(cont.) Infrastructure issues (cont. TU20)
Translated from Swedish by AI; the translation may contain errors. The Swedish text is the original.
Summary AI, written in advance
1 M invests in the maintenance and expansion of roads and railways instead of unprofitable high-speed trains and wants to increase maintenance funds for roads by 50 percent and for railways by 20 percent 1. M wants to renovate the Västra stambanan, expand Göteborg–Borås, save the Kinnekullebanan and increase support for individual roads in the countryside 1. M works to rationalize Trafikverket and find alternative financing possibilities 1. M is proud to have put shipping on the political agenda, delivered reforms and invested in new icebreakers 2. M argues that the government's shipping policy has created a trend break where more shipping companies choose the Swedish flag 2. 3 KD wants to develop Bromma airport, realize the Östlig förbindelse and strengthen Arlanda 3. 4 C considers that the government's infrastructure plan misses the goal of building together Sweden and that the inland needs to be prioritized 4. 5 C requests alternative financing for projects such as the roundabout in Örnsköldsvik 5. 6 C emphasizes the need to optimize the railway to handle increased traffic from Europe 6. 7 C argues that they have a large consensus with the government's proposal but that the right priorities are required 7.
Written by AI in advance and may contain errors. The numbers lead to the speech a statement builds on; check against the text below.
Sten Bergheden (M)
Madam Speaker! Today we are debating the infrastructure in Sweden. This government is not investing in unprofitable high-speed trains, but in maintenance and expansion that will ensure our infrastructure functions. We are refurbishing our roads and railways and ensuring that aviation and shipping truly function. We are increasing the maintenance funds for roads from 230 billion to 354 billion – an increase of 50 percent. For railways, we are increasing from 175 billion to 210 billion – an increase of 20 percent. Thus, we are tackling the problems with the poor roads and railways in Skaraborg and the rest of Sweden. Now it is time to refurbish, and our ambition is to be able to increase the speed again on our roads.
The old government took maintenance funds and wanted to spend them instead on unprofitable high-speed railways, an investment that would be unprofitable both according to the calculations and in practice. Furthermore, it would crowd out maintenance and expansion of both roads and other railways. Instead of reducing the growing maintenance debt during the S-government's eight years in power. They simply sacrificed the country's roads and railways to satisfy the Miljöparti's wet dream of a high-speed train. Here we clearly saw how a small party steered the social democratic government, so that our roads and railways became worse and worse.
Madam Speaker! In Western Sweden, we have Sweden's largest industries. Production in Western Sweden creates both growth and jobs in all of Sweden and provides our country with large export revenues. That is what builds our welfare. Therefore, it is so incredibly important that the infrastructure functions. Access to the Nordics' largest port in Gothenburg must be strengthened. Now we are truly delivering this.
Madam Speaker! In Gothenburg, we have the largest port in the Nordics, and it must function. Railways and roads must have the capacity to handle the transport of goods in and out. That is what creates jobs and growth in Sweden. Our companies in Sweden are dependent on the Port of Gothenburg to get goods in and out. Yet, the Social Democratic government allowed for an investment in an expansion of the Västra stambanan, even though it had long been pointed out as Sweden's absolute most important infrastructure investment. The S-government simply ignored what Sweden's companies and Western Sweden needed and listened instead to the Green Party's dreams.
Madam Speaker! Sweden's perhaps most important main line, the Västra stambanan, has long been pointed out as having great needs and been marked in red in the proposals from Trafikverket, but even that the S-government ignored. Instead, they put all their effort into trying to build a new high-speed line. During their eight years in power, they let the Västra stambanan have its deficiencies. They also did not include the Västra stambanan in the plans. When the Tidö government took over power in the autumn of 2022, we immediately stopped the high-speed train and instead worked out a new plan, where the Västra stambanan is now included, with an expansion of two new tracks between Alingsås and Göteborg. It is an investment that we are prepared to accelerate further during the next planning work.
Madam Speaker! The previous S government intended to sacrifice the Western Main Line through Skaraborg and instead build a new track around Skaraborg via Göteborg and Jönköping. Now we are expanding the Göteborg–Borås section to increase commuting. We are also expanding the Western Main Line for passenger and freight transport. This is obviously better for the companies, the jobs, and the growth in Sweden and Skaraborg.
Madam Speaker! We are upgrading and expanding the Western Main Line to increase capacity, reduce vulnerability, and reduce travel times. We are building two new tracks between Alingsås and Gothenburg to meet the needs even better and increase the robustness of the Western Main Line. This is important for Skaraborg and all of Sweden.
Madam Speaker! In 2018, Kinnekullebanan was named Sweden's most beautiful railway. But in 2021, the Social Democratic government, with its supporting parties, removed Kinnekullebanan from the national plan, and the railway section was thus at risk of being decommissioned. Naturally, we could not accept this. We have now instead put Kinnekullebanan back into the plan and added approximately 600 million kronor for renovation. How could the S-government in 2021 even come up with the idea of removing Kinnekullebanan, Sweden's most beautiful railway, from the plan? Now we have not only saved Kinnekullebanan, Madam Speaker. We have also invested 600 million kronor in its renovation.
Madam Speaker! We have approximately 7,700 kilometers of private roads that receive state subsidies today. Our smaller roads in the countryside and our road associations are important for the entire transport system to function and for people to be able to live and run businesses in the countryside throughout Sweden. We are now increasing the support for these roads from previously about 14 billion to 30 billion. This is good for Skaraborg and good for Sweden. We are therefore doubling the support for the private roads. This is important for the companies, for the countryside, and for Skaraborg.
Madam Speaker! We are also ensuring that there is money in the plans to replace the locks in Trollhättan and thereby be able to guarantee continued shipping on Lake Vänern in the long term. We hope for a construction start in 2027–2031. This is good for shipping, the companies, and the environment in Skaraborg and the rest of Sweden.
Madam Speaker! We are also continuing to work on rationalizing and streamlining Trafikverket. Trafikverket needs to be trimmed down. We need to bring in more alternative financing possibilities for infrastructure, and that is what we are working on. Here, many other countries are going much further than Sweden, so there are many good examples to study extra closely. Taxpayers shall get functioning infrastructure for their money and not unnecessary bureaucracy. We are now working hard to solve that.
Madam Speaker! The difference for us Skaraborgians is quite obvious in this plan. We are investing again in the Kinnekullebanan, which the Social Democratic government tried to shut down. We are investing in an expansion of the Västra stambanan with two new tracks between Alingsås and Göteborg, something that S did not even include in the plan. We are investing in the maintenance of our roads, so that they function; they shall be restored to usable condition with increased speeds. We ensure that the locks in Göta älv are expanded, so that Vänersjöfarten can continue to function. We remove the road debt entirely and will, as soon as possible, also remove the railway debt. We increase the support for the individual roads from approximately 14 billion to 30 billion. All of this is good for Sweden and for Skaraborg.
Madam Speaker! Finally, I would like to take the opportunity to thank the other members of the Committee on Transport and Communications and its administrative staff and wish them a nice summer. I also want to thank the Speaker and the Speaker's Office and wish them a nice summer. Last but certainly not least, Madam Speaker, I want to wish all residents of Skaraborg a pleasant summer. I hope that many Moderates in Skaraborg appreciate my work in the Riksdag and that at the election on September 13, they will support my work by crossing my name on the ballot.
Anna Lipinska (KD)
Madam Speaker! Stockholm is Sweden's growth engine. A quarter of Sweden's population lives here, and a large part of the country's jobs, companies, and innovations are created here. When Stockholm grows and functions well, all of Sweden is strengthened. But growth does not come by itself. It requires functioning infrastructure: roads, railways, and air connections that bind together people, companies, and regions.
Madam Speaker! Let me begin with Bromma Airport. The debate about Bromma has for too long been characterized by ideology rather than by facts and future needs. For the Christian Democrats, Bromma is not a matter of nostalgia. It is a matter of regional development, accessibility, and preparedness.
Bromma plays an important role for regional flight connections. For many parts of Sweden, good accessibility to the capital is crucial for business, investments, and the labor market.
Accessibility is not a matter of convenience but a matter of competition. The possibility of being able to travel quickly to and from the capital affects where companies choose to establish themselves, invest, and create jobs.
Regional aviation is in many respects a part of public transport in our elongated country. It contributes to holding Sweden together and creating equal conditions for people and companies, regardless of where in the country they operate. When the distances in our elongated country shrink, the opportunities to live and work in all of Sweden are also strengthened.
We are also now seeing a growing interest from new actors who want to use Bromma. It is very pleasing. Bromma is also much more than regular flights and a trip to the sun. Here there is general aviation: pilot training, business aviation and technical development. Here there are also opportunities for future electric aviation and new sustainable aviation solutions. At Bromma, the required infrastructure already exists.
Madam Speaker! Aviation is much more than passenger travel. It is about the transport of medicines and samples. It is about air ambulance services, organ transport, police operations, rescue missions, and firefighting flights. When we discuss the future of aviation, we must not forget that aviation fulfills socially important functions for which, in many cases, there are no realistic alternatives.
Madam Speaker! A robust transport system is based on redundancy. Sweden does not become stronger by putting all its eggs in one basket. In a time of increased uncertainty and after our entry into Nato, we need to protect strategic infrastructure and ensure that we have several airports with different functions. Instead of seeing aviation as something to be phased out, we should seize the opportunities to transition aviation and reduce its climate impact.
Madam Speaker! Let me say a few words about the Eastern Connection. For decades, Stockholm has lacked the final link in the ring road. We see the result every day: queues, vulnerability, and unnecessary detours through the city center.
I am a Värmdö resident myself and encounter the queues daily on road 222. When an accident occurs or the tunnel is closed, long queues and major disruptions quickly arise for thousands of people. Those who want to travel, for example, from Värmdö to Lidingö are forced today to take long detours through the city center or via the already heavily trafficked and burdened Essingeleden. It is neither efficient nor environmentally sustainable.
The eastern connection shall relieve the inner city, improve transport for the business sector and strengthen accessibility for people and companies in the region.
The Eastern Connection has been discussed for decades. For far too long, the project has been investigated, paused, and postponed. Therefore, it is pleasing that the current government has now taken concrete steps to move the Eastern Connection forward.
After years of political hesitation, there is finally an opportunity to realize a project that is crucial for the growth of Stockholm and Sweden. It shows that infrastructure is not just about visions but about actually getting things done.
Madam Speaker! A growing Stockholm also needs strong international connections. Arlanda is Sweden's gateway to the world. For an export-dependent country like Sweden, international accessibility is crucial. Companies establish themselves where people and goods can move quickly and efficiently.
When investors choose between Stockholm, Copenhagen or Helsinki, air connections play a major role. For many years, Arlanda has lost competitiveness against other Nordic airports. It is a development we must reverse.
That is why Arlanda needs to be strengthened through better road and rail connections and long-term investments in capacity. It must become easier, faster, and cheaper to travel to the airport. More people should be able to get to Arlanda by public transport.
We want to see an Arlanda negotiation for long-term investments in the infrastructure and a review of the fees for Arlanda Express so that more people can choose the train at reasonable prices.
Madam Speaker! Uncertainty regarding Swedish aviation policy can cause airlines to choose other countries. For Arlanda to be able to compete with Copenhagen and other Nordic airports, investments in infrastructure are not enough. It also requires a long-term and predictable aviation policy that gives airlines and companies the courage to invest in Sweden.
Madam Speaker! A strong Stockholm strengthens all of Sweden. Therefore, we need to develop, not dismantle, the infrastructure that connects people, companies, and regions. Therefore, we in the Christian Democrats say yes to Bromma, yes to the Eastern Connection, and yes to a stronger Arlanda.
Johanna Rantsi (M)
Madam Speaker! What would an infrastructure policy debate be without a contribution on shipping? Because without shipping, there is no shopping. We know, and I cannot emphasize enough how fantastic it is, that a full 90 percent of everything we import and export to and from Sweden goes via shipping.
It shows the importance of shipping for Sweden AB. Therefore, it is reasonable that shipping receives some own focus here today so as not to disappear behind rail and road initiatives.
Madam Speaker! I was recently asked what I was most proud of having achieved during this period in the Riksdag. The answer to that question was simple.
I am most, most proud of having put shipping on the political agenda. I am proud of having delivered a shipping policy with reform after reform that an entire transport sector has demanded for almost ten years. I am proud of our shipping-friendly government.
Madam Speaker! The report we are debating here today addresses relevant issues for the shipping industry. Among other things, I note that the Moderate-led government continues to invest in new icebreakers in order to be able to keep our important ports open year-round.
I note that important investments are being made in infrastructure both to and from our ports. Without ports, we have no shipping, and without shipping, Sweden stands still.
Madam Speaker! We are now on the right track. During the mandate period, the Moderate-led government has delivered a great deal for Swedish shipping. Among the most important, I would say, are a scrapped stamp duty for mortgage on ships, a new bareboat register for shipping, and not least a reformed tonnage tax system, which we voted on here in the Riksdag as recently as last week.
This decision that we made in the Riksdag led to Gotlandsbolaget announcing just a few days later that they intend to move the entire contract home and lead Gotlandstrafiken from here, Sweden. It is a very pleasing announcement for Swedish shipping.
Madam Speaker! The Moderate-led government's maritime policy has made a difference. More and more shipping companies are now registering their ships and switching to the Swedish flag, and many also announce that they will put the Swedish flag on their new builds.
This is a major trend break for Swedish shipping. It has required a responsible policy that takes Swedish interests seriously in order to create more jobs and opportunities within the shipping industry specifically and give the Swedish shipping industry the conditions it actually deserves.
Hard-working Swedish shipping companies should be able to rely on the fact that the state takes their important work seriously. Effort should pay off, and shipping deserves the conditions we have now given it. Swedish shipping deserves this.
Madam Speaker! We have good opportunities to make Sweden the world-leading shipping nation that Sweden once was. We are not there quite yet, Madam Speaker, but now we are on the right track.
On September 13, the Swedish people will go to the polling stations. Regardless of the election result that day, Madam Speaker, I want to encourage the new Riksdag that is then elected to continue this development for Swedish shipping. As said: Without shipping, Sweden stops.
Madam Speaker! I vote in favor of the committee's proposal in the report and against the motions.
I would like to conclude by thanking my colleagues in the Committee on Transport for the cooperation during the parliamentary term. I would especially like to thank Member Mattias Ottosson from the Socialdemokraterna, who unfortunately is not present in the chamber right now, for good cooperation in leading the Riksdag's maritime network during the parliamentary term.
I also want to thank the Traffic Committee's office and staff for their solid work and conclude by wishing the Speaker and all the listeners a pleasant summer with plenty of boating and maritime activities in focus.
Helena Vilhelmsson (C)
Madam Speaker! It is not often that I debate here in the chamber on behalf of the Committee on Transport, but what fits better than doing so when it concerns the national infrastructure plan?
It was the one we sat and waited for with excitement as active members in Nora municipality and Region Örebro län. What would come? What would be prioritized? Are we forgotten?
Of course, not everyone can be satisfied when the plan is finally presented; obviously, that is the case. But I still feel that it is important to say a few words about the prioritization, primarily with regard to the inland and more specifically the Örebro region.
Madam Speaker! If roads and railways do not work in the interior, they do not work in our major cities either. A well-functioning infrastructure is the circulatory system in our social body. It binds together city and country, it ensures that companies can export their goods, and it makes it possible for people to commute.
I become a little worried when I read the government's proposal, because I think one misses the goal of completely building up Sweden. The Örebro region is not just any region. It is one of Sweden's most important logistics hubs. It is a junction where roads and railways from the north, south, east, and west meet and where we have some of the most important lake ports, speaking of boating, which simultaneously have connections with sea shipping.
It is Sweden's demographic midpoint, as we say somewhat humbly in the Örebro region. What happens or does not happen in the Örebro region has consequences for the entire country.
I am going to make some important points. Precisely because of this, the freight corridor through Bergslagen and Mälarbanan is so important, and it must be upgraded. It is about ensuring the base industry so that the mining and, not least, the forestry industry can get their products out and the trains can run on time.
The Nobelbanan between Örebro and Kristinehamn is also a crucial piece of the puzzle for creating a robust and coherent railway network, not least for the security corridor in Central Sweden with regiments, shooting ranges, authorities, and the weapons industry. I do not quite think that the government's plan meets this perspective of preparedness either.
This is, as you understand, a part of Oslo–Stockholm 2.0 – perhaps the most effective project regarding climate transition and improvements for people's everyday lives and regional development. Reducing the travel time between two of the Nordic capitals so that the train becomes a real alternative to flying is very much within reach, but it does not quite show up in the plans. For me, who live between Oslo and Stockholm, it is therefore more efficient to take the train to Arlanda and then fly to Oslo if I am to have a workday there. How can that be?
We need a plan for the whole of Sweden, a plan that seriously invests in connecting our regions, city and country, and a plan that does not shut down our rural areas.
Road lighting on the highway is both a traffic safety issue and a security issue. As the electricity grid companies are currently replacing overhead lines, it is planned that 25,000 lighting points will be taken down. Many are the residents who feel forgotten and hidden when the streetlights are turned off. The Center Party allocates funds for this in its budget, and we believe that the government must do the same to, in cooperation with municipalities and regions, improve the Swedish road lighting network.
The government must listen to the regions and to the demographic midpoint that the Örebro region represents. I have heard many people from Skaraborg here in the debate today, and I suppose I must do as a speaker before me and say that if I stretch out my hand and meet Beckman in Laxå, where the Kinnekullebanan actually goes, we can take each other's hands and work so that the infrastructure plan becomes a reality and even better during the coming mandate period.
Anders Karlsson (C)
Madam Speaker! Debate on infrastructure issues seems to be very exciting. We have heard a lot of wisdom here today, and just as much wisdom we have heard in the committee during this period, which is interesting to see.
It is, however, tough to be a resident of Jönköping or to come from Jönköping County. Especially tough it is to be a Moderate or a Christian Democrat, because they do not always get their decisions to go the right way. There are exceptions; road 40 is absolutely excellent. We like that one.
We do, however, need more trunk lines. It came to a halt in Jönköping, but now we are talking about new trunk lines again. Those we can debate in Almedalen next week. It is the same Moderates who have had to agree to a stop for the structure that we needed. This is a matter of prioritization that one must do; I say nothing else.
It is exactly as we have discussed here: Much of the money goes to maintenance. When so much goes to maintenance, I think one must think anew and think about alternative financing. I think there has been a bit too little discussion today on precisely alternative financing. Why can we not, when a calculation looks positive, loosen up a bit on this and try to bring in a bit more of alternative financing?
One of the parts that one is surprised by is still Örnsköldsvik, the roundabout on the E4, and the bypass that one has worked on for 40 years. The air is extremely bad in Örnsköldsvik. This should have been addressed, but one has, in fact, worked on it for 40 years and continues to work on it. It just doesn't come to a stop. Here there are opportunities with alternative financing, and here there is an opportunity to release the capital that could ensure that this gets finished.
My plea to the government, regardless of which government we get, is to try to get this to a yes. This government did not manage to do that, but we must get it to a yes.
So this seems to have fallen out of the plan, just like the bottlenecks we have in Jönköpings län. A measure there would also have been good to get the railway running in a more efficient way.
Removing things and such from the plan at all is a way to reduce the possibility for effective and good planning for municipalities and regions. As I see it, it is just as stupid as removing permanent residence permits. This is something that is actually definitive, and should be definitive, and when one starts removing these parts, the planning possibilities become significantly worse. Here, I think we should think things through to get a better structure in our investment decisions.
Madam Speaker! I would like to thank you for this time in the Committee on Transport. I would also like to thank the committee chair, Ulrika Heie, who has taught me a lot and sometimes also spoken about what I should and should not do.
Magnus Jacobsson (KD)
Madam Speaker! I will not be long-winded. We have all been cut off from the next debate, and it makes it a bit difficult when one wants to be polite. This will now be the only chance to be polite.
I have actually requested the floor to have the chance to thank Ulrika Heie and Thomas Morell for your fine way of leading the committee's work during these four years. I also want to take the opportunity to thank the secretariat and the entire opposition. I think you are honest and capable. We have good debates. A good opposition actually also ensures that the government side has to sharpen up. I want to thank my colleagues on the government side, in all four parties. Thank you for everything you do in here!
I also want to thank – perhaps we forget sometimes – all other staff: security guards, cleaning staff, and everyone who makes it possible for us to have this privilege.
With the simple word, and also thanks to the opponent in this exchange who gave me the opportunity to say thanks, I wish everyone a wonderful summer.
Anders Karlsson (C)
Madam Speaker! I would also like to take the opportunity to thank, including the government side. A good deal of the decisions that are made and which we sometimes can be critical of are also correct. The station situation in Linköping, I think, received a good conclusion. There I was worried that it was going the wrong way, but in the end, it became a wise decision. In some way, we help each other to find good solutions together.
Sten Bergheden (M)
Madam Speaker! Thank you for the good cooperation, all members and others!
I had intended to ask some concrete questions. I thought I would take the opportunity when there are so many Centre Party members here, who often raise the new trunk lines.
I have listened to the debate here today, and I have not received any clear understanding of how the Center Party intends to finance these parts. We have worked hard to find what Anders Karlsson himself raised, alternative financing solutions, and we intend to continue working on that if we can continue after the election – of course in broad cooperation. I believe that part will come in.
But how has the Centre Party intended to finance it with the models that exist today? The Western Main Line was sacrificed in the plans during your eight years, if you were involved during the last four years and supported the plans 2018–2022. Then, the Western Main Line Alingsås–Göteborg was not included, but instead, an investment was made in a high-speed train or a main line Göteborg–Jönköping–Stockholm.
My questions are: How are the thoughts regarding financing on these tracks? And why could one sacrifice the Västra stambanan for an expansion of a main line Göteborg–Jönköping–Stockholm and thereby forgo one of the most important locations and delay the expansion of Göteborg–Alingsås?
Anders Karlsson (C)
Madam Speaker! That is a wise question. There is a lot of money in the infrastructure. We see that in the entire plan. Ultimately, one ends up weighing things against each other. I consider both of these investments to be important. Both parts shall move forward, absolutely!
I think, just as I raised here earlier, that precisely alternative financing is a way forward that we must try to a somewhat greater extent where the calculation is positive. Then it is fundamentally really about more money into the system. But if we have a plus in the calculation, one can absolutely go that way.
Since then, we have learned many other things to optimize the railway we have. It can be to achieve increased speed on the freight railway to further optimize the rail we have. We shall do what we can to optimize the structure we have.
But there is no talk: When we release more traffic from Europe, we must make these decisions so that it does not look like in Germany, with convoys of trucks in two lanes. It is not a pleasant sight.
Sten Bergheden (M)
Madam Speaker! Thank you for the answer, Anders Karlsson!
I can only state that Anders welcomes a good deal of the proposals we have included in the infrastructure plan. In the conversations we have had around the country, people are also relatively satisfied with the investment that the Tidö government is making. I believe that the Center Party could have supported many of these proposals.
Anders Karlsson (C)
Madam Speaker! I share that view. We actually have a great deal of consensus at our core. But since we need more capital, it is about succeeding with this and making the right priorities.
As I also pointed out: When you have been working for 40 years with some important, self-evident investments, each and every one realizes that a frightening amount of resources is spent on the planning. We must move away from this so that we work smarter.
The deliberation was hereby concluded.
Source: The Swedish Parliament. The speeches come from the open data of the Riksdag, translated into English by AI, which may contain errors.