In Stockholm, a growing city, and in a country where sustainability is highly prioritized, there are highdemands for a more attractive public transport. Today, there are many challenges for the publictransport consisting of accessibility challenges when the city is growing and the crowding increases.The public transport requires more space while the area in Stockholm already is densely built. Aninfrastructure fit for bus traffic is necessary to meet the demand for public transport. The purposewith this examination is to map guidelines regarding a projection of infrastructure modeling for thebus traffic in the Stockholm region. The guidelines will be gathered and compared withTrafikförvaltningen’s governing document called RiGata-Buss to identify any different guidelinesbetween different governing documents. Trafikförvaltningen is part of Trafiknämnden and isgoverned by the regional council in Stockholm.The method that has been used is a qualitative study with a document analysis consisting of differentgoverning documents with guidelines regarding infrastructure modeling for bus traffic, along with asurvey sent to all municipalities in the Stockholm region. The documents that were analyzed werethe municipalities’ infrastructure manuals. The result from the document analysis were theguidelines that differed from the governing document RiGata-Buss. They were then analyzed for thediscovered differences from the guidelines and the answers from the survey.From the survey, it appeared that many municipalities experience roadspace conflicts and lackflexibility in the RiGata-Buss guidelines. As a consequence, there is a challenge for the municipalitiesin meeting the requirements from the region, which is responsible for public transport.Based on the document analysis, guidelines were identified that were missing in RiGata-Buss.Guidelines regarding which coating should be used were the most common in the municipalities'own handbooks. There were often relatively small differences between the guidelines that appearedboth in the technical manual and RiGata-Buss, which can be explained by the fact that the guidelinesdevelop and change over time.The conclusions that could be drawn were that the governing documents being used by themunicipalities today are RiGata-Buss, VGU, in some cases a municipality-specific infrastructuremanual, The GCM-manual or Regional Cykelplan. The miscellaneous guidelines that differed fromRiGata-Buss mainly consist of modeling of bus stops and speed reducing measures. The missingguidelines in RiGata-Buss that were found in the majority of all infrastructure manuals from themunicipalities consist of what paving should be laid on roads and by bus stops with different levels oftraffic loads. There are guidelines that are in conflict with each other, but it mainly points out thatgoverning documents regarding bicycles and guidelines for bus accessibility create a conflict ofroadspace in the municipalities. Lastly, it would have been interesting to make a further comparisonbetween RiGata-Buss and the governing documents that exist regarding road modeling for cyclistsand pedestrians