The two Municipal Plans of Copenhagen as well as the Regional Plan 2005, the Finger Plan 2007 and the National Planning Statement 2000 promote urban densification and development close to public transport nodes. These urban development principles are expressed and related to sustainability goals most clearly in the municipal plans of
Copenhagen, where also improved conditions for bike travel and measures to reduce car travel in the city center are included. In the Infrastructure Commission’s report, the focus is instead mainly on technological solutions for traffic management and vehicle design. Both the Infrastructure Commission and the National Planning Statement 2006 recommend considerable expansion of the infrastructure (especially roads), a strategy which is rooted in the focus of these policy documents on ‘economic sustainability’. In the 2005 as well as the 2009 Municipal Plan for Copenhagen there are clear strategies for placing facilities that generate a great deal of passenger transport in close proximity of the public transport nodes (in line with the Finger Plan). An effective public transport system is considered the backbone of a sustainable transport system, which again is seen as the key focus area for improving sustainable development. This also includes a denser and more compact urban structure around these nodes which is exemplified by a variety of projects to explore the possibilities of sustainable urban regions (such
projects include the old brewery site for Carlsberg in Valby as well as the Nordhavn harbor area).
Better conditions for bicyclists and pedestrians are also a key goal in both documents but perhaps most notably in 2009 Municipal Plan. Concrete policy measures to facilitate such conditional change includes fewer parking spaces in the city centre, safer bike paths and easier access to recreational areas for non motorized modes of transport. The 2009 Municipal Plan has divided these areas into the categories of green and blue, which denote either park-like areas or waterfront locations.
The overall approach of the Finger Plan 2007 is to keep the urban structure as a hand with the palm representing the centre of Copenhagen and fingers stretching out to the north, west and south representing the main transport corridors. The principle of locating urban development close to urban rail stations has been strengthened in Finger Plan 2007. This is conducive to goals of environmental sustainablility such as reduction of greenhouse gas emissions from traffic and reducing the encroachments of urban development on natural and agricultural areas. The main arguments in the plan for the policy of ‘environmentally correct location’ refer, however, to the merits of this policy as a response to the increasing problems of congestion in Copenhagen Metropolitan Area. The sustainability motivations for the location policy are less explicitly expressed, although it is stated that the traffic system and the spatial urban structure should be coordinated in order to, among other things, limit resource consumption and reduce the environmental impacts of traffic. The Finger Plan 2007 is closely related to the 2005 Regional Plan document, and locating office and residential facilities close to public transport nodes plays a vital role in the sustainability strategy for both documents. In Regional Plan 2005, the future development is split into different areas depending on in which part of the “hand” they are located, with new construction taking place around existing transport nodes and corridors (primarily in the fingers) or where these can be expanded outwards to new developmental areas.
In the Finger Plan 2007, however, these policies have been
considerably strengthened. Firstly, measures have been taken in order to prevent urban sprawl outside the ‘finger structure’. Notably, regionally oriented urban functions (i.e. facilities attracting visitors from a regional as distinct from a predominantly local catchment area) can no longer be located outside the finger structure. In Regional Plan 2005, such functions could be located in 17 municipal centers outside
the Finger structure, but this is no longer possible with the regulations of Finger Plan 2007. Secondly, the prioritization of transformation of existing urban areas instead of outward urban expansion has been stated more clearly. Thirdly, the principle of locating urban development close to urban rail stations has been tightened with a focus on the impacts on transport and the environment.
In the Infrastructure Commission’s report, the following strategies are suggested as measures to achieve a reduction in the adverse
environmental effects of transport:
– Fast implementation of alternative fuels.
– Common European effort to promote development of more ‘environmentally friendly’ vehicles.
– Initiatives for a smoother and more efficient traffic handling. – Creation of encouragement to use non car-based modes of
transport through improvements to the facilities for such modes.
– Increased levels of information and education about the environmental effects of different modes transport.
As mentioned earlier, the 2000 National Planning Statement advocates better use of existing physical structures to avoid expanding them unless necessary. This also involves changes in the way we think and engage in transport related activities, where the establishment of urban environmental zones, reduction of available parking space and
densification in the urban areas are just some of the proposed measures to reach a more sustainable development (pp. 74-).
The 2006 National Planning Statement is in direct contrast to this non- expansive philosophy, and directly advocates an expansion of the existing infrastructure network (e.g. p. 47). It does however also make notice of the limitations associated with capacity increases and advocates a need to reduce transport demand by locating destinations more appropriate (mainly relating to the Finger Plan’s proximity principle).