A cohesive Oslo region

1. A cohesive Oslo region Economic, social and environmentalsustainability ECTP-CEU Young Planners Workshop Norwegian WorkingGroup: Iselin Hewitt, Simon Friis Mortensen, Rune Carlsen, Elin Seim Mæsel and Mari Svolsbru. Supervisors: Kristin Nordli and Per Gunnar Røe

2. The Norwegian Planning System • Many actors involved and confusing processes between public agencies and private companies. • Housing mainly regulated on local levels, rarely coordinated with neighbouring municipalities. • Strict requirements for universal design makes small dwellings very expensive to build, discouraging private investors from supplying the market. • Transit planning varies according to which level of planning. Rail and highways are organised on state levels, Metro, bus, ferries, and smaller roads on county and municipal levels.

3. A passive policy in the municipal planning for building construction

4. The state level of transit planning The government prioritises funding through the National Transport Plan which is revised every fourth year after the election of a new government. The administrative bodies to the right cooperates to create a suggested plan which is revised and approved according to the agenda of the political parties in power.

5. How can planning stategiesinfluence territorial cohesion? • By stimulating a good dialogue, the planning process can identify common interests across sectors and levels. • An interdisciplinary planning process can identify options that are grounded in a wider array of knowledge • Planning with a long time perspective creates better solutions and provides predictability for investors and the public. • Legitimate planning institutions on higher levels might be a good alternative to “get things done”.

6. Two Regional Scales

7. The map shows the collaborative Oslo Region where there is a formal collaboration between the municipalities in the counties of Buskerud, Østfold, Akershus and Oslo. This is an expansion of the already relatively tight connection between Akershus and Oslo, that for instance share the same county governor and that has the same company for public transit. http://www.osloregionen.no/Pages/About/about_eng.phtml

8. The map shows the most important infrastructure within the Oslo region. • Outside the very central areas, around Oslo and along the coast, the transit system is mainly road based. • An improvement would be to intensify the rail based transit to spare the environment and to designate less space to transit systems. Railways hold a capacity that far overrides that of roads. • Most of the railroad in Norway has one track instead of two, often delaying routes while waiting for passing trains. • The rails have a very limited capacity for freight.

9. The map shows the percentage commuting into the local municipalities within the greater Oslo region. • This demonstrates that there are several nodes outside of Oslo that would also benefit from increased mobility. • In an average Norwegian nuclear family both husband and wife works, and interconnectedness in the area would provide more flexibility in the labour and housing market.

10. The map shows the suggested daily commuting distances. The smaller circle shows the distances that are acceptable commuting distances as of today. The range is increased with the proposed high speed rails in the area. Also, the maps shows the Scandinavian corridor from Copenhagen, through Øresund and Malmö, Gothenburg and ending in Oslo. There are 8 million people living along the corridor that may in the future share more of the labour and housing market. http://www.8millioncity.com/welcome-onboard.html

11. SWOT-analysisofthe Capital Region Background: • Oslo is the fastest-growing Scandinavian capital with 2% annual population growth. The increase is due, in an almost equal degree, to a high birth rate and immigration. The demand for housing far overrides supply, and the housing market has become very expensive. • The SWOT analysis of housing in the Oslo region will focus on the character of the existing situation and prospects for abating the unbalance between population growth and housing through a regional coordination of allocation and construction of housing. The SWOT-analysis for the Capital Region is simplified in this Power Point presentation, and is separated into the themes of housing, mobility and economic development in the written document.

12. SWOT-analysisofthe Capital Region:Strengths • Norway has a strong welfare state and low numbers of homeless people. • The unemployment levels are very low. • A region with relatively short distances. • Some level of cooperation in development of public transit. • Easy to change mode of transportation on the same travel fare. • The region is already a nodal point for knowledge-intensive businesses. • An urban environment with closeness to the sea and forests creates a liveable environment, attractive to high skilled workers.

13. SWOT-analysisofthe Capital Region:Weaknesses: • Oslo is pushed to the limit in housing supply. • The labour market has become more mobile, but housing for tenancy is very limited. • Dispute around continued environmental protection of lands. • The administrative borders seem to be a disadvantage for the management of the housing sector. • There are increasing social inequalities manifested spatially through socio-economic and ethnic segregation. • Resistance to densification in affluent residential areas. Further densification of low-income areas thought to decrease life quality for the inhabitants. • Areas of low population densities leaves weak foundations for expansion of public transport, whereas the existing road network is congested in rush hours. • Oslo area is small and remote making the area less significant to global markets. • Low level of influence in the EU due to limited membership.

14. SWOT-analysisofthe Capital Region:Opportunities • The surrounding municipalities of Oslo could provide space for housing. • Planning of construction of houses together with public transport can secure dense areas and build up around communication nodes. • Strengthened policies for the social housing can increase the number of public housing units and dwellings for students, and may relieve pressure in the rental market. • Better infrastructure/public transport: may open for the creation of new and attractive residential areas. • An increased focus on rail expansion can stimulate economic growth without increasing climate emissions. • With an appropriate housing availability, attracting skilled labour would be relatively easy.

15. SWOT-analysisofthe Capital Region:Threats • Population growth and demand for housing can override supply. • Lack of public housing. • It is not attractive for private actors to build for the disadvantaged groups. This can lead to further segregation and marginalization of groups. • Urban sprawl in the surrounding municipalities and fragmented developments increases car dependency cause air pollution. • Disagreement over financing of infrastructure projects. • Disagreement over where to put an effort of government support. Long traditions for supporting the districts instead of the capital.

16. SWOT-analysis of the Scandinavian Region Background: According to the ‘Scandinavian 8 Million City Guide’ the potential results of a Scandinavian 8 million city are: • Higher productivity and competitive edge • Easier access to skills and talents • Reduced costs in logistics • Increased access to suppliers and customers • Greater influence due to increased overall size • New possibilities for cooperation and innovation across a wide range of areas.

17. Mobility in the Scandinavian region Strengths: • Increased mobility through an integrated high-speed railroad will reduce the travel time between Oslo and Copenhagen from 8 hours to 2 hours and 20 minutes. • Frequency of departure, price, waiting time, comfort and convenience are also important parameters of competition- Many travellers have strong preferences for travelling by train. • With the success of the increased connectivity in the Øresund region, with the opening of the Øresund Bridge in 2000, a will to collaboration within Scandinavia is shown to be possible. Weaknesses: • In Sweden the public organization of trains and roads has been coordinated since 2010 through the establishment of Trafikverket, as opposed to Norway, where the Norwegian National Rail Administration and the Norwegian Public Roads Administration are two separate bodies. • From a Swedish perspective it is discouraging to put renewed effort in a parallel high speed line as this would need to be separate from the existing tracks, that are not as well developed on the Norwegian side.

18. Mobility in the Scandinavian region Opportunities: • Scandinavian cooperation is an attractive solution to Norway, Denmark and Sweden as all parties can draw great benefit from increased connectivity.A connected region will have the potential of moving goods, people and labour in an effective, faster and more sustainable way. • There is an impending implementation of a high-speed railway from Oslo to Copenhagen and the building of the Femern tunnel between Denmark and Germany. This would give increased access to surplus labour from other European countries with higher unemployment rates and open up new markets of trade and investment.   Threats: • It would be a precondition that Sweden, Denmark and Norway all feel that they are benefitting from the project, and that the costs are made up by the potential gains. • It would require that private investors would finance the planning and building in part. • When a national report about opportunities and costs of high-speed trains in Norway were presented this year, a strong political resistance arose due to the high costs. This would be a threat to a transnational railway as well, even though the costs here would be shared between Sweden, Denmark and Norway. • Almost the entire railway would be built in Sweden which means that potential impacts on environment, landscape and human nuisances would be a bigger issue here. • There is a possibility that a high-speed rail across the borders is going to benefit less from EU-support than the Øresund-connection, as Norway is not a full EU-member, and therefore not included in the European Commission’s Regional Policy (EC DG Regio).

19. Economic development in the Scandinavian region Strength • Even though there are national differences, they all share the foundation of a welfare state, and closely related languages. The region can therefore be defined as relatively homogeneous. • The three metropolitan areas within the region are all characterised by a high degree of knowledge intensive companies and a highly skilled labour market. The region therefore form a strong foundation for transnational collaboration regarding innovation, research and economic growth. • In 2005 the region of Gothenburg/Oslo and the Øresund region took the initiative to found the ‘Corridor of Innovation and Cooperation’ (COINCO), which is a aimed at creating a common ground for collaboration and development within the region. This first step shows that, there is a common will to form a closer region. Weakness • A Scandinavian region would require new ways of collaboration and planning across national differences. It might be hard to make a binding agreement that all three Scandinavian countries finds rewarding and can accept. • The planning systems in the three countries have differences in the power of each level of governance. A big challenge will be to implement potential decisions at a transnational level to the many different local municipalities within the region, thus a transnational plan would have to be implemented in the many municipalities district plans.  

20. Economic development in the Scandinavian region Opportunities • Both in infrastructure and knowledge the region has a huge potential. The region contains Scandinavia’s two biggest airports and the biggest port. Within the region 29 universities and university colleges can be found. • With collaboration and forming of clusters industries, the region therefore has a big economical potential. • Effective transport lines between the central city regions in Scandinavia is of great importance for clusters of innovation in e.g. life science industries. • An integration of labour and housing markets across Scandinavian borders could make up for a severe unbalance in the region. • A gateway to Europe through high-speed rails can make the commodity trade more effective and secure as well as more sustainable than road transport. Threats • Due to the strong commitment to the welfare states, the Scandinavian countries have had a long-standing commitment to social redistribution. Threats of social inequality and uneven development within the national context of all three countries would therefore be a political issue. • Another concern would be, that the increased mobility of professionals could lead to increased pressure on an already expensive housing market of the metropolitan area of Oslo. This could speed up processes of gentrification and put pressure on the working class and the lower educated.