vaxholm and Österåker). Although both Täby and Vallentuna had disagreements with the PTA over the metro extension in the late 1970s, today Stockholm North-East is a strong horizontal inter-municipal collaboration, which collectively demands more public transport, including new metro and extended light rail (e.g. Paulsson et al., 2017).

Despite these differences, there is a consensus regarding the visions and goals of public transport planning and urban development across the region: more public transport is better than less! Yet, when the visions and goals are broken down into concrete projects in specific municipalities, disagreements and conflicting interests emerge among the municipalities. A manager at the PTA echoed this when saying that bus priority lanes and parking spaces generally are difficult decisions in suburban municipalities that are, or at least have been, auto-oriented (I10). This also makes multi-level collaboration a challenge for the PTA.

Ad hoc planning and attempts at reintegration

Several of the interviewees mentioned a difference between ordinary planning and ad hoc planning (I1, I7, I10). When ordinary planning fails to move ahead with concrete projects, ad hoc planning enters the picture. The national government is often involved as a negotiator in these ad hoc planning processes (Malmsten and Carle, 2007). One planner at the PTA mentioned that the national government can level-out, or entirely change, the playing field when it intervenes (I1). Echoing this view, one municipal traffic planner (I8) mentioned that:

… it’s a tough job as well, I must say. We do the best we can … But since there is this joker in the game, for example RUFS and TFP [two regional planning strategies, discussed further below] or the Swedish negotiation [national planning process, discussed further below], many things are going on at the same time. (I8)

Since the national government has more resources and capital at its disposal, it has the capacity to set things in motion. The Hörjel agreement is an example of this. To be able to anticipate such interventions and avoid ad hoc planning, one mid-level manager at the PTA (I11) argued that it is important to analyse why the national government intervenes and to identify which mechanisms were used and formalise these (see also similar discussion in Malmsten and Carle, 2007: 118–120). By doing so, ad hoc planning and ordinary planning can potentially be merged, which may enhance a closer integration between the different levels of authority.

Ordinary planning could also be interrupted or sidestepped in at least three other ways. First, some of the interviewees described situations where representatives from individual municipalities or groups of municipalities created and marketed visions and ‘reality images’ based on their own interests (I1, I6). Stockholm North-East is one such group of municipalities. Interests are generally formed around the specific purpose of public transport in their municipality, for example, to enhance the accessibility or mobility of disenfranchised groups, to boost value of land and so on, we were told. If a municipality is good at defining, communicating and convincing others of the virtue of a particular ‘reality image’, then it is possible for that municipality, or group of municipalities, to take control of the development and get a project proposal muddled through, one planner at the PTA explained.

Second, media and journalists are also described as interrupting the ordinary planning. Attempts at integrating housing and public transport planning could thereby be obstructed. One planner at the PTA (I1) mentioned that his working day was determined by what was in the newspaper when he arrived at the office in the morning. He contrasted the formal view of public transport decision-making – where voters elect politicians who sit on the traffic committee in the County Council, who then determine the general direction of the staff’s work – with a situation where there are lobbyists, the Chamber of Commerce (2001, 2014), ‘free debaters’ in the media and journalists, who every now and then succeed in convincing the politicians in the traffic committee of what to do. Understanding public transport decision-making and planning requires an understanding of this complex environment, which resembles the literature on policy networks (e.g. Hajer and Wagenaar, 2003).

Third, other interviewees mentioned that ordinary planning is not only interrupted by ad hoc planning but that it is also becoming more short-sighted (I5, I6). Ordinary planning is carried out on a day-to-day basis, rather than on a long-term basis. There is a risk, then, that the politicians’ short-termism leads to solutions that do not take the long-term regional and urban development plans into consideration. Another interviewee talked about the desirability of formalised multi-level collaborations (I10). One way to move in that direction is to formally agree on and be committed to robust and long-term planning visions for the entire County, the interviewee explained. A huge challenge here is funding. There are ‘different wallets’ in the region. Even though there might be an agreement about a project on a piece of paper, it means little to nothing if there is no funding to back it up. According to one civil servant in the City of Stockholm (I9), the PTA and the city generally agree about long-term planning visions and the need for integrated planning. Yet, the PTA struggles with funding these developments, he explained.

Regional planning and attempts at reintegration

Since the 1990s, Stockholm has adopted a plan which states that it will grow as a multi-core region. Rather than focusing on the city centre only, regional centres should be allowed to grow and attract investment in order to become strong public transport nodes (RUFS 2010). The City of Stockholm has, in the meantime, adopted its plan of becoming a Promenade city (‘Promenadstaden’), primarily by means of densification within the city limits (Stockholms stad, 2010). That plan entered into force in 2012.

Over the years, three regional plans have been adopted: Regional Plan 1991, RUFS 2001 and RUFS 2010. With these plans and their visions of regional development in place, the idea was to enable easier horizontal coordination between municipalities. Unlike the land-use plans in the municipalities, these regional plans are not legally regulated or mandated. They have all been produced by a branch of the County Council. Producing these is demanding of resources and has often evolved tough intense collaborative work processes, involving many stakeholders. Despite these thorough collaborative processes, much indicates that these plans tend to reflect and corroborate the existing culture of competition among the municipalities in the county, rather than countering it (e.g. Paulsson et al., 2017).

Whilst the regional plans express an attempt at achieving integration, the ad hoc planning that prevails suggests that much of the urban development takes place on a project-by-project basis. The City of Stockholm, for example, has no regular collaborative arrangements with municipalities with whom they do not have joint projects (I9). When one manager at the PTA talked about this, he stated that there were ‘parallel [planning] processes that sometimes meet’ (I10). In fact, the regional plans and the long-term strategies lack widespread recognition and strong support. The City of Stockholm stand behind them, but do not support everything they represent, we were told (I9). One civil servant in the City of Stockholm explained this by saying that RUFS 2010, with its strategy of being a multi-core region, is more a plan for the suburban municipalities than a plan concerning the city proper (I9). Similar scepticism was expressed by planners at the PTA (I6, I7). RUFS 2010 cannot be used for long-term planning, they explained. Yet, long-term planning is often regarded in the literature as necessary for coordination and achieving re-integrated planning (e.g. Hull, 2008). The general conception among those we interviewed was that, since these long-term planning documents lack broad support and are not institutionalised, they tend to be used more as input for discussions about project selection than seen as fixed trajectories.

Despite lack of widespread support, both RUFS 2010 and the PTA’s main bus network plan (‘Stomnätsplan’) express new ways of thinking about public transport planning and attempts at integrating housing and transport in ordinary planning. These long-term and ordinary planning documents are considered as a move away from ad hoc planning and project-by-project development to more integrated planning. The PTA also has regular meetings with municipalities to discuss needs and issues around ridership and modal share, as well as municipal land-use and housing plans.

The national government intervenes to establish strong reintegration

Whilst the three regional plans (Regional Plan 1991, RUFS 2001, RUFS 2010) expressed attempts at reintegrating housing and public transport planning, it was not until a major intervention by the national government that the rules of the game changed once again. Well before the national election in 2014, the conservative-liberal national government under Fredrik Reinfeldt's leadership announced a plan of extending the metro system (Reinfeldt et al., 2013). The national government and the politicians in the County Council had together negotiated lucrative deals with liberal conservative-governed municipalities in Järfälla, Nacka, Solna and the City of Stockholm. In exchange for new metro stations, these municipalities would ensure that new housing would be developed, for example, by selling land close to the new stations to private developers and using that revenue to co-fund the metro extensions (Hammar et al., 2013).

To speed up the process, the national government appointed two negotiators, HG Wessberg and Catharina Håkansson Boman, with the task of ‘achieving an extension of the metro’s blue line in Stockholm and potentially related measures’ (Näringsdepartementet, 2013: 1). The process was officially named the Stockholm Negotiation. Investigations began promptly. The two negotiators delivered the results of these investigations in late 2013. Four extensions of the metro system were suggested and subsequently approved, including extensions to Nacka, Barkarby (in Järfälla) and Arenastaden (the Arena City in Solna stad) (Stockholmsförhandlingen, 2013). Unlike previous extensions in the 1960s and 1970s, where the planning was largely tied to public housing development and financed by public funds, the new plans emerged through a mixture of market-based negotiations, raised congestion charges (Trafikverket and Trafikverket, 2013), an instrumentalisation of value-capturing and, tied to this, potential speculation on land rent (WSP, 2013).

A new department was formed within the County Council, the Department for the Metro Extension. Whilst ad hoc planning was organised in a separate department, ordinary planning and previously decided projects had to continue as usual within the PTA. Hovering over this division of labour and authority was the fact that, since the Hörjel agreement in the 1960s, there had been a growing dissatisfaction among the different stakeholders with the increasing disintegration of links between housing, land-use and public transport planning.

Even though four new extensions of the metro system could be conceptualised as TOD, TOD is a broader concept originally directed towards an American audience and its auto-oriented planning tradition. As a concept, however, TOD has been exported to Sweden, which is somewhat anachronistic given that public transport historically has shaped urban development and housing settlements, at least in Stockholm (Svallhammar, 2008). According to Cervero’s notion of TOD, public transport should be planned so that it contributes to urban revitalisation and redevelopment. Whilst this has happened in recent years, as in the case of Hammaby sjöstad and to some extent along the new C-shaped tramline encircling Stockholm, TOD as a planning ideal existed in Stockholm well before TOD was launched as a concept in the 1990s. When the metro system was originally planned, the aim was to provide transport services for all socio-economic classes by connecting a variety of different new and older areas and neighbourhoods with areas dense with workplaces.

What is new during the past two decades is that public transport is now not primarily planned to revitalise or redevelop the urban landscape nor to enable greater mobility in both disenfranchised and wealthier neighbourhoods. Instead, it is intended to service consumers and two newly built shopping malls: Stockholm Quality Outlet in Barkaby, located to the north-west of the City of Stockholm, and Mall of Scandinavia in the Arena City in Solna. Mall of Scandinavia is a gigantic, luxurious shopping mall, which opened in 2015 close to the new national football stadium, Friends Arena. The Arena City is located on the site of a former railyard, which was re-zoned as an area for housing development in 2007. There is a commuter train station close to the shopping mall and the C-shaped tramline has had its northern terminus nearby since 2014. Besides the shopping mall and the stadium, Arena City is expected to have 30,000 people working there and 2000 residents when fully developed in 2020 (Arena City, 2016).

Taken together, this suggests that there has been a slight shift in the way that public transport is planned in Stockholm after the period originally designated as TOD: from providing service and infrastructure for facilitating production on a universal basis, to promoting and facilitating consumption for wealthier households. Rather than using public transport for urban redevelopment and revitalisation, as in TOD, municipalities and real estate and housing developers tend to use public transport, or at least ensure that it is planned, so that the market value of their investments will increase. This indicates that the planning of public transport is partly done for securing corporations’ profit and for bolstering consumption, and only secondarily for production and increasing mobility and accessibility across socio-economically diverse neighbourhoods and areas.

Discussion

Emerging from these narrative accounts and from the recent developments in Stockholm is a picture where integration between housing and public transport is handled through multi-level collaboration. Reintegrating housing and public transport have turned into an issue of collaboration between different administrative levels in the governance structure. The question whether the municipalities should plan housing first and then the PTA should provide public transport, or vice versa, was a recurring theme during our interviews. Other issues that arose concerned how much space public transport should be allowed to take in relation to other modes of transport, accessibility of buses, signal priority and separate lanes with right of way. Most of these issues were managed on a case-by-case basis by the PTA, in individual projects, with each municipality.

Yet, this was not always the case. Since its inception in the 1940s to its current state of completion in the mid-1980s, the metro system expanded in tandem with housing development. During and after the Second World War, Stockholm’s metro was built within the City of Stockholm’s limits, which enabled a close integration of land-use planning for housing, metro and tram. After the Second World War, the housing situation reached a state of emergency, and the Social democratic government decided to build 1 million new dwellings (the so-called ‘Miljonprogrammet’) during a 10-year period, 1963–1973 (e.g. Hall and Vidén, 2005). Up until the mid-1980s, the population in Stockholm declined and the average age increased. Around the year 2000, the population curve in Stockholm started to shift upwards again and forecasts predicted a significant increase in population growth during the coming decades. This sparked a debate about the need to develop public transport in tandem with housing.

Based on the historical trajectory and current developments described above, this paper has shown that processes of integration through multi-level collaboration have been an endemic but often marginalised aspect of achieving TOD-like urban development. In order to generalise these findings and this discussion, three forms of how housing and public transport planning have been integrated through multi-level collaboration in Stockholm’s urban development are proposed: (1) de-integration by agreement, (2) integration by collaboration and (3) reintegration by intervention.

De-integration by agreement

The most decisive measure to enable development of integrated planning was when the national government intervened in the 1960s and required the City of Stockholm, its surrounding municipalities as well as the County Council to find a common long-term solution to the development of public transport planning in Greater Stockholm. This intervention resulted in the Hörjel agreement in 1964. With this agreement, the national government committed to fund parts of the development of the metro system, whilst authority over public transport was handed over from the City of Stockholm to the County Council to ensure integrated planning across the region. Although intended as a method for integration, which it achieved for over a decade, it eventually led to disintegration. In the mid-1970s and during the 1980s the legacy of the Hörjel agreement lived on, as land-use and housing development remained unintegrated. This formal de-integration of authority meant that housing development was not matched with expansions of the metro system. Surprisingly, Cervero (1998) does not mention the Hörjel agreement, even though it has reached an almost mythical status (as a mode of integration) within the PTA and City of Stockholm.

Integration by collaboration

In the 1990s, new attempts were made at establishing regional plans for Greater Stockholm. RUFS, as these regional planning documents were called, are not legally binding and were primarily produced to enable multi-level collaboration around commonly shared visions, that is, a multi-core region. Produced nearly every tenth year since the 1990s, these plans have had a limited impact on long-term planning, however. Yet, the C-shaped tram route encircling the western part of Greater Stockholm could partly be attributed to the visions in these regional plans but it could equally well be attributed to the ‘Dennis package’, that is, the national government’s failed attempt in the 1990s to intervene in regional traffic planning in Greater Stockholm. Unlike the Hörjel agreement, where the national government intervened and established long-term solutions for integrated planning, integration in the 1990s emerged as the outcome of processes of multi-level collaboration, mainly connected to the production of the regional plans. Yet, during the 2000s ordinary planning was intersected with ad hoc planning also through multi-level collaboration. Such collaboration, however, can be understood as a weak form of integration as it did not result in many new projects that connected public transport planning with housing developments.⁵

Reintegration by intervention

During more recent years, reintegration of housing and public transport planning has been achieved thanks to interventions by the national government. In 2012, the liberal-conservative government announced its plans for expanding the metro system and a process of negotiations began, involving the national government’s negotiators, the City of Stockholm and four surrounding municipalities as well as the County Council. The Stockholm Negotiation, as this landmark agreement was called, meant that the metro system would expand once again in tandem with housing development. In 2016, construction started on extending the metro system for the first time since the mid-1980s (excluding the opening of the Skarpnäck station in 1994) and adjacent housing development is currently underway. Owing to the current weak forms of multi-level collaboration, the national government is often compelled to intervene to ensure that public transport and housing planning become integrated. As discussed above, when the planning tools available for the PTA and the municipalities in ordinary planning are not sufficient, the national government sets in motion integrated ad hoc planning through multi-level collaboration.

In summary, multi-level collaboration in Greater Stockholm has emerged as a necessary condition for achieving integrated planning in a context where no individual organisation has authority over public transport, land-use and housing planning. Unlike the explicitly normative and ‘best practice’-oriented research on TOD (Bertolini, 2012; Curtis and James, 2004; Curtis et al., 2009; Dittmar and Ohland, 2012), the three modes of integrated planning developed here suggest that TOD can be achieved in different ways, even in the same city-region. This adds to the growing literature that empirically investigates integrated planning (e.g. Guthrie and Fan, 2016; Hrelja, 2015; Pettersson and Hrelja, 2018), but these results also contrast with Cervero’s (1998) celebratory picture of TOD in Stockholm. Yet, the three modes should primarily be used as a point of departure for investigating other modes of integrated planning in a context where multi-level collaboration is necessary for achieving TOD.

Conclusion

TOD was launched broadly as a concept more than 20 years ago by Cervero’s (1998)The Transit Metropolis. But what has happened in a city such as Stockholm, whose past developments of integrating public transport and housing were used to make the case for TOD? TOD developed in Stockholm during the period during and after the Second World War when public transport and land-use planning were organised under the authority of the City of Stockholm. Yet, TOD is also an ongoing and current challenge, where integrated planning has taken the form of multi-level collaboration between the PTA, the municipalities in the Greater Stockholm region and the national government.

This paper has investigated multi-level collaboration as a solution drawn upon to achieve TOD-like integrated planning. As this paper has shown, multi-level collaboration comes with its own sets of challenges. Different municipalities have different political majorities and priorities. Different organisations have their own technical standards and planning horizons. Planning of public transport takes place in networked arrangements where authority is fragmented and contested.

The results from the case study lead to three major contributions to previous studies, the three modes of integration and how these have been organised: (1) de-integration by agreement, (2) integration by collaboration, and (3) reintegration by intervention.

De-integration by agreement contributes to previous studies as it displays how TOD-like integrated planning can be achieved during a fixed term (10 years) if one party gives up its authority (over public transport planning) in exchange for extensive long-term funding (funded rail-bound extensions to planned housing developments).

Integration by collaboration is a governance arrangement where formally independent but informally interdependent public and private organisations achieve TOD-like development together. When integration is based on collaboration that is voluntary and non-binding, it is relatively fragile compared with the two other modes. Because of a surge in housing prices and an occurrence of a mixture of ad hoc planning and ordinary planning during the past ten years, integrated planning has been, and is still, a challenge to achieve in practice in Stockholm.

Reintegration by intervention is a strong form of collaboration as it mimics parts of de-integration by agreement and parts of integration by collaboration. It builds upon both of these modes, as formally independent but informally interdependent organisations collaborate because a third party, the national government, has intervened to establish a negotiation process where the levels of authority are matched to meet mutual interests. The PTA promised to build public transport in exchange for co-funding and planned housing developments from the municipalities’ side. Co-funding is expected to come from selling off publicly owned land adjacent to the new metro stations, which is expected to increase in value because of the new stations.

Finally, modern Stockholm is, in many respects, a city that the metro system contributed to building. What has changed in Stockholm during the past 20 years since Cervero (1998) first published The Transit Metropolis, is that public transport and housing development no longer cater to the production-side of the economy. Public transport planning and housing development are now much more based on providing homes for wealthier households, accessibility to high-end consumption in massive shopping malls, as well as on exploring speculative land-value-capture regimes. These diverging developments must be understood as one whole, for economic growth is nowadays driven by financialised consumerism rather than labour-intensive production, and this is the global political economy in which public transport and housing planning in Stockholm takes shape.

Footnotes

Appendix

Appendix 1.

No.	Interviews
L1	Civil servant, Strategy specialist, Stockholm PTA
L2	Civil servant, Manager at Urban Planning Office, municipality North of Stockholm
L3	Civil servant, Manager at Department of Traffic and parking, municipality North of Stockholm
L4	Civil servant, Programme leader, Stockholm PTA
L5	Civil servant, Strategy specialist in traffic planning, Stockholm PTA
L6	Civil servant 2, Strategy specialist in traffic planning, Stockholm PTA
L7	Civil servant 3, Strategy specialist in traffic planning, Stockholm PTA
L8	Civil servant, Municipal Traffic planner, municipality North-west of Stockholm
L9	Civil servant, Manager strategic traffic planning, City of Stockholm
L10	Civil servant, Manager at Department of Strategic Planning, Stockholm PTA
L11	Civil servant 2, Manager at Department of Strategic Planning, Stockholm PTA
L12	Civil servant, Municipal traffic planner, municipality South of Stockholm
L13	Civil servant, Manager at Department of Traffic, municipality South of Stockholm
L14	CEO of Business Region Stockholm, Capital of Scandinavia
L15	Civil servant, Strategy specialist, Swedish Transport Administration

Acknowledgements

I would like to thank Robert Hrejla and Elias Isaksson for their constructive comments on earlier versions of this paper. I owe Karolina Isaksson thanks for help with gathering the empirical material. A sincere thank you also to Samantha Svärdh for her diligent proofreading of this paper.

Funding

The author disclosed receipt of the following financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article: Financial support was provided by Vinnova (2013-03020) and K2, The Swedish Knowledge Centre for Public Transport.

ORCID iD

Alexander Paulsson

Notes

References

Albrechts

(2006) Bridge the gap: From spatial planning to strategic projects. European Planning Studies 14(10): 1487–1500.

Alvesson

(2010) Interpreting Interviews. Los Angeles, CA, and London: SAGE Publications.

Arena City (2016) ‘About us’. Available at: http://www.arenastaden.se/Om-Arenastaden/ (accessed 13 April 2019).

Bertolini

(2010) Transit-oriented development. In: Hutchison

Aalbers

Beauregard

, et al. (eds) Encyclopedia of Urban Studies. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage, pp. 822–824.

Bertolini

(2012) Integrating mobility and urban development agendas: A manifesto. DisP – The Planning Review 48(1): 16–26.

Bertolini

Curtis

Renne

(2012) Station area projects in Europe and beyond: Towards transit oriented development? Built Environment 38(1): 31–50.

Brown

Morris

Taylor

(2009) Planning for cars in cities: Planners, engineers, and freeways in the 20th century. Journal of the American Planning Association 75(2): 161–177.

Bulkeley

Betsill

(2005) Rethinking sustainable cities: Multilevel governance and the ‘Urban’ politics of climate change. Environmental Politics 14(1): 42–63.

Calthorpe

(1993) The Next American Metropolis: Ecology, Community, and the American Dream. New York: Princeton Architectural Press.

10.

Candel

JJL

(2017) Holy Grail or inflated expectations? The success and failure of integrated policy strategies. Policy Studies 38(6): 519–552.

11.

Cervero

(1998) The Transit Metropolis: A Global Inquiry. Washington, DC: Island Press.

12.

Cervero

(2004) Transit-Oriented Development in the United States: Experiences, Challenges, and Prospects. Washington, DC: Transportation Research Board.

13.

Cervero

Sullivan

(2011) Green TODs: Marrying transit-oriented development and green urbanism. International Journal of Sustainable Development & World Ecology 18(3): 210–218.

14.

Chamber of Commerce (2001) Trafiklösningar för framtiden. Report. Available at: http://www.chamber.se/rapporter/trafiklosningar-for-framtiden.htm (accessed 20 October 2019).

15.

Chamber of Commerce (2014) Den byggbara marken är slut i Stockholm. Report. Available at: http://www.chamber.se/pressmeddelanden/den-byggbara-marken-ar-slut-i.htm (accessed 20 October 2019).

16.

Chorus

Bertolini

(2016) Developing transit-oriented corridors: Insights from Tokyo. International Journal of Sustainable Transportation 10(2): 86–95.

17.

City of Stockholm, The (2014) Bostadspotential i Stockholm. Available at: http://www.stockholm.se/PageFiles/673930/Bostadspotential%20i%20Stockholm.pdf (accessed 5 April 2019).

18.

Curtis

(2008) Planning for sustainable accessibility: The implementation challenge. Transport Policy 15(2): 104–112.

19.

Curtis

(2012) Transitioning to transit-oriented development: The case of Perth, Western Australia. Urban Policy and Research 30(3): 275–292.

20.

Curtis

James

(2004) An institutional model for land use and transport integration. Urban Policy and Research 22(3): 277–297.

21.

Curtis

Renne

Bertolini

(eds) (2009) Transit Oriented Development: Making it Happen. Farnham and Burlington, VT: Ashgate.

22.

Dagens Nyheter (2017) Kraftigt missnöje med trängseln i Stockholm. Available at: https://www.dn.se/sthlm/kraftigt-missnoje-med-trangseln-i-stockholm/?print=true (accessed 5 December 2019).

23.

Dittmar

Ohland

(eds) (2012) The New Transit Town: Best Practices In Transit-Oriented Development. Washington, DC: Island Press.

24.

Dittmar

Belzer

Autler

(2012) An introduction to transit-oriented development. In: Dittmar

Ohland

(eds) The New Transit Town: Best Practices In Transit-Oriented Development. Washington, DC: Island Press, pp. 2–17.

25.

Dovey

Woodcock

Pike

(2015) Intensifying Melbourne: Transit-oriented urban design for resilient urban futures. Online. Planning News 41(2): 10–11.

26.

Duncan

(2010) The impact of transit-oriented development on housing prices in San Diego, CA. Urban Studies 48(1): 101–127.

27.

Geerlings

Stead

(2003) The integration of land use planning, transport and environment in European policy and research. Transport Policy 10(3): 187–196.

28.

Guthrie

Fan

(2016) Developers' perspectives on transit-oriented development. Transport Policy 51: 103–114.

29.

Hajer

Wagenaar

(eds) (2003) Deliberative Policy Analysis: Understanding Governance in the Network Society. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

30.

Hall

Vidén

(2005) The Million Homes Programme: A review of the great Swedish planning project. Planning Perspectives 20(3): 301–328.

31.

Hammar

Larsson

Sjöberg

(2013) Ny tunnelbana nyttovärdering markanvändning – Sammanställning av kommunrapporter för Stockholms stad, Nacka kommun, Solna stad och Järfalla kommun. Available at: http://www.stockholmsforhandlingen.se/accounts/10965/files/274.pdf (accessed 2 December 2019).

32.

Healey

(1997) Collaborative Planning: Shaping Places in Fragmented Societies. Vancouver: University of British Columbia Press.

33.

Healey

(2010) Making Better Places: The Planning Project in the Twenty-First Century. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.

34.

Hrelja

(2015) Integrating transport and land-use planning? How steering cultures in local authorities affect implementation of integrated public transport and land-use planning. Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice 74: 1–13.

35.

Houston

Boarnet

Ferguson

, et al. (2014) Can compact rail transit corridors transform the automobile city? Planning for more sustainable travel in Los Angeles. Urban Studies 52(5): 938–959.

36.

Hull

(2008) Policy integration: What will it take to achieve more sustainable transport solutions in cities? Transport Policy 15(2): 94–103.

37.

Innes

Booher

(2003) Collaborative policymaking: Governance through dialogue. In: Hajer

Wagenaar

(eds) Deliberative Policy Analysis: Understanding Governance in the Network Society. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 33–59.

38.

Knowles

(2012) Transit oriented development in Copenhagen, Denmark: From the Finger Plan to Ørestad. Journal of Transport Geography 22(C): 251–261.

39.

Loukaitou-Sideris

(2010) A new-found popularity for transit-oriented developments? Lessons from Southern California. Journal of Urban Design 15(1): 49–68.

40.

McCann

Ward

(2012) Assembling urbanism: Following policies and ‘Studying Through’ the sites and situations of policy making. Environment and Planning A: Economy and Space 44(1): 42–51.

41.

Malmsten

Carle

(2007) Från Hörjel till Cederschiöld – 40 års förhandlingar mellan staten och regionen. RAPPORT 4:2007. Available at: http://www.rufs.se/globalassets/h.-publikationer/2007-4_r_horjel_cederschiold.pdf (accessed 2 December 2019).

42.

Motion (1979/80:900) Om bibehållande av Roslagsbanan. Available at: http://www.riksdagen.se/sv/dokument-lagar/dokument/motion/om-bibehallande-av-roslagsbanan_G302900 (accessed 2 December 2019).

43.

Motion (1980/81:1354) Om finansieringen av en tunnelbaneutbyggnad till Täby. Available at: http://www.riksdagen.se/sv/dokument-lagar/dokument/motion/om-finansieringen-av-en-tunnelbaneutbyggnad-till_G4021354 (accessed 20 September 2019).

44.

de Jong

(2012) Establishing the conditions for effective transit-oriented development in China: The case of Dalian. Journal of Transport Geography 24(C): 234–249.

45.

Näringsdepartementet (2013:22) Utbyggnad av tunnelbanan och ökad bostadsbebyggelse i Stockholms län. Kommittédirektiv Dir. Beslut vid regeringssammanträde den 28 februari2013. Available at: http://static1.snowfire.io/accounts/10965/files/154.pdf?t=mm6h7v. (accessed 13 April 2019).

46.

Newig

Fritsch

(2009) Environmental governance: Participatory, multi-level – and effective. Environmental Policy and Governance 19: 197–214.

47.

Newman

Kenworthy

Vintila

(1995) Can we overcome automobile dependence? Physical planning in an age of urban cynicism. Cities 12(1): 53–65.

48.

Paulsson

Isaksson

(2019) Networked authority and regionalised governance: Public transport, a hierarchy of documents and the anti-hierarchy of authorship. Environment and Planning C: Politics and Space 37(6): 985–1004.

49.

Paulsson

Hylander

Hrelja

(2017) One for all, or all for oneself? Governance cultures in regional public transport planning. European Planning Studies 25(12): 2293–2308.

50.

Pettersson

Frisk

(2016) Soft space regional planning as an approach for integrated transport and land use planning in Sweden. Urban, Planning and Transport Research 4(1): 64–82.

51.

Pettersson

Hrelja

(2018) How to create functioning collaboration in theory and in practice – Practical experiences of collaboration when planning public transport systems. International Journal of Sustainable Transportation, pp. 1–13 (available online).

52.

Pojani

Stead

(2014) Dutch planning policy: The resurgence of TOD. Land Use Policy 41: 357–367.

53.

Qviström

Bengtsson

(2015) What kind of transit-oriented development? Using planning history to differentiate a model for sustainable development. European Planning Studies 23(12): 2516–2534.

54.

Reinfeldt

Björklund

Lööf

, et al. (2013) Så ska vi bygga ut t-banan och bostäderna i Stockholm. Dagens Nyheter. Available at: https://www.dn.se/debatt/sa-ska-vi-bygga-ut-t-banan-och-bostaderna-i-stockholm/ (accessed 15 December 2019)

55.

Riksdagens protokoll (1981/1982) Om planerna på framdragning av tunnelbana till Täby. No. 76. Available at: https://data.riksdagen.se/fil/6277514F-62A2-427C-8E28-5D93AAE3A16F (accessed 27 October 2019).

56.

Rotmans

van Asselt

Vellinga

(2000) An integrated planning tool for sustainable cities. Environmental Impact Assessment Review 20(3): 265–276.

57.

Sidenbladh

(1981) Planering för Stockholm 1923–1958. Stockholm: Liber, Monografier utgivna av Stockholms stad.

58.

Stead

Meijers

(2009) Spatial planning and policy integration: Concepts, facilitators and inhibitors. Planning Theory & Practice 10(3): 317–332.

59.

Stewart

(2004) Collaboration in multi-actor governance. In: Haus

Heinelt

Stewart

(eds) Urban Governance and Democracy: Leadership and Community Involvement. London and New York: Taylor & Francis.

60.

Stockholms stad (2010) Promenadstaden–Översiktsplan för Stockholm. Stockholm: Stockholms stad.

61.

Stockholmsförhandlingen (2013) Överenskommelse om finansiering och medfinansiering av utbyggnad av tunnelbanan samt ökad bostadsbebyggelse i Stockholms län enligt 2013 års Stockholmsförhandling. Available at: http://static1.snowfire.io/accounts/10965/files/262.pdf?t=mwk5a5 (accessed 27 October 2019)

62.

Suzuki

Cervero

Kanako

(2013) Transforming Cities with Transit. Urban Development. Washington, DC: The World Bank.

63.

Svallhammar

(2008) I väntan på tunnelbanan: kollektivtrafikutbyggnad och bebyggelseexploatering i Storstockholm. Stockholm: Stockholmia.

64.

Thomas

Bertolini

(2015) Policy transfer among planners in transit-oriented development. Town Planning Review 86(5): 537–560.

65.

Thomas

Pojani

Lenferink

, et al. (2018) Is transit-oriented development (TOD) an internationally transferable policy concept? Regional Studies 52(9): 1201–1213.

66.

Tosun

Lang

(2017) Policy integration: Mapping the different concepts. Policy Studies 38(6): 553–570.

67.

Trafikverket

CTS

Trafikverket

KTH

(2013) Förändrade trängselskatter i Stockholm. Underlag för 2013års Stockholmsförhandling. Available at: http://stockholmsforhandlingen.se/accounts/10965/files/234.pdf (accessed 12 December 2019).

68.

Urry

(2004) The ‘system’ of automobility. Theory, Culture & Society 21(4–5): 25–39.

69.

Vigar

(2009) Towards an integrated spatial planning? European Planning Studies 17(11): 1571–1590.

70.

Weiss

(1995) Learning from Strangers: The Art and Method of Qualitative Interview Studies. New York: Free Press.

71.

Wood

(2014) Learning through policy tourism: Circulating bus rapid transit from South America to South Africa. Environment and Planning A: Economy and Space 46(11): 2654–2669.

72.

WSP (2013) Effekter på värdet på handelsfastigheter vid etablering av nya tunnelbanelinjer i Stockholmsregionen. Available at: http://stockholmsforhandlingen.se/accounts/10965/files/229.pdf (accessed 20 September 2019).