Response to interpellation 2022/23:41 on new main lines in the railway system
Translated from Swedish by AI; the translation may contain errors. The Swedish text is the original.
Summary AI, written in advance
The debate concerns the expansion of new main lines for high-speed trains. S considers the expansion necessary to increase capacity, facilitate commuting, and move freight from road to rail 1 2 3. S argues that there is political consensus in Skåne regarding the need 4, that the government's decision to stop the project violates agreements 1, and that the government's hesitation makes the projects more expensive 4. S argues that there is a shortage of tracks and that the government's priorities are strange since money is being moved from rail to road maintenance 2. KD considers that the expansion should not be completed as investments in road standards and charging infrastructure are prioritized 5 6. KD argues that existing tracks can be upgraded faster 6 and that money was used for road maintenance to manage taxpayers' money responsibly. KD argues that the project entails large costs and a lack of control 6.
Written by AI in advance and may contain errors. The numbers lead to the speech a statement builds on; check against the text below.
Statsrådet Andreas Carlson (KD)
Madam Speaker! Gunilla Svantorp has asked me what the government means by that it does not intend to complete the expansion of new main lines and what the separate analysis of the planned stages shall contain that is not already investigated.
The government's position means that the expansion of the high-speed rail system is not completed. The analysis of the previously planned stages, which are included in the current national plan, aims to assess how they should be handled based on the new conditions. The government generally considers that railway investments should primarily facilitate commuting and freight traffic.
Gunilla Svantorp (S)
Madam Speaker! I thank you very much for the interpellation answer. However, I really do not think it was an answer at all. I wrote the interpellation because I, together with very many others, am concerned about the government's announcement to stop the expansion of new main lines. They say they want to investigate more things. But the question of new main lines has been investigated inside and out to the fullest extent. There are thousands of pages on the need for new main lines.
I would like to go back to the time when Fredrik Reinfeldt was Prime Minister and we had the so-called Sweden Agreement. One can think many things about it. In any case, agreements were signed then between the state, regions, and municipalities regarding, for example, co-financing and the construction of new main lines where new infrastructure was to be built.
It is happening and is currently ongoing that one is expanding and has been involved in co-financing. In light of this announcement, the agreement is being broken. Why is it being done? What do you think you are doing to the trust between the different political levels in our society and with people who have expected to be able to move into new homes and be able to take the train to their jobs?
Train travel has doubled over the last 20 years. Train companies, public transport authorities, the industry and other actors who desire train slots, that is, space and time in our railway network, have increased by more than 50 percent during the years 2017-2020, to take just a few years as an example.
Freight transport is increasing every year. It is crowded on our tracks. More trains are competing for the same tracks, and new tracks take a very long time to build. We all know that. New main lines have very many advantages. They increase the size of our regions. They make it smoother to commute to work. They improve capacity so that we can more easily move freight from roads to the railway. It is something that we have committed ourselves to doing so that we can reduce the climate impact.
I want to ask the Minister: How does the government intend to address the major lack of capacity on the railway, given the statements that have been made that you intend to stop the construction of new main lines?
Adrian Magnusson (S)
Madam Speaker! I looked forward to the Minister's answer to Gunilla Svantorp's interpellation. I looked forward to us being able to get answers regarding the ambiguity surrounding what is actually supposed to happen with the planned main lines. We could have received some kind of notification about what the analyses mean for those sections where the planning is already underway. These are important questions that need to be answered. But unfortunately, the Riksdag and the Swedish people received no clear notification in the answer given here today.
Madam Speaker! There are indeed stages where the planning is already underway that the government is jeopardizing. This concerns, for example, Ostlänken, where the planning is very far advanced. The Göteborg-Borås section is another stage, and so is the Lund-Hässleholm section. As a resident of Skåne, I intend to dwell a little on the latter section, which is one of those the government claims requires further analysis.
Madam Speaker! It has still not been clarified what it is that needs to be analyzed. The planning is, as stated, underway. Trafikverket announced as recently as October 28 that they will study an additional alternative to the route in the localization study. Thus, an extensive analysis of the route is already ongoing. What are the additional analyses and investigations that the government believes are needed?
The Minister also mentions in his answer that the expansion of the railway should primarily take place on sections that favor work commuting and freight traffic. The Minister is certainly well aware of the large amount of freight that comes via the railway over the Öresund Bridge and Trelleborg harbor from the continent for further transport up into the country. When the Fehmarn Bält connection is completed in 2029, there are forecasts showing that the amount of freight can double in 2035 compared to 2020. The Lund-Hässleholm section is already heavily burdened by freight traffic today, and the amount will therefore hardly decrease in the future.
Madam Speaker! The Government has also expressed that distances for work commuting shall be prioritized. The Minister has surely been to Skåne. If not, I hope he takes the time to go there. In any case, there are many people in Skåne who daily travel the Lund-Hässleholm stretch to commute, for example, to work in Malmö or Hässleholm or to studies in Lund. It therefore becomes even harder to understand what it is that needs further analysis.
Before today's debate, I searched for the occupancy on the trains between Lund and Hässleholm on a Friday at 07:00. According to Skånetrafik's app, the train departing from Lund Central at 07:02 is 70 percent full according to the forecast. The government surely does not mean that these trains with 70 percent occupancy on a dark Friday morning in Sweden's southernmost county consist of leisure travelers?
Madam Speaker! If we disregard that Sweden needs new main lines to enable more people to commute for work, both daily and weekly by train, and that the volume of freight will increase drastically when the Fehmarn Bält connection is completed, there are at least no reasons to further analyze sections that are already planned. They have been investigated and planned for a long time. On the Lund-Hässleholm section, additional analyses are already being carried out today. The sections that have been the same for 170 years are already heavily burdened by traffic for work commuting and freight traffic.
The Riksdag receives no answer as to what else needs to be analyzed. In that case, there is no reason to drag one's feet. It is simply a matter of ensuring that more people can get to work every day by train and that more freight can be moved over to the railway in Skåne as well as in the rest of the country.
Statsrådet Andreas Carlson (KD)
Madam Speaker! I shall begin by answering the question regarding the background to the decision that the government has signaled about not completing the expansion of new trunk lines for high-speed trains.
The government prioritizes the upgrading of existing railways, better road standards, and the expansion of charging infrastructure over investments in high-speed trains. The needs within the infrastructure are very large. An investment in new main lines for high-speed trains risks crowding out other necessary investments.
Other investments in the existing railway system and new tracks mean that trains will travel faster in the future even without main lines for high-speed trains. Investments in existing tracks can be completed faster than the construction of new main lines.
We also see that there are great needs in the northern parts of the country when it comes to freight transport. This needs to be looked at in a serious and responsible way. This applies in particular when we also have a very extensive cost increase as a result of the new economic situation which is very tough, which of course affects the costs for expensive infrastructure projects.
Investments in the railway should primarily facilitate commuting and freight traffic. It strengthens jobs and growth throughout the country. Based on the prioritization of the socio-economic and environmental benefits, the government therefore intends not to complete the expansion of new main lines for high-speed trains.
Madam Speaker! The previous government chose to push forward the high-speed rail project with very high costs and a lack of control, something that has been criticized by the Swedish National Audit Office. It means a great saving not to complete the new main lines.
When it comes to the analysis of the sections and stages that exist within the current national plan, the government will return. The analyses naturally look different depending on where the different stages are located in the plan. For example, one can mention as a circumstance that the southern section Lund-Hässleholm is still planned for trains with a speed of 320 kilometers per hour on the tracks.
It is something that can be analyzed. Can there be other different measures that can be taken to reduce the bottlenecks in the system regarding freight traffic and which also facilitate commuting? It should be viewed from the own needs and not as a link in a national main line for high-speed trains that we are not proceeding with. It is that type of analysis that needs to be done. It should also be understood in light of the fact that the Fehmarn Bält connection opens in 2029. It will pose other questions that require answers and long-term thinking.
I can also, in that context, reassure Member Adrian Magnusson. I have been to Skåne, and I look forward to many more visits and also good conversations about the conditions.
When it comes to the question of entered agreements, those agreements presuppose a conclusion of the government. It is stated very clearly in the agreements, so it is not a breach of contract. It has also been known before the election that the four parties cooperating on the government did not intend to proceed with the entire project regarding main lines for high-speed trains, so it is not a surprise.
We will address the capacity deficiencies regarding freight traffic and also work commuting. It is against this background that we say no to the very high cost for the project. The money can instead be put to use by, for example, starting to pay off the very large maintenance debt that exists in the Swedish railway network.
Gunilla Svantorp (S)
Madam Speaker! It must be difficult to be a minister and have to completely change the opinion one has previously expressed in this chamber.
I would like to quote from a motion: "The initiative on, for example, more regional railways becomes effective if new main lines are also built. Transport systems are interconnected and require long-term thinking, while at the same time there must be a foundation for innovations that change over time. The only thing that is not needed is 'wait and see'. We have tried that for long enough. Build new main lines with Jönköping as a natural hub." This was, therefore, a motion by the current Minister. It must be difficult to change one's opinion.
I think like this: Hiding behind the fact that things should be investigated is okay if things have not been investigated. But this matter has been investigated inside and out. What would new knowledge mean in a new investigation? The minister has not answered that.
The other day, in a research context, I heard someone say: There is nothing left that has not already been researched, it is more about compiling what already exists. A tip for the minister could be to actually look at what already exists and, based on that, proceed with what we have long said is needed.
When the minister sees all the investigations that already exist - how can he then conclude that further investigations are needed? Does the minister not see the danger of cost increases and delays? I think it is serious.
We see that we have strongly growing regions that require competence, experience, and knowledge for companies and the public sector to be able to grow. This requires well-functioning transport and good accessibility. It is a prerequisite for the Swedish economy and for Swedish competitiveness.
We in the Social Democrats are quite clear that we want to develop the transport infrastructure even further. We have done so for many, many years. Then we know that we have maintenance debts and so on; it is not only the S-government but also previous governments that have it. But we must do something about the bottlenecks that exist. We must, after all, want to move forward in this.
We know there is a shortage of tracks. Then you are thinking about doing maintenance, and of course we must do that on the tracks we already have. But we must also have new tracks - the minister must surely understand that!
The Minister was just standing here in the speaker's chair and said: We prioritize the upgrading of existing railways. At the same time, one removes 750 million kronor from the budget and moves the money over to road maintenance. It is a very strange prioritization.
I also think it is strange to stand and say that we need to look at this seriously – just as if one hasn't looked at it seriously for twenty years! That is what has been done all the time. That is why we have as many investigations as one can count.
The Minister said in a previous interpellation debate that one cannot live in investigations. No, and one also cannot travel by train by continuing to investigate. It is actually action that is required, much like the Minister requested in his motion when he was a Member of Parliament. It is action that is required, not waiting and seeing.
What does the Minister want more than to stop projects already underway? How does the Minister intend to contribute to us actually getting more tracks, which is the great challenge in our country?
Adrian Magnusson (S)
Madam Speaker! I actually want to continue on the same line that Gunilla Svantorp was on. It is already crowded on these routes today – the 170-year-old routes. It is very, very crowded. These are major bottlenecks that affect growth and development in the entire country, and I do not understand how some replaced track switch here and there can make these bottlenecks disappear.
I also do not understand why one continues to analyze distances and continues to investigate. Why not just issue a decision? The government's vacillation on the issue causes the projects to become even more expensive. At one moment, one laments the cost developments of Trafikverket, while in the next moment, one postpones the whole thing. It is very strange.
We also do not get any answer as to what the alternative is. What is the measure that is to be taken? Is it to be ten meeting tracks between Hässleholm and Lund? Is this what is envisioned instead? Or what is it that is imagined?
In Skåne, there is total political agreement on the issue. The Moderate regional council in the regional development committee and the Social Democratic chairman of the municipal executive board in Malmö have expressed in Sydsvenskan that they agree: New main lines were needed between Lund and Hässleholm.
I am pleased that the Christian Democratic government council, despite everything, wants to have a dialogue with Skåne, because that is not what all Christian Democratic government council members want.
Statsrådet Andreas Carlson (KD)
Madam Speaker! Yes, all Christian Democrats ministers want that. That has also shown itself this week, which I hope Magnusson has noted.
My own perception on the issue may understandably be of interest, says Gunilla Svantorp. I will answer the question. We had a good and thorough discussion about this in my own party. We landed on that as a party not to proceed given the costs and the large displacement effects, not least for the northern parts of the country, that it entails. I am a true democrat, and when the decision was made at our national convention, I of course respected it.
But I also changed my mind in connection with the very substantial discussion we had then, when I also received good arguments. It may perhaps surprise someone sitting here in this context, but a politician can actually change their mind. I have changed my mind on the issue, and I did so based on the very high costs and the displacement effects that this risked leading to. And I have thus done so after I wrote the motion that Svantorp read out here in the chamber, but long before I became minister.
Then we come to what different new knowledge the analysis could entail. I will be careful with my words here: It is mentioned that an investigation is ongoing, but it is an analysis.
We are now analyzing the three stages based on the new situation – that we will not proceed with building trunk lines for high-speed trains. Just the fact of not building the central parts between the nodes that already exist in the plan potentially implies a saving of 3 billion kronor, as that is what exists in the national plan just to plan the routes. 3 billion kronor can be used for a lot of railway maintenance and other urgent needs here and now.
Why, then, were the 750 million kronor that Gunilla Svantorp pointed out and which were moved over to road maintenance not used? Well, it was because when we arrived at the Government Offices and opened the door on the first day, there was a fact on the table, namely that Trafikverket judged that one could not convert these funds into - whatever it was you wanted to convert them into. One could not convert these funds into maintenance measures; they had simply burned up inside.
Then we judged that it was better to handle the taxpayers' money in a responsible manner and use it for road maintenance for next year's budget instead of letting it disappear and not have any traveler benefit.
The question of why the money had burned up or why it could not be used can just as well be directed to the former Minister for Infrastructure, and this can surely be resolved by Gunilla Svantorp during a coffee break after a group meeting or something similar.
What will the different pieces of knowledge then entail? It is to review, for example, track standards, not least on the stretch in Skåne, and that one does not dimension for high-speed trains but instead looks at in what way one best builds away bottlenecks and increases the possibility for work commuting in this region. One can look at in what ways one could reduce cost increases, lower costs, and avoid displacement effects.
But we will not let this work sit on the shelf; it is proceeding with full activity. We are well aware that decisions need to be given very soon to Trafikverket, which is working now. We have not interrupted any work, but we will return with a decision to the Riksdag, the general public, Trafikverket, and everyone who has an interest in the matter. And it will happen quickly.
It is an analysis that is made based on the new conditions, which means that we will not be building further on the main lines that were previously planned. But the three sections that are in the plan, we analyze and will return to.
Gunilla Svantorp (S)
Madam Speaker! Thanks anyway to the Minister for the clarity in what is being said! No one can doubt that no new main lines will be built.
I want to return to the need for new main lines and what it would mean with the plans that exist. Adrian Magnusson took the example down in Skåne, and I would like to take the example Borås-Jönköping.
Borås and Jönköping together have more inhabitants than Uppsala, but they have no modern railway either between them or to Gothenburg. Gothenburg is 15 mil from Jönköping. They have single tracks half the way, and then the rails suddenly end completely. There is nothing there. One cannot, with all the good will in the world, think that it is okay for it to look that way.
New trunk lines according to the proposal that exists, and which has been worked on for several years, would connect Götaland in exactly the same way as Mälardalen has been built together. It would mean better commuting in Östergötland, Västergötland, Småland, and Skåne. More people would have more workplaces to choose from, and more housing could be built in more places. Business owners would avoid getting an upset stomach wondering whether their freight will arrive or not. There are many advantages. But the best of all is that the climate would benefit very much if more freight can be moved over to the railway.
The measures that the Minister now claims he will soon take do not involve more tracks, so the problem remains that we have far too many trains on too few tracks. The Minister has not answered how he intends to solve this. Thank you, Minister, for the debate!
Statsrådet Andreas Carlson (KD)
Madam Speaker! Thank you to Gunilla Svantorp for the interpellation! I look forward to good cooperation and dialogue with the Riksdag - also with the Committee on Transport and Communications. I have already been to the Committee on Transport and Communications once and will be there again this Thursday, I believe, to provide information on the work with the Swedish presidency in the EU, which of course also affects our part of the EU in many ways. Then we can probably talk more about this and certainly also other issues.
I believe I have also answered clearly as to why the government is not proceeding with the construction of new trunk lines for high-speed trains and in what way we are now analyzing the issue. We will return to the Riksdag, Trafikverket, and all interested parties with an announcement on the matter. At that point, we will be able to continue this dialogue.
Source: The Swedish Parliament. The speeches come from the open data of the Riksdag, translated into English by AI, which may contain errors.