Railway and public transport issues

Maria Stockhaus (M)

Madam Speaker! Initially, I would like to move for the approval of the proposal in the report.

Since October 2022, we have had a government with the ambition to gradually get Sweden in order again. It is something the government is working hard on in all possible policy areas. It is also an important starting point within infrastructure and railway traffic. It is a large task, and there are no shortcuts.

It is fundamental for us Moderates that people and companies can rely on that the trains run on time and that freight transport is completed. Punctual and well-functioning railways contribute not only to reduced carbon emissions but also to increased competitiveness for the entire country and good conditions for jobs and growth.

The maintenance of our railways is a key to achieving more reliable traffic. The railway network is many years old and needs to be reinvested in. At the same time, an effective implementation of the maintenance measures is required. The Minister for Infrastructure often compares it to pit stops in Formula 1. It may be aiming for the stars, but hopefully, it gives a signal that allows us to reach the treetops.

An enhanced ordering competence and close cooperation between Trafikverket, train operators and contractors is important for us to use every tax krona as wisely as possible. If one compares 2024 with 2023, the government is investing 18 percent more on railway maintenance. For us Moderates, it is about protecting the taxpayers' money and delivering results.

When we invest in maintenance instead of primarily in new, expensive prestige projects, we get both short-term and long-term gains: fewer delays, fewer disruptions, and a more reliable rail system. This benefits both commuters and freight transport.

Mr. Speaker! Continuing to modernize our signaling system with ERTMS is an important part of removing technology that has passed its lifespan and enabling increased capacity and better safety. Of course, it must happen responsibly so that the implementation does not unnecessarily disrupt traffic or drive up costs for the train operators. The Government has also given a mandate to review the possibility of grants for onboard equipment for ERTMS. We need to be pragmatic and open to support and cooperation, so that the onboard equipment can be upgraded in tandem with new functions being put into use.

Mr. Speaker! When the work is carried out responsibly and with a long-term perspective, we get results. Passengers can rely on the fact that train traffic flows smoothly. This requires a clear division of roles and accountability from all actors in the sector. We need increased efficiency in the maintenance work so that the upgrades occur at the right time and with the right methods. Trafikverket is under pressure from the government to increase its procurement competence and to work in a way that disrupts traffic as little as possible.

We have also opened up for the possibility of alternative financing. We must ensure that we can make the necessary investments. In that case, one may need to use regular grant funding and track access charges, but also look at alternative revenue models to get as much rail in place as possible in the shortest time possible. The purpose is to secure the resources for a long-term robust railway network.

We also need to focus on enabling longer and heavier freight trains to strengthen the industry's competitiveness. Work is currently underway to accelerate the work on the Malmbanan, which is important from many perspectives and not least readiness. It is a matter of making it easier for the business sector to choose the railway as a means of transport.

Mr. Speaker! For us within the Moderaterna, the railway is about connecting Sweden, reducing travel times, and strengthening the competitiveness of the entire country. A modern and reliable railway is simply a prerequisite for a Sweden that holds together and develops. We need to continue working to ensure that our railway investments are used wisely and that we keep track of the costs so that we get a punctual and robust rail traffic that creates growth in all parts of the country.

The speech at riksdagen.se, in Swedish (opens in a new tab)

Ulrika Heie (C)

Mr. Speaker! Thank you very much for the speech, Maria Stockhaus! The railway issues and achieving robustness, just as the member mentioned, are very important. I want to start by saying that I think the government is doing a lot that is good in the railway area. Sometimes the discussion is only about what sets us apart, so I want to emphasize this.

But I have a couple of questions that I would like to ask the member. The member himself was in on the need for longer and heavier transports. There, both reinvestments in railways and maintenance are very important to get moving when it comes to that part and to make this a reality. I would like to follow up on when the member thinks this can become a reality so that we can get a more cohesive system even for the longer and heavier transports, where a reinforcement is needed in several different ways. When can this become a reality?

My second question concerns something the member touched upon, the importance of freight transport on the railway. Longer and heavier trains are one part, but another issue that has been raised in that context is the track access charges. I know that a mandate has been given to Trafikverket, which is looking at another system for track access charges. Is the member, and thus also the government parties, prepared to take a pause in the increase of track access charges in order to be able to await a more flexible system, so that one does not first knock out the freight transports with a 40-percent increase and then do a redistribution? Could one imagine a more flexible implementation?

The speech at riksdagen.se, in Swedish (opens in a new tab)

Maria Stockhaus (M)

Mr. Speaker! Thank you very much, member, for the questions!

It is of course true that we are currently in a bit of an interim period. We have submitted the infrastructure bill, and directives will be issued to Trafikverket to, based on that bill and the underlying conditions, look at what the new national plan should look like. The questions that Ulrika Heie asks concern largely such things as will end up in the new infrastructure plan.

Investing in freight transport and ensuring that we have the possibility to run longer and heavier trains and investing in maintenance, which the member also highlights as extremely important for transport with longer and heavier trains, is a clear direction that the government has. Of the historical investment we are now making with 1,200 billion kronor, which feels like an almost inconceivable sum, a large part also goes to maintenance of both road and railway. We believe that it is more important to ensure that what we have functions than to focus on, for example, new main lines for high-speed trains, which was the focus for the previous government.

Regarding the track charges, we are, as the members request, looking at the possibility of finding a more flexible solution so that it does not hit the freight traffic. Unfortunately, there are some EU regulations that make it impossible to pause the increase at the current stage. But the hope is to be able to find a good solution as soon as possible.

The speech at riksdagen.se, in Swedish (opens in a new tab)

Ulrika Heie (C)

Mr. Speaker! Thank you, Member, for the answers to the questions! I will spontaneously think of a third question, as the Member began by saying that we are now in an interim period – an infrastructure bill has been submitted, and directives will be sent to Trafikverket. I would like to ask when these directives to Trafikverket will arrive so that we can know in what way the government intends to prioritize different parts. Even though the Member says that more money will be invested in both road and railway maintenance, we see that the increase for road maintenance constitutes the largest part. I am concerned that the increase we see for railway maintenance will not be sufficient.

I am pleased with the signal I perceive from the Minister: If there is only an opportunity to increase the efforts regarding railway maintenance, these opportunities will be utilized moving forward. I think that is a very important signal when it comes to this.

I am aware that references are made to the EU and so on, but at the same time it becomes very jerky. Is there really no possibility for the government, instead of just blaming the EU, to actually work towards making it a smoother transition to a newer regulatory framework? And when will the directives arrive?

The speech at riksdagen.se, in Swedish (opens in a new tab)

Maria Stockhaus (M)

Mr. Speaker! We belong to the EU and have to follow the regulations that exist. We all received signals regarding the toll increase and the potential problems it could create, and everything that could be done has been done to see if a solution for the transition can be found. The assessment is that it cannot be done if one is not to violate the EU's regulations. That far the government was not prepared to go.

When it comes to this government's infrastructure bill and what the plan will look like, one can see if one looks at the infrastructure bill that it is extremely clear that there will be large investments in railway maintenance. We give Trafikverket as much money as they say it is possible for them to spend during this planning period.

At the same time, a major effort is underway towards Trafikverket. They are well aware that they have problems and need to streamline their processes, improve their procurement competence, and be more innovative in their procurements. This is an ongoing effort. There is a readiness to provide more money if it is judged that more money can be spared for railway maintenance. As I said in my speech, the appropriations for railway maintenance were increased by 18 percent between 2023 and 2024.

There is, therefore, an incredibly clear ambition in this government, which was not present in the previous one. In the previous government's plan, it explicitly states that the facilities will be in worse condition at the end of this planning period than at the beginning. This government's ambition is that we should not have that type of wording in the new national plan.

The speech at riksdagen.se, in Swedish (opens in a new tab)

Zara Leghissa (S)

Mr. Speaker! I would like to ask questions to the member who deals with public transport, and not just any public transport, but public transport for people with disabilities, with a focus on, among other things, those who have a visual impairment or are blind.

Trafikanalys has been commissioned by the government to map obstacles to accessibility and usability within the public transport system for persons with disabilities. The report Public Transport's Barriers – Mapping Obstacles in Public Transport's Accessibility for Persons with Disabilities was submitted to the government in March 2019. In the final report, the authorities' efforts and the perspective of the disability movement are discussed, as well as investigations, research, and statistics.

In March 2022, Trafikanalys received a new government mandate to map the granting of permits for transport services (färdtjänst). The background to the mandate was that it had been noted that persons who previously were considered to belong to the target group for transport services were denied the right to transport services. This has primarily concerned persons with visual impairments. The mandate also included analyzing the current application of the provisions in the Act on Transport Services. In March 2023, Trafikanalys presented the report Clearer criteria for transport service permits.

I want to ask the member when we will see concrete proposals on this issue.

The speech at riksdagen.se, in Swedish (opens in a new tab)

Maria Stockhaus (M)

Mr. Speaker! The member raises an important issue that I know is very troublesome, especially for the target group concerned. The tedious answer is that such an investigation is being prepared in the Government Offices. In view of the fact that the granting of permits for transport services is delegated to the municipalities in cooperation with the regions – it is doctors who make the assessments – the issue is not entirely uncomplicated. The answer is therefore that this is still being prepared within the Government Offices and that the government will return with proposals to find a solution to the problems that the Transport Agency raises.

The speech at riksdagen.se, in Swedish (opens in a new tab)

Zara Leghissa (S)

Mr. Speaker! I would like to thank the member for the answer. But again: Two years have passed. Transport services are not just transport for these people, it is about guaranteeing their freedom of movement so that they can live a life with good quality of life and a meaningful everyday life.

I also want to ask the member if the member will work to ensure that the proposals are submitted and that they are submitted promptly.

The speech at riksdagen.se, in Swedish (opens in a new tab)

Maria Stockhaus (M)

Mr. Speaker! This question has been alive since 2019, so even previous governments have been involved in this. One could also think it is a bit bold to say that this should come promptly when the previous government has also had the question on its table, but I have no other answer. I do not have the exact timetable for when the proposal will arrive.

I understand how urgent this is for those people who currently need transport services due to visual impairment but have difficulty obtaining them. This is something that is included in the preparation of the matter.

I will get back to you when the proposals arrive.

The speech at riksdagen.se, in Swedish (opens in a new tab)

Ulrika Heie (C)

Mr. Speaker! The Centre Party has many proposals regarding how we can strengthen both railway transport and public transport. We stand behind all our reservations in the report, but I want to move for approval of only one, namely reservation 32, which concerns travel services.

It is also there that I want to begin my speech: all people's opportunities and accessibility to a functioning transport service for those who need it. In the exchange of remarks just now, there was a discussion with a government representative about precisely that question.

The Swedish Transport Analysis Authority produced a report titled Clearer criteria for transport service permits. The report contains several concrete proposals. As I understand it, the last interpellation debate on this was held in the chamber in October 2024. Now we are at the end of February 2025. I think it should not take so long to process such a matter that it needs to drag on.

From the Center Party's side, we wish that you should finish your preparation and can present a proposal in this chamber, so that the legislation can begin to apply from 1 January 2026.

To those of you who represent young people with visual impairments, I want to say thank you for the conversation today. It is incredibly important that we listen to the people who are affected by this in different ways. I hope that you had good conversations with all parties. If that was not possible today – with full respect for the fact that we have full calendars – I still hope that all parties take the time to listen regardless of when it happens. This issue should not wait. It is urgent now, and it needs to be solved now, regardless of who has not done what previously.

But let me move from the personal to the entire large railway system in our country, which also connects with the surrounding countries. We are not going to talk about the entire system, but the railway is something that our predecessors built out in the 1800s, where much private capital was also invested in railways in various ways. Then the railway was largely electrified. It is this we see in our report today.

Please take part in the report, I would like to say to those listening to the debate today. It is a report full of knowledge for those who are interested.

Today we have a system that, when it works, allows people and goods to be transported in a good way throughout our entire country. It is efficient and also good from a climate perspective. So that is when it works, but it almost never goes a single day without one hearing that there is some problem in the facility.

It has been a gross negligence of previous governments, regardless of party color – during the last 30-year period, most parties have been in government at some point, so I think this is something that we can collectively take responsibility for – not to have created a system that is resilient and robust and can withstand pressures of various kinds. It can range from a bird at Göteborgs central which, if true, caused a power outage last week, to problems in the signaling system that made it difficult to get to Stockholm today. It is difficult for heavier trains to travel longer distances because we do not have an expanded system for heavier and longer trains. It is also about the climate changes that cause, for example, railway embankments to collapse due to flooding and so on.

Many factors can be blamed to explain why we are where we are today. But it is not sufficient, as the government is doing now, to hinder new construction and allocate insufficient resources to maintenance. Even though the government now says that an increased share is being allocated to maintenance, they still mean that during the current planning period, i.e., the next eleven or twelve years, they will not be able to remedy the maintenance debt by more than 10–15 percent. It is extremely serious, because it actually means that the debt is only increasing and that we are pushing the problem onto future generations.

Just the railway costs enormous sums, both in new construction and in maintenance. But one does not get usability and value for one's investments until one has a fully functioning system. Today's situation, where we are to wait so long for the system to be finished, is not a good situation. So we cannot have that.

Today's debate is very much about maintenance when it comes to railways and about signaling systems. It was a good announcement that came from the government the other day regarding ERTMS and the possibility of support for on-board equipment. I hope that proposal becomes as good when it meets reality as it was when it was presented at the press conference. But when it comes to maintenance, I am truly worried. It will not be enough.

Mr. Speaker! There is a lack of a common goal for the railway in Sweden and perhaps also for the railway in the Nordic countries. Furthermore, our NATO membership, as well as the much changed security situation in the entire world and not least in Europe, has truly focused on the importance of a robust railway. What was written in a proposition in October is far from what may be needed. I expect that the directives to Trafikverket now mean that the view on the changed security situation results in increased powers to speed up and allocate more resources to railway maintenance.

We need broad agreements. This is presented in this report, not just from political parties. Industry actors speak of a crisis commission that would be needed regarding punctuality on the railway. It is time to tackle this together.

You must excuse me, but some days I wonder if the minister is sitting on their hands. It is not enough with any assignments to Trafikverket, more is required. The majority in the committee write in their text that a functioning railway system is needed. When it comes to maintenance, we in Centerpartiet, in like manner with the government parties, believe that it is important to have competitive maintenance in a functioning market. It is good if one gets stable and long-term conditions.

The Center Party has highlighted the need for maintenance in what we call Sverigelyftet. We need to have a much higher target for the replacement of switches, the possibility for longer and heavier trains, more stable signaling systems, and so on.

I would like to highlight a report from Omtag Svensk Järnväg called Järnvägslyftet. The first point in the report, which perhaps is the absolute most important, is that it is necessary to double the reinvestments in Swedish railways during the coming ten-year period in order to significantly remedy the problems that exist.

What is the government listening to when it is said that it will remedy 10–15 percent of the maintenance debt? It is about increasing the pace when it comes to railway maintenance.

Let me move on to public transport, Mr. Speaker! Here, the industry actors have developed very good foundations for the politicians to use, with the vision that four out of ten motorized trips shall be public transport trips. I would expect that we will hear more about the Moderaternas public transport policy a bit later in the debate.

There are important parts to address here, not least connected to new forms of public transport. There are many exciting research projects that deal with everything from our own habits, conveniences, and opportunities for systems for a more modern public transport, and also a more modern bonus of various kinds that make the whole thing move forward.

It is true that the regions are the public transport authorities, but the government must still take overall responsibility when it comes to communications throughout the country. The bill is called The Way to a Reliable Transport Infrastructure – so that all of Sweden can function.

Now I want to address the procured transport in rural areas. It was sad to take note of the omission in the budget regarding the procured transport. It was said to be an omission – why then was it not corrected in a smooth way? We have pushed for night trains from both Stockholm and Gothenburg to northern Sweden. It was needed for all of Sweden to live and for it to be sustainable to both live and run businesses throughout the country.

In this context, I want to bring up one more report regarding Omtag Svensk Järnväg, and it is the one concerning the regional boost.

If the whole of Sweden is to be developed, significantly larger investments are required than what the government has indicated. Otherwise, we will all lose out on it. We are not standing here talking about public transport and railway maintenance because it is the most exciting thing, but we do it because we want to be part of building a society where competence and goods can move between parts of Sweden and out of and into this country. It is incredibly important that we work on this so that people can live, live, and work, and so that the business sector can develop and thereby also our competitiveness.

In this report, it is stated that the business development in a region is largely determined by the transport infrastructure's ability to connect competence and companies within a geographical area. The level of investment in transport infrastructure thus affects the conditions for social development and economic growth.

The Swedish railway network is, as we all know, heavily worn and is being used at the limit of its capacity. Comparisons in Europe show that Sweden is in a situation that is weaker compared to the EU-27 when it comes to the transport infrastructure's contribution to competitiveness. One can say that the transport infrastructure therefore does not provide a competitive advantage in large parts of our country but rather functions as a limitation.

This means that I and the Center Party consider that, as we now move from surplus goals to balance goals, we must also earmark resources for the construction of infrastructure. We need to reinvest in our transport system. It is crucial for our development and thus for the development of our common welfare. We are all involved in building a strong Sweden, where there is room for all people.

The speech at riksdagen.se, in Swedish (opens in a new tab)

Magnus Jacobsson (KD)

Mr. Speaker! First and foremost, I would like to agree with Ulrika Heie regarding the description – that the problems we have are a collective sin. I stood throughout the entire last parliamentary term, largely alone, and pointed out that we needed new financing methods.

We need to acknowledge that when the investment budget was removed in 1980, a drastic deterioration of the Swedish infrastructure occurred. That is the ball that every government has kicked ahead of itself.

At the same time, Mr. Speaker, the member is calling for more and an increased pace. For the sake of the audience and the TV viewers, perhaps we should then recapitulate what this government is doing.

It is the largest budget ever. It is 27 percent more in appropriations during this period – Trafikverket asked for 20 percent. It is as much money as Trafikverket itself has said can be managed within the railway. I have noted that several parties in the opposition, including C, say that more should be done and that the pace should be increased. But if the agency that has the responsibility to do this itself says that one cannot swallow more and cannot deliver more, a burden of proof actually arises on the one calling for more.

From the government's side and also from a Christian Democratic perspective, it has been said: Yes, it is probably possible to do more, and it is also included in the plan. It is about opening up for alternative solutions and looking at other ways to organize. We have, for example, the upper part of the Norrbotniabanan. There, people talk about perhaps working in a separate company – there are similarities with the Öresund connection. That type of method can certainly accelerate this. But I do not experience hearing anything about that in the presentation. I only heard about more and more and scolding of a government that is already delivering more and more.

The speech at riksdagen.se, in Swedish (opens in a new tab)

Ulrika Heie (C)

Mr. Speaker! I thank Magnus Jacobsson. Was there any question – other than a speech about the government's excellent policy? Perhaps there was. This excellence can be claimed by every previous government representative, as more money has always gone to infrastructure. In that way, one follows the pattern from before. More has actually been allocated in every proposition that has been. Then, of course, there have been differences in how one has distributed this.

When it comes to what can be done more, I highlighted the need to put maintenance out to tender as an important part in order to achieve efficiency – that is what we are going to discuss a bit in the next debate as well. There, I believe that both I and Magnus Jacobsson, and our parties, believe in the possibility of getting more maintenance for the money. The minister also usually says – that it is not just about more money for infrastructure but also about more infrastructure for the money. How one uses this, I believe, is therefore an important part.

I do not feel that I did not provide any solutions. There are possibilities, just as the member said, to work in different companies. I am sorry that I had to shorten my speech a bit – it took a bit too long. I must have missed that part. It is clearly about alternative financing. This concerns a different debate, in fact, that we had when it came to the infrastructure issues just before Christmas. This is not included in today's report, but it is about precisely those parts.

I do not quite remember Trafikverket saying that one should not ask for more than 20 percent. It was, however, something included in the planning assumption that one should calculate what 20 percent would yield. It is partly a rewriting of history, I think, that you were all to be providers of good gifts and have given even more than what was desired.

Of course, we see that there are solutions as well. We are not only pointing out problems.

The speech at riksdagen.se, in Swedish (opens in a new tab)

Magnus Jacobsson (KD)

Mr. Speaker! I had the privilege of sitting in the Riksdag during the previous parliamentary term as well. At that time, I was in the Committee on Transport. It is true that there was more money in the previous plan – the one that still applies and which, among others, C was involved in negotiating. But one could observe that if one were to implement that plan, as it was laid out, the road maintenance would not disappear, but the debt would remain. It is therefore not quite the case that every bloc or government can claim its own superiority.

Fast we dare to do it, because now we are actually moving forward with a proposal that means that on the road side we will get rid of the maintenance debt, and on the railway side there will be drastic improvements. It is also one of the problems: that there will be drastic improvements. They assume, in fact, that one starts working in the tracks. Many of us around Sweden will experience delays. We will experience that one has to take other lines at certain times. We will have to take the bus because work is ongoing out in the track. It is difficult to use it at the same time as one repairs it.

From a Christian Democratic perspective, we are very pleased with the budget that has been presented. We are pleased with the stance that all of Sweden shall live. We are pleased with the investment that the railway shall function in the corridors instead of in individual luxury projects.

But in addition to that, we note – and there I believe the Christian Democrats and the Centre Party are very much in agreement – that we must look at alternative financing to speed this up. We must look at different corporate forms to be able to speed this up. We must see if regions can co-finance – some of us are already used to that – to speed this up. But the times we speed this up, it must most likely take place in an organization other than Trafikverket.

The speech at riksdagen.se, in Swedish (opens in a new tab)

Ulrika Heie (C)

Mr. Speaker! Thank you, Magnus Jacobsson, for the remarks linked to what the government is actually doing and what the previous government did!

Now it is as if this obscures the view of what has been done so far. The member called these individual luxury projects, but in the Transport Agency's report from October 2024, it is pointed out that we have an insufficient railway system in Sweden. We need to build as much new rail as what the member calls an individual luxury project in Sweden to achieve a robustness and a resilience.

I think it is a bit hypocritical to stand here and say that one is extremely proud when one has made the fatal mistake of removing the new main lines from Sweden. We really need them. They also should have been included in a different implementation. Then it actually could have gone so fast that they could already have been half finished.

We need a new railway. When the Fehmarn Bält tunnel opens, it is incredibly important that we not only manage the maintenance but also the new main lines that are needed. I think it is outrageous to call what should have contributed to building together large parts of Sweden individual luxury projects.

The committee visited the Inlandsbanan. Here it is important, also regarding the NATO side, that we get the opportunity to see in what way one can create increased robustness for passenger traffic and freight traffic, but also for military transports that need to take place.

Here I expect that, not least the Christian Democrats, will bring forward the issues in the directives given to Trafikverket. There are also many exciting reflections about that the private business sector also wants to be involved because it is seen that it is needed in large parts of Sweden. We truly share that view: additional financing alternatives are needed.

But to now be so smug about it being such a fantastic amount of money and to call it individual luxury projects when one has committed such a fatal mistake – it is regrettable.

(Applause)

The speech at riksdagen.se, in Swedish (opens in a new tab)

Magnus Jacobsson (KD)

Mr. Speaker! First and foremost, I would like to vote in favor of the committee's proposal in the report and against all motions.

The situation we find ourselves in today is actually built on the deficiencies that arose after the 1980 decision that the Riksdag would no longer have an investment budget but would instead move to a consolidated budget. It is thus many governments' sins that have resulted in a large maintenance debt on both the road and railway side. Unfortunately, we see this phenomenon not only in the state part; we see it out in municipalities when it comes to real estate, and we see it in water and sewage systems in parts of the country. We are probably many politicians over time who have failed in our responsibility for what future generations will utilize.

At the same time, positive decisions are now being made. We have made a framework decision on 1,171 billion which is distributed reasonably well between the different types of transport. We have developed a new budget model that will facilitate, even if one did not go as far as I had wished. We have also, in a much clearer way, opened the door for alternative financing and alternative organizations. I believe that in the long run this will result in us getting both a better road system and a better railway system.

Another part of the report concerns a number of motions. There are quite a few areas that can be addressed here, but I have chosen a few to comment on. One concerns the organization of maintenance. I can state, Mr. Speaker, that we will have a debate directly after this debate that will focus on that. I will therefore content myself with stating here that we as Christian Democrats are satisfied with the organization that exists today.

But we also see a need for efficiency, and we see a need for Trafikverket to become better at procurement. Above all, on the railway side, we also see that there is a lack of competition. One can state that on the road side there are more operators who can act, while on the railway side there are somewhat fewer. This has its effect in terms of both execution and economy.

We do not, however, believe in the idea that one should take everything to the state and do everything oneself. It is important that we get more pressure in the system. I like Andreas's comment when he says: More money, but also more bang for the buck!

Another important area highlighted in the report is the new signaling system. Here, the government proposes to accelerate, and they have also listened to the need for operators, i.e., those who drive trains, to receive support when the new system is introduced. The size of the whole thing can always be discussed, but it is still something that is ongoing. I think it is positive.

A question that I believe we will need to discuss over time is the track access charges. I stand behind what is stated in the report, but I also believe that one should sometimes take the liberty to reflect. The railway is perhaps the most subsidized mode of transport. It brings in approximately 2 billion and costs far more.

At the same time, it is the case that if we raise the track access charges, we hinder the possibility of the mobility that we desire. Here, there is obviously a conflict of interest: One wants more, especially freight, over to the railway, and at the same time, every mode of transport should, at least as some form of basic idea, bear its own costs. Even here, I believe in what we have already debated previously. One probably needs to look at alternative financings.

I believe that the Öresund connection is an example that we could consider. Are there other parts of Sweden where one could have similar models? The Swedish Transport Administration itself highlights the Malmbanan as an example where one could potentially have a different track fee because the companies that use it have a different carrying capacity than other companies do.

Regardless of the report we are debating today, I believe this is an issue that the Committee on Transport, but also our friends in the Committee on Finance, need to reflect on. Future infrastructure will not become cheaper; that is the only thing we know. Next year it is somewhat more expensive than this year, and we need, from a political standpoint, to find methods where we capture this.

Among other things, that is why I am very pleased that the government has said yes to some projects in the previous plan and also to reclaiming projects when the price picture skyrockets. It is a way to thumb one's nose at the procurements that take place, and I believe that this is completely necessary. Regardless of which government one has, one cannot simply say yes to everything regardless of how much the cost has increased. It is a good principle to sometimes say no and give Trafikverket the assignment to look at the issue again.

Another area addressed in the report where I actually think we are heading in the right direction – even though one can always wonder if it could go faster – is the work with longer and heavier trains. The fundamental attitude, which I believe we all completely agree on, is that it should be a functioning system that is connected throughout the entire country. If I had been in opposition, I would have said that it should go faster, and now that I am on this side, I say that we are working on it and that even I wish it went faster. These are, after all, large and heavy systems and very high costs, but we are still moving in the right direction.

Mr. Speaker! To shift the focus a little bit: Public transport and future funding is something I myself have pondered a lot about. We have a situation, which even an investigation once upon a time looked at when the regions were given a greater influence, where, for example, SJ and other limited companies operating under a piece of legislation say that one should make a profit. But for the public transport that is managed by our regions, subsidies can be obtained.

This resulted in an interesting outcome in the Uppsala–Stockholm situation, where SJ has to some extent been competed out by tax-subsidized operations. This has been warned against in previous investigations, and I believe this is something we need to reflect on. There is an interest in having a functioning railway that is not just regional. It is an advantage to have railway operators that work in the entire country, but also railway operators that are capable of working between countries. We want a functioning railway traffic for both freight and passenger traffic.

I can honestly say that I have no answer to this question. I have no solution, but I simply state that there is a conflict of interest here that I believe we all need to reflect on a little bit. A part of the public Sweden can, therefore, be involved in competing out another – in this case, SJ, which is owned by another part of the public Sweden. There is a conflict of interest here, and I want to point it out in the chamber even if I do not have any direct solution to the problem at this moment.

There is another question that is exciting, and where some may not agree with me. It concerns a national goal for public transport, the 4 out of 10 goal by 2030. With all due respect: I believe it is unrealistic, and I am also doubtful as to whether it is desirable. It is unrealistic because Sweden is a large country. We will not be able to solve this fully everywhere. Possibly, with future technical solutions with more self-driving vehicles or on-demand transport in a different way than today, one could approach the goal, but I believe that 2030 is a bit too early for such a solution.

There is also another part to this issue. I myself live in a rural environment – if one counts Uddevalla as rural, but that is something one has to do in relation to large cities like Stockholm, Gothenburg and Malmö. Approximately 82 percent of us drive into Uddevalla center by car. Public transport will not solve that.

If the goal of having four out of ten trips made by public transport is to be achieved, people in Stockholm, Gothenburg and Malmö must essentially be forbidden from driving cars. Furthermore, that is what is happening in some left-leaning municipalities – you close certain parts to force a behavior.

There is also another dilemma with that vision. As the public transport system de facto looks today, 50 percent is paid by the taxpayers. But the person who sits down and drives an electric car or other environmentally friendly vehicles – even one or another non-environmentally friendly vehicle – also pays when they drive through various road tolls or when they refuel. They are thus participating in financing the infrastructure while those who travel by public transport are actually subsidized. Such a goal would therefore have quite interesting economic consequences. I have so far not seen a single study or investigation on what effects the goal would have on social utility.

If we are talking about environmental benefit – for that is indeed the actual reason for establishing this goal – then it depends on what fuel the cars have.

Mr. Speaker! With all due respect, it would be a better goal to have good and efficient public transport where it is possible. In other places, one should instead drive as environmentally friendly as possible. In simple terms, I move for approval of the committee's proposal in the report.

The speech at riksdagen.se, in Swedish (opens in a new tab)

Ulrika Heie (C)

Mr. Speaker! I would first like to express my appreciation for the member's problematization regarding a number of conflicting interests. I believe it is incredibly important, not least for the listener, to take part in the problems we grapple with within infrastructure policy but which we do not always raise in the debates we have with one another.

I actually received an answer to a question I had prepared regarding four of the ten trips, so I do not intend to dwell on that. Instead, I would like to ask a couple of other questions. I will keep it quite short and snappy.

The chairman himself was involved in the fact that there could be a conflict with SJ regarding the regional journeys. It is clearly stated in the report and it has previously been clearly stated by government representatives that any form of public service mission is not relevant. But we live in a time when there is an ever-increasing need to reflect on our preparedness and who bears the responsibility in the event that it should be needed. We see, for example, that there is a shortage of carriages. We may need to act in other ways. Could it be possible for the government – and not least the Minister for Infrastructure – to look at some type of public service mission linked to, for example, SJ?

The second question I would like to ask concerns the night trains and the outsourced traffic. One was not given the opportunity to complete what had been agreed with Trafikverket to carry out. I would like to hear some comment from the member also regarding that.

The last thing I would like to ask the member about, and which surprised me, concerns the transport service. Can a government bill be submitted so that the legislation can enter into force on 1 January 2026?

The speech at riksdagen.se, in Swedish (opens in a new tab)

Magnus Jacobsson (KD)

Mr. Speaker! When it comes to the night trains, I actually have no other opinion than that which appears in the report. I therefore drop the question.

When it comes to social responsibility, it was asked how the minister views it. The minister will probably have to answer that. On the other hand, I personally believe that we will also have to conduct a lot of analyses there. I stand completely behind our report and have no problems with that. But it is clear that one thinks about the war in Ukraine. I have personally traveled by train down there. We also have the entire discussion about the Inlandsbanan and whether everything should be electrified when it comes to the infrastructure.

Within another ministerial area, they are now looking into civil defense. I am not at all unfamiliar with the fact that those types of questions will come back from different parts of the government. I also believe it is good that the opposition highlights different thoughts and ideas. But just today, I have no answer to that question. I also have a bit of difficulty answering a minister.

When it comes to the transport service, I shall be completely honest and say that I am not sufficiently well-informed. I admit that openly. I will look further into that question, but for now, I will pass.

The speech at riksdagen.se, in Swedish (opens in a new tab)

Ulrika Heie (C)

Mr. Speaker! Thank you, Member, for the answers! When it comes to the social mission, I naturally understand that one cannot answer on behalf of the Minister. I apologize for the way I phrased the question. But how does the Member view the need to also look at the preparedness issues, not least when it concerns the Inlandsbanan? Magnus Jacobsson has surely seen the presentations we received, where it can be seen that an investment of perhaps 5–6 billion needs to be made and, furthermore, a part of the currently closed tracks needs to be opened.

There is, when it comes to the Inlandsbanan, as is written in the report from the majority side, an opportunity to look at hydrogen-powered trains and so on. One seems to be satisfied that Inlandsbanan AB is investigating this. But what are the government parties doing to push forward so that, if one cannot electrify in a traditional way, one can still operate train traffic in a robust way without being dependent on fossil fuels? There are both hydrogen-powered and HVO-powered alternatives.

I am curious about how the member views the other parts that can make the remaining part of the rail system more robust. It is also about the fact that we have actually ended up in a situation where it can become restless in the world. We may need to be eager to ensure that fuels can be produced in our own country. I would like to hear some reasoning around the HVO and hydrogen issue.

The speech at riksdagen.se, in Swedish (opens in a new tab)

Magnus Jacobsson (KD)

Mr. Speaker! During the previous parliamentary term, I had the privilege of meeting the then management of Inlandsbanan, and I have also been to Mariestad and looked at their work regarding hydrogen. For those who are familiar with these smaller systems, it is not that far between Inlandsbanan and Kinnekullebanan. Purely technically, it would actually have been possible to build a hydrogen system that runs from the northern part of Sweden all the way to the port of Gothenburg.

Regarding the concrete question of when it will happen, it actually doesn't matter which stretch we are talking about. The whole will likely be presented in the spring of 2026. But I believe that, for example, the type of system that works with hydrogen will be very exciting moving forward for Inlandsbanan.

We also see that several of the vehicle operators on the truck side are looking at hydrogen. Some attempts have been made with hydrogen in Germany, but what I have seen is that they have been braked. Why, I do not know. They tested with hydrogen on passenger trains. I clearly believe that hydrogen is a useful technology.

When it comes to own HVO, there is a major conflict of interest in that production requires carbon atoms in some form. Some think that we should use the forest significantly less. At the same time, it is said that we should have more biologically produced fuels. There is clearly a conflict of interest.

It is no secret that we Christian Democrats believe that one should use Sweden's very natural and fine raw materials, including for HVO. But regarding the Inlandsbanan and investments in it, we must take a collective grip and come back to it.

The speech at riksdagen.se, in Swedish (opens in a new tab)

Zara Leghissa (S)

Mr. Speaker! Today we are debating railway and public transport issues. I will focus on public transport.

A well-functioning public transport is an incredibly important cornerstone in our society. It is important for jobs, healthcare, school and education, climate, leisure, business and social interaction. It breaks loneliness and creates community. It connects communities and regions in Sweden, Europe and the world. It ensures that we can expand the labor market regions and gives the individual freedom. It is a means that enables the individual to achieve their life plans, regardless of where one lives, what age, economy and social background one has, what gender one has and if one has any disability.

A functioning public transport system is crucial for growth, our health and our welfare, and also guarantees good road safety. Without public transport, welfare and the economy come to a standstill.

Mr. Speaker! It cannot be emphasized enough what an enormously important social mission public transport has in the entire country, but there is clearly potential for improvement. In order to accelerate the now severely weakened growth and reduce the sky-high unemployment in Sweden, public transport has a significant role regarding the labor market. Unemployment has risen to a horrible 10 percent. Almost 600,000 people are without work in Sweden today.

However, there are differences in our country. In northern Sweden, large investments are now being made in green transition and new industrialization. This places demands on a well-functioning and expanded public transport system. In the northern part of Sweden, unemployment is low, and there is a shortage of labor. Here, commuting to work is reaching new heights.

An important part for people to be able to move to jobs is that public transport is developed. Collective travel must increase and be made more accessible, comfortable, safe, and navigable. It must be made more gender-equal and more equitable. Public transport must also receive increased capacity and higher quality. There is no alternative. The trains must run on time, and the frequency and accessibility must increase.

Mr. Speaker! A good and well-developed public transport is also a matter of equality. More women than men travel by public transport. It is also the case that women on average have lower wages than men in Sweden – there is a difference of approximately 3.5 million in working life income between women and men, which naturally also affects the pension.

Due to the government's tax policy, which favors those who have the most, single guardians – the majority of whom are women – have it the toughest financially. Their activities with the children often take place in the local area, near the home, and they plan holidays at lower costs. In those cases, it is often public transport that is the means of travel.

Women also work at inconvenient times to a greater extent than men. A well-functioning public transport must be available evenings, nights and weekends.

Mr. Speaker! It should be easy to book tickets for the entire journey, from door to door, with different modes of transport without unnecessarily long layovers. On-call transport, taxis, minibuses, and boat traffic can complement the large backbone networks of buses and railways. If this is utilized correctly, traffic can increase and service can be improved while costs are pressed down.

The government's failed climate policy hits the electrification of buses hard. The change of the electric bus premium has led to catastrophic sales figures for both electric cars and electric buses. At the beginning of 2024, the number of new registrations of electric buses decreased drastically. This has had a brutal effect and damages public transport in the middle of a recovery and new investment phase. If we are to achieve the climate goals, Sweden's Riksdag must take the lead.

Public transport is climate-smart and absolutely important for us to achieve the climate transition. Svensk Kollektivtrafik has, together with Tågföretagen and Sveriges Bussföretag, published a program statement with the goal that four out of ten motorized trips shall be collective by 2030. Public transport leads the climate transition of the transport sector. Well over 90 percent of public transport is currently run on electricity or renewable fuels. Every increase in the share of people traveling by public transport therefore reduces emissions, and other modes of transport will catch up. Public transport will, however, continue to reduce emissions even when road traffic is fully electrified, because electricity consumption and climate emissions from vehicle production decrease when people travel together.

Public transport is necessary to achieve Sweden's and the EU's climate goals and at the same time increase climate justice and create sustainable economic growth in Sweden.

What initiatives is the Swedish government making regarding public transport? Municipalities and regions have not received the general state grants they need. This money could make a difference so that they can fulfill the mission and develop public transport. Too little and too late support has been given to non-commercial public transport, which has caused regions to redistribute in their budget at the cost of cuts within other activities. Now, the urban environment agreements, which municipalities and regions have been able to use to seek support to promote sustainable urban environments with an increased share of passenger transport with, for example, some public transport, are being phased out. We also show a reluctance towards the goal that four out of ten motorized trips should be collective by 2030.

We Social Democrats see the importance and necessity of a well-functioning public transport and increased travel. We have proposed free public transport for young people during the summer. Furthermore, we have proposed support for driving licenses for cars, buses, and trucks as part of leading people to work in shortage occupations. We have also proposed increased general state grants to municipalities and regions as well as increased appropriations for transport agreements for non-commercial lines in rural areas and in sparsely populated areas.

Mr. Speaker! Public transport is a social service. It cannot be seen as just any service. Good accessibility needs to exist even outside the main routes, where the traffic has the opportunity to bear its own costs. All of Sweden shall live. Investments in public transport are good distribution policy. This is particularly important for the mobility of youth and socioeconomically disadvantaged groups. So please take your place – now we continue the journey for better public transport!

I move for approval of reservation 20.

(Applause)

The speech at riksdagen.se, in Swedish (opens in a new tab)

Magnus Jacobsson (KD)

Mr. Speaker! I believe everyone in this chamber agrees on solving the climate challenge that exists in the best possible way; it is absolutely necessary. We believe that future technological solutions will be part of this. It could, for example, be about hydrogen cars or about ammonia, which Toyota is looking at now. New technology will emerge that facilitates this.

I am, however, a bit curious about the goal that 40 percent of all transports shall be collective. I wonder how the member sees how this is to function in the whole country – in Åmål, Årjäng, Åsele or somewhere else. Is it to be distributed in such a way that the person who lives in a large city absolutely shall not be allowed to have a car? How is this goal to be achieved?

There is also another thing that I am a bit curious about and for which I have not seen any reporting so far. Already today, a very large amount of public transport is subsidized by the taxpayers. When I sat on the board of Västtrafik and in the public transport committee in Västra Götaland, approximately half of every journey was paid for by the taxpayers. When someone drives their own car or motorcycle, cycles, or does something else, the person pays the cost themselves, but at the same moment as one enters the collective regional system, a cost arises.

Now I hear that there is to be free public transport and increased general state grants to public transport. What is the Social Democrats' goal? Is it that 60 percent should be subsidized? Should it be 70 or 80 percent? What is your goal for financing this change?

The speech at riksdagen.se, in Swedish (opens in a new tab)

Zara Leghissa (S)

Mr. Speaker! I thank the member for the questions and the reflections.

It will not be problem-free, but we Social Democrats believe that one needs to take the lead. One also needs to ask what it is that makes people not travel by public transport today.

(Applause)

The speech at riksdagen.se, in Swedish (opens in a new tab)

Magnus Jacobsson (KD)

Mr. Speaker! I note that I did not receive an answer to any of my questions.

I have great respect for the baton. Sweden has tried to take the baton in different contexts, which has caused some industries to leave Sweden. We also see that we unfortunately suffer from some unemployment. Individual municipalities sometimes take the baton and go much further than other municipalities, which usually results in about the same thing.

The Christian Democrats have said that the most important thing to achieve environmental goals for real is that we cooperate within the EU, have rules as similar as possible, and raise the bar together. Then it will truly have an effect without damaging Swedish business and without, as with for example the reduction obligation, hitting households. The reduction obligation resulted in 2 billion in costs for agriculture that we could lift off. It also didn't actually provide any environmental benefit, because the fuels were instead used in other countries when we reduced our imports.

Let me go back to the basic question. When I sat on the board of Västtrafik and in the public transport committee, I sought a unanimous committee that the regional subsidy should be reduced. They wanted to put the money on healthcare, culture, and other important things instead. But now I hear from the rostrum that the Social Democrats are to take the lead and make this investment. Therefore, I ask again: Is the goal for the subsidy to be 50, 60, 70, or 80 percent? Where is the Social Democrats' pain threshold for implementing a measure that probably has zero environmental effect given what is already happening on the vehicle side regarding cars?

The speech at riksdagen.se, in Swedish (opens in a new tab)

Zara Leghissa (S)

Mr. Speaker! Here we truly see the difference between the different parties' policies. We Social Democrats want to provide more general state grants to the regions so that they can make investments in public transport. To phase out the urban environment agreements and not make investments on the county plans has enormous consequences for both the municipalities' and the regions' ability to provide good public transport.

The goal is that four out of ten trips should be collective. Svensk Kollektivtrafik, Tågföretagen and Sveriges Bussföretag have a joint program statement on this. They represent the industry, and the industry is ready and wants this. The regions therefore need, through general state grants, better conditions to enable it. We cannot back into the future.

The Social Democrats stand for a policy that builds an accessible and environmentally friendly public transport, not only for Sweden but for Europe and the whole world.

(Applause)

The speech at riksdagen.se, in Swedish (opens in a new tab)

Helena Gellerman (L)

Mr. Speaker! We are now debating the report TU6 Railway and Public Transport Issues.

Sweden is an elongated country with the longest coastline and the most islands in Europe. If we were to turn Sweden around in Ystad, we would reach Rome with Norrland's outermost lands. It is a telling image of how long our country is. The transport system then becomes especially important for Sweden to be able to hold together and function. All modes of transport are needed, as they meet different needs in society, and we are dependent on all types of traffic being robust and functioning as they should.

The railway plays an important role in the transport system, primarily for its ability to transport either many people at once or much and heavy goods in an efficient way both over long distances and in the regions around our cities.

Mr. Speaker! On December 12, 2024, the Riksdag decided on the guidelines for the new national infrastructure plan 2026–2037. A total of 1,171 billion shall be spent on infrastructure over twelve years. It is a staggering sum, almost 100 billion per year. But great needs, neglected maintenance, the global situation with Russia's war against Ukraine and the entry into Nato require major improvements of the infrastructure.

The guidelines in the government's bill, which has now been decided, focus on facilitating commuting and freight traffic and on a cross-modal perspective involving all four modes of transport. Maintenance and cost-effective measures to increase capacity shall be at the center.

We must maintain our current infrastructure. This measure affects people's daily transport most and fastest. It is about, for example, giving the trains the conditions to arrive on time. Maintenance simultaneously provides the highest socio-economic benefit and the highest climate benefit. But we must also invest in new capacity where it is needed and build away bottlenecks.

Social benefit must always be in focus. The single most important measure for increased capacity on the railway is that we maintain the existing railway. We also need to see improved robustness in train traffic during increased precipitation in the form of rain and snow and during cold weather. This applies to both the rails and the railway vehicles.

The National Audit Office submitted a report in December 2023 where they analyzed the current national plan. The criticism was severe, primarily regarding the inability to see a connection between content and social benefit. The single largest reason why the total plan showed a negative social benefit was the then-government's investment in the project with new main lines. The National Audit Office pointed out that the current plan could have had six times as high a social benefit with other projects in the plan. The current government's prioritization of maintenance will reverse the trend, and social benefit will once again be in focus.

Capacity on the track can be increased in a number of different ways. I have already mentioned maintenance, but it can also be done with the new signaling system ERTMS, which is now to be introduced in Sweden with a completion date of 2042. Accordingly, we Liberals and coalition parties have said that we want to see a significantly faster introduction than previous governments. The purpose is that the new signaling system should be able to pack more trains on existing railways because one does not need to have such large safety distances. The government has also introduced a support that Trafikverket shall administer so that the train operators can prepare for the introduction of ERTMS.

Increased capacity can, as mentioned, be achieved in several ways, including through maintenance and ERTMS. But what most people focus on is new railway, and this is now being discussed all around our country. Many projects are, however, in a queue. This is largely due to a lack of cost control at Trafikverket, which the Riksrevisionen has pointed out in nine reports since 2017. Despite this, the previous government took no decisive action against these cost overruns. But the Liberalerna and the coalition partners have changed that. Projects that have significantly exceeded their cost estimates need to justify the overruns and propose adjustments. In many cases, there are explanations, but there are always things that can be adjusted to minimize cost overruns. Otherwise, the possibility of financing for new profitable projects is at risk.

Through the coalition parties' decision to stop the project with new main lines, more capacity shortages on the Swedish railway can be addressed in the long run, not least the largest capacity shortage in the entire railway network, namely the section Göteborg–Alingsås. For me, it is incomprehensible that this section is not already in the national plan. Göteborgs Hamn, Green Cargo, SJ and also the regions in the north all point out that as the absolute highest priority section in all of Sweden. How is it then that it was not included in the national plan under the Social Democratic government? The section has a great impact on all of Sweden, both for passengers and for freight. This applies not least to the important section between Sweden's two largest cities and on the freight routes from the Norrland coast down to Göteborgs Hamn.

The Liberals want the Göteborg–Alingsås stretch to be expanded by 2035. By then, the Port of Gothenburg will have increased its capacity by 80 percent, and this increase can only be handled by the railway. It is not possible by road with trucks.

Mr. Speaker! The Liberals believe that railway maintenance should continue to be procured through competition. Then we can take advantage of the collective expertise in international companies when it comes to efficient railway maintenance and utilize the creativity and flexibility of smaller companies.

Studies show that we have received better maintenance at a lower cost by outsourcing the maintenance instead of having the state handle everything. At the same time, we have a state-owned company, Infranord, which performs a large part of the maintenance and has great competence that is important from a preparedness perspective.

At the same time, Trafikverket needs to gain better knowledge regarding the status of our railways and the ability to effectively procure the maintenance. We will talk more about this in the next debate. Increased digitalization is needed here, partly to effectively collect and store data about the railway, and partly to use AI to prioritize the maintenance based on the collected data.

One way to quickly increase capacity is to enable longer and heavier trains so that fewer freight trains can transport the same amount of goods and each passenger train can carry significantly more passengers. This means that available capacity can be utilized more optimally and that carbon dioxide emissions are reduced. The Liberals therefore want to invest in such smaller investments in railways and platforms that are required to enable just longer and heavier trains.

As I mentioned earlier, the railway system is in great need of maintenance. Some parts are over 100 years old. At the same time, the maintenance work puts the current traffic under pressure. We Liberals are very concerned about the overhead line replacements currently being carried out on the Göteborg–Alingsås section, precisely because it is Sweden's most utilized railway section. The work started on January 1. In the beginning, it has functioned well, but we know that the major problems will come in the autumn. Therefore, it is important that we really keep our eyes on the development and on what will happen.

Generally, Trafikverket needs to start working with new modern methods and machines to streamline its processes, minimize maintenance time, and thereby put the customers at the center. It is a task that the current government has a great focus on.

I also want to highlight our cross-border railway traffic, which needs to be upgraded and expanded. Coordination between the Nordic countries is absolutely crucial, not least due to the entry into Nato. It places great demands on our railways in the west–east direction but also in the north–south direction, which we perhaps do not talk about so much. Here, for example, the Inlandsbanan is an underutilized resource that we need to take advantage of.

The Liberals believe that we should investigate how we can facilitate future joint Nordic infrastructure investments organizationally. We also want to see a transport minister council, because if there is any issue that concerns the Nordic region, it is precisely how we can be able to transport ourselves around the Nordics in a simple way.

I also want to get into public transport and railway issues. Here the boundary is fluid, and in many cases, the transport follows the same tracks. From the traveler's perspective, one only looks at the accessibility and does not think about that the first is financed to 50 percent while the second, the railway, is operated on commercial grounds.

The Liberals view both railways and public transport positively. They fulfill different needs. At the same time, we believe it is unrealistic to achieve that four out of ten journeys should be made by public transport. One could achieve four out of ten journeys if one looked at the issue from a climate perspective and could also include all journeys and the increasing amount of journeys that are made with electric cars.

The climate perspective is often the motive put forward for why one should switch to public transport, but the electric car produces no emissions. The Liberals see this as the only realistic way to achieve four out of ten trips by 2030. Otherwise, the possibility of using a car needs to be significantly reduced. This can realistically be achieved in large cities only if the accessibility of public transport is substantially improved. Otherwise, the everyday puzzle will not fit together.

Mr. Speaker! Finally, I want to talk a little about the transport service. The Liberals safeguard the right and the possibility of transport service. However, the number of granted applications for transport service has decreased. We need to monitor the development of the legal practice for all transport service permits, especially for those who are visually impaired.

More and more municipalities and regions are denying permits on grounds such as that persons who have a severe visual impairment or are blind can learn distances by heart. Since they can walk, they are considered not to need travel services, even though they cannot see. This is an incorrect view for the Liberals. Therefore, we are following the developments closely.

With those words, Mr. Speaker, I move for approval of the committee's proposal for a decision and rejection of all motions.

The speech at riksdagen.se, in Swedish (opens in a new tab)

Ulrika Heie (C)

Mr. Speaker! I waited with anticipation for what came at the end, because I thought it could not be possible that the Liberals do not raise the issue of transport services. I know that the member and her party are very engaged in these issues. Now the issue is on the government's table, and it is being prepared. Trafikanalys has prepared a report on clearer criteria for transport service permits. The report came in 2023, two years ago, and has since been prepared in the Government Offices.

Based on the commitment the member shows, I wonder something. Just as the member mentioned, people with some form of visual impairment need travel services. As is pointed out in the report, the journey must be assessed from start to destination – the whole-journey perspective. We talk about this many times also when it comes to public transport for both the sighted and the visually impaired. The question I want to ask is: When does the member believe the proposals will be implemented?

My second question concerns what the member was touching upon. I must admit that it is equally incomprehensible to me why Göteborg–Alingsås was not included. Following the removal of new main lines, a report has been issued showing the need for a new railway. There it is shown, as I understand it, that due to the removal, more tracks will be needed all the way up to Skövde.

Both Member Gellerman and I are quite familiar with Western Sweden. When will we see proposals for new construction to a greater extent? I am somewhat surprised that the government did not take the opportunity when the infrastructure bill was presented and took the first step to give the green light to begin preparing the Göteborg–Alingsås section.

The speech at riksdagen.se, in Swedish (opens in a new tab)

Helena Gellerman (L)

Mr. Speaker! Thank you, member, for the questions! Yes, the transport service is very close to our hearts. It is something that I have motioned for since 2018 together with Barbro Westerholm, Malin Danielsson and several others.

The law that exists today is a framework law. There is nothing that prevents the authorities in the various municipalities and regions from setting rules to adopt a more permissive attitude towards transport services for, for example, the visually impaired.

It is also a question of self-determination in municipalities and regions and how much the state should intervene and govern. Therefore, we are looking at how the framework law is handled, how much is being cut, and if there are municipalities that expand the possibility for the visually impaired and others to receive transport services. We are following the issue, and several of us in Liberalerna have it on the tip of our tongues. It is being prepared in the Government Offices, and at the moment we have no changes.

I also want to touch upon the issue of Göteborg–Alingsås. When we removed new trunk lines, it was quite clear that we need other sections. As the member has pointed out, Trafikverket has now submitted a new report, in which they address Göteborg–Skövde. I will return to that in my next contribution.

The speech at riksdagen.se, in Swedish (opens in a new tab)

Ulrika Heie (C)

Mr. Speaker! Then I shall not raise any new questions in the second round, but I would like to deepen the discussion.

I am a bit surprised when the member constantly refers to the self-determination of municipalities and regions because I think that the individual perspective is relatively strong within the Liberals. One really sees the individual's perspective and rights. Does self-determination stand above that?

It is actually possible to work with constitutional proposals based on the investigation that Trafikanalys submitted. That is what causes my surprise – that the government has not produced any constitutional proposals, which it had signaled it would put on the table so that they could come into effect on 1 January 2026.

Why was Göteborg–Alingsås not included? Why is nothing coming from the government, when everyone points out that that part is so incredibly urgent? Why is it not being started? Start it, just do it! That is what we have heard members from the Tidö parties say to Trafikverket. But that is not how it works; the government must give some kind of mandate. What is it that is causing the delay?

We know that it is urgent regarding the actual start of traffic. We are both keen that it should happen. When it comes to all the other parts, it is just a matter of counting backwards. We want it to happen as soon as possible, and for that, the preparatory work must be initiated. Does it really need to wait until the spring of 2026? By then, another entire year will have passed, and we know that things have a tendency to drag on.

Why is it being delayed? Above all, what is it that makes it impossible to work out the regulatory proposals? And why does municipal self-determination trump the rights of, in this case, the visually impaired, from the Liberals' perspective?

The speech at riksdagen.se, in Swedish (opens in a new tab)

Helena Gellerman (L)

Mr. Speaker! I intend to focus on the second question.

When it comes to the fact that we stopped with new main lines, one of the problems is what I also raised in my speech. The previous Social Democratic government did not include Göteborg–Alingsås. They had eight years to do it. It concerns the worst capacity shortage in all of Sweden.

How did it happen that that section was not included in the national plan? Well, it was because if it had been in the plan, if one had streamlined the Western Main Line with Göteborg–Alingsås, the calculation for the new main lines would have worsened dramatically – even from the poor position that one was already in, where it was said that from one invested krona on new main lines, one only got back 50 öre. Had one improved the capacity between Göteborg and Alingsås, that calculation would have become even worse.

If we look at the report that the member refers to, we see that it is so. We asked Trafikverket to prepare a report on how things look in southern Sweden as a consequence of us stopping new main lines. Trafikverket has looked at the desire to build between Göteborg and Skövde, alternatively from Borås via Falköping to Skövde. In the proposal Göteborg–Skövde, they have included four kilometers which they themselves say in the underlying material are okay. That section, therefore, did not need to be four tracks. Nevertheless, they have included it to get a comparable section between Borås, Falköping, and Skövde.

If one focused on Göteborg–Alingsås, one could quickly expand the capacity on the Västra stambanan, and that is what the Liberalerna want.

The speech at riksdagen.se, in Swedish (opens in a new tab)

Patrik Jönsson (SD)

Mr. Speaker! We Sweden Democrats stand behind all of our reservations, but in order to save time, I move for approval of only reservation 30 concerning public transport on water.

Mr. Speaker! We are now debating railway issues. If this is not signal policy, then well, then nothing is signal policy.

A positive development is that we are now ramping up the work with the introduction of the signaling system ERTMS. Approximately one-third of our substations are in great need of replacement, as they are outdated and it is beginning to become a problem to find spare parts. Today's ATC system is also more sensitive to interference than ERTMS and causes many hours of delays, which is why ERTMS will give us more punctual trains.

The plan is now that a replacement of the signaling system shall be completed by 2042 instead of as in the previous plan, where it landed somewhere around 2070. That is very far off.

An investigation will also be appointed to compensate the operators for the onboard equipment. It is something that we Sverigedemokrater have nagged about for a long time and which I therefore find very pleasing.

I find it difficult to see that it is possible to cover the costs for the expansion within the existing framework of 210 billion for maintenance, operation, and reinvestment that is in the upcoming national plan. It may sound like a lot with 210 billion, but this is the total over twelve years. Furthermore, it is intended that a part of the maintenance debt on the railway should be repaid with these funds.

For this to succeed, I mean that it is absolutely crucial that the cost development is broken. Trafikanalys reviewed last year more than half of the named projects in the national plan for 2022–2033. There were 122 projects that they reviewed. I will not go deeper into the calculation work, but Trafikanalys stated that the cost increases were 63 percent regarding the investment index and 76 percent regarding KPIKS, i.e., the consumer price index with constant tax. They have then compared the cost against when the object was first included in the previous plan.

We can, of course, go into details. How much more expensive has a meter of rail become? How much more does a specific substation cost? How much more does a ton of macadam cost? Most things in society have skyrocketed in price, everything from milk to a cubic meter of wood. But there are also costs linked to inefficient ways of building.

One example is the requirement that masses containing sulfide rock or sulfide soil must be deposited, even though there is no indication of problems with leaching. Large parts of Stockholm are built on masses of sulfide rock, and the Norrbotniabanan will be made more expensive due to the interpretation of rules for sulfide soil.

Trafikverket's inefficiency also adds to the costs. When Vägverket and Banverket were merged into Trafikverket, the intention was to save 15 percent. At the merger in 2010, there were 6,806 employees at Trafikverket. Today it is almost double, around 12,000 employees. Not a single one of these maintains a single meter of road or railway. Today we have a maintenance debt on the railway of an incredible 90 billion. If nothing drastic happens with the cost development, Trafikverket's efficiency will increase rather than decrease. I mean, plain and simple, that the entire process surrounding maintenance and new construction needs to be scrutinized to reduce lead times, over-documentation, administration, and costs.

Mr. Speaker! The procured public transport on railways is not doing well. During 2024, we have seen how several contracts have been breached and more than half of the rail-bound journeys within public transport have been run on emergency contracts. Furthermore, the emergency contracts are regulatory significantly more expensive than the initially procured contracts.

This cannot continue. The principle "lowest price wins" appears to have reached its end. I do not have the perfect solution, but the heads of public transport must sit down together and find a solution so that third parties, namely the passengers, are not affected by all the trouble that arises when the contracts do not work. The industry is not doing well, the staff are not doing well, and the passengers are the ones who are affected in the end.

Since I am speaking about public transport, I want to advocate for public transport on water. Zara Leghissa and I, who were up here and spoke earlier, recently helped start the Riksdag's public transport network. The network works to improve public transport in general. Public travel with frequent departures allows for good commuting and leisure travel.

In this debate, I want to specifically highlight public transport on water as an opportunity for collective travel. Only 1 percent of Sweden's public transport consists of boat traffic, despite a large part of Sweden's population living near water where fast sea transport would have been possible. It is important to find a balance that provides as many as possible with a well-functioning public transport system, not least considering the congestion in the cities.

A pilot project run by Candela, Trafikverket, and Region Stockholm aims to explore how wing-borne technology can enable faster and cheaper emission-free travel at sea and create new transit patterns in Stockholm.

Ekerö, perhaps Stockholm's fastest-growing suburb on an island, is only 15 kilometers from the city center. The commute usually takes an hour with traditional ferries, which are limited by speed restrictions, or by bus, metro, and car. In those cases, one is also subjected to the congestion during rush hour. By reducing the travel time for the new bärplanslinjen by 30 minutes, we bring Ekerö closer to the city core.

Mr. Speaker! I am literally taking myself into the railway track again. I have, after all, received training in being in the track area, so I thought I would bring up the phenomenon of track trespassing.

In Trafikverket's southern region alone, the cost of track failures is estimated at 84 million per year in replacement traffic, cancelled operations, and lost working time. I can imagine that the figure in reality is even higher. In Skåne alone, the track failures increased by 46 percent from August 2023 to August 2024.

I strongly doubt a general increase in track trespassing. I have myself worked for over 20 years within the railway. I have also worked for a year on a project for fencing off track areas. It is not more people today than before who cross over the tracks. It is actually significantly more difficult to cross over the tracks today than it was 15 years ago, due to exposed obstacles.

What has happened is likely that the reporting rate has increased and that the measure of traffic stop is being taken instead of driving with so-called sight speed, since the train must be able to stop within half the distance one has visibility over. I think it is completely crazy to take the measure of traffic stop because someone suddenly crossed the tracks and then disappeared. We can transfer that to our roads: Should we close the road because someone crossed it outside a pedestrian crossing? No, returning to the old principle of driving the first train with sight speed would reduce the problem to a fraction of what it is today. It would have saved us thousands of delay hours without costing anything extra.

Mr. Speaker! The Riksdag has issued a notice to the previous government regarding longer and heavier trains. I have raised this previously. The work resembles walking in cold syrup. It is slow, and Trafikverket is getting nowhere. At best, individual meeting tracks and rail yards have begun to be designed, but this work needs to be accelerated to strengthen the competition against truck traffic in favor of the railway.

With relatively small means, we can give the freight operators the opportunity to expand their capacity. This can also reduce congestion on the tracks, with fewer and longer and/or heavier trains.

A small glimmer of light is actually the latest package of 22 billion, where three meeting points on the Malmbanan are extended and the capacity on the freight corridor through Bergslagen is increased. However, measures are still lacking to accommodate the longer trains that are expected, for example, when Fehmarn Bält opens in about five years.

Mr. Speaker! Most of the work lies ahead of us. We need to increase the pressure on Trafikverket to deliver, and we need more tracks and strengthened maintenance. And above all, more trains must run on time – preferably all trains.

In conclusion, I want to touch upon the highlight of the winter: The Government has now granted the construction permit for the Dåva–Skellefteå section of the Norrbotniabanan. From the Sverigedemokraterna's side, we have strongly pushed that the Norrbotniabanan should be built in its full length. I now assume that the planning continues at maximum speed for the final section between Skellefteå and Luleå.

A small cloud in the cup of joy is, however, the Ostkustbanan. The Norrbotniabanan will do a lot for regional commuting and expand the labor market regions along the Norrland coast. For the Norrbotniabanan to be able to strengthen the freight flow southward, it is also required that we upgrade the entire Ostkustbanan to modern standards, and then most appropriately, of course, in double track and with 250 kilometers per hour. Approximately a sixth can be included in the current national plan, and I hope that we can achieve a larger share in the upcoming national plan.

An upgrade of the Ostkustbanan is judged to have a positive net present value ratio, and there are many people along the Norrland coast who would benefit greatly from this upgrade. The travel time between Sundsvall and Stockholm could shrink from today's approximately 3 ½ hours to about 2 hours. It is almost a halving. You can imagine what this would have done for development!

Furthermore, I believe that Trafikverket should be transformed into a road authority and a rail authority.

The speech at riksdagen.se, in Swedish (opens in a new tab)

Malin Östh (V)

Mr. Speaker! The Minister for Infrastructure sometimes says that the railway built Sweden strong. I agree with that. But what builds Sweden strong today is more unclear. It could be the railway, and it should be the railway – but then decisive action is needed to solve the railway's problems.

Swedish railways are characterized today by a serious capacity shortage and a skyrocketing maintenance debt. These are two problems that reinforce each other and must be handled in parallel. The problems have also increased in scope following a large-scale market experiment that has been ongoing since the end of the 80s and which has resulted in Sweden becoming the first country to deregulate all rail traffic.

Infrastructure can work with or against us and facilitate or hinder everyday life. Swedish transport infrastructure, which actually has all the prerequisites to be world-class, is described by Swedish industry today not as an enabler but as a growth barrier. Swedish railways have plummeted in international rankings and were at position 40 in international comparison at the latest measurement.

Government after government promises much but holds – when it comes to the crunch – little. Regardless of the promises, the outcome is the same: Sweden allocates fewer and fewer resources to rail traffic and has also for a long time under-invested in railway maintenance.

We are now in a situation where the accumulated needs are enormous. We are also in a situation where we must transition the transport system in a short time to meet our climate goals, and we are in a situation where the railway is identified as critical infrastructure by the Armed Forces. Taken together, it is completely obvious that there are insufficient resources, but also that there is a lack of a structure to properly manage the resources that are actually allocated – which is at least equally important.

To secure the resources required, not only grant funding but also loan funding is needed. In that case, not a balance target but a deficit target for the state's finances is needed.

When it comes to structure and organization, it is obvious that the fragmented system we have on the railway today does not work. That is why we in Vänsterpartiet have for a long time advocated – and continue to advocate – that the Swedish railway should be gathered into a common state organization that owns and maintains the railway in its own right and which also is responsible for train planning. It is high time for this.

Mr. Speaker! During the Reinfeldt government's first term 2006–2010, the then Alliance government, namely M, KD, L and C, took the line that Sweden had over-invested in railways. That was what was said then. A few years later, the same government turned 180 degrees and declared instead that they would carry out the largest expansion of the railway since the 1860s. This also included a major investment in high-speed trains.

It was M, KD and L who decided, i.e., the same parties that are now doing everything they can to describe high-speed trains as a project they never advocated for.

From Vänsterpartiet, we see the pie-throwing regarding high-speed trains as unnecessary and uninteresting. Put aside the conflict over who said what! It is in the past. But please do pick up the promise from 2014 about the largest expansion of the railway since the 1860s. That is precisely what is needed.

Mr. Speaker! There is an expectation that Swedish transport infrastructure should function, which we must meet politically. Today we see that the rail and public transport industry, municipalities and regions, the business community and civil society actors – all of them – are taking more and more initiatives and demanding a sustainable, just transition.

Here is Majblommans Riksförbund, which advocates for free public transport for children and young people. Here is the commuters' outcry (pendlaruppropet) demanding sustainable commuting to work. And here is Naturskyddsföreningen, which last week started a petition with a clear appeal to the government for a major investment in railways and public transport. It has collected 12,000 names in less than a week.

Vänsterpartiet budgets for an expanded, reinforced public transport with lowered ticket prices. We do this to reach what all parties say they stand behind, that is to transition to a transport-efficient society. But we also do it because it is important from a justice perspective.

From the Tidö parties' strong focus on gasoline prices and car transport, one might get the impression that everyone drives a car. That is not the case, far from it. One-fifth of Sweden's population over 18 years of age do not have a driver's license, and every third household owns no car. That is how it looks.

Future transport solutions must benefit everyone. An expanded public transport system and investments in sustainable modes of transport are necessary to meet the climate goals. But it is also needed to counteract transport poverty and achieve increased mobility, not just for parts of the population but for everyone.

With that, I move for approval of reservation number 1.

The speech at riksdagen.se, in Swedish (opens in a new tab)

Linus Lakso (MP)

Mr. Speaker! I wish I could begin this debate by speaking about how fantastic it is to travel by train. That is what many of us think, both among Sweden's population and in the Committee on Transport. But unfortunately, I must begin by stating that punctuality on the Swedish railway is now frankly rubbish, Mr. Speaker. New statistics from Trafikverket show that it is worse than it has been in 14 years. We have worse punctuality on trains in Sweden than one has in Ukraine.

This is largely due to classic right-wing politics with sell-offs, deregulation, and underinvestment without any thought for the fact that the trains need to function for ordinary people who are going to work and to various activities. During 2024, only 87.2 percent of train journeys reached the target for punctuality. This means that the train can still be up to 5 minutes and 59 seconds late. It is, as mentioned, the worst figure since 2010.

Trafikverket highlights several different reasons. Among others, the traffic volume has increased by 40 percent, which they consider to be a partial explanation. Swedes simply want to travel more by train, despite the problems we see.

What should one do then when we see a significantly increased demand for train travel in Sweden? Should we invest in more railway? No, not if we ask this government. Among the first things the Tidö parties did was to put a stop to necessary and historic investments in new railway in Sweden.

Mr. Speaker! We need a government that both takes back maintenance in its own hands and invests in more railway in Sweden. Today we stand with a paralyzed Infrastructure Minister who has no idea how he is to resolve the problems and who refuses to take off his ideological blinkers to see which solutions are needed.

The government has justified that they have stopped more railway by stating that they will prioritize maintenance. Absolutely – we completely agree that maintenance of the Swedish railway must be reclaimed under own management. That should have been done a long time ago. It certainly hangs together in many ways with what the Kristdemokraterna member stated earlier: that we have not had an investment budget since 1980.

One could think that the government's focus is to retake the maintenance in its own management. In that case, one should at least succeed with it. Here, I unfortunately have to disappoint Sweden's train travelers once again. The government's plan is to retake 10–15 percent of the maintenance by 2037. That is a brutally low level of ambition. The government is therefore planning, in practice, to let the railway continue to decay for decades to come.

It was in 2010 that the Reinfeldt government chose to privatize railway maintenance. It was also a catastrophic decision. Maintenance does not work as it is organized today.

We would need an authority that focuses fully on the railway and that can build competence around the complex system that the railway actually constitutes. We need to reclaim the maintenance under state control. But that is not enough. We also need new, innovative methods. We need new ways, both in terms of technology and organization, to become much faster and more efficient in maintaining the Swedish railway.

Furthermore, we need to expand the railway in parallel, because we need more capacity but also because it in itself facilitates catching up on the maintenance. When we have alternative routes that the trains can run on, we get a greater opportunity to divert traffic. It is, as I see it, the only realistic way to actually both obtain a capacity that Swedish train travelers deserve and to regain the maintenance.

In the debate on new main lines, it has been mentioned previously that Trafikverket's investigation shows that the alternative to building new main lines over 41 miles is to build siding tracks, double tracks, and so on for 35 miles. The difference is therefore highly marginal when it comes to how much new railway needs to be built. In that case, the new double tracks would still have to be built parallel to the old main lines, which were built in the 1800s and are quite crooked. One can imagine that it will be significantly more complicated to build new railway parallel to the old. It implies a greater risk of traffic stoppages and so on, and it will result in a poorer outcome.

Ideally, one should build with a state investment budget and a special project organization as has been done in other countries, for example Spain, and focus on quickly getting new main lines in place. Then we could achieve an expansion in a cost-effective manner.

It also needs to become easier to transport goods on the Swedish railway. Longer freight trains contribute to increased competitiveness. Today, the standard is 630 meters. The EU has an ambition of 740 meters. The Swedish railway cannot manage that today.

In Germany, trains on 835 mm gauge are now being tested. They are being run up to Malmö. I mean that it will be an unnecessary detour to try to rebuild our train systems twice. It would be more rational to directly invest in freight trains on 835 mm.

As mentioned earlier in the debate, the Fehmarn Belt link will open soon. If we cannot accommodate the increased volumes on the railway, there is a great risk that it will instead become trucks, with major consequences for both road traffic and the climate.

There is very much I would like to comment on regarding the railway and this report, but the speaking time is, after all, limited.

Finally, news has arrived regarding the Norrbotniabanan! I truly hope that the government ensures that a project model is established, so that it is built as quickly as possible. The same applies to the Ostkustbanan. We would need night trains that go all the way to Trondheim. We need to secure the night trains between Göteborg, Umeå and Jämtland. There is very much that needs to be done in the railway area.

I would also like to say a few words about public transport. The share of cars is increasing in 13 of 21 regions. In 5 regions, the share is unchanged. In only 3 regions is the share of public transport increasing relative to the car.

The obvious problem, I mean, is the total lack of national policy for public transport, which is hardly mentioned at all in the government's infrastructure bill. We lack a national goal for public transport, which has also been mentioned here earlier. The industry has set a goal that I definitely think is fully realistic to achieve.

Too little money is being allocated to regional transport agreements. We have debated this before in this chamber, but it is just as shameful now as it was then. This government also removed the urban environment agreements, which facilitated public transport. All we have actually seen at the national level is, therefore, deteriorations for public transport.

This is the case in a situation where it has become very expensive to travel by public transport. The cost for a public transport traveler has increased by 140 percent over the last 20 years. It is almost double if one compares it with, for example, the car.

Miljöpartiet argues that we need to take decisive action here. We want, with inspiration from among others Germany, to introduce a Sweden card, with which one should be able to travel by public transport in all of Sweden for 499 kronor. This can be done – in connection with costs being mentioned earlier in the debate – at a fraction of the cost of the government's subsidies for fossil fuels.

It is 81 percent of Swedes who use public transport. 1.7 billion journeys are made per year. It is very many people who are dependent on a functioning public transport and who, in addition, in difficult times would need to be able to afford a monthly pass in order to be able to get to work in a fast and smooth way.

To preempt questions that public transport is naturally not an option for the entire country, I can also mention, even though it is a bit aside from this specific debate, that we need an active policy for sustainable travel in the whole country. We want to see a leasing support for electric cars so that everyone, even those who today cannot afford to buy a car or do not want to, shall be able to lease an electric car, regardless of where one lives in the country and what income one has. We want to lower the tax in rural areas and inflation-proof several supports that are important for Sweden's families with children. Those were some examples of how we want to enable sustainable travel in the whole country.

Mr. Speaker! We naturally stand behind all our reservations in this report, but I choose to move for approval only to reservation 19.

The speech at riksdagen.se, in Swedish (opens in a new tab)

Maria Stockhaus (M)

Mr. Speaker! I would like to dwell a little bit on ERTMS. Reservation 9 of Miljöpartiet concerns ERTMS. It states there that the government's goal to try to be finished by 2042 with implementing ERTMS in our Swedish railway system is climate treason.

The interesting thing is that in the previous plan, which Miljöpartiet was involved in developing, a halving of the appropriations for ERTMS was made in order to be able to handle all the costs for the high-speed railways. This meant that 2070 was the target year to have the entire ERTMS implemented.

When the National Audit Office reviewed the work on the national plan, which the Green Party was involved in developing, they looked at what the Transport Administration had said: that the deterioration made by the previous government was system-threatening.

If 2042 is a climate betrayal, I wonder how Linus Lakso views the target year that the government his party sat in had, namely 2070. What do you call that, if 2042 is a climate betrayal?

The speech at riksdagen.se, in Swedish (opens in a new tab)

Linus Lakso (MP)

Mr. Speaker! I thank Maria Stockhaus for a relevant question. I can only state that we were, of course, far from satisfied with everything that we compromised on within the January agreement. It would probably have involved perhaps 100 billion more in the previous national plan if Miljöpartiet had been allowed to decide. Then it would have gone significantly faster than to 2042 to introduce these necessary systems for the railway.

It was actually primarily that the Liberals, with the right-wing parties as leverage, succeeded in preventing a sufficiently ambitious investment plan for Sweden's infrastructure from coming to fruition. They put a spoke in the wheel of that work, and I can only regret that.

Ultimately, one can only take responsibility for the policy that one drives oneself. The previous plan left certain things absolutely to be desired. We would have liked to see significantly higher ambitions, and even then we drove an investment budget.

This only shows what happens when one is stingy with investments in life-critical and for Sweden necessary infrastructure. I hope that the Moderaterna, just like the Kristdemokraterna, intend to rethink in the situation that we find ourselves in regarding the financing of such important infrastructure. It concerns both climate and preparedness issues.

I will therefore take the opportunity to ask the question, as it concerns the subject, to Maria Stockhaus whether the Moderaterna have any plans to rethink regarding a balance target in order to be able to borrow money for investments.

The speech at riksdagen.se, in Swedish (opens in a new tab)

Maria Stockhaus (M)

Mr. Speaker! If you sit in government, you take responsibility for the government's policies and the compromises that you make. It is a somewhat strange argument from Linus Lakso, I think, especially when he uses words like climate treason against a plan that is much more ambitious than the one the previous government stood for.

I also have another question. It concerns the discussions regarding railway maintenance and that too little is being allocated. Comparing 2024 with 2003, 18 percent more was allocated to railway maintenance. In the new plan, which is being developed, Trafikverket receives the money they have requested and say they can manage to spend. I do not know if Linus Lakso has missed that the Minister for Infrastructure is clear that there is an ambition to adjust upwards this amount when Trafikverket begins to live up to the requirements that the government sets for them to streamline their railway maintenance.

If one now pours a lot of money at Trafikverket already during next year or the year after and they do not have the capacity, the alternative is to shut down. What does that plan look like?

We ensure that Trafikverket receives the funds they say they can do away with without it affecting railway traffic too negatively.

If one says that they would double the appropriation, or whatever figures they are playing with now, the question is: How many delays shall we tolerate? How many closures and additional train problems will there be?

How does it affect people's trust if even more money is thrown out? Alternatively, the Swedish Transport Administration will not get rid of it. Or it means enormous problems in our railway traffic.

In what way would it lead to the public having greater confidence and trust in trains and train travel if the money and maintenance were handled in that way?

The speech at riksdagen.se, in Swedish (opens in a new tab)

Linus Lakso (MP)

Mr. Speaker! I think the question becomes quite bold when one has just been involved in making the catastrophic decision to stop new main lines.

It was essentially the only reasonable way we had to be able to reclaim the maintenance in a reasonable time. By obtaining alternative rerouting paths, we could have maintained the old railway. We could also have obtained the capacity that we see Sweden needs.

In my speech, I accounted for several different proposals that I believe could significantly streamline maintenance. New trunk lines and new railways are an important part of that. One must understand that they are connected.

This point about us only maintaining the existing railway fails on Maria Stockhaus's own reasoning. There will be too many closures in the foreseeable future.

We need innovation regarding both organizational forms and technology. One thing I can be more self-critical about regarding previous governments is that we have not tested more new organizational forms.

We saw, for example, with the Botniabanan and the Öresund Bridge, that it worked very well to build in project form. I think that one should do more regarding both new investments and maintenance of different sections. It is about a more efficient organization that focuses on the task.

We think again that one needs to split up Trafikverket. The intention was good, but it did not result in a good outcome when Banverket and the old Vägverket were merged. It became significantly worse. We need an agency that focuses on maintenance.

I am quite agnostic when it comes to the market. The market is fantastically good at certain things. But when it comes to having oversight over a holistic system, such as the railway, I see the state as a better actor.

The speech at riksdagen.se, in Swedish (opens in a new tab)

Magnus Jacobsson (KD)

Mr. Speaker! It was with some surprise that I listened to Linus Laksos's speech. I do not remember if he said it was during the last 12 or 14 years that a morass had been created which the government has not resolved.

The catch is only that the mess that I agree has been created has been created during the time that Miljöpartiet sat in government. It is even so exciting that it is still Miljöpartiet's plan that applies.

We will adopt our plan in 2026. It is therefore your plan that still applies. It is your mess that we are cleaning up. Do not try to shift a responsibility that we have de facto not received yet.

Mr. Speaker! Another issue that was raised was the transfer of money, which occurred in year one. That is correct. Trafikverket stated: We do not have time to build this. If the money remains in the railway account, it will be frozen. If they are moved over to the road account, we can try to tackle a part of the moraset.

Mr. Speaker! It is a falsehood that is being spread. It is repeatedly said that the bourgeois parties do not like trunk lines, whatever that is. The concept is not actually fully defined. What we do not like is waste of tax money.

We also do not like that people are out there horse-trading. They pretend they are going to build high-speed trains for money that wasn't even in the budget. That was how bad it was during the last parliamentary term. They promised to build something, but it was not fully funded.

What we have done is that we have said no to high-speed trains. We have completed a negotiation in Western Sweden, and now construction will also begin on the Göteborg–Borås section.

We have nothing against building new tracks. We also want to build Göteborg–Alingsås. We want to build in the north, and we want to build in Skåne. But we do not want to keep going and waste tax money.

The speech at riksdagen.se, in Swedish (opens in a new tab)

Linus Lakso (MP)

Mr. Speaker! Magnus Jacobsson succeeds in contradicting himself directly when he says that it is the Green Party's plan that applies. At the same time, he notes that the government has removed new main lines. He is welcome to elaborate on that logic a bit more. It is non-existent.

On the contrary, the government has sabotaged extremely necessary investments for Swedish railways. Just as the Transport Administration notes, we have seen a sharp increase in demand for train travel. We need more capacity on the railways.

Mr. Speaker! Many of the train delays that we see are due to the fact that we do not have sufficient capacity compared to what we would need on the Swedish railway.

It is quite the opposite that with the government's policy, Swedish train passengers will continue to stand on the platform and wait for trains that never arrive or that are delayed. That is unfortunately the consequence.

As I also noted earlier in my speech, we are not anywhere near incorporating the maintenance during the next planning period. On the other hand, I know that Magnus Jacobsson and I are in complete agreement that we need to rethink the financing in order to be able to fix this.

We need to have an investment budget. On that, we are in complete agreement. I really hope that we can push forward on that issue and ensure that we get a majority in the Swedish Riksdag to invest sufficiently in Swedish railways, regarding both recovering the maintenance fully as soon as possible and investing in the capacity that is needed on Swedish railways.

The speech at riksdagen.se, in Swedish (opens in a new tab)

Magnus Jacobsson (KD)

Mr. Speaker! What the member is stating is a pure falsehood. We said no to something that did not have a budget, that was not procured and that was not fully negotiated, and we have now been involved in negotiating an agreement in Västra Götaland.

One gladly takes the credit for something and tries to claim that it would have solved problems for people standing on the platform. The construction would not even have started if that part had been completed. We have said no to unnecessary costs and yes to new investments. We will continue to do so.

Mr. Speaker! I would like to change the question. The Member highlights in his speech a comparison between Germany and Sweden and speaks about high-speed trains. I couldn't help but sit down and google a little bit.

There are 83 million people in Germany and 10 million in Sweden. There are 240 people per square kilometer in Germany and 25.6 people per square kilometer in Sweden. Germany is a relatively compact country, and Sweden is a relatively elongated country. It is not even possible to compare those magnitudes.

It is the same with some who go to Japan and look at high-speed trains, or one goes and looks at trains between Paris and the southern part of France. It is also a compact country with a large population and many who can be involved in financing.

They are not even comparable magnitudes. One can dream of that type of infrastructure, but who is going to pay for it? In Germany, France, Japan and China, those who travel on the trains pay. If we are to have equivalent infrastructure, someone else must pay for it.

If one believes that there is a printing press in the basement that one can crank into action, one can indeed finance anything. But if one considers that there should be order and tidiness in the nation's finances, one must work with infrastructure that functions.

That is why the government is investing in building away the bottlenecks, renovating, and ensuring that the flows for both freight and passenger traffic function. That is what I am proud of, Mr. Speaker.

The speech at riksdagen.se, in Swedish (opens in a new tab)

Linus Lakso (MP)

Mr. Speaker! It is noticeable that it has been a long debate. I believe that Magnus Jacobsson dozed off a little during my speech.

I compared the Sweden Pass with how it is in Germany where one has a Germany Ticket for 49 euros a month. The comparison I made regarding trains was that they have built new railways significantly faster in, for example, Spain just by having built with a project model. I never compared it with Germany.

Now, that wasn't a direct question so much as an interruption, but Trafikverket's own analysis shows that with the government's alternative, it is therefore 35 miles of double track along the old railway from the 1800s that is the alternative. Magnus Jacobsson's words therefore appear rather pompous, Mr. Speaker. We are talking about a difference of 6 miles of railway, so I think we have to lower the tone a little bit in this matter.

Mr. Speaker! Regarding the socio-economic profitability, I strongly question the calculation model that is used for these projects, where, for example, one values a train passenger's time significantly lower than a driver's time. I mean the opposite: if there is anything that has historically proven to be wise investments, it is to invest in a functioning railway. I actually believe that the population of Sweden and Sweden's train passengers expect that.

With the totally inadequate policy regarding both new investments and maintenance, the problems will continue, Mr. Speaker.

The speech at riksdagen.se, in Swedish (opens in a new tab)

Helena Gellerman (L)

Mr. Speaker! I listened carefully when Member Linus Lakso gave his speech, and I believe we are both very positive about what the railway can do for Swedish competitiveness, for our companies and other organizations' opportunity to acquire competence, and for people to be able to travel to their loved ones.

For us, it is important to invest in both railways and roads, because Sweden looks very different in different parts.

I reacted to a few things in the speech. The member noted that the Liberals held back in the budget in the January agreement last time. It is said that the Alliance stood behind new trunk lines but that we have now backed down. But when the Alliance said yes to new trunk lines – or high-speed lines, shall we say – in 2014, the cost was 120 billion. When the Liberals backed out of that, the cost was 360 billion. The cost had thus become three times as large. We knew that if we were to put a lot of money into that budget, it would go towards this extremely unprofitable project, and therefore we said no.

Another important point is that the member says the trunk lines would enable faster maintenance by providing alternative diversion routes. Now we must be clear that the trunk lines were intended to be completed at some point in 2050. Does the member mean that we would not do any maintenance until then?

The speech at riksdagen.se, in Swedish (opens in a new tab)

Linus Lakso (MP)

Mr. Speaker! Thank you, Helena Gellerman, for good questions! I can start by stating that I believe we are in fair agreement that we must become better and faster at building railways in Sweden.

One of the problems we have is that it takes far too long to build railways. This means that the benefit we get from a new railway is delayed far into the future, but it also means that we build railways much more expensively than what would be necessary. Spain is once again an example. There, they have built new main lines and new railways in project form, which we have also tested in Sweden previously with good results. I believe, therefore, that we could do it much faster and cheaper with a different model where we build more focused and have an organization that focuses on one task, that is, to build this new railway section and perhaps also maintain it.

As I have said, I do not straightforwardly accept the calculation models that essentially state that all new railways, except for a bit of tinkering, are socio-economically unprofitable. On the contrary, it has been shown that railway investments that were initially assessed as unprofitable have turned out to be very socio-economically profitable when evaluated in retrospect, which provides grounds to question that calculation model.

The members of the committee may repeat their questions if I have missed any.

The speech at riksdagen.se, in Swedish (opens in a new tab)

Helena Gellerman (L)

Mr. Speaker! Certainly, one could say that the railway and new main lines could be built quickly with a new organization. But the problem is, as was also said in the previous exchange of remarks, that there was no funding. And if there is no money, one cannot build at all. Then it is not a matter of building faster, but that one cannot build at all. Since the new main lines were not funded when the decision was made, one simply could not have built faster.

I would also like to bring up another point. The member stated in his speech that the current government's investments in the railway are more or less a catastrophe. But the previous government with the Social Democrats and the Green Party spent 165 billion on the railway. If you adjust that to today's prices, it becomes 200 billion, and the current government is spending 210 billion.

The current government is therefore putting more into maintenance of the railway over the next 12 years than the previous government did. I would very much like to hear what thoughts lie behind the member's claim that this government is investing less in the railway.

The speech at riksdagen.se, in Swedish (opens in a new tab)

Linus Lakso (MP)

Mr. Speaker! I wonder if Helena Gellerman remembers that the Liberals were also part of the January Agreement. I was actually actively involved in the negotiations regarding the national plan, and there the Liberals held firm and pulled down by surely 100 billion; I do not remember exactly.

Unfortunately, we have had a strong inflation in recent years, which has caused everything to become significantly more expensive. The historical investments that the government boasts about therefore hardly manage to maintain the investments that were already in the plans. Sure, it is more money, but if you subtract the inflation, it is hardly an increase.

As mentioned earlier, it has increased all the time, which is due to the fact that we need to invest more because we have constantly under-invested. In addition, we have an inflation that means we must invest more because prices are going up.

When it comes to maintenance, we must of course regain it much faster. In my speech and in previous exchanges of remarks, I have mentioned various ways that I believe we need to try to become much faster and more efficient in regaining the maintenance. Building new railway to better be able to divert traffic is part of that, but I have also mentioned project form and more innovative and large-scale procurements so that actors actually get the opportunity to invest in the technology and the machinery needed to be able to perform effective maintenance.

There are some things that I believe would need to go much faster and that I hope we can get in place in Sweden. As it is now, it is a completely unsustainable situation; we have just received figures that say we have the worst punctuality in 14 years. I do not see, Mr. Speaker, quite that sense of crisis in the government, but one simply continues in the same old ruts.

The speech at riksdagen.se, in Swedish (opens in a new tab)

Ann-Sofie Lifvenhage (M)

Mr. Speaker! Several major issues are processed together in the report. One of these is the one that made me choose to engage in politics in the first place: public transport. Why that? Well, because this is an extremely hard issue that is at the same time as soft as it can possibly be and which means something every day in everyday life.

Public transport is one of society's most important functions. It gives people the opportunity to travel to and from work and school, reduces congestion on our roads, and plays a crucial role in the green transition.

For many, public transport is a necessity. It is what makes it possible for us to get our daily lives to work. A well-functioning public transport system can be the difference between it being a completely fantastic day and everything being pushed to its limits.

Travel looks different across the country – and should so do – because the country is long and in some places as different as it is in other places similar. Some parameters are however the same, for example the expectation that what I plan for should work to the greatest extent possible and that the more trips that are completed with public transport, the better it is for the environment.

That more people should be able to travel with a well-functioning public transport should therefore be a self-evident goal. That the journeys should be safe, punctual, and affordable should be a matter of course.

Mr. Speaker! For public transport to be reliable and attractive, long-term perspective, responsibility, and economic order are required. Responsibility and sound economy create the conditions. It requires politicians who take responsibility for prioritizing the maintenance and development required in our basic infrastructure system so that public transport can function and deliver what we expect. It is required so that buses can travel safely on the road network, so that the train has a functioning rail with a signaling system that does not bring commuters to a standstill during rush hour, and so that maritime traffic sees a positive development for the future.

With prioritization that puts the traveler at the center, with traffic that arrives and departs on time and with departures at requested times, an attractive and climate-smart travel is built.

The responsibility for placing orders for public transport lies with the regions, where, for example, Christoffer Öqvist, the chairman of the regional council in Sörmland, and Anna Jähnke, regional councilor in Skåne, together with their colleagues have the best knowledge of what their specific study and work commuting patterns look like, with proximity to their residents and thus knowledge of how to place orders that prioritize exactly what is most effective to increase the possibility of seamless travel from door to door in their regions.

Mr. Speaker! The Moderates' goal is a reliable, safe, and accessible public transport. Nationally, we work to secure robustness and the conditions for a punctual railway through historically high investments in maintenance and modernization with a goal of reduced hassle so that it becomes easier to travel by public transport throughout the country. We work to strengthen safety by giving municipalities and regions better tools to increase safety both in buses and on trains.

This is an important part of the social contract, and if it does not work, it hits hard against everyone who is dependent on public transport. Commuters risk having longer travel times, which means they might not make it home in time for daycare pickup. Students find it harder to get to school and risk missing important moments in their education. The elderly and persons with disabilities get poorer opportunities to move freely. And what is the consequence? Well, that certain journeys do not happen at all, which reduces the individual's freedom, or that more people choose the car because public transport is no longer a functioning alternative. That is bad for the individual and bad for the climate.

With a service that works, when the order delivers, with seamless journeys where the commuter parking is nearby so that one can easily take the next mode of transport when the car is no longer the highest priority, with a comfort that allows the journey to be used for work if one so wishes or perhaps recovery and planning of the day if one so wishes, public transport is an unbeatable competitive alternative for the journey.

During my many school visits, the young people often bring up issues regarding public transport. It can be about how important it is for equality that public transport is perceived as safe, even when traveling home late in the evening from floorball practice in Strängnäs, and how much they appreciate the safety wardens and cameras that make it harder for those with bad intentions to hide and do foolish things in the public space when we travel together.

Public transport, however, looks very different across the country and needs to do so in order to be able to deliver according to expectations. With more offering a flexible service in areas where public transport is not as widespread as in large cities, cooperation between, for example, on-demand transport, sharing services, special transport, taxi, and school transport is a way towards an increased supply even in more sparsely populated areas.

Gotlandstrafiken has a special position in the country's infrastructure, as no other region sees its highway to the neighboring municipality or the capital open only a few times a day. This places great demands on ordering and execution so that seamless travel can deliver both residents, the tourism industry, and goods to and from the island both at a reasonable price and at a time that is attractive.

Great importance is placed here on how we view both the responsibility to connect the country in order to be competitive and how we create conditions for the business sector to flourish, provide conditions for both domestic and foreign tourism and, no less importantly, how goods can be moved quickly and cost-effectively. This is one of the pillars in being an attractive region for residents and in creating a basis for the region's opportunities to make priorities in a sound economy.

The ferry, the train and the bus also need to be up to date across the entire country, with connectivity that ensures that the time the journey takes can provide quality in the freedom of choice when it comes to how you spend your time. Just like that, public transport becomes an even more attractive choice for the journey.

Just so we also get more to contribute to the transition where it is possible – where special transport is a matter of freedom, where epans safe parking at the train station is a matter of freedom, where the boat's safe journey is a matter of freedom and where the journey for those who have not yet received a driver's license is a matter of freedom.

Public transport is a hard but certainly soft issue in life that boils down to precisely freedom – the freedom to live, experience, and develop.

The speech at riksdagen.se, in Swedish (opens in a new tab)

Ulrika Heie (C)

Mr. Speaker! Thank you, Ann-Sofie Lifvenhage, for a very fine picture of the opportunities that public transport provides both young and old across our entire country!

I would wish for a somewhat higher degree of specificity. What do the Moderates and the Tidö government want? Do they stand behind the vision of four out of ten trips? Is this the goal, or are there additional goals?

The Leader of the Opposition also said that they want to give municipalities and regions better tools to develop public transport. What kind of tools are they wanting to give?

I also have a question regarding the transport service. It has been raised several times in the debate that work is ongoing at the ministry regarding the regulatory framework that exists today, which complicates things, not least for the visually impaired. We all had the opportunity to meet Young Visually Impaired today and hear their stories. They are very concerned about not being locked into a municipality that chooses to interpret the regulatory framework in such a way that one is not given the opportunity and access to the transport service.

I would therefore very much like the member to elaborate on these parts somewhat further. It concerns the tools one wants to give municipalities and regions, if one stands behind four out of ten journeys in public transport, as well as the paratransit issue. Is one pushing for the regulation to be changed so that a changed regulatory framework can become possible as early as January 1, 2026? It is still almost a year until then.

The speech at riksdagen.se, in Swedish (opens in a new tab)

Ann-Sofie Lifvenhage (M)

Mr. Speaker! I thank the member for the opportunity to delve into these issues.

I choose to start with tools for the municipalities. I think it is extremely important that decisions are made as close to the individual as possible, and therefore I think it is important that our municipalities and regions have the opportunity to place orders based on what their specific study and labor market commuting patterns look like.

The prerequisite for them to be able to do so is that they have a sound economy. There, I believe that our responsibility here in the chamber is to lay a budget for the entire country that ensures as much money as possible can be out in the municipalities and regions so that they can make these, for their residents most crucial, decisions.

When it comes to this matter of four out of ten trips, we Moderates see that the country is elongated and has different conditions. In order for us to reach that goal in the whole country, more trips will need to be collective in certain areas, for example in the large cities. There I see how my comrades who governed Stockholm during the previous mandate period had a very high goal regarding what proportion of the travel should be done with public transport. We saw then that six out of ten trips were made with public transport. I am extremely concerned about the current government, which has reduced the number of bus lines and the number of train lines. That counteracts the possibility of traveling collectively.

When it comes to the transport service, I am not at all unfamiliar with raising that question further. I see that we have a broad majority in the chamber for the view that it is a self-evident issue of freedom.

The speech at riksdagen.se, in Swedish (opens in a new tab)

Ulrika Heie (C)

Mr. Speaker! I interpret the answer very positively and as that the member will push to ensure that this matter regarding the transport service is carried out as soon as possible.

The member raised safety issues as an important part. I had the privilege of participating in the seatbelt campaign competition Guldbältet. I know that the member comes from Sörmland, and it was Sörmlandstrafiken that won the competition. It is about the important work of truly ensuring that children and young people – and obviously everyone who travels in public transport – have a safe journey. In that regard, the seatbelt campaign is a very important part, so I must congratulate the member on that point.

I perceive it as that one stands behind the vision of four out of ten journeys. Therefore, I actually only have one final question that I would like to ask.

The member mentioned Gotlandstrafiken, and just as the member said, the route to the neighboring municipality is via ferry. It is important both for passenger transport and for freight transport. The member highlights how important this is, but we know today that it is an extremely difficult situation for the people of Gotland – and not least for youth teams who may be coming to Gotland to play away matches. The people of Gotland have to play their home matches on the mainland because others cannot afford to travel to Gotland.

What is the government doing to facilitate lower prices for Gotlandstrafiken? I experience that it has been quite sluggish; the criticism from Gotland has been massive for a number of years, and I have not seen much in practical terms. I know that a new procurement has been made, but it also has certain problems linked to how one views the possibility of relocating the company to Sweden and so on.

So here, the member may also be welcome to elaborate. In what way has the government worked concretely to make it easier for the people of Gotland to travel to the mainland and vice versa?

The speech at riksdagen.se, in Swedish (opens in a new tab)

Ann-Sofie Lifvenhage (M)

Mr. Speaker! I thank the member again for important questions.

That we as Moderater lay great importance on the procurement of Gotlandstrafiken, I do not think anyone has overlooked. We will also follow the issue very closely in the same way as we have done during the past years, when we, due to for example fuel prices, have been able to help with extra support from the state. I don't actually think that is how it should be structured from the very beginning, but with an unpredictable market for fuel prices, that is the situation we end up in.

We will, however, follow this very carefully, and I would like to see us work out a regional policy in the future. I know that many other countries with situations similar to ours have such a policy. Even though we only have one region while other countries have significantly more, we could take inspiration from and learn from how they work with this in other countries.

As the member raises, I also see the possibility for sports teams to, of course, be able to meet both on the island and on the mainland. I have personally traveled over with our eldest daughter to play floorball in the women's series. However, I would have truly welcomed what I miss now, namely the convenience it meant to fly from Bromma to Visby. It is something I miss. I see that the time to travel to and from the island has doubled as one now needs to travel via Arlanda. There, we truly have a job to do.

The speech at riksdagen.se, in Swedish (opens in a new tab)

Fredrik Stenberg (S)

Mr. Speaker! Sweden's railways are a backbone in our infrastructure. They connect people and companies, create opportunities for work and studies, and are a crucial piece of the puzzle for the development of industry. We simply have economic values in our country that perform best in export.

Despite this, the railway struggles with major challenges regarding maintenance, delays, and lack of capacity. Long-term responsibility and wise investments are required moving forward. We also have a national, not a party-political, interest in that the railway functions and that wise trade-offs are made both now and in the future. The Swedish people actually deserve nothing less.

The Social Democrats stand up for a modern and well-functioning railway where maintenance is performed in a way that ensures both quality and cost-effectiveness. We Social Democrats, however, see an opportunity to strengthen this system and want to review how the state can, to an increased extent, carry out railway maintenance under its own management.

The Social Democrats want to see a railway policy that builds Sweden strong both economically and socially. We want to invest in a reliable and robust railway where accessibility and safety are in focus. Let us together take responsibility for the future of public transport and the railway! I want to move for approval of reservation 4.

As a resident of Västerbotten, I have a request to you in the Tidö parties now that you have finally given the green light for the Norrbotniabanan between Umeå and Skellefteå: Make sure that it now proceeds quickly and that we reach all the way up to Luleå as soon as possible!

Railway and public transport issues

(Applause)

The deliberation was hereby concluded.

(Decisions were made under § 16.)

The speech at riksdagen.se, in Swedish (opens in a new tab)