Response to interpellation 2024/25:549 on the division of the Swedish Transport Administration
Translated from Swedish by AI; the translation may contain errors. The Swedish text is the original.
Summary AI, written in advance
KD does not intend to present proposals to split up Trafikverket 1. The authority creates better organizational conditions for a cross-modal transport development and unified long-term infrastructure planning 1. Trafikverket also has a mandate within the defense sector's transport 1. Consolidation of operations has led to efficiencies that provide more money for infrastructure 1. S considers Trafikverket to be a colossus with an almost unfathomable mandate 2. The authority receives stinging criticism for consistently underestimating costs for railway projects 2. S argues that the governance of the authority has failed and that the government does not even want to open up for an investigation 2.
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)
Mr. Speaker! Adrian Magnusson has asked me whether I and the government intend to present a proposal to split up Trafikverket and, if not, what the reasons are for not splitting up Trafikverket despite the strong criticism that the agency has been subjected to.
As Adrian Magnusson mentions, Trafikverket was established on April 1, 2010 – 15 years ago today – primarily as a merger of the two previous agencies Banverket and Vägverket.
In the budget bill for 2010, the government stated as the primary motives for the establishment of Trafikverket that a new agency could create better organizational conditions for working with the development of the transport system from a transport-mode-integrated perspective.
The government also stated that a significant task for the new authority would be to be responsible for a unified long-term infrastructure planning for the development of the entire transport system. The government's initiative had been preceded by an extensive mapping and analysis of certain activities and functions of the then current authorities within the transport area, which showed what was functioning poorly.
The arguments that the then-government had for creating Trafikverket still largely apply. We now have an agency that has gathered within itself the ability to manage much of the planning work for the development of the transport system in Sweden. We also have in Trafikverket an agency that can capture the different significance of the four modes of transport and where they are not pitted against each other.
Trafikverket is also the authority that has been given the assignment to lead the work within the preparedness sector's transports by coordinating measures before and during peacetime crisis situations and high alert.
Trafikverket has for some time now begun a "kraftsamling" (power gathering) with an increased focus on customers and the surrounding environment, strengthened delivery capacity, and increased internal efficiency. The work with the kraftsamling has also resulted in efficiencies and savings which in turn have allowed certain budget allocations to be reduced starting with the 2025 budget year. This provides more money for infrastructure.
Overall, I can state that the basic arguments behind the creation of Trafikverket are still relevant. Increased fragmentation and reduced coordination in the planning of road and railway projects is not the way forward. I therefore do not intend to submit proposals to divide Trafikverket.
Adrian Magnusson (S)
Mr. Speaker! I thank the Minister for the answer, even though I am, of course, not entirely satisfied with the answer.
Trafikverket, which we are discussing today, is a colossus responsible for virtually all infrastructure in this country. The agency has 10,000 employees. It is a gigantic structure with an almost unfathomable mandate. The task given to the agency is, if not impossible, very difficult.
The authority receives, as I noted in the interpellation, ongoing stinging criticism. It is not only from the public, it is from heavy authorities.
The Swedish National Audit Office's criticism of Trafikverket has been recurring and harsh. Among other things, it has been noted that the costs for railway projects have been consistently underestimated.
For example, Trafikverket underestimated the cost for railway improvements between Värnamo and Jönköping by 2 billion kronor over eight years. That is just one example of many. The debacle with Västlänken is another – 6 billion more expensive, and completion has been delayed by four years. Contractors have been thrown out. The list could be even longer.
Trafikverket is, according to the government itself, unable to maintain the railway. Money is therefore being moved from road maintenance to railway maintenance. This should set off loud alarm bells throughout the Ministry of Rural Affairs and Infrastructure – if that is indeed the case and it is not a political willful direction being masked, of course. That possibility also exists.
After having lived with this teenager or moped rider or whatever you want to call it for 15 years, one can state quite a few things: The infrastructure facility was not managed. Procurement and supervision do not work – this despite the number of employees at Trafikverket having increased significantly since its establishment 15 years ago.
One can make it easy for oneself and place the blame for this on the authority, but that is not what should be done. The blame should be placed on those who run the authority, who are responsible for the structure and who give these impossible assignments. The blame should be placed on the government. The management of this colossal authority has failed, and it is obvious to the vast majority that something must be done.
Mr. Speaker! Just as the Minister states, Trafikverket was formed on April 1, 2010, by the Reinfeldt government. It was a commissioned job by the then-bourgeois government. Vägverket, Banverket, and some other agencies were to be removed and merged.
As with so much else, the Reinfeldt government failed miserably with this experiment. We will see the consequences now, as with so much else that the Reinfeldt government pushed through.
There may be a will from bourgeois politicians, including the Minister, to spasmodically and almost with a fool's persistence hold on to previous bourgeois prestige projects, which have demonstrably failed. But that prestige cannot be allowed to take precedence over the country's best interests.
Mr. Speaker! We know about the shortcomings with the current Trafikverket. We know about the shortcomings in management. We know about the shortcomings in procurement, supervision, and maintenance. Despite all these shortcomings, the Minister here in the chamber does not even want to open for an investigation of Trafikverket. To even divide Trafikverket is dismissed.
It is astonishing. So everything is to continue as before with the authority Trafikverket – despite all the deficiencies that I have gone through and the deficiencies that I have not gone through but which also exist and which will most likely be uncovered in the future. Is that really how this government wants the country's infrastructure to be treated?
Source: The Swedish Parliament. The speeches come from the open data of the Riksdag, translated into English by AI, which may contain errors.