The expression of a regional ambition: the Île-de-France master plan (Sdrif) - J.-P. Orfeuil [EN]

The benchmark project for Île-de-France is the Île-de-France master plan (Sdrif) adopted by a regional ruling in 2008, but not approved by central government.Until then, the region was “living” on the options of the 1994 master plan, drawn up by the Government.There were two big reasons for it to be revised.Firstly, the 1996 Law on Air and Rational Energy Use imposes options for regulating car traffic (urban transport plans) which made the road developments in the 1994 Sdrif obsolete. Moreover, the Île-de-France urban transport plan approved in 2001 essentially “buried” the roads policy of the 1994 Sfrif. Secondly, the 2000 law on “Solidarity and Urban Development” put local authorities in charge of the “SCOTs” (territorial cohesion schemes), whilst giving the State a “right of oversight” for the capital region alone.For these two reasons, therefore, the region had to revise the 1994 Sdrif and draw up a new plan. 

 

It could not (and did not wish to) develop it on the same terms as the previous master plans, for at least three reasons:the regional authority is closer to citizens than the Government; a series of laws set the terms for very extensive consultation; the regional majority is “plural” (left and greens), and the greens are both very interested in development and transport questions and very mistrustful of technocratic approaches as practised up to now.

 

Indeed, master plans were primarily drawn up within administrative departments, in particular the Île-de-France Regional Infrastructure Department.The Department used its teams (housing, transport, economic development) to prepare an analysis of the existing situation, identify the probable medium-term trends (population, employment, car ownership, etc.), establish an assessment of likely problems, identify priorities for action in terms of land occupancy and transport systems.New infrastructures were proposed as a means of responding to these foreseeable problems (system congestion, support for multipolar organisation, etc.).These proposals were accompanied by so-called “socio-economic” assessments (cost-benefit analyses) which were used to set priorities in terms of benefits.Against a background in which car ownership and use were still rising, they led to road projects that were profitable in economic and social terms, and public transport projects that were generally less so.The final phase of the process was an “energetic negotiation” between the Government Department with its socio-economic criteria and the regional government with its sociopolitical criteria, with rules like “no more than x% of the regional transport budgets for roads”.Ultimately, the State contributed to establishing two parallel categories – roads and public transport – and the region “adjusted” the allocation of resources between these two categories.

 

The project development process approved by the region in 2007 is based on a very different method.Here again, the regional government begins with a situation analysis and forecast, but only presents them in very general terms, very quickly submitting them for debate with lower-level authorities (departments, district groupings, municipalities) and with the public, essentially with the aim of coming to a view shared by as many “active” parties as possible.This process results in a “substantial” framework very different from previous frameworks.Road congestion, which was a central theme in previous plans, is hardly mentioned.By contrast, the need to combat climate change and to build regional cohesion, for example, runs right through the document, which develops the vision of the regional executive over 20 years (until 2027).The document is divided into “challenges”, “objectives and priorities”, and “projects”.We will describe their contents below, then focus on the transport projects.

 

Three “priorities for a sustainable Île-de-France” are identified:“to promote social and territorial equality and improve social cohesion”, “to anticipate and respond to major changes or crises, in particular those linked with climate change and rising fossil fuel costs”, “to develop a dynamic Île-de-France and maintain its global reputation”.The order of the priorities is not insignificant, nor is the priority of simply “maintaining” its reputation.

 

Five objectives and priorities for sustainable development in Île-de-France are proposed.The building of 6000 dwellings per year; attracting jobs and stimulating economic activity; promoting a new strategic approach to transport to contribute to the region’s spatial plan; the preservation and restoration of natural resources and access to those resources; the provision of high quality amenities and services by the city.

 

The quantitative data underpinning the spatial project clearly show the aspirations in relation to spontaneous trends:the need to build (much) more housing than before, to build it mostly in already built-up areas, and to readjust the employment balance in favour of the east and the outer rings, with the exception of Hauts de Seine, which already has an employment rate in excess of 1.

 

The 60,000 new dwellings should preferably be built in centres (118 existing urbanized municipalities) and in other urban municipalities (27,000) in order as far as possible to spare rural areas (2500)At the smaller scale, the new dwellings are to be built in existing built-up areas (40,000), in urbanisation zones within urban municipalities (18,000), leaving 2000 dwellings per year in rural areas.A comparison of the spatial distribution of current employment and the locations of new jobs also gives an idea of the intention.The plan to restrict new jobs in Hauts de Seine will cause strong reactions from that department, the richest in France and the President of the Republic’s political base.

 

Table

Forecast employment shift in the Sdrif

 

	2005 Jobs %	New jobs %
Paris	27.4	4
Hauts de Seine	14.0	9
Seine Saint Denis	8.8	19
Val de Marne	9.5	14
Seine et Marne	8.1	16
Essonne	7.9	14
Yvelines	10.0	10
Val d’Oise	7.9	14
All	100	100

Source:Sdrif

 

The plan includes practically no investment in roads, but instead presents a map of the investments (provided for in the 1994 Sdrif or by the Government) that the region does not want to see implemented.

 

The public transport projects are grouped into themes.The first relates to improving Île-de-France’s rail services.These are essentially modernisation projects intended to reduce operating failures.The second relates to structural orbital links.The flagship project is Arc Express, an orbital link located in the outer part of the inner ring, intended both to provide access to existing urbanised areas and to facilitate densification.There are also four projects for tangential rail services in the outer ring (although a first operation failed to attract passengers), a dozen tramlines in the inner and outer rings, fifteen or so metro extensions and almost 30 projects for dedicated transport lanes “for which the mode has not yet been established”, plus a few RER (regional express railway) extensions on the edge of the outer ring.

 

A simple count-up of the operations suggests a plan for global improvement over the whole region with no strong order of priorities, although the inner ring is undoubtedly well served with metro extensions and Arc Express.The approach is to improve provision to all service and working areas, with no special focus on servicing the hubs.The RER extensions, and to some degree the tangential rail services in the outer ring, would seem to run counter to a plan for urban compactness.Globally, completing these projects would require a significant rise in investment levels, which the State estimates would double in the first 6 years and triple in the next 6 years.

 

The State refused to accept this project, on a number of grounds.It takes no account of or runs counter to its own options in certain spheres of planning (extensive development of La Défense) and transport (in particular abandoned road projects and the fast rail route to Roissy).It has also expressed its financial concerns.The region responded by revising its plan downwards and by combining the most mature projects, those achievable by 2020, and establishing their financial balance (see below). 

 

This project is both consistent with major international perceptions of the sustainable city (compactness, social mix, balance, inclusion, preservation of large natural areas, priority to public transport, cycling and walking…) and arises from a development process in which local consultation plays a very large role.The vision it proposes is one of “sprinkling” across the region, with no real large-scale vision, although it is expected to bring genuine quality-of-life improvements.The Government would quickly respond, from the perspective of the still embryonic “Greater Paris” scheme.