Railway and public transport issues

Patrik Jönsson (SD)

Mr. Speaker! I intend to begin with a moment of reflection and gratitude. Some things I, and many others, take for granted. I take for granted that I can wake up every day and see what time it is, even if by the skin of my teeth. I can go to the toilet myself and can immediately see where the toilet paper is. If the potatoes are finished, I can immediately run down to the convenience store and shop, regardless of whether it is summer and sun or ice and snowdrifts. I am extremely grateful for this, unfortunately all too rarely. This privilege, which is my everyday life, is for many people an impossibility.

We will now debate railway and public transport issues. In this block, the travel service (färdtjänst) is also addressed. For many, the travel service is not just an opportunity for a bearable life but a pure necessity to make life function. What I can state is that between 250,000 and 300,000 Swedes are granted travel service.

Unfortunately, for many years we have received articles from all corners of the country about how people who have had transport services for 5, 10, or 15 years have suddenly been judged to be too healthy to be granted transport services, even though nothing in their medical condition has changed. The reason is instead a new interpretation of how the application should be carried out. Most likely, new applications are also being denied. This appears to primarily affect those who are blind or have severe visual impairment.

In the withdrawal of the permit, it appears that emphasis is placed on the fact that there is no lack of mobility, and so it may well be. That I cannot see does not necessarily mean that I cannot walk or even run. It is just that the running route will probably not be so long if no companion accompanies me.

What I can see is that the biggest problem is that the law does not take into account what ability one has to orient oneself. It is completely impossible for a visually impaired person to learn all of Stockholm by heart. Furthermore, it is the case that a learned route can suddenly be dug up. There can also be obstacles in the form of, for example, a snow wall, work in the sidewalk, or a wrongly parked electric scooter.

Another problem is long waiting times for special transport and booking centers with limited opening hours. It can also be the case that one is not offered special transport late in the evening, early in the morning, or at night, or that the transports cannot be coordinated in such a way that one can, for example, drop off their child at football practice and then use the same transport to go to work or go shopping.

Of course, those with a disability should be given the same opportunities to get to and from work, the restaurant, or a leisure activity as all the rest of us. Sweden is so wealthy that these problems should not have needed to exist.

A few months ago, the government appointed an inquiry that is to be completed in January. The assignment is to look at how the requirements differ and what criteria underlie the granting of travel services. It is good that something is happening, and I hope that we can put our foot down on the issue, regardless of the color of the incoming government.

However, I mean that there are already finished proposals that Trafikanalys submitted a few years ago which would close the loopholes in the special transport act. These are issues that we have been dragged along with for six, seven, eight years. I sat myself in the public transport committee when this began to become a problem in Skåne. I believe deep down that there is a consensus among all parties that these loopholes in the law should be closed.

Mr. Speaker! I have now sat in the Committee on Transport for eight years. Countless are the times I have heard that one wants to see an "over-shift of freight from road to rail". I have myself worked as a railway worker for 24 years, and I would truly appreciate it if this were fulfilled. But what does it look like then for the Swedish railway freight transport?

I am a member of the trade union Seko and receive its member magazine. In the previous issue, there was a comprehensive and interesting article about road transport, rail transport, and combined transport in Sweden as far back as 1950 and up to 2024. With reference to Trafikverket, it appears – hardly surprising given population growth and that significantly more goods are produced and consumed – that transport has increased from approximately 13 billion tonne-kilometers in 1950 to approximately 70 billion tonne-kilometers in 2024, excluding maritime transport. Maritime transport today accounts for approximately 35 percent of all freight transport within Sweden.

It is however difficult to see any traces of an increased shift. Over the last decade, rail freight has remained quite stable at 22 billion tonne-kilometers. Truck freight has fluctuated more but still averages fairly stably at around 39 billion tonne-kilometers. No traces are therefore seen here of a shift having taken place or being in the process of taking place.

Nor neither will we see an increase in rail freight in the next ten years due to the Fehmarn Belt link. The Germans, in fact, do not have any functioning railway connection across the Fehmarn Belt. The single-track railway that has existed there has been taken out of service, and the bridge would still not be able to handle the weight of freight trains. This link is, of course, to be built, but it will be ready at the earliest in 2032. Everything indicates, however, that it will be much later, perhaps 2036 or 2037.

Rail freight transport struggles with several problems. Customers experience that it is often cheaper to send the goods by truck. It is difficult to rely on the train keeping the schedule, which causes problems today, when one often does not sit on inventory. It is also rarely the case that the railway goes from door to door, which the truck freight does.

Tax points have been reduced, which has occurred successively over decades. Since 1987 – that was approximately when I started working at SJ – the number of locations where it is possible to load goods has decreased by about 80 percent. Track charges for rail freight have increased by about 600 percent over 15 years. In total, the state receives about 2.5 billion in track charges. This is governed by EU requirements.

Despite increased track charges, the railway bears only a fraction of its own cost, in contrast to car and truck traffic, which pays around three times more than its own cost, subsidizes the entire railway's deficit and, despite this, leaves a surplus of tens of billions in the state treasury. The largest freight train operator, Green Cargo, despite a grant with a so-called environmental compensation of 284 million SEK, had 53 million last year. There is no greater room for increased fees, as one competes with truck traffic, which pressures the prices for transporting goods.

Despite the fact that the railway only bears a fraction of its cost, I argue that the track access charges would need to be removed for us to achieve a shift of transport to the railway. But I can state that it cannot be done without the EU changing its regulatory framework.

Many of the transports that take place by rail cannot take place by road or are not suitable for it. It would be a great loss if the rail transport of goods were to successively disappear due to its costs and its lack of punctuality. It would damage our industry and drastically increase the transports on road. The conditions for rail freight must be strengthened, so that it becomes a strong alternative to the truck transports.

Mr. Speaker! I intend to continue in slightly more positive tones. A positive development is that we are now, with the new national plan, accelerating the implementation of ERTMS, the new signaling system. Many of our signal boxes are in great need of replacement, as they are outdated and it is beginning to become a problem to find spare parts. It concerns as many as a third. ERTMS has been improved and is today more operationally secure than the existing ATC signal boxes. Signaling errors of all kinds cause very many hours of delay, 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 at some point around 2070 according to the previous plan.

Something I also welcome is that we Tidö parties have decided to compensate the operators for the onboard equipment by 50 percent, something that we from Sverigedemokraterna have insisted on for a long time. Additional compensation can also be sought from the EU.

Some positive things do exist. Trafikverket has finally stepped up the replacement of track switches. Instead of replacing 20–30 per year, they should now replace over 150. However, there is still a good way to go until it was like in the old signaling era. Back then, they replaced 250–300 switches per year. But this at least stops the worst decay, even though one would need to replace over 300 switches per year to catch up on the maintenance debt.

Mr. Speaker! Trafikverket has been shopping. It has purchased three new advanced maintenance trains for approximately 1 billion, which are to make work in the tracks safer and simplify and speed up track and overhead line replacements.

The number of employees at Trafikverket has increased unjustifiably since its formation, from 6,806 employees in 2010 to over 12,000 today. But now that is over! We Tidö parties have placed a savings requirement of three times 300 million on Trafikverket, as a first step in streamlining Trafikverket.

From our party's side, I want to be clear. Trafikverket is too large and would need to be divided to become easier to govern. We want to see a return to a road authority and a rail authority. However, Trafikverket has at least begun to work internally in this direction. It is a step in the right direction.

Mr. Speaker! Regarding public transport, many regions are finding it difficult to reach the levels that existed before the pandemic. But there are also exceptions, such as in Skåne, the county I come from, where in particular travel by train is increasing.

For example, travel with Öresundstågen increased between January and August last year by a full 19 percent. That is very pleasing. Skånetrafiken delivered a fantastic result of plus 803 million in 2025. Giving an exact answer as to why it differs is probably impossible, because even though office attendance has increased, it stands still in, for example, Stockholm.

Something that can provide an answer, at least partially, is that Skånetrafiken has chosen to work its way out of the crisis with more departures. SL and the Stockholm politicians have instead chosen to cut back on the supply, quite significantly as well. Both SL and Skånetrafiken have raised the prices, so that cannot be used as a basis for the differences.

From the Sverigedemokraterna side, we appreciate that the regions choose to invest their way out of the crisis instead of braking their way out of it. Public transport is important for people to get their daily lives to function and to get to studies, work, or leisure activities, and so that the cities do not become choked with long queues and motorists who cannot find parking spaces.

In conclusion, Mr. Speaker, I cannot help but bring up the phenomenon of track gaps. In 2024, this amounted to an incredible 3,200 hours of delay. In Trafikverket's southern region, the cost of track gaps was estimated at 84 million kronor per year for things such as replacement services, cancelled operations, and lost working time. But I am completely convinced that the amount is much higher than that.

2023–2024, Trafikverket shows an increase of 50 percent, or 20,148 cases in the country. I, however, strongly doubt a general increase in track crossings. I have worked in the railway for 24 years. My view is that instead, fewer people are shortcutting across the tracks than before. There are also more physical obstacles.

What has occurred is a drastically increased reporting rate and a drastically increased use of traffic stops instead of, as before, an application of so-called sight speed, where trains are driven at low speed.

One allows the first train to travel at a speed where one can stop on half the distance one can see where the so-called track jump has occurred. Obviously, one should immediately return to using operation with sight speed as practice, and in that case, I am obviously not talking about a suspected suicide.

Through this procedure, the problem with track jumping could have been reduced drastically. We do not close motorways or other roads just because someone takes a shortcut over them. Here, I really hope that Trafikverket lets common sense prevail and takes action on the issue. There are thousands of hours of delays to be saved here without it costing a single krona; on the contrary, it would provide enormous societal benefits.

(TALMANNEN: I note that the speaker exceeded the allotted speaking time by almost 50 percent.)

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

Aylin Nouri (S)

Mr. Speaker! We listened to a long speech by Patrik Jönsson from the Sverigedemokraterna regarding what the Sverigedemokraterna hope for and want for the infrastructure. I am somewhat surprised by that approach.

It is actually the Sweden Democrats who have governed the country for nearly four years. The Sweden Democrats are not in opposition. It is as the Sweden Democrats' party leader Jimmie Åkesson notes: Everything that has been important for the Sweden Democrats, they have had passed through these years. Every day that a minister can go to their department and perform their work is because the Sweden Democrats approve it.

When the Swedish Transport Administration presented its proposal for a national plan a couple of months ago, there were large reactions all over the country. They came in particular from the region that Patrik Jönsson himself represents here in the Swedish Parliament, Skåne.

It is about a four-kilometer bottleneck between Maria station and Helsingborg central station that is being removed. The state is backing out of the promise that was given and is leaving Patrik Jönsson's voters in southern Sweden in the lurch with an infrastructure that is substandard. What remains is a bottleneck for all of Sweden and for all of Europe.

My question to Patrik Jönsson, whom I have observed to have significant influence over the government, is: What is the message to Patrik Jönsson's voters in Skåne? How do you defend that Skåne is subjected to continued substandard infrastructure and a removal of infrastructure that could have strengthened growth?

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

Patrik Jönsson (SD)

Mr. Speaker! I regret that I previously exceeded my speaking time. I will not repeat it.

Thank you, MP Aylin Nouri, for the questions! The Social Democrats have previously sat and governed in governments with the Green Party with the support of the Centre Party, the Liberals, and the Left Party in various constellations. Even in our case, four parties are cooperating.

I can be very clear that I have definitely recorded the stretch Aylin Nouri mentions here between Maria and Helsingborg. It is a stretch of just over 4.3 kilometers. That stretch is a real fiasco.

It should have been built as double track from the very beginning. I recall that it was built somewhere around the beginning of the 90s. At that time, Helsingborg Municipality had to pay for it themselves because SJ refused to pay at that time. The municipality did not have the means to build more than a single track, and they were satisfied and happy with that. It worked then, but it does not work today.

Since then, the stretch has been single-track in a tunnel under the harbor basin. It is very expensive to rebuild today. I believe it cost 700 million at that time. We could probably quintuple that amount today.

Why have the Social Democrats not done a damn thing for that stretch during the eight years that the Social Democrats sat and governed before us? One can really ask that.

I can only guarantee that I have made my submissions. A new national plan will be coming that will be very interesting to see. I cannot comment on that here and now.

I can state that the Social Democrats have governed with the Green Party but have almost not pushed through any policy at all. The only policy that was relevant previously when the Social Democrats governed was the Green Party's policy.

It was the Green Party's policy that prevailed and not the Social Democrats' policy. We have pushed through enormously more Sweden Democrat policy. We have changed the entire landscape for the justice system.

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

Aylin Nouri (S)

Mr. Speaker! Thank you, Patrik Jönsson, for the answer!

When the Social Democrats ruled, it was included in the national plan. It is the current government with the Sweden Democrats at the helm that is failing Region Skåne and all of Sweden, because we are getting a bottleneck that affects growth, the expansion that is now being made towards Fehmarn Bält and also all of Europe's needs.

The Sweden Democrats say here that they have played the stretch Maria–Helsingborg. I do not believe that the voters in Skåne are particularly satisfied with that. I note with interest that the Sweden Democrats compare themselves with the Green Party and the Liberals. But the Sweden Democrats are the government base's largest party. It is just as familiar to Patrik Jönsson as it is to the rest of us in the chamber that M, KD and the Liberals together have fewer mandates than the Social Democrats have alone. It is therefore the Sweden Democrats who every day ensure that this government is able to rule.

My question to Patrik Jönsson therefore remains. Will Patrik Jönsson act for – and can he give a promise to his voters in Skåne that – the Maria–Helsingborg stretch shall return to national planning and that one of Sweden's largest bottlenecks shall be addressed?

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

Patrik Jönsson (SD)

Mr. Speaker! Thank you for the question, Aylin Nouri!

The Sweden Democrats are betraying Sweden, I thought someone said here. To leave Sweden with a maintenance debt for the railway of 90 billion – a maintenance debt that we will now have to pay off – was the Social Democrats' betrayal. You therefore left Sweden with a gigantic maintenance debt, Aylin Nouri, and I think that is very tragic. We inherited that debt, and we are fully committed to paying it off.

We can, of course, focus on the Maria–Helsingborg stretch. You had it in your plan, and you can have it in your plan. But where is the measure? Where are the double tracks? It is a single track. You had double tracks in your plan, but they were never built.

I can assure the members that the stretch will land in the national plan. In one way or another, it will land in the upcoming national plan or the one after that, because this is a stretch that has, if I recall correctly, 25 different investigation alternatives from Trafikverket. It is a complete mystery to me, and perhaps I should work on it instead so that something happens. It is simply not possible to have 25 alternatives for such a short stretch.

In any case: This should have been built a long time ago. That is something we probably agree on. There should have been double tracks on this section 10 years ago, or even 15 years ago. This section should never have been built as a single track.

The fact remains that we do what we can. We will pay off the maintenance debt. Probably, it will be possible to pay off even more in the next national plan than what is being said now, but there are not enough people. Railways must be planned, and that takes many years – so simple things as changing an overhead line may need to be planned three years in advance.

With that said: We do what we can, and I believe that the outcome of our national plan is significantly better than the outcome of the Social Democrats' national plan, that is to say 90 billion in maintenance debt.

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

Ulrika Heie (C)

Mr. Speaker! Patrik Jönsson began his speech with reflection and understanding for people in, I would say, both a vulnerable and difficult situation. It is about the fact that in this report we usually perhaps mostly talk about railways, but the transport service (färdtjänsten) is now included as a part.

I am still very surprised, and also provoked, that an investigation is now being commissioned which is to be completed in January, i.e., after the election. In some way, it has become a hallmark of this government to implement very many half-year solutions: they lower the food VAT, and they make other reductions that apply for about half a year or possibly a year.

So, an investigation is now being commissioned to see how different this works. The investigation shall look at the criticism that the right to transport services varies and that previous investigations have not led to measures. But it is still the case that Trafikanalys in 2023 provided a basis, which Patrik Jönsson also referred to in his statement, regarding clearer criteria for transport service permits.

How is it possible that the government sits on its hands and awaits another investigation when there is actually an opportunity to take part of the work of Trafikanalys and thereby carry out a fairer reform for the people who are in the greatest need of this? As Magnus Jacobsson said at an earlier occasion, it is about people being released at quite different places and having no possibility at all to find their way to where they are supposed to go.

How is it, then, possible that one appoints an inquiry instead of actually doing something about the problem?

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

Patrik Jönsson (SD)

Mr. Speaker! I thank the member, as well as the chairman of the Transport Committee, Ulrika Heie.

I am not satisfied with how this has been handled, and neither should the member Ulrika Heie be. The member supported the previous government, which also chose to appoint an investigation into these matters – which was known about. They were known already then.

I do not intend to use such big words as saying that I am provoked, but I can rather say that I find it sad. I think it is sad that it has failed in this way for those who are affected, and I will do what I can to ensure it does not fail again. I can promise that. Here and now, we cannot influence this any more than by letting the investigation proceed. I do not think it is being handled correctly, and I do not think it was handled correctly by previous governments either.

I am very honest and open: I truly hope that we together, regardless of the color of the next government, get this done. It is, in fact, unworthy. This is not how it should be handled, and people should not be affected in this way. It concerns people who are already affected by serious disabilities. Not being able to see is indeed a barrier. I actually cannot imagine it. Even if the people one meets seem to be able to accept the situation and be happy, it would have been an immense sorrow for me to lose my sight. It would have been an immense handicap.

I think it is important that we help each other to do this, and I am very honest about the fact that I am not satisfied that it has not been addressed. No one can be. In any case, no one should be.

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

Ulrika Heie (C)

Mr. Speaker! Member Jönsson says: I am not satisfied, and neither should Ulrika Heie be. No, and I ask a question: When there is an investigation that has given a number of proposals on what should be done, how is it possible that one does not take advantage of those proposals and make a change?

We all know that changes of various kinds may need to be implemented in several steps, but hiding the issue in yet another investigation has the direct opposite effect. It means that people have to wait even longer for the justice we want to see, that is, for the assessment to become equal across the entire country. Here are the proposals, and here are the opportunities to make the change.

I understand if Member Jönsson is not particularly satisfied with how his own government has handled the issue. Therefore, my question is: Was it wrong to appoint yet another investigation? Could the measures required to resolve this not have been taken?

I believe that we all have some opportunity to empathize with situations. We are placed in different situations where we get to test an existence without visual possibilities. I also believe that all parties have met Synskadades Riksförbund and taken part in the stories that exist. Therefore, it is very strange that the proposal is to appoint an inquiry despite the fact that there are real proposals.

Is Patrik Jönsson dissatisfied with the government's handling, or does Patrik Jönsson think it is good and that another investigation was needed?

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

Patrik Jönsson (SD)

Mr. Speaker! I think I was quite clear that I am not satisfied with how this has been handled. I am not satisfied with how it was handled before this government either.

I must also say that I personally do not sit in a government; I sit as a member of the Riksdag for a support party to the government. I would have personally handled this differently.

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

Ulrika Heie (C)

Mr. Speaker! I also want to begin my speech in this debate by moving for the approval of a reservation, and I choose to move for the approval of reservation 12.

Mr. Speaker! A cohesive Sweden requires an infrastructure that works. It requires an infrastructure of high quality regardless of which mode of transport we are talking about, but since this debate concerns the railway and public transport, I shall stick to that.

The mobility that the railway and public transport create truly provides freedom. Being able to take the train to work, perhaps being able to drop the children off at practice with the help of public transport, or as a business owner being able to rely on that the goods will arrive at the port on time is fundamental for a functioning society. Then the infrastructure becomes like blood vessels that hold together both our economy, our climate transition, and our countryside – and urban areas.

Today, Mr. Speaker, we see however how these arteries are cracking. We have an enormous maintenance debt on the railway. We are also all very aware that there is no quick fix. We are aware that one needs to run on the railway and simultaneously maintain it. I therefore thank you for the various claims that other members would not have a full understanding of the issues, which we previously heard in the transport committee's debate on another subject.

The maintenance debt is large. It concerns worn-out track switches and an outdated signaling system. As a previous speaker mentioned, ERTMS is also an important system, and we need to highlight that the government is now taking a decisive action regarding it in the plan that is coming – if it is indeed the case that this remains in the plan that is coming, when it now comes.

Last year was a low point when it came to the punctuality of trains. It is not just about statistics. It is about thousands of people who miss pickups at preschool and companies that lose a lot of money in lost growth.

Centerpartiet refuses to accept a policy that only patches and repairs. We need a Swedish lift. We need additional resources for the railway. When we now move to a balance goal, it releases funds over a ten-year period that we have the opportunity to invest in infrastructure. There are different types of infrastructure, but here, the railway is not least an incredibly important part.

For this to become a reality, we want to see a cross-party infrastructure preparation. We cannot have these patchwork situations where balls are tossed back and forth. In a previous exchange of remarks, a section of a railway in southern Sweden was mentioned which is sometimes included in the plan and then removed from the plan, and then we have to see in a few weeks if it has been included in the plan again. It is not a credible way to handle this. We must do it in a different way. We must ensure Sweden's long-term development, not just for one parliamentary term at a time.

The railway is the backbone of a climate-smart transport system. However, we know that today's capacity is hitting its ceiling. We see critical bottlenecks. This applies to the Göteborg–Alingsås section and the Södra stambanan through Skåne. We need to expand the Malmbanan. It sometimes resembles Sweden's own Suez Canal when it experiences the types of stoppages we can see. We must complete the Norrbotniabanan. We must complete the Nya Ostkustbanan, which the Prime Minister promised in the last election campaign. It will therefore be extremely interesting to see what the upcoming plan contains.

But we also all know that we need additional resources to build infrastructure. Therefore, it was welcome that the government appointed an inquiry led by Claes Norgren, which also came up with proposals on both how infrastructure construction could be carried out in a more efficient way and on how more capital could be allocated to Swedish infrastructure.

From the Center Party's side, we want to see some kind of – excuse me, Mr. Speaker, if I use an English expression – task force, a force that enables us to quickly build away the delays that are currently plaguing the rail traffic. And as I said: Where is the plan? We are waiting for it.

Mr. Speaker! I want to move on to the second part of the report, the part that concerns public transport. It must work for everyone, regardless of where one lives. It is unreasonable that the price differences for monthly passes are so large across the country and that travel is hindered by complicated regional ticketing systems.

Centerpartiet would like that a national ticketing system could be introduced so that it would become significantly easier to travel across county borders with a single ticket. We know that it is not entirely easy. We know that there are not only advantages. But one still needs to implement this to make it easier to travel.

We also view with great concern how the night train traffic is being dismantled. The night trains are a symbol of a cohesive country and an important link both for work commuting and for tourism over long distances. We want to secure long-term appropriations for the night trains to Jämtland and Norrland, and we want to see reduced track charges to make the train more competitive against both aviation and the car.

It is extremely problematic that the government has not taken greater responsibility for the night train issue. I believe we all understand that it will be difficult to maintain the quality we would like to see, both in terms of departures and journeys and in terms of sufficiently good carriages, if one is to procure night trains and does not have more resources to do so.

This is a question that has come up at regular intervals in the Transport Committee during the parliamentary term. Unfortunately, Tidö parties, it is not impressive how this has been handled by your government.

Finally, Mr. Speaker, the climate transition is also about making it easier to do the right thing. We want to see a rapid electrification of heavy transport. We want to test new technologies such as hydrogen trains on routes where electrification is delayed. We want Sweden to truly be an innovation country that shows that it is possible to combine increased mobility with reduced climate impact.

Our goal is clear: a cohesive Sweden where the infrastructure builds confidence in the future in every part of the country. That is what we want to see.

It is also about a functioning Sweden where everyone can participate in social life regardless of functional ability. I therefore also want to mention the transport service here. It is a prerequisite for many to be able to work, study, and meet friends. We view with concern how the right to transport service is being eroded and how the assessments differ across the country. We want to strengthen the right to transport service and ensure that assessments are made based on the door-to-door principle. No one should be left out because technical regulations are adapted to large cities but miss the reality in the countryside.

We in the Center Party do not choose between city and countryside or between different modes of transport. We choose a policy that makes all of Sweden function. Through action, maintenance, and investments, we build a safer and greener Sweden for everyone – because we know that Sweden can do more.

(Applause)

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

Patrik Jönsson (SD)

Mr. Speaker and Member Ulrika Heie! Gök is a bird, but JÖK is also an abbreviation for a January agreement. We have also had a December agreement. For eight years, the Center has been involved in governing. For eight years, the Center has also allowed the maintenance debt to grow to approximately 90 billion on the railway side and 15 billion on the road side. 20–30 track switches have been replaced per year with the Center's policy. We have had a reduction obligation that has drained people's finances. We have had serious rail cracks – we can skip the reduction obligation, by the way, as it does not belong in this block – which have led to extensive traffic stoppages. We have had a contact line that has been so worn out that it was estimated that at the Center Party's pace, it would take 300–350 years to replace the whole thing.

It is an election year after all, and I think this is a golden opportunity for the Center Party to come forward with a concrete proposal to the voters regarding improvements. What is the argument for it not continuing to be like this if the Center is involved in governing the next mandate period?

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

Ulrika Heie (C)

Mr. Speaker! Then I might have to say thank you to Patrik Jönsson who wants to give me a golden opportunity, albeit with a very strange historical description. The Center Party was in the alliance government 2006–2010 and 2010–2014. The Center Party was in opposition 2014–2018.

It is quite true as the member says that a January agreement was concluded in 2019, which then lasted for a few years. That is the time that Centerpartiet has been involved in governing. I can be self-critical and say that we did not add enough money to the maintenance. But we have highlighted the infrastructure debt that Sweden has placed on future generations. It concerns both maintenance and new construction. In that way, it becomes an infrastructure debt.

We do not have the capacity in the railway today that we would need. Therefore, the Center Party thinks it is extremely important that the maintenance is not re-nationalized. I have heard it said in some exchanges of remarks that the Sweden Democrats would like to do that. I think it is extremely important to provide the opportunity for new capital to enter the financing of the new construction of infrastructure.

I do not really know what Patrik Jönsson wants to stick on me by making an incorrect description of which years which parties sat in different parts of the leadership. But so far, we have not seen particularly much of the Sweden Democrats' and the Tidö government's initiatives on either railways or any other part. No plan is coming.

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

Patrik Jönsson (SD)

Mr. Speaker! Regarding the time the Centre Party was involved in and governed, we can go even further back and state that the Centre Party was also involved in and took decisions regarding high-speed trains. Fundamentally, it was Fredrik Reinfeldt who pushed that proposal, but you supported it, Ulrika Heie.

I can only imagine how it would have looked in Sweden if we had set out to build high-speed tracks and what enormous sums they would have consumed. They would have ruled out all other possibilities for building new tracks within the railway sector, given the costs and cost overruns seen, for example, on HS2 in England and on Stuttgart–Ulm. They have become enormously more expensive than planned. They were expensive from the start anyway. During that time, 2014–2022, Trafikverket has received approximately 40 percent more employees.

Centerpartiet talks about an influx of more money. I mean that it is about doing the right things. You really have to know what you are spending the money on. It doesn't help to just pump in money, because then you get increased costs and more employees without getting more done. In which private company would that have worked?

I can state that until they split up JR, Japan Rail, in Japan it was state-owned. Everything was owned, operated, and managed by the state, like the old SJ. That is how it is done in Switzerland. There, maintenance is handled in-house. Where is the highest punctuality? Ulrika Heie would be very happy to answer that question. Is punctuality higher in Japan than in Sweden? Is punctuality higher in Switzerland than in Sweden? It could be very interesting to get answers to that.

The pressing point is the decay we have seen regarding the Swedish railway. The maintenance debt of 90 billion left the members of Parliament to us to manage. We will work to catch up on it now and have presented a plan. Very many good things have already begun to happen.

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

Ulrika Heie (C)

Mr. Speaker! It is not true at all that you have laid a plan to address the maintenance of the railway, Patrik Jönsson. It is not even true until 2050. In the writings that exist, it does not say at all that it concerns "all" maintenance, but it concerns "substantial" maintenance. In a number of writings, it can be read that one is not solving all maintenance now.

Regarding punctuality, it is a bit interesting that the member mentions Japan and Switzerland and says that the maintenance of the railways is state-run in Switzerland. But there are many other factors that contribute to whether one has the opportunity to be punctual.

Due to the fact that we are not building new railways in Sweden, the tracks that already exist have been filled with more trains. The volume of traffic makes it extremely difficult to find space for maintenance work. One has to look a little deeper, in a slightly better way and with a little more honesty, to be able to say which parts of the maintenance debt are why we are where we are. Which parts are they that you highlight?

The chairman mentions high-speed trains. The state collaborated with a large number of municipalities. Investments were made in urban development. Investments were made in the development of railways that needed to be built. Trafikverket has, during this government, submitted reports showing that we need this track. We need that capacity. I believe the mistake people made was putting it into the plans. One should have pushed through. One should have ensured that railways were built instead of this constant agonizing over plans. We need a different way to plan for infrastructure in Sweden. I hope that the Centerpartiet will be able to participate in doing that after the election this autumn.

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

Maria Stockhaus (M)

Mr. Speaker! I want to begin with a small illustration of how it can be. It is Monday morning. The time is shortly after seven. A nurse in Eskilstuna, an engineer in Södertälje and a teacher in Uppsala are standing on the platforms and waiting. The trains are delayed again – not because of unusual weather and not because something dramatic has happened, but because the tracks are worn and the switches are old and the maintenance has been postponed for decades. This is a system failure. It is a system failure that the moderately led government is now taking decisive action against.

Swedish infrastructure is the backbone of our country. When the railways work, Sweden works. People get to work on time, companies can grow, and competitiveness is strengthened. But when the railway fails, it has major consequences for the entire society. Commuters stand and freeze on platforms. One does not dare to trust that they will arrive on time. Every stop on the Malmbanan costs LKAB 100 million per day.

Many of the problems in the railway system are due to years and years of neglected maintenance. It was years under predominant Social Democratic rule, when ribbon-cutting in election campaigns for new projects was more important than ensuring that everyday life functioned for people.

The Moderate-led government has decided to turn this around, but it cannot be done in three years. We are talking about an Atlantic liner that is to change course. But we have started, and we can already see results.

Mr. Speaker! The maintenance debt on the Swedish railway amounts to over 80 billion kronor today. Against that background, the government is making the largest investment in transport infrastructure in modern times. In the infrastructure bill, 210 billion kronor are allocated for the maintenance of state-owned railways during the period 2026–2037. It is the highest level that Trafikverket has stated they can manage to convert into actual work. It is an important point that I will return to.

Trafikverket invested 16 billion on railway maintenance during 2025. It is a doubling over ten years. The number of switch replacements has increased from 30–40 per year to 100 during 2025, with an ambition of 200 per year going forward. A total of 1,800 maintenance works were planned during 2026, which is a record.

The results are starting to be visible now for the nurse in Eskilstuna, the engineer in Södertälje, and the teacher in Uppsala. During 2025, passengers on nine out of ten trains arrived on time. Punctuality improved compared to recent years, despite more trains and track works than ever before sharing the tracks. In October 2025, over 95,000 passenger trains were run, which is a record since the measurements started in 2001. Of course, we are not satisfied. We are far from finished, but to pretend that nothing is happening, something we sometimes hear from the opposition, is not honest towards the passengers who notice improvements in their everyday lives.

Mr. Speaker! More money does not, however, solve the problem completely and fully, unless we also change how the money is used. It is here that I want to be very clear. The National Audit Office has, in a number of reports, criticized Trafikverket for deficiencies in planning, procurement, and implementation. This has led to delays, cost increases, and low productivity.

Trafikverket has in its own measurements found that only 30 percent of the time that has been reserved for track service has actually been used for maintenance work. In Sweden, it takes a week to replace a kilometer-long overhead line with traditional equipment, while special machines in the rest of Europe manage the same distance in a few hours. This is not just a technical problem, but it is an organizational problem, which can be solved.

Trafikverket needs to be reformed profoundly. It is not enough with adjustments at the margins. We need an organization that delivers, that keeps to time and budget, that procures smartly and that takes the socio-economic consequences of long closure times seriously.

Inspiration should be drawn from countries that manage it, for example Denmark, Australia and New Zealand. There, independent organizations analyze and rank infrastructure projects without mixing the client and executor roles.

Throwing money at an agency that says they cannot make use of it is a game for the galleries. It solves nothing for the nurse standing and waiting on the platform. Now we are working with Trafikverket. We will ensure that in the new plan that will arrive shortly – I know everyone is curious – there are clear provisions and pressure on Trafikverket to develop and streamline their agency.

It is also important for us Moderates that the maintenance is procured through competition. Evaluations have shown that we get more maintenance for the money if we procure it than if Trafikverket were to do it in-house.

Mr. Speaker! I also want to say something about ERTMS, the new EU-common signaling system, which is to replace the old system we have today, ATC. The government's objective is that ERTMS shall be implemented in the entire state railway system by 2042, which is a significant increase in ambition compared to the previous government, when the goal was 2070. It is a necessary goal. ERTMS increases capacity, improves safety, and enables seamless cross-border traffic.

In February 2025, Trafikverket was commissioned to also design financial support for the train operators' investment in on-board equipment. It is a concrete step to ensure that the transition can be carried out in time and does not remain on paper.

Mr. Speaker! I understand the frustration of all those who think the railway system is unreliable. That frustration is completely justified. The nurse who misses a medical appointment, the teacher who doesn't have time to prepare lessons, and the engineer whose workday starts out of sync have the right to be frustrated, and they have the right to demand better.

There are parties in this chamber that want to respond to the frustration by promising 450 billion to new trunk lines for high-speed trains. These are money that does not exist, and if they had existed, they would have done infinitely more good in the maintenance of the railway we already have and that commuters use every day. These are measures that could have been taken significantly earlier instead of letting the maintenance debt grow further.

The political debate has for all too long been about national rail travel and prestige projects. But of the passenger journeys that take place on the Swedish railway, commuting with regional transport operators accounts for almost nine out of ten journeys. It is that journey that should be the starting point for railway policy, not a political showcase.

The Moderates choose to do what works. We choose maintenance over prestige. We choose to keep promises to the nurse, the engineer, and the teacher, and to all the millions of people who every day rely on the train running. It is responsible railway policy, and it is what Sweden needs.

I vote in favor of the committee's proposal in the report.

(Applause)

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

Aylin Nouri (S)

Mr. Speaker! The Moderates' Maria Stockhaus speaks of a responsible railway policy. I do not know how much the Moderates are in touch with reality, but we see something else.

I have recently been to Kiruna. There, the infrastructure on the Malmbanan is so weak that LKAB loses 140 million per day when the trains stand still. I have met representatives in northern Sweden who are now incredibly worried when the night train traffic is halved. I have been in Sundsvall, where people were shocked that Ulf Kristersson promised investments in the Nya Ostkustbanan which then disappeared.

I have also been to Östersund, where Maria Stockhaus herself before 2022 promised investments. But now, four years after they gained power, the operating support has been halved, which increases the risk that parts of Inlandsbanan will be closed.

I am myself from the Västra Götaland region. In the proposal for the national plan, not a single krona will come to us for reinforced capacity. I spoke earlier about Maria–Helsingborg, where a shock announcement has also been made that the investment is being scrapped.

This is the reality after four years of the Moderaternas rule and of the Tidö parties' policy – cuts in critical social infrastructure. I must ask, Mr. Speaker: Is Maria Stockhaus satisfied?

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

Maria Stockhaus (M)

Mr. Speaker! I believe I was very clear in my speech that we are not satisfied. We have only just begun, and turning an ocean liner that has been heading in the completely wrong direction takes some brave time.

I think it is somewhat remarkable to speak here about certain projects having disappeared. We do not know that yet, because the government is currently working on the national plan. Which projects are included in the national plan that this government decides on, we do not know today. We know what Trafikverket has proposed, but that is not the government's decision.

We apparently encounter completely different realities when we are out meeting people across Sweden. We have been around looking at a number of maintenance projects in various parts of the country and met, among others, Trafikverket. What is stated very clearly from Trafikverket is that they notice an enormous difference in this government's policy because they have been given the opportunity to work more with preventive maintenance. This means that one no longer needs to wait until things break down. They appreciate the focus on ensuring that what we already have functions.

What the previous government did, Mr. Speaker, was irresponsible. They wanted to invest several hundred billion on a high-speed railway when our entire railway system is falling apart. It is roughly like building a glassed-in patio for a house where the roof is leaking, the windows need to be replaced, and the facade needs to be painted.

That is what the previous government engaged in. Now we will see to it that we take care of this house. We are renovating the railway we have. It is partly the most responsible thing to do, and partly that which yields results in the short term.

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

Aylin Nouri (S)

Mr. Speaker! What Maria Stockhaus says is simply not true. It was we Social Democrats who increased the appropriations for maintenance. The Moderates have continued with the increase, but it is not enough because something has happened. In 2022, Russia invaded Ukraine, and we all understood how indispensable the infrastructure, and in particular the railway, is for our resilience. All experts and Nato point to Sweden and say that it is not sufficient.

This government has not turned the ship around at all; instead, they have done exactly the opposite. I counted up cut after cut that the infrastructure is affected by. It is happening in a situation where we should be doing the opposite, that is, making Sweden strong by investing in the railway and in the infrastructure.

This government has instead done the opposite. They started by scrapping the plans for new main lines, but the need for capacity remains. If one does not want to trust us Social Democrats, perhaps the Moderates should listen to their friends at Svenskt Näringsliv. Svenskt Näringsliv is incredibly clear in its criticism of the government. The Social Democrats and Svenskt Näringsliv stand on the same side in this.

The government has no plan to address the capacity needs that exist. Above all, there is no plan to address the unimaginably large maintenance debt that Sweden has.

There is no one who believes in the plan that Trafikverket has presented, where they are to reclaim 10 percent of the maintenance debt over the next twelve years. No one believes in it, because this government has no direction. If a government wants, one can point with full force to a political alternative. But the government has not been able to do that, and now we have, in black and white, four lost years for Sweden.

(Applause)

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

Maria Stockhaus (M)

Mr. Speaker! We still hear this strange reasoning from Aylin Nouri about that a number of projects have disappeared. We do not know that yet. It is difficult for me to prove what will be and will not be in the national plan, because we are not allowed to talk about it yet as it is not finished. There is a proposal from Trafikverket, yes. But there is no decision from the government on which projects shall be included in the plans for the next twelve years. What we can state is that the government is investing 1,200 billion, which is historically much money.

I think there is another question that is very important if one is to talk about responsibility for infrastructure policy. One can consider whether it is sensible to merge the appropriations for administration and objects so that Trafikverket itself is given the power to dispose of them. Money that could have gone to roads and rails has instead gone to increasing the number of employees at Trafikverket by 4,000 people. In my world, this is irresponsible if anything; it is to let go of control.

We cannot engage in ministerial rule here in Sweden, but we have governance through regulatory letters and through the budget allocation. There, the previous government, as said, has given Trafikverket carte blanche to use money that should have gone to rail and road to increase its staffing levels instead of ensuring that we get the infrastructure and, above all, the maintenance we need on site.

Something that Svenskt Näringsliv is completely in agreement with this government on, and for which we have received a great deal of praise, is that we are investing so incredibly much money in the maintenance of both roads and railways. Then, I wish that Trafikverket could be faster in carrying out the maintenance, and that is something we ensure that they work on all the time.

We are prepared to allocate more money to maintenance, but in the current situation, we have allocated the money that they say they can spare against the background of various limitations regarding resources in the form of both personnel and materials. There, we have a pressure on Trafikverket to become better. The money that went to 4,000 new employees would have become a very large amount of maintenance, rail and road if it had been possible.

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

Ulrika Heie (C)

Mr. Speaker! Thank you, Maria Stockhaus, for the speech!

My first question was actually answered almost in the last exchange of remarks. It was about that 210 billion was the highest level that Trafikverket can manage. But what I understood was that the member now said that if it turns out that Trafikverket can actually make use of additional resources, there is a possibility to provide such. I therefore wonder mostly if I heard correctly.

When I listen to the member's speech, I get the feeling that when it comes to the train systems, it is mostly about the regional commuter traffic. I would very much like to hear more about investments that ensure the freight trains do not need to have the travel time they have today and what is being done to provide competence for the railway – such things that are also included in the report.

I would also like to raise the issue of preparedness, as it is an issue that has become extremely relevant linked to the NATO membership. I know that Maria Stockhaus is very keen on a sustainable railway system and on preparedness issues, so I would also like to ask to have that clarified. I know that one cannot fit everything into one's eight minutes of speaking time, but I would like to enable the member to go into more detail on freight traffic and also the preparedness issue.

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

Maria Stockhaus (M)

Mr. Speaker! The Transport Administration has itself stated that they see an opportunity to work down the entire maintenance debt on the railway by 2070. It is their own figure, and we will ensure that they stick to it; that is what matters. If they are to manage it, they need to develop their methods, as I said in the previous exchange. If one looks at the government's writings regarding assignments to the Transport Administration, one sees that very much is about developing methods, ensuring that they become more efficient and get more maintenance out of the money we invest. More money for maintenance but also more maintenance for the money we invest is something that is in focus for this government.

That I spoke a lot about regional commuting and people's journeys to and from work in my speech is because nine out of ten journeys on the railway are actually regional journeys; it is about journeys to and from work. I would say that the entire railway debate is skewed from that perspective. It only concerns the long-distance journeys, is my view. I think it is important that one looks at what matters most for people in their everyday lives: being able to get to and from work, pick up children from daycare, be sure that one can get to meetings on time and other things.

When it comes to the entire railway system and freight traffic, what we are doing, just as I said, is fixing the leaking roof and ensuring that the windows that need to be replaced are replaced and that facades are painted – that is, ensuring that what we have functions so that the trains do not come to a standstill because something is broken or not maintained. We also ensure that extra capacity, i.e., passing tracks and other things, is built where it is needed and where it is crowded, in order to increase capacity in the short term in the existing system – and then build new where it is needed.

But I think it is strange that so little of the rest of the debate deals with regional travel and so few of the other railway debaters talk about them. It is only the long-distance passenger traffic that we are talking about in the debate.

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

Ulrika Heie (C)

Mr. Speaker! Thank you, member, for the answers!

I share the view that the expansion of at least the labor market regions is made possible by good train transport and commuting opportunities. It is an important point to highlight.

Did he tell the members that the railway maintenance would be finished by 2070? I have previously heard that it was rather 2050, but then it might be more correct – one takes 10 percent now and more later so that there is room for it. Otherwise, the mathematics becomes difficult to understand.

I would like to ask a concluding question about the night trains. Regardless of how it is, they represent a fantastic opportunity, and a procurement of new night trains is currently underway. It is a way to make it possible to choose different ways of traveling through Sweden. Is the member satisfied with the way in which Trafikverket has handled the procurement of the night trains? And is the member satisfied that night train traffic is now being reduced, especially through the halving we see in northern Sweden when half of all night trains between Umeå and Narvik are removed?

Since I didn't hear so much about preparedness, the member may also be welcome to say something more about it, if there is time.

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

Maria Stockhaus (M)

Mr. Speaker! Now Ulrika Heie will not be able to ask supplementary questions, but I stated the wrong year. It is 2050 that Trafikverket has said, and that is what we will ensure they stick to; that is what applies.

There has been a lot of debate about the night trains. One can look at this entire pot of procured traffic – it also concerns aviation and the discussions surrounding the Gotland ferry. That type of procured traffic has its challenges with EU regulations; long-term planning is difficult with the regulations that exist within the EU. The best thing to look at from a Moderate perspective is how one can create market conditions. Some night trains have indeed been operated by commercial actors. That would be the very best.

What the government has done to try to find long-term solutions is to ask Trafikverket to look at what the needs are. What can be expected for demand with the new carriages? How can this be done in a cost-effective way? It is a clear signal that the government protects the night trains and wants to try to find a long-term solution instead of patching and repairing the system as it looks today.

A bit quickly on preparedness: Naturally, a discussion is ongoing with the defense regarding what should be prioritized. This is a grid that is being laid over the entire infrastructural planning now. What do the defense's needs for mobility look like? This concerns both road, railway, aviation, and maritime transport. That work is ongoing, and it is the defense that directs much when it comes to what the needs look like. There are some extra funds beyond what is in the plans, and discussions are ongoing about how those funds should be used.

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

Linus Lakso (MP)

Mr. Speaker! I was actually a bit stunned when I heard Maria Stockhaus's speech. Some things were described in glowing terms. We have records when it comes to changing gears, and we are recovering more maintenance. Everything is getting better, and it is, therefore, thanks to this government.

There is only one problem, namely that it is the infrastructure plan that the previous government decided on that still applies.

I am going to present some uncomfortable figures to Maria Stockhaus. When we had a red-green government with Miljöpartiet and Socialdemokraterna, we increased maintenance by 100 percent over eight years. We doubled it. We ensured that Trafikverket could handle this. Now they are boasting about an increase of a measly 5 percent. Each person can make their own assessment of which figure feels larger, so to speak. There is an objective truth there.

The result is therefore that one leaves 85 percent of the deferred maintenance unaddressed after 2037. Then one believes that in some magical way one will reclaim the rest of the maintenance by 2050. One is then supposed to suddenly sextuple the pace. It is a very strange mathematics.

I am nevertheless glad that Maria Stockhaus finally notes deficiencies in the organization of Trafikverket. That is, in itself, a step forward, but there we have one of the keys to actually addressing the maintenance of the railway. I wonder how satisfied Maria Stockhaus actually is with the plan regarding the maintenance, where most of it is left neglected.

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

Maria Stockhaus (M)

Mr. Speaker! If an expert authority says that what can be managed during the next planning period is 210 billion, the government should not spend more money than that. Historically, Trafikverket has not been able to spend the money it has received for railway maintenance, because it has not had the resources it has needed. Then the money can be of better use somewhere else during this twelve-year period.

Since then, the Transport Administration itself has said 2050. If one looks at the wording in the infrastructure bill and the work ahead, this government is putting enormous pressure on the Transport Administration to develop its operations and, above all, to make them more efficient.

It actually becomes a pass back to Miljöpartiet here: eleven Swedish National Audit Office reports have been issued since I entered these issues during the last parliamentary term, when we sat in opposition. I do not know how many interpellation debates I then had with the Minister for Infrastructure about why nothing is being done regarding Trafikverket, given all the criticism that the National Audit Office has had towards that agency.

This government has really taken action. A major effort is currently underway at Trafikverket to improve and streamline operations. It is something that the department follows up on almost daily with the Director General to ensure that it actually yields results.

What the previous government, with the support of the Green Party, did was to merge appropriations for objects and administration, which caused the number of employees to increase by 4,000. Some of that money was supposed to go to asphalt and railway, but it went to more staff instead because the government completely released the control of Trafikverket and let the agency itself dispose of the money. I think that was the height of irresponsibility, if I am to be completely honest.

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

Linus Lakso (MP)

Mr. Speaker! I am actually glad that Maria Stockhaus seems to realize that the Transport Administration does not function in its current form. It will be good if we get a new government after the next election, so that we can tackle this and split it into two agencies, so that we get an agency that actually focuses on getting the Swedish railway in order.

Then there is another question that becomes very strange. Maria Stockhaus is very negative towards new trunk lines in Sweden. It sounds like it is the worst thing she has heard of. It is quite funny considering that it was a Moderate party leader, Fredrik Reinfeldt, who launched the idea of high-speed trains and modernizing Sweden and so on. Memory is relatively short among most Moderates, it seems.

Since then, it is a bit unclear what is meant by high-speed trains. We had a discussion about the speed, and it is quite true that Miljöpartiet advocated for 320. Such tracks are being built all around Europe, much faster and much cheaper than in Sweden. I wish we could have been as good as many other countries, but I would gladly have compromised with any party, including the Moderaterna, regarding the speed. 250 was also discussed. But what this government did was to scrap the main lines completely.

Is it always wrong to build railways for 250 kilometers per hour, according to Maria Stockhaus? It seems a bit unclear what the problem is. Trafikverket has, in a number of investigations, stated that there is a lack of capacity on the Swedish railway. This is also what causes us to have so many delays. We have too little capacity. We have doubled rail travel in recent decades without expanding the railway.

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

Maria Stockhaus (M)

Mr. Speaker! It is no loss of prestige to change one's mind. If the costs for high-speed rail increase as much as they actually have, one must be able to reassess: Is it still worth making this investment?

If we had unlimited money, one could absolutely imagine new main lines. But now we do not have unlimited money. In that case, it is important to see how we can solve the problems we have as quickly and as economically as possible. Part of that is not to skip maintenance without ensuring that we make up for the maintenance debt that we actually have and which many of us are responsible for.

But what is interesting is that the entire system, according to Trafikverket, would actually be in worse condition at the end of the planning period we are currently in, which the previous government decided on, than it was before. In that case, one has truly failed to take responsibility for the infrastructure that we actually have.

Let me return to the analogy of a house. It is clear that it is very pleasant to have a glassed-in sunroom. I would also like to have that. But when the roof leaks and the house needs to be painted, one must prioritize that. That is where we are.

It is also possible to expand the capacity in the existing system through smaller measures, such as meeting tracks.

One of the most heavily burdened sections is Göteborg–Alingsås. In the previous plan, which Linus Laksos's party helped develop, that section was completely removed. That section leads to the Port of Gothenburg, where much of our freight enters or leaves. Our GDP depends on it functioning. But this important section, which was therefore heavily red, was completely ignored by the previous government in favor of new main lines – for high-speed trains or other trains.

It is important to see where we have the problems and try to solve them as socio-economically as possible instead of building a glassed-in sunroom, because that is not responsible.

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

Aylin Nouri (S)

Mr. Speaker! There is a before and an after February 24, 2022. When Russia invaded Ukraine, it fundamentally changed Europe's security. But it also changed how we must view our infrastructure.

In Ukraine, the railway carries a society at war. It holds the country together, and it enables evacuations, transport, and supplies every day. It is a reminder to us in Sweden: Infrastructure is not just growth policy but also security policy.

Mr. Speaker! It is in that light that we must view the SD government's policy over the last four years. What has happened is, overall, an emergency brake for the Swedish railway. They began by stopping the expansion of new capacity. They continued by withdrawing 750 million from the railway. Now, a plan is proposed where already decided national objectives disappear.

This does not only create capacity problems – it creates uncertainty and unpredictability. Municipalities hesitate to plan. Companies hesitate to invest. Wage earners see how jobs and opportunities are affected. In a situation where both the business community and unions demand better capacity, functioning transport, and long-term rules of the game, the government delivers the opposite.

It is not just bad infrastructure policy. It is also bad economic policy. And we see the results: low growth, high unemployment and a transport system that does not hold the country together.

The results are noticeable every day: a railway that is overloaded, a capacity shortage that hits both passengers and companies, and a system where small disruptions have large consequences. It leads to the frustration that many Swedes feel every day: Can I trust that the train will arrive on time?

Sweden is suffering from a capacity crisis, and instead of building away the bottlenecks, the government is worsening them.

We also see it in the maintenance. The maintenance debt is extensive, but the government's plan to address it lacks credibility. Approximately 10 percent of the maintenance debt is to be addressed during the next twelve years. Then, in some magical way, the remaining 90 percent is to be addressed in the same amount of time. It is not a plan. It is wishful thinking.

Mr. Speaker! At the same time, projects are being withdrawn despite the fact that municipalities, regions and companies have planned for them for years. It hits development, jobs and growth directly, and it undermines confidence in the state.

We also see how costs are spiraling. But the government's response is not to gain better control over the projects, shorten lead times, or develop the procurement. Instead, they choose to reduce the ambitions. It is to accept inefficiency and to let the bill for system failures, which involve billions of kronor in terms of infrastructure, fall on the Swedish people either in the form of missed investments or in the form of a direct cost. It is completely unacceptable, because every wasted tax krona is a theft from the Swedish people.

Mr. Speaker! We Social Democrats stand for a different path. We start from the premise that capacity is preparedness. Sweden needs to expand the railway's capacity, increase the pace of maintenance, and ensure a system that works in the entire country. But it is also about regaining control.

We want the state to build up its own capacity and competence for railway maintenance. We want more maintenance to be carried out in-house to strengthen preparedness and gain better control over costs and implementation. We also want to break the procurement model that today drives up costs and fragments responsibility. With longer procurement periods, larger geographical areas in procurements and less micro-management, we can achieve better competition, more innovation and higher efficiency.

Mr. Speaker! I also want to highlight the night trains. It is transport that binds Sweden together – over long distances, between city and countryside. But during the SD government's years, stretch after stretch has been decommissioned, and the night train traffic in northern Sweden has been halved. That is not taking responsibility for Sweden. It is dismantling it.

Mr. Speaker! In conclusion: Public transport is a fundamental part of a functioning society. It makes it possible to get to work and education and to make everyday life work. It connects labor market regions and reduces inequalities. Public transport is, of course, also crucial for the climate transition.

But today, the development is going completely in the wrong direction. Travel is decreasing across almost the entire country. Ticket prices are increasing, and accessibility is being pressured. This risks shutting people out from work and studies and weakening the entire economy of society. Therefore, we Social Democrats want to strengthen public transport. We want to make it more accessible through free public transport for young people and for students. We want to give the regions more stable economic conditions. We also want the state to take a greater responsibility for public transport.

The biggest problem is not that solutions are lacking. It is that this government lacks direction and hinders where investments are needed and creates uncertainty where stability is needed.

The question is actually quite simple: Should Sweden have a railway that works and a public transport system that people can afford to use? For us Social Democrats, the answer is a clear yes.

I stand behind all of our reservations but only move for the approval of reservation 5 on railway maintenance and reservation 31 on strengthened public transport.

(Applause)

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

Magnus Jacobsson (KD)

Mr. Speaker! The debate has been ongoing for some time. I became a bit stiff in my back and therefore walked around and requested the floor from another position. While I walked here and listened, I could not help but be surprised.

The infrastructure plans are twelve-year plans, and they are developed every four years. Everyone here in this room knows that, but I do not think all the listeners and TV viewers, if there are any left who can manage to stay, know exactly how the system works.

That is where I am surprised, Mr. Speaker. The member's warm and engaged speech with an incredible criticism of the current plan is, in fact, criticism of the Social Democrats' plan. Our plan has not been presented yet. What has been presented and what has been decided is a budget for the next plan, and that budget is larger than the previous budget. It is actually the largest that has ever been decided upon in this chamber. Approximately half of the money in that budget goes to the railway side, and approximately half goes to the road side. In those halves, it is approximately fifty-fifty between new production and maintenance.

Mr. Speaker! It is also completely incorrect to claim that the government does not want to build new main lines. What the government said no to was a specific project concerning high-speed trains between Göteborg, Borås and Stockholm. It was a project that spiraled out of control and where there was not even any cost control. It also received criticism from the National Audit Office. Otherwise, agreements have now been reached on parts of it. Therefore, an expansion will take place between Göteborg and Borås. Then we will have to see how it looks moving forward.

I am most curious about what else in the Social Democrats' plan the member is critical of.

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

Aylin Nouri (S)

Mr. Speaker! I do not need Magnus Jacobsson to teach me how Swedish politics works. I am well acquainted with how the work on infrastructure policy is conducted and its processes at the national level.

I can state that Magnus Jacobsson has obviously not taken the time to listen to what I have said, because I have stated that it is good that this government has continued with the calculations that we Social Democrats made regarding the railway. But I have also very clearly said that something has happened in Sweden and Europe that changes everything.

When Russia invaded Ukraine, everyone – in any case, we Social Democrats – understood that the railway is a vital part of Sweden's resilience. Therefore, we shifted our policy, Mr. Speaker. We made a prioritization of 45 billion more for the railway. And we have, in budget motion after budget motion, allocated more to railway and road, because we understand a very simple premise: It is not enough to agree on more money for defense if one does not have a total defense worthy of the name.

I wait and wait for the Christian Democrats and the other Tidö parties to come to the same realization. When you do, we will be happy to be able to reach out our hands and cooperate, Magnus Jacobsson. Sweden deserves a Riksdag that sticks together and that understands what we have understood regarding defense policy: that infrastructure policy is important. Here we must put populism aside and come together.

My hand is now extended, and it will continue to be so. Magnus Jacobsson, who represents the infrastructure minister's party, is welcome to take that to his minister.

(Applause)

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

Magnus Jacobsson (KD)

Mr. Speaker! I believe that everyone listening to the debate and then reading the minutes will note that I absolutely did not question the member's knowledge of the system – on the contrary. I pointed out very clearly that all of us in this room are well aware of how it works. But for the sake of the audience, I wanted to say that it is a twelve-year model that is reviewed every four years, and our review has not been presented yet.

Everyone who listens to or reads the minutes will also see that the member was extremely critical of the current situation. The problem is that the current situation is the Social Democrats' own document, with the exception that we a) have removed the high-speed train and b) added more resources. We have added so many resources on the railway side that Trafikverket themselves say that they cannot handle more.

Since then, it is correct, Mr. Speaker, that the Social Democrats have added even more resources – more than what the agency says it can manage. Since we all here in the room know how it works, I want to turn once again to the TV viewers and the audience: If an agency receives more money than it can manage, the money is returned to the state. Then it is not returned to the agency, but it is returned to the Ministry of Finance for new consideration. It is therefore no advantage to bring in more resources than what the agency can use up.

That is the problem. Socialdemokraterin is now in debate after debate, arguing for more resources for Trafikverket and for the railway, but so far they have not presented a proposal on how to make these funds become actual operations.

What has happened, however, independent of the war in Ukraine, is that we are currently renovating more than ever. We do this, among other things, because we prefabricate switches and other items. We have gotten more for the money we have. That is something I am proud of.

I still wonder what else in your plan you Social Democrats are critical of, Aylin Nouri.

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

Aylin Nouri (S)

Mr. Speaker! I note that four years of Tidö policy have passed – four years where the Christian Democrats have been responsible for infrastructure policy. But here stands a representative for the Christian Democrats and says: We have had no responsibility; it is the Social Democrats' policy that applies.

I think that is an argument that one uses when one is not satisfied with the politics that have been delivered.

I can state what has been done. This mandate period was started by scrapping the plans for new capacity. You can call it high-speed trains or one thing or the other, but what remains obvious is that Sweden needs capacity.

So, one started by scrapping the plans for new capacity, and one continued by cutting 750 million kronor for the railway. Then one slapped one's chest and said: Now we are adding historical investments in maintenance!

In practice, the appropriations were increased by 5 percent, and one does not need to be a mathematician or an economist to understand that with the inflation and the cost increases we have had, this is in practice cuts for the railway.

Now, Trafikverket presents a national plan that the government does not want to take any responsibility for. The fact is, however, that it is based on the government's directives and is based on the government's allocation of resources. We chose in this chamber to provide 45 billion kronor more for the railway. That would have made a difference.

In conclusion, Mr. Speaker: When one is not satisfied with one's policy, it is not sufficient to blame one's responsible authority. It is Andreas Carlson who is responsible for Trafikverket. If Andreas Carlson is not satisfied with Trafikverket's work, it is his task to rectify it.

I deny that Trafikverket has said that they cannot use more resources to address the maintenance. Even Trafikverket has denied the claim. It is simply not true.

(Applause)

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

Magnus Jacobsson (KD)

Mr. Speaker! Right now we are debating railways and public transport, and it is 124 motions that we are handling.

The railway is a part of Sweden's basic transport infrastructure. It is part of the backbone of a functioning Sweden, and it was part of the backbone that allowed us to industrialize and create the welfare that we all still benefit from.

The railway serves passenger traffic and freight transport. At the same time, it is interesting to note that of all rail traffic, especially passenger traffic, 50 percent occurs in the Stockholm region. Västtrafik and Pågatågen together account for approximately 25 percent, and other passenger traffic accounts for the remaining 25 percent.

The railway's truly great capability is therefore about expanding labor market regions. We see that in my home region. Trollhättan got double tracks, and now the travel time to Gothenburg is 38 minutes. Uddevalla has single tracks, and the travel time to Gothenburg is 1 hour and 15 minutes. When one makes investments in the railway, it therefore has an incredible effect on infrastructure. That is also why it is so tragic that the Social Democratic plan that currently applies did not include Gothenburg–Alingsås, because it is about how one expands an area and how one can improve for both freight flows and passenger traffic.

The government, on its part, has presented a budget proposal of 1,171 billion over the coming twelve years, where 50 percent is for roads and 50 percent is for railways. Of this, approximately half in each pot is for new production and the other half for maintenance. This means that we are now improving maintenance on both the road side and the railway side. We are also actively working to try to create conditions for longer and heavier freight trains. Here, there are several pieces that are interconnected, such as station locations and passing tracks. The entire railway system is to be reviewed.

Here there is a strategy that did not exist before. I had the privilege of sitting in the Committee on Transport during the previous parliamentary term, and at that time there was no clear strategy that there should be a flow of freight across the entire country. This government took an early decision to invest in structural corridors and continued to work on the corridors.

The opposition is waiting to see the plan that is to come. I noted in the exchange of remarks that we do not take responsibility for Trafikverket's plan, and that is quite correct. We do not. To be very clear, it is also not something that we are to do. It is, in fact, their report to us. Then the government looks at it, and obviously, in different contexts, we have been involved in negotiating with the government on how we want to proceed with our plan, which will come when the government presents it. It is important for the audience to know that the system looks like that.

Is the government satisfied? Are we content with these investments? No, we are not. We have given a lot of assignments to Trafikverket, so there is work ongoing to strengthen the organization regarding railway maintenance. It is actually so exciting that during the last parliamentary term, there was no railway responsible person at Trafikverket. A large agency that had been merged from two others had no clear structure for the railway side. On the other hand, there were individual project groups for individual projects, which is actually one of the reasons why the agency has increased its staff but not its results. Now an reorganization is underway where it is clear that there is a railway responsibility, and that is obviously good, Mr. Speaker. It will lead to improved operations.

The government has also tasked Trafikverket to review the track access charges levied on the state-owned railways, partly to ensure the competitive situation for large parts of Swedish business. This is actually one of the more difficult issues we have to handle. Swedish track access charges are quite low in relation to the rest of Europe, but the distance is very long. This means that the cost, even if it is in some way low in comparison to others, is high because it is a long distance. A question that we will need to grapple with is therefore how to set a reasonable track access charge that ensures those who use the track are involved in and bear their costs, while at the same time not hindering a shift from truck to railway. The government has given a mandate to look into this.

The government has not been satisfied with just this. One of the major, important issues is that they have reviewed the organization. They have given assignments to Trafikverket, and they have also decided that they want to enter with a new company similar to the Norwegian model. The company shall be given opportunities to handle individual projects.

From a Christian Democratic perspective, we have previously had a social construction committee that has worked on how the Christian Democrats should view future infrastructure. We have, among other things, highlighted the Malmbanan as a typical example. One can imagine something similar to a new Öresund connection, where Norway, Sweden and Finland cooperate with the Malmbanan, all the way from Narvik to Haparanda. It could be such a project that one puts into the company.

Why a company? Well, simply to speed things up. We respect Trafikverket's signals to us, but we also have a desire for it to go faster. There are other pieces that can be brought into such a company. The Stockholm–Oslo route can probably finance itself. There should be room for a subsidiary in this.

At home in my hometown, we are tired of the Oslo–Gothenburg route being investigated, investigated, and investigated. I personally believe – note what I said: I personally – that it is also a project that can be brought into the company.

Another advantage with the company that the government is working with is that the new organizational form opens the door for alternative financing. There are partial segments in Sweden where the business community says they are prepared to provide financing, but they do not have that possibility today. Agency Sweden cannot answer that question.

Another track that is interesting is the Malmbanan. Finland is to develop a railway solution that can handle our track gauge. There is a serious discussion about a tunnel between Helsinki and Tallinn. If we can open up our capabilities, we will also get a completely different cooperation in the Nordic community, also together with the Baltics.

Mr. Speaker! I want to return to the question of high-speed trains. I had actually intended to raise that question in my main speech, but the question has been up in the debate, and I must clarify our position. I have noted that several say that this government does not want to build new tracks and new main lines. That is simply not correct. On the contrary, this government wants to build new main lines. We in the Transport Committee have, on several occasions, for example, highlighted the Göteborg–Alingsås section as important. There are also other important sections.

What was the problem with the high-speed train? Well, it was that the costs spiraled. One also had a target, in this case the speed of 320 kilometers per hour. It was a target we could never have reached. From Gothenburg to the next station, namely Mölndal, you do not reach any 320. I promise you that. From Mölndal to Landvetter Airport, you are also not up to 320. Then you are to go from there to Borås, and then you are also not up to 320. It was a question of overcapacity, and it was an expensive overcapacity that we said no to. I will drop that question now.

The government has given another assignment to Trafikverket, which we Christian Democrats think is good, namely to review the night train traffic – also from a preparedness perspective.

There are also other things that are complicated regarding railways and public transport. There are a number of pleasing issues, in addition to those I have already raised, for example that the train operators can show that they have a good ability to keep to the timetable. It is pleasing that maintenance is increasing, and it is pleasing that more and more people are traveling by train. These are positive issues.

What is difficult is that there are challenges. The estate is facing so-called forest time. It is clearly negative. Unfortunately, all of us who travel by train have experienced track trespassing and one suicide or another. These are difficult questions. Here we need to work together. I believe it could be about fences on bridges, but it is also about more oversight. I just want to be humble and say that we have not reached where I would wish, and it will be difficult to reach where one wishes when it comes to track trespassing. There are such incredibly long stretches, and we will not be able to fence everything in. We need, Mr. Speaker, to work together on these issues.

In conclusion, I come to the question of public transport. Our view is that these issues are primarily a municipal and regional responsibility. At the same time, the public transport companies are role models. Look at some of them who have solved the CO2 problems and who run more or less completely fossil-free! That is something to be praised.

At the same time, there is a need for increased safety, for example, cooperation between Trafikverket, municipalities, and heads of organizations in rural areas. It can be unsafe for a young girl to stand at a stop. We need to work together to create safer environments. But it does not have to be only in rural areas. I would not be completely safe if my daughter stood alone late at night at a bus stop in Göteborg. It is not always safe. That is something we need to continue to work on.

Mr. Speaker! I already raised the issue of the transport service in my previous speech. Let me be completely frank – I do not think we have succeeded. I think that during these four years we should have resolved the issue of door-to-door transport service.

I vote in favor of the proposal in the report and against all motions.

(Applause)

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

Ulrika Heie (C)

Mr. Speaker! I have two questions for Member Magnus Jacobsson.

I liked the educational approach that the member had, and I shall continue a bit in that direction. Even though the member swears himself free from Trafikverket's proposal, that proposal is nevertheless based on the government's directive. If we are to inform the viewers about where the plan comes from, I can say that it is based on a government directive. It is not so strange that the plan looks the way it does.

The committee members highlighted the importance of the railway. How does Magnus Jacobsson view the concern raised by the chairman of Svenskt Näringsliv, Jacob Wallenberg, regarding the railway that needs to be expanded in Sweden? It is about in what way more funds can be provided. How is that concern viewed?

The members concluded with the question of transport services. There was a short discussion in the previous debate. Sometimes transport services are grouped with public transport. A bit of education again: It relates to how we members choose to write our motions, and they influence how the reports are structured.

The member of the board said that he is not satisfied with how the transport service has been handled. Is the member of the board not satisfied that the issue was included in an investigation that should have been completed in January? Does the member of the board consider that it would have been possible to proceed with the issue and solve the problem during the current mandate period based on the proposals that came from Trafikanalys?

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

Magnus Jacobsson (KD)

Mr. Speaker! On the last question, the answer is yes.

When it comes to the other issues, it is correct that there is a directive. But it does not actually mean that the document we receive is the government's. We must be careful with our words. We have had a debate where people have consistently spoken about the government, the government, the government, Mr. Speaker. But the government has not presented the proposal yet. We must be careful with that.

The plan that is currently in effect is the plan that was adopted four years ago. In that plan, we have adjusted and increased the maintenance. I think that is positive. We have also removed a project that was a pure goose; it was only costs and damages.

Since then, we have reinforced the roadside in the current plan. But our plan is not finished yet. What is exciting about infrastructure is the long lead times. The plan we will adopt will be the one the next government will have to work with, regardless of which government it becomes.

Let me return to the question of concern from the business community. I thought I was very clear in my speech. The government has given a mandate to Trafikverket. There, in my opinion, some improvements have occurred, including that there is a responsible party on the railway side. Now two legs are being built in a clear manner. I believe that it will strengthen the opportunities for the next government to simply get more bang for the buck.

I thought I was very clear that the government, according to the Norwegian model, shall establish a company. It shall be a company that is to challenge Trafikverket, and it shall be a company where one can establish subsidiaries. This is to increase the pace. How fast it will go we do not know until the company is in place.

Finally, I was clear that the government, in its signals to Trafikverket, has opened the door for co-financing or other alternative financing. It is easiest on the roadside. We see this, among other things, in the Eastern Connection. It is simpler to achieve co-financing on road than on railway.

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

Ulrika Heie (C)

Mr. Speaker! When it comes to the transport service, it is important for the Center Party to strengthen the rights and make the legislation more equitable across the entire country, so that no one is denied support because of where they live. I would like to thank you for the short, concise answer from the member.

I hope that I can move for the approval of reservation number 40, which concerns precisely the transport service. I missed doing so in my speech. I apologize for that.

When it comes to the railway and the possibilities with the new company, the member says that it is exciting. It is good that it is exciting. But it must also be secure. There must be a future. It cannot just be exciting that this is to be done now. The business community strongly desires to receive information that is known to hold up over time and that this proceeds as quickly as possible. The member mentioned this possible company, but he also said that road becomes easier than railway. That was perhaps a hint about what will come in the plans.

When it comes to being able to rely on the expansion of the railway, I wonder if the member is satisfied with the reports that have come from Trafikverket, that is to say that both new construction and maintenance will take place in a satisfactory manner with what has been achieved.

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

Magnus Jacobsson (KD)

Mr. Speaker! I want to be clear that it was not a hint about the plan. It was more a fact. The compensations that are paid in today are far from what the railway costs. But what is paid on the traffic side in various ways, including different forms of congestion charges, is far more than the costs. Traffic subsidizes the railway in reality. It simply depends on the fact that more people travel and that it is simpler. Regarding, for example, the Öresund connection, we see that it is the road users, not the railway users, who finance the bridge. It is pure mathematical fact.

I say exciting because it is exciting that a new approach is being taken. I can think it is boring that the approach was not taken earlier. The model is Norway, and in Norway it has gone well. I have no reason to suspect that it would go worse in Sweden than in Norway. It is a benchmarking that makes us introduce new systems.

I point to an example where there is actually an opportunity to have a higher track fee: the Malmbanan. If it stands still there for one day, it becomes over 100 million – I have to make sure to say the right number of zeros now. If one can ensure that such interruptions do not occur, it provides increased safety.

But the answer is again that it is the three: new organization at Trafikverket, a clarification of the mandate given to them – which we are doing urgently here and now – and a new company, which is a way to challenge, secure more resources and be able to open more doors. It is, for example, no secret that I think that Göteborg–Alingsås, Stockholm–Oslo and Göteborg–Oslo–Köpenhamn are important.

There are several exciting projects that such a company would probably be able to work on. But we won't know that until the company is in place. I unfortunately cannot see into the future, Mr. Speaker.

(Applause)

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

Malin Östh (V)

Mr. Speaker! Transport policy is about accessibility and mobility and is based on the transport policy goals that have been adopted by the Riksdag. Here is the functional goal, which establishes everyone's right to basic accessibility of good quality.

Living up to the functional goal and securing everyone's right to accessibility is the government's responsibility. The fact that the functional goal is based on precisely everyone's right to accessibility means that there is a clear geographical dimension with requirements for equality across the country. But there are also requirements for equity and for holding together not only the country but also society. The right to accessibility applies to everyone.

Here, the transport service is completely central. The right to transport service is a freedom reform that is truly well worth standing up for. It is a prerequisite for mobility and participation on equal terms. It is also a cornerstone in Swedish disability policy. But it is also a prerequisite for the possibility and the right to live an independent life on one's own terms.

When the transport service is eroded, accessibility is also eroded. It is a failure. It is a great loss for the individual but also for society as a whole. Transport service is a right according to law, but it is a legislation that has deteriorated and been eroded over time. The law has been tightened several times, in a way that has weakened the perspective of rights. But a practice has also emerged that has become increasingly restrictive and which does not correspond with the intentions of the law. It is clearly visible in the number of granted transport service permits, which have decreased sharply over the last 10–15 years despite the population having increased during the same period. This means that people who have a need for and a right to transport service do not receive it today. It is unacceptable.

What is almost most upsetting about this, however, is that we know what needs to be done. We have known that since Trafikanalys presented its report on the transport service in 2023. But instead of addressing the clear recommendations in the report and making the necessary changes in the legislation, the government has delayed and sat on the investigation for three years.

The constant answer from the government has been: The investigation is being prepared in the Government Offices. That is how it has sounded until February this year, when the government instead announced that they are giving Transportstyrelsen the assignment to redo the investigation that Trafikanalys has already conducted. The assignment that Transportstyrelsen has just received is, in fact, identical to the one that Trafikanalys received in 2022.

Transportstyrelsen's investigation is ongoing until January 2027. More time is therefore being taken while people are being squeezed and denied an accessibility that should be self-evident. This has been very poorly handled by the government.

The transport service act needs to be reformed. We all know that. We need a transport service act that lives up to not only the intentions of the law but also the disability policy goals, and where the rights perspective is not eroded but strengthened. These are not large, unreasonable demands. It should be obvious. It should already have been done.

Mr. Speaker! Transport policy, as has been said, is about accessibility and mobility. But it is also about transition and meeting our climate goals. The transport sector has for a long time accounted for a third of Sweden's total emissions. That makes it very important to focus on precisely the transport sector. Everything that we do or do not do in the transport area has, in fact, a major impact on Sweden's opportunities to meet climate goals.

That it is so becomes clear after these years with the Tidö parties. Emissions from road traffic have increased dramatically. And the transport sector's share of the total emissions has grown during the same period. The Tidö parties' transport policy counteracts transport efficiency and causes Sweden to miss all climate goals.

What then is the Tidö parties' solution? What is the Tidö parties' answer? Is it to take action to reverse that development? No, instead they want to abolish the climate goals. In February this year, the Minister for Climate and Environment opened up for abolishing the transport sector's 2030 goals. It is a goal that has been decided by the Riksdag and which was also confirmed by the Environmental Goals Board as recently as in October.

Vänsterpartiet has a completely different attitude. The climate goals are fixed. We both can and shall transition the transport sector.

Railways and public transport are two climate-smart modes of transport that are important in the transition of the transport sector and which contribute to increased transport efficiency and reduced emissions. But they are also two modes of transport that are both crucial for Sweden's competitiveness and accessibility.

At the same time, the challenges are great. Swedish railways are characterized by a serious capacity shortage and a skyrocketing maintenance debt. These are two problems that reinforce each other and create a vulnerable railway system that is very sensitive to disruptions.

The functionality of the railway system is hindered by bottlenecks, single tracks, and missing links. While development proceeds in the rest of society, the reliability and efficiency of the railway are deteriorating. Those traveling between Sundsvall and Stockholm have experienced increased travel times since the turn of the millennium – it takes 20 minutes longer today to travel that distance by train. The transport time for freight trains between Hallsberg and Malmö has increased by 33 percent during the same period. This means that it takes two hours longer for the freight to arrive today. It is completely unacceptable that it looks like this.

Action is needed to secure the Swedish railway. Vänsterpartiet wants to see an accident commission for the railway. That is where we are today – the problems are that large. A clear national goal for the railway is needed that remains fixed, which we agree upon through broad political anchoring and where we ensure a rapid, comprehensive and resource-backed expansion of the railway.

We in Vänsterpartiet are critical of how the government has chosen to handle the railway's maintenance debt, an issue that has been debated here earlier this evening. In the submitted proposal for a national plan, 90 percent of the maintenance debt is left unaddressed until 2037. The target year has been set to 2050, by which time the maintenance debt is to be addressed. There is nothing wrong with setting a target year, but the framework must be both realistic and perceived as such, which is not the case with this framework. Furthermore, the framework that has been chosen, where 90 percent of the maintenance debt is pushed forward, carries great risks. We know what happens when year after year is added – the problems worsen and the costs increase. There is therefore a great risk that the maintenance debt will not have decreased by the time we reach 2050, but on the contrary, will have increased. This, therefore, is not sustainable.

Mr. Speaker! We in Vänsterpartiet are budgeting for an expanded, reinforced public transport system with lowered ticket prices and a national ticketing system. It is a clear climate reform, but also a clear fairness reform. We naturally stand behind the four-out-of-ten goal and want a transport-neutral travel deduction to be implemented promptly.

There is a lot more to say, but my speaking time is up. I move for approval of reservation number 39 regarding a reinstated transport service.

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

Helena Gellerman (L)

Mr. Speaker! We are now debating railway and public transport issues. The railway in Sweden plays a very important role in the transport system through its ability to both transport many people at once and transport large amounts of heavy goods in an efficient manner.

Mr. Speaker! The Riksdag has decided to allocate over 1,200 billion over twelve years in the new national infrastructure plan for 2026–2037. It is a staggering sum – more than 100 billion per year. But the needs are great, and maintenance is overdue. Due to the global situation, with Russia's war in Ukraine and the entry into Nato, major improvements of the infrastructure are required.

In order for capacity to be increased, maintenance and cost-effective measures shall be at the center – together with new capacity where it is needed. Bottlenecks shall also be built away. The Government allocates a full 79 percent of the budget for new investments in the railway and allocates 210 billion for maintenance. The maintenance debt shall be rectified by 2050 at the latest. To achieve this, the Government has tasked Trafikverket with improving the methods, not least through maintenance trains, in order to streamline maintenance and reduce disruptions in ongoing traffic. As a result, Trafikverket has now procured three new maintenance trains.

The National Audit Office submitted a report in December 2023 with an analysis of the current national plan. The criticism was severe, primarily because a connection between content and social benefit could not be seen. The current government's prioritization of maintenance will reverse that trend; social benefit is now finally in focus.

The new railway signaling system, ERTMS, is to be introduced in Sweden by 2042. The Liberals and the coalition parties have said that we want to see a significantly faster introduction of that system. With the new signaling system, more trains can be packed onto the existing railway, as one does not need to have such large safety distances. At the same time, the government provides support to the train operators for the equipment required on each train for ERTMS.

Increased capacity can be achieved through maintenance, ERTMS and, of course, new railway. There are many projects in the queue. One such project concerns the section that has the greatest capacity shortage in the entire railway network: Göteborg–Alingsås. To me, it is incomprehensible that that project is not already in the national plan. Göteborgs Hamn, Green Cargo, SJ, the regions in the north, with several pointing out the project for this section as one of the absolutely highest prioritized in Sweden, but despite that, it is not in the plans.

The Gothenburg–Alingsås route has a major impact on all of Sweden, both for travelers and for freight. This applies in particular to the important stretch between Sweden's two largest cities and on the freight routes, for example from the Norrland coast down to the Port of Gothenburg. The route is also important for the total defense. The Liberals want the Gothenburg–Alingsås route to be expanded by 2035. By then, the freight capacity in the Port of Gothenburg will have increased by 80 percent. Only the railway can handle transports corresponding to that increase, but no more trains can fit on that route today.

Mr. Speaker! The Liberals believe that railway maintenance should continue to be procured through competition. In that way, we take advantage of the collective expertise in the international companies for efficient maintenance of the railway and can utilize the creativity and flexibility of smaller companies. Studies show that we get better maintenance at a lower cost by procuring the maintenance.

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 now after the entry into Nato. It places great demands on our railways. Here, for example, the Inlandsbanan is an underutilized resource. The Liberals believe that we should investigate how we can organizationally facilitate future joint Nordic infrastructure investments. We also want to see a Nordic transport council. If there is any issue that concerns an integrated Norden by 2030, it is precisely how we transport ourselves around the Norden in a simple way.

Mr. Speaker! The Liberals safeguard the right and the possibility of travel services. However, the number of granted applications for travel services has decreased continuously. More and more municipalities and regions deny permission with motives such as that persons who have severe visual impairments or are blind can learn the walking distances by heart. Since they can walk, they are considered not to need travel services, despite the fact that they cannot see. The Government has now appointed an inquiry that shall examine the development of case law and provide a basis and proposals for change.

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

(Applause)

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

Linus Lakso (MP)

Mr. Speaker! Due to the Tidö Government's inability to think long-term and strategically and to prevent risks, Sweden is now less prepared than when it took office in the face of the crisis we now see due to the Iran war. Sweden is now more dependent on fossil fuels produced in Putin's Russia, the oil-rich Iran or Saudi Arabia than before Andreas Carlson became Minister for Infrastructure and Ulf Kristersson became Prime Minister.

One has consistently favored fossil fuels and at the same time made it more difficult or more expensive to travel by train or public transport in Sweden, or for that matter to switch to an electric car. The energy source whose use has increased the most is fossil energy. It is an increase of 10 percent just between 2022 and 2024.

It has happened despite the fact that both trains and public transport are powered by renewable energy that we can produce ourselves, sustainably, in Sweden. It makes us more vulnerable to the price shocks on fossil fuels that we are now seeing. The climate goals are missed, and emissions are increasing.

Mr. Speaker! What did Germany do when we saw the same situation after Russia's invasion of Ukraine with skyrocketing prices for both fuel and electricity?

Yes, as a crisis measure, the Deutschlandticket was introduced, where the price for public transport was significantly lowered to 49 euros per month. This then resulted in a shift from cars to public transport.

For Sweden's part, it would mean a rapid reduction in fossil dependency. Together with an electric vehicle offensive and direct support to vulnerable households, it is a solution that works both in the short term and in the long term.

To lower households' transport costs here and now and reduce our fossil dependency, we want a monthly ticket that applies to all public transport in the entire country to be introduced immediately, just as in Germany, with a regular price of suggested 500 kronor, and 250 kronor for young people, students, and pensioners – a Sweden card.

The cost for public transport passengers has indeed increased sharply by 140 percent over the last 20 years. This is significantly more than the price of gasoline has increased. Nothing has been done to lower the costs for public transport passengers.

It is 81 percent of Swedes who use public transport. Half of Sweden travels by bus or train every month. It is a total of 1.7 billion journeys that are made per year. It is an incredibly important part of the transport sector that keeps our country, our jobs and our economy running.

But a public transport card has almost become a class issue in today's Sweden. It is time to radically lower the costs for public transport. This is an extremely good opportunity to do so.

Mr. Speaker! I am particularly pleased that we now have a united opposition behind a Sweden card. Therefore, I move for approval of reservation 23. That is how I see it as a whole. We have previously presented what we call an electric car offensive, where low-income earners can drive an electric car for the equivalent of 5 kronor per liter.

Mr. Speaker! There is a high demand for train travel in Sweden. Train travel has more than doubled in recent decades. But it is as if the Tidö Government really wants to make life very difficult for those who want to be able to travel by train, and not least by night train.

The possibility of traveling by night train is being halted across all of Sweden with the Tidö government and Andreas Carlson at the helm. The night trains between Göteborg and Umeå were discontinued about a year ago, and shortly thereafter between Göteborg and Jämtland.

The popular night trains between Stockholm and Berlin will soon be discontinued, this summer, and during this spring, the number of trains in the incredibly important night train traffic to northern Norrland will be halved.

It is shamefully bad of the Tidö Government. It is not due to the previous infrastructure plan. It is due to the government's active choice not to inject the money that was needed for the state's transport agreements. It is an active choice from the Tidö Government.

We would instead need a government that reverses the development and allocates relatively modest sums to the transport agreements so that we get night trains in all of Sweden. We need to give SJ a social mandate to operate certain important routes. It has become somewhat of a fiasco with the procurement of the night trains to northern Norrland. It has contributed to the problems.

Furthermore, it appears that narrow night trains are being procured. This is something that the Sweden Democrats, in particular, were very opposed to, Patrik Jönsson. I missed taking a point on that. But I really wonder if the Sweden Democrats are satisfied with the procurement being carried out for the night trains.

Mr. Speaker! We need, as we have touched upon previously, to maintain the railway significantly better. The government has settled on an unacceptably low level. Maintenance has been increased by a mere 5 percent. It is an extremely marginal increase. It is actually the only thing one has to boast about during this entire mandate period.

It becomes quite paltry when compared to the previous government, which increased maintenance by 100 percent. The measly 5 percent barely manages to cover anything of the maintenance debt until 2037. One recovers a measly 15 percent. It is a failure when it comes to maintaining Swedish railways.

Miljöpartiet proposes instead that we recover 100 percent of the maintenance by 2037. Trafikverket has, contrary to what is claimed by several government parties here, said that it is possible to recover the maintenance faster. It is a matter of pushing on. We know that it can be done much faster and more rationally than today. Then we shall ensure that it happens.

The first and perhaps most long-term damaging thing the Tidö government did was to stop investments in new main lines. Regardless of whether one wants 320 or 250 kilometers per hour, it is a fact that we, with this government, will not receive any main lines at all that connect Sweden.

Rail travel has, as mentioned, more than doubled in recent decades. The business sector wants to be able to transport more goods in a climate-smart way by rail. For most people, it is quite obvious that we need to invest in more capacity if we are to be able to transport more goods and more people on the railway.

But that is not the case for the Tidö government. Instead, the choice was made to stop new main lines in southern Sweden. For northern Sweden, decisions on urgent investments such as the New East Coast Line are still lacking. Furthermore, rail fees have been shock-increased and the environmental compensation has been removed. This instead reduces the transport of freight by rail.

Mr. Speaker! It is unfortunately a tragic continuation of decades of bourgeois politics where one blocks initiated investments in the Swedish railway and lets it decay. The Norrbotniabanan was delayed for over a decade due to the alliance government.

Mr. Speaker! Instead, we need a policy that makes it possible to travel sustainably throughout the country. We shall make major investments in the railway, build new main lines from north to south and ensure that maintenance is restored so that we have a railway in top condition.

We will make it cheap and easy to travel by public transport throughout Sweden with a Sverigekort. We will build a railway between Stockholm and Oslo and renovate the Inlandsbanan. We will simply have a plan, including a plan for offensive electrification, which makes it easy and cheap to travel without a dependence on fossil fuels.

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

Ann-Sofie Lifvenhage (M)

Mr. Speaker! As the final speaker in this debate, I can state that we have addressed several major issues. For me, one of the issues that made me open my eyes to political engagement is public transport. It is an extremely hard issue that is at the same time as soft as it can possibly be and which means something for people every day.

Public transport gives people the opportunity to travel to and from work and school. It reduces congestion on our roads and plays a crucial role in the transition. For many, it is a necessity – that which contributes to making the puzzle fit together. A well-functioning public transport system can be the difference between it being a fantastic day and everything being pushed to its limit.

Travel looks different across the country, and it should also be allowed to do so. The country is, after all, long and in some places as different as it is in other places similar. One parameter, however, is the same, namely the expectation that what has been planned will work and that the journeys will be safe, punctual, and affordable.

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, and we have now addressed the maintenance debt seriously. Never before has so much money been invested in Sweden to equip and maintain our existing network, and this applies to both railway and road.

This is something that absolutely should have been done much earlier. Even if it does not involve that glamour of cutting ribbons, it is about showing responsibility and taking care of what we have jointly invested in over a very long period, so that it can both continue to deliver here and now and take us into the future. It is required so that buses can run on safe roads, so that the train has a functioning rail with a signaling system that does not leave commuters standing still during rush hour, and so that the maritime traffic can have a positive development. With a prioritization that puts the passenger at the center, with traffic that arrives and departs on time and with departures at requested times, attractive and climate-smart journeys are built.

Mr. Speaker! Much of the ordering of transport lies with municipalities and regions, but the Moderaternas goal is both here and there a reliable, safe and accessible public transport. Nationally, we work to secure robustness and conditions for a punctual railway through maintenance and modernization with the goal of reducing hassle. We work to strengthen safety by giving municipalities and regions better tools to increase safety in public transport.

This is an important part of the social contract, and if it does not work, it hits hard. But if the service works – if the order delivers seamless journeys where the park-and-ride is nearby so that one can easily take the next mode of transport and a comfort that allows the journey to be used for work or recovery – then public transport is an unbeatable competitive alternative for travelers.

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.

Mr. Speaker! Gotland's transport has a special position in the country's infrastructure as no other region sees its highway to the neighboring municipality or the capital stand open only a few times per day. This places particularly great demands on procurement and execution so that seamless travel can deliver residents, visitors, and goods to and from the island both at a reasonable price and with an attractive travel time.

It is of great importance here how we view the responsibility to connect the country in order to be competitive, as well as the responsibility to create conditions for the business sector to flourish, conditions for both domestic and foreign tourism, and – no less importantly – conditions for goods to be moved quickly and cost-effectively.

With that said, I welcome our clear announcement that we are now investing 125 million kronor this year to lower the prices for Gotlanders' ferry transport to and from the mainland. We also intend to continue with the support, which then corresponds to 250 million annually. This is one of the fundamental pillars for Gotland to be able to be an attractive region for residents and to be able to create a basis for the region's opportunity to make its own priorities in a sound economy.

Ferries, trains and buses across the entire country also need to be up to date with connectivity so that the time the journey takes can mean quality in the form of freedom of choice regarding how you spend your time. Just like that, public transport becomes an even more attractive choice for the journey.

Politics is about prioritizing and creating the conditions for a good life. Public transport is a tough but certainly soft issue throughout life, and it boils down to freedom – the freedom to travel with paratransit for those who need it, the freedom to park e-bikes safely in the commuter parking lot, the freedom to feel the wind in your hair during the boat's journey from an island to the mainland, and the freedom to be able to travel even if one has not yet received a driver's license. In short, it is about the freedom to live, experience, and develop.

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

Aylin Nouri (S)

Mr. Speaker! Ann-Sofie Lifvenhage speaks warmly about the importance of public transport – even in terms of the social contract – but it becomes somewhat remarkable when one looks at the government's policy. There are, in fact, no proposals there that strengthen the conditions for public transport. When we present our proposals to increase public transport's share of total travel, they do not stand behind them.

If we look in the rearview mirror at what the government has achieved in recent years, we see that life for hard-working Swedes has become much more difficult. Food prices have increased, electricity prices have increased, and housing costs have increased. Everything has become more expensive – also public transport. When the regions do not receive the resources needed because they are left to their own devices, and when there are no proposals to strengthen the conditions for public transport or make it cheaper for ordinary people to travel by public transport, it hits the economy of Swedish families and other Swedes very hard.

My question is therefore quite simple: Why has it been more important for the Moderaterna to lower taxes for the richest than to invest in a public transport system that is equitable and affordable?

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

Ann-Sofie Lifvenhage (M)

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

We do not share the image of this at all. When I look at what the Moderaterna did during the previous term, when they governed in Stockholm, I see that they invested in public transport. They ensured that there were security guards and designed the stations so that there were camera possibilities, which increased safety and security. We also saw an increase in travel. During this term, with S-rule in Stockholm, we see how precisely the same thing is being dismantled.

That the member expresses it as if one is leaving the regions to their fate, I see as almost a bit disparaging towards the regions. I see Sweden's regions as a very powerful component that, in a powerful and proactive manner, manages to make its own decisions and make its own priorities.

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

Aylin Nouri (S)

Mr. Speaker! I thank the member for the answer. The problem is only that the member falls on her own ground when she compares the previous parliamentary term, when we Social Democrats held government power and the regions had the opportunity to make investments, with the current parliamentary term, when the situation is very worrying for the regions.

That is exactly how reality looks: This government has chosen to prioritize tax cuts for the richest, and just as I said, they have left our municipalities and regions in an enormously pressured situation. Welfare is on its knees, the bills are sky-high, and on top of that, public transport is now being reduced across the entire country. That is the result of the last four years: public transport is decreasing across the entire country, and hard-working Swedes are paying the price for it. Furthermore, it is a hard blow to the climate transition, considering how important public transport is in the work with sustainable transport.

We demonstrate with our budget proposals that it is possible to choose a cost-effective and accessible public transport. We want to index the grants to our regions so that one can actually afford to invest in public transport. We propose free public transport for young people and for students, something that would be incredibly important in a situation where youth unemployment is sky-high and where our young people turn over every single krona to make ends meet.

Why do the Moderates not make corresponding investments?

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

Ann-Sofie Lifvenhage (M)

Mr. Speaker! It is precisely about priorities, which is what so much of political will consists of. The money will almost never be enough for exactly everything one wants to do, but to prioritize, the vast majority can do – except for those who are a bit lazy and cannot be bothered to do the work.

That is what I see in the S-led Stockholm right now. There, the priority is to remove the security guards and make it more insecure and unsafe for a girl alone to get home in the evening. That one has to even consider the idea that one must walk and talk on a mobile phone to be able to feel safe is, if anything, a failure that shows that public transport is not something that is important in people's everyday lives, which I strongly distance myself from.

We see an increase in travel in, for example, Moderat-led Sörmland, which I come from. We see, of course, just as the member describes, that one has to turn over the coins. Yes, there are many things one has to turn over the coins for and make priorities for. We from Moderaterna are currently lowering the food VAT so that it will be cheaper for families. We ensure that they have money in their wallets to make their priorities.

That one, for example, in S-controlled Stockholm removes security measures and completely withdraws the possibility of going to private eating disorder treatment is entirely a matter of priorities. I really do not share those S-priorities.

(Applause)

The deliberation was hereby concluded.

(A decision was to be taken on 16 April.)

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