>>1232639Geographically yes, Emscher would be the better choice. But nobody calls it Emscher area, so something like Ruhrstadt, Region Ruhr, etc. would be the better pick for general language use.
I agree that Hamm is too far away from the rest to be part of this city-of-cities. Arguably, so is most of Ennepe-Ruhr-Kreis, Kreis Recklinghausen, and Kreis Wesel. Wesel is Lower Rhenish though. Makes no sense to call it Westphalia.
>>1232645>Stadtbahn worked out well for me.I propose you watch the videos I linked in the post above, if you can spare the time. The system is a patched up mess with different vehicles, gauges, floor heights, operators, business concepts, etc. It is far, far off from what it could be today. The Ruhr area deserves a true metro system like Berlin.
>>Städteregion Aachen>That's essentially a KreisTrue. What we have today is Regionalverband Ruhr above Landkreis/Kreisfreie Stadt level. I would argue that there needs to be more cooperation on that level, or in other words: RVR should do more, and the cities should do less. Especially in terms of urban planning and transportation.
Let me again point to the example of Region Hannover. It is a "Landkreis" with a central city and a bunch of towns around it. The towns have a large degree of autonomy as "Selbständige Gemeinden", but they profit a lot from the cooperation between the urban core and the surrounding rural area. Transportation is excellently planned here. Problems pop up only in Sarstedt where Hannover Stadtbahn crosses the border to Landkreis Hildesheim.
The difference in the Ruhr area is of course 1. It's larger and has way more inhabitants 2. It is very pluricentric. But I think that cooperation beyond the municipal level would be even more important and effective under these circumstances.
