Vision 2030 is a visioning exercise on the urban future of Stockholm, developed in 2006-2007. Beyond the clear IKEA influence on the catalogue (sorry, the publication…), with kids that seem to have had their daily meatballs, there are interesting things. Themes are standard for many cities, as public transportation or clean vehicles, but also new beltways. As in Nordic crime novels, the original thing here is not to have people killed (which is the usual thing in a criminal novel, I’m not talking about urban planning…), but what is around that killing, and in that sense, Sweden has different bases when compared to others… which incidentally also happens in urban planning and sustainable development.
Consulting the urban planning maps, some projects in the Vision 2030 are not entirely there, as the new western beltway, the Förbifart Stockholm (with works to start this year). The project will have one of the longest urban tunnels, and has been, as could be expected, controversial, confronting those thinking it will reduce congestion to those thinking it will simply increase car use. So Sweden, so advanced as it is in environmental awareness/quality and public transportion (I’m not joking here) is also dragged into the main debates.
metrhispanic 
How depressing. They want to build pretty much exactly the same thing in Melbourne, Australia and it is a political hot potato. Reading the link on the tunnel and the reasons are almost word for word what is going on over here.
As a matter of fact, being an architect and urban planner I have seen cases in which a beltway can make sense. My knowledge on the Stockholm case is fragmentary, and I was more interested in the fact that it is a common problem, but I may lack some data. As I don’t know the issue in Melbourne, I can’t give an answer. But I have also seen cases in which these investments have been far from the perfect choice. In Madrid, the city in which I live, about a decade ago there was a decision to bury a central section of the M30 inner orbital. This has led to a new linear park along the river banks, that no doubt is a full success for people. But burying the freeway has created such a giant cost that it simply has contributed to increase the local debt to giant levels. Abandoning this as a road section (as it has been done in Paris) would have given us what is really good for the city for a fraction of that cost. Anyway, thanks for the comment.
You can find more information on what has been done in Madrid and in Paris in former blog posts at this site.
The main reason your post resonated with me is the issue around public transport being the option that is not being considered. I am not *anti* roads and am accutely aware of the need for them – for freight, if nothing else. The issue in Melbourne is that the tunnel is being built *at the expense* of public transport investment and that PT has become a political hot potato at this point. No political party has invested in it properly years and therefore the services have gotten worse over the years. It is now at a significantly dire point. We also have people living in outer suburbs who are of a low socio economic background and no public transport is offered there AT ALL! That’s really not OK, in anyone’s book.
I can only say we seem to be sharing the same book in that road-public transportation investment balance issue.