I recently visited two metropolitan regions in Scandinavia — Stockholm and Copenhagen — that both are anticipating steady rates of growth similar to Washington, D.C., where I work as a regional transportation planner. Between now and 2030, these metropolitan areas expect their populations to increase between one and two percent every year. Where will all those people live? How will they get around?
Based upon interviews I conducted, planners in these two metropolitan areas seem to be approaching the challenge differently. Stockholm’s regional plan acknowledges that the metropolitan core cannot handle all the forecast growth, so they are promoting the development of seven satellite “cores” that will have a relatively dense mix of jobs and housing. Copenhagen, on the other hand, is taking a more monocentric approach, focusing attention on increasing density and growth — especially job growth — in the center. The city has already experienced successful regeneration of brownfield sites, and leaders are excited to build on this track record.
In some basic ways, each approach seems to be a reflection of the metropolitan region’s transportation identity — a sort of cultural identity. It’s almost as if planners (consciously or subconsciously) have asked, “How do we, as a metropolitan community, see our travel patterns as a reflection of our way of life? And how do we want to see ourselves, in our daily travel, 20 years from now?”
Bicycling is at the core of Copenhagen’s transportation identity. Roughly 40 percent of Copenhagen’s commuters cycle to work. It’s easy to get the impression that the act of bicycling reflects the essence of the city — bustling, livable, and informal. When asked about bicycling, people are quick to extol its virtues, especially the sense of personal independence it provides.
Public transit in Copenhagen, while excellent compared to typical U.S. standards, is actually less used than in similar cities in Europe. You have to wonder if a tradeoff has occurred — by focusing on bikes, has metropolitan Copenhagen neglected development of public transit? A gleaming new underground Metro system only opened in the last few years, rather late compared to other cities. Planners admit that investment in the commuter rail system has been inadequate. Yes, transit needs attention. But the role of the bike seems symbolically dominant in a metropolitan area that is staking its future on increased density in the core.
Stockholm’s transportation identity is tied to its excellent underground metro system, the Tunnelbana. Built on numerous islands, Stockholm as a physical place can feel rather fragmented. The Tunnelbana ties these geographic pieces together into a cohesive region. The public seems to have a sense of confidence and trust in the system’s reliability, although I’m sure there are plenty of complaints about it. And the T-bana has not just given the public a daily path to work, it’s also shown them the path to their region’s vision for growth. Over the past 50 years, Stockholm has developed a series of transit-oriented bedroom communities along the radial transit system. (Copenhagen has done this too.) Now, the region hopes to turn seven of these outlying communities into robust urban centers — “cores” — that will feature a mix of jobs, housing, and retail.
Both Stockholm’s polycentric planning and Copenhagen’s monocentric policies are designed to use land more efficiently and inhibit sprawl tendencies. “We don’t want to become like Los Angeles,” was a comment I heard in both Stockholm and Copenhagen. But the transportation challenges of each approach are different. As Stockholm works toward developing viable suburban cores with urban characteristics, there will be a need to build circumferential linkages between them. Some of these links may be light rail, but others will certainly be roads. As Copenhagen increases the density of its core, planners will need to be sure that circulation within the increasingly crowded center is efficiently planned and that public transit is expanded.
Limiting the use of personal cars will be difficult. Stockholm implemented a congestion charge (similar to London’s) in 2006, so the public is familiar with the notion of restrictions on driving. But “Swedes love their cars,” I was told, and the country’s vast open spaces have fostered a “car culture.” Denmark, with a much smaller land area, much higher car prices, and no native auto industry, does not appear to be so car-focused. Yet, driving there is on the rise and transit use has stagnated.
The urge to drive will exist under both polycentric and monocentric approaches to metropolitan growth. If development is effectively encouraged outside of Stockholm’s core – even in a limited number of concentrated centers €“ an increased amount of travel will be suburb-to-suburb. People will increasingly have to drive between these suburban “cores” because it will be difficult to connect them with public transit. For example, rail transit has not been included in a planned western bypass road around Stockholm; the anticipated ridership simply isn’t there.
Copenhagen’s monocentric approach could also indirectly encourage driving, particularly in the suburbs where folks may feel they have no other viable options for getting around. Even in Copenhagen itself, some people may not want to bike and there is a concern that public transit has not kept up with demand.
As a transportation planner from the U.S., these issues are familiar. In Metropolitan Washington, we know that we must do a better job of using land more efficiently as a way to make alternative transportation more viable. Of course, we’re starting from a more difficult position: our auto-dependent habits are more ingrained and our institutional structures make real change hard to achieve. But these European examples provide us a chance to reflect on how our vision for growth might be focused and what challenges might be ahead.
My thoughts in this blog represent just a sampling of the information I am gathering during the course of a fellowship in which I’m looking at ways in which leaders and planners in European metropolitan regions have engaged the public in responding to the pressures of growth. I welcome any comments, corrections, suggestions.
John Swanson is a senior transportation planner with the Metropolitan Washington Council of Governments and is a Comparative Domestic Policy Fellow with the German Marshall Fund.
No related posts.
