Response to interpellation 2024/25:585 on investments in the railway connection between Oslo and Stockholm
Translated from Swedish by AI; the translation may contain errors. The Swedish text is the original.
Summary AI, written in advance
The debate concerns investments in the railway connection between Oslo and Stockholm. 1 KD argues that the government has increased the financial framework for transport infrastructure and tasked Trafikverket with developing a new national plan where the needs of the total defense are taken into account 1. KD emphasizes that they have opened up for alternative financing and public-private cooperation 2, as well as that they canceled plans for high-speed trains to free up funds 2. KD argues that the infrastructure framework is historically large and that the government focuses on upgrading existing infrastructure 3. 4 S argues that the government lacks political will as they have not prioritized the route despite its security policy and climate significance 4. 5 S considers the connection to be an important national and Nordic matter 5.
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! Mikael Dahlqvist has asked me three questions regarding the railway connection between Oslo and Stockholm.
The first question is how I and the government view the need to accelerate the expansion of a faster railway connection between Stockholm and Oslo.
The second question is what measures I and the government intend to take to ensure that the Nobel line and other necessary investments along the route are carried out.
The third question is how I and the government take the Stockholm–Oslo railway connection into account in the work to strengthen Sweden's total defense and NATO's transport infrastructure.
According to the government's proposal in the infrastructure bill (prop. 2024/25:28), the economic framework for the period 2026–2037 has increased by 200 billion kronor compared to the previous planning period, to 1,171 billion kronor. These are historically large investments in the transport infrastructure.
The Government gave Trafikverket the assignment on 20 March 2025 to prepare a proposal for a new national plan for the period 2026–2037. It is only in this part of the process that concrete projects and measures are investigated and analyzed.
Socio-economic profitability shall be guiding in the prioritization of measures in the transport infrastructure.
The Government also specifies in the assignment that Trafikverket shall take into account the total defense's needs for transport infrastructure, including the need to maintain society's critical functions before and during high alert and, ultimately, war, as well as to enable military mobility and NATO's military operations, including host nation support.
Trafikverket shall, in the preparation of the proposal for a national plan, seek views from the Nordic neighboring countries.
During the upcoming planning period, the government intends to examine investment objects that are designed and built by an actor other than Trafikverket.
As a first step in the work of selecting projects, Trafikverket shall prepare proposals for projects that may be relevant for public-private partnership, OPS. The Government also intends to appoint an investigator who shall propose a model for the organization of such projects and also be tasked with proposing projects that can be judged suitable for OPS.
Trafikverket's proposal for the plan shall be submitted to the Ministry of Rural Affairs and Infrastructure no later than September 30, 2025.
Mikael Dahlqvist (S)
Madam Speaker! Thank you, Minister, for the answer! But I must express a clear disappointment. I receive an answer that focuses on processes, investigations and future trials but not on what is the government's will.
The interpellation concerns the need for a modern, fast, and strategically important railway between Stockholm and Oslo. It is a project that has great support from both Swedish and Norwegian actors. It has the support of regions, municipalities, and the business community. The goal is clear and realistic: A travel time of 2 hours and 55 minutes between our capitals is to be achieved. It is a climate-smart and competitive alternative to aviation.
Madam Speaker! This is not just a transport initiative. It is about strengthening defense and preparedness in a restless time and creating a fifth border crossing to Norway that can handle the transport of both troops and material. It is about improving the supply chains within the Swedish defense industry, and it is also, naturally, about strengthening trade, the labor market, and Nordic cooperation.
There are forecasts showing that the number of train journeys between Oslo and Stockholm can amount to between 2 and 3 million per year and reach a market share of 70 percent. This could result in a reduction of carbon dioxide emissions by 100 tons.
Madam Speaker! My question was clear: How does the government view the need to accelerate the expansion of this connection? The Minister's answer is that Trafikverket has been commissioned to develop a national plan for the period 2026–2037. But, Madam Speaker, that is not the whole truth. At the same time, the government has already identified other projects as prioritized in the infrastructure bill 2024–2025, for example, the main line between Göteborg and Borås. This shows that the government can provide political guidance before Trafikverket's plan is finished.
Why has it then been chosen not to mention the railway connection between our capitals, Oslo and Stockholm, despite it having both security policy and climate significance? It is a political choice. It is a choice not to prioritize one of the Nordics' important routes with obvious significance for climate, growth, and defense.
Madam Speaker! This is not about technology or capacity right now. It is about political will. It is perceived to be lacking from the government. My questions to the Minister remain. But perhaps I should formulate them a bit more clearly: Does the Minister consider the railway connection between Stockholm and Oslo to be important? How does the Minister view important investments along the route, for example, double tracks in Värmland between Kil and Karlstad, which the Prime Minister also pointed out and promised to build during this mandate period? And how does the Minister view this in light of our membership in Nato in a restless world?
Statsrådet Andreas Carlson (KD)
Madam Speaker! Mikael Dahlqvist knows how the processes look regarding the long-term infrastructure plan in Sweden. That is why I refer to it in my answer and say that the government has now tasked Trafikverket with preparing proposals for a new national plan. We have also opened up for alternative financing and alternative implementation. Trafikverket shall also prepare proposals for projects that could be relevant for public-private partnership. In the debate, the stretch we are talking about now is often mentioned as one that could be possible in this context.
That the government is now opening up for this should be positive, shouldn't it? Therefore, it is somewhat surprising – Mikael Dahlqvist knows how infrastructure planning works in Sweden – that Mikael Dahlqvist describes it as a disappointment that the government is now opening up for this and that we refer to the ongoing process.
Madam Speaker! It is also quite bold to highlight the Göteborg–Borås stretch as an example of the government prioritizing other infrastructure measures. The consequence of the government's decision to cancel the plans for new main lines for high-speed trains was that we shifted gears in railway policy for those stretches covered by the existing national plan, which Mikael Dahlqvist's own party and the previous government are responsible for.
What we did with the sections that were already included in the national plan – namely Göteborg–Borås, Lund–Hässleholm and Ostlänken – was to look at them again to see what cost-reducing measures could be taken against the background that these sections will no longer be parts of new main lines for high-speed trains.
The fall of the Gothenburg–Borås line led to increased work commuting. Regarding Lund–Hässleholm, we decided to put back the reinforcement on the Södra stambanan but in such a way that there was also room for investments needed to strengthen the capacity on the Öresund Bridge, as a result of the opening of the Fehmarn Bält connection.
Madam Speaker! The measures we have taken, we have taken to handle the fact that the previous government put very many eggs in the same basket, namely the high-speed train basket. We interrupted that planning. The National Audit Office has reviewed it and concluded that it saves 162 billion kronor in upcoming plans.
Then funds are released for other measures. It could be Stockholm–Oslo. It could be other investments. I cannot give an answer to that today. But to use this as an example is, as I said, bold because that is precisely one of the examples that releases funds that could be used for investments in other parts of the country.
The government has, since taking office, ensured that the Stockholm–Oslo route is now included on the EU's TEN-T map – TEN-T network – which opens up for co-financing from the EU if we were to make a decision to prioritize that route. We have therefore prepared, but we cannot anticipate the process by collectively producing proposals for a new national plan.
Mikael Dahlqvist knows that. The member should rather, if I may give a tip, look at all the measures the government has taken now that the gears have been shifted for railway policy. It is positive. I have also previously pointed out that reinforcements in an east-west direction were needed to strengthen Swedish preparedness, as a consequence of the NATO membership. It is, of course, something that I repeatedly speak about with my Nordic colleagues. As recently as the day before yesterday and the day before that, I met my colleagues in Helsinki at an informal Nordic transport ministers' meeting. The Norwegian colleague was, of course, also there. This is therefore an ongoing work, Madam Speaker.
Mikael Dahlqvist (S)
Madam Speaker! Thank you very much, Minister, for the answer!
The purpose of my first contribution was not to pit objects against each other, but rather it was more to demonstrate that the government can specify objects before the planning from our agencies is fully complete. We in Värmland are concerned, Madam Speaker and Minister, because we are not mentioned in any of the projects that are nevertheless specified in the infrastructure bill. That was solely the purpose from my side: to demonstrate that one can specify important objects before the plan is complete.
I still view the Minister's response positively. The Government and the Minister have noted this and are working towards a better connection between our capitals. I also want to continue to demonstrate that there is a great commitment to this railway section, not only in Värmland but also in our neighboring regions and, above all, in Norway.
We are now working on, among other things, a project for the Nobelbanan, a new railway line between Kristinehamn and Örebro, which would mean an enormous amount for the defense. We have a strong industry, above all in Karlskoga but also in Kristinehamn. We also have the Swedish Civil Contingencies Agency, which the Minister knows. This section is naturally a key to shortening the travel time between our main cities.
Madam Speaker! I would feel a bit more secure if the Minister could elaborate on his commitment to the railway section between Oslo and Stockholm and show a bit more concretely what the government is doing just today. The signals from the government are, in fact, extremely important in this matter. That is why the purpose is to highlight just this project.
Statsrådet Andreas Carlson (KD)
Madam Speaker! I view very positively Mikael Dahlqvist's understanding that I, of course, cannot delve into every detail and point out different objects in advance.
What emerged from the infrastructure bill was that it was urgent to accelerate measures for the Malmbanan – which we point out, among other things. The government has taken measures there. But it concerns measures that were already in the plan. Work had already begun. We gave Trafikverket the assignment to speed up the measures so that we can strengthen the Malmbanan and the connection between Norway and Sweden and also Finland, for that part, in that part of the country.
Measures have been taken now. We have also made decisions on the start of construction regarding some of those measures. This collectively increases the capacity on parts of the Malmbanan by 30 percent. It is the type of measures that we have taken and expedited. It is urgent.
When it comes to making trade-offs regarding major projects, such as Oslo–Stockholm, it is important that it is done in an overall process. If Mikael Dahlqvist's argument holds, there is not so much to be worried about, Madam Speaker. It will show when different objectives are weighed against each other in Trafikverket's ongoing work. There we, Madam Speaker, have underlined that the needs of the total defense shall be taken into account. It has not appeared as clearly before. Now it does. It will be a guiding principle, even if, of course, it is among other things socio-economic profitability, accessibility, and the transport policy goals that are governing otherwise.
Mikael Dahlqvist asked what I am doing today. I might not be able to tell what I am doing just today, but I can tell what I did the day before yesterday. In Helsinki, we agreed that a closer Nordic cooperation is needed and that we need to work concretely to strengthen our common preparedness, for example by incorporating the cross-border perspective into our national planning. It is an agreement that we expressed in Helsinki, and it is in line with the intensified work that is already in full swing.
In Gothenburg, where we met last year at an informal transport minister meeting that I invited to, we agreed to urge our authorities to strengthen cooperation and enter into mutual understanding agreements. That is now in place. And, Madam Speaker, a group has been formed at the authority level abbreviated as NTPC – Nordic Transport Preparedness Cooperation – which builds heavily on how Sweden and Finland have worked through the years with the Swedish samgodsmodel as the basis. Now we are also bringing in Norway and Denmark into this simply to identify bottlenecks and synchronize our planning processes at the Nordic level. This is, of course, a consequence of the security policy situation and a consequence of the fact that we need to strengthen preparedness. This is important in itself. There are also synergies that can strengthen cohesion in the Nordic region and cross-border transport even for civilian purposes in peacetime, so to speak. Work is therefore ongoing.
Madam Speaker! I would like to thank you for the respect that I, of course, cannot comment until we have received Trafikverket's proposal on action planning. It will also be sent out for consultation so that all regions and many others, for that matter, can submit their views. After that, the government will proceed with the work and make a decision on a new national plan during the first half of next year.
Mikael Dahlqvist (S)
Madam Speaker! The cross-border trade between Sweden and Norway is significant. One cannot emphasize it enough. Furthermore, that border is our longest border with another country.
During the pandemic, we unfortunately saw effects regarding the Nordic cooperation that were not positive. The governments had different interpretations of how the covid pandemic should be handled. This had quite large consequences, among other places in Värmland, for people who commuted to work in Norway.
Despite this, Norway is extremely important for Sweden, and in particular for Värmland. We know today that this stretch Stockholm–Oslo is the most heavily trafficked. It lacks a full-scale railway connection. Unfortunately, we also see this often in the delays affecting the route. Unfortunately, there has been far too much of that lately.
It is clear that this is a regional matter, but it is also a national and a Nordic matter in a situation where we need to strengthen cooperation – just as the Minister explained. It should also be a self-evident priority.
Mr. Speaker, based on the Minister's answer, I nevertheless harbor hope that the Government and the Minister have noted and are working towards this stretch from now on. We truly must hope that we receive a positive decision.
Statsrådet Andreas Carlson (KD)
Madam Speaker! Thank you, Mikael Dahlqvist, for this debate, and thank you for the commitment!
The positive news we have given so far is that the infrastructure framework is historically large. The investment of 1,171 billion kronor is an increase in fixed prices of 27 percent, if one compares it with the current national plan and calculates in the same way. We place a heavy focus on breaking the negative trend which has meant that too little money has been allocated to maintenance, both on the road and on the railway side.
It is important to upgrade the infrastructure we already have. It is a priority. But there are also significant funds for new investments in important infrastructure that need to be prioritized. The fact is that these 1,171 billion will not be enough for all the needs that exist. Therefore, the government is now seriously opening up for alternative financing and alternative implementation. It is important to get more money for infrastructure, but also to be able to get more infrastructure for the money.
Mikael Dahlqvist highlighted Norway. There are many other examples from Norway, such as how they have organized road construction in corporate form with Nye Veier. We are looking at this, and it will be important in the Swedish Transport Administration's mandate and the upcoming OPS investigation mandate to see what can be done and learned from the Nordic neighboring countries as well in terms of how one can build and manage infrastructure and get it in place faster. Then, of course, it is about more money for infrastructure but also, as I said, Madam Speaker, more infrastructure for the money.
I look forward to returning to this issue and many others, because there is, of course, a great interest in upgrading Swedish infrastructure, as the needs are so great in many parts of our elongated country.
Source: The Swedish Parliament. The speeches come from the open data of the Riksdag, translated into English by AI, which may contain errors.