Response to interpellation 2025/26:419 on the motorway bridge in Södertälje

Infrastruktur- och bostadsministern Andreas Carlson (KD)

Mr. Speaker! Ingela Nylund Watz has asked the Minister of Defence if he shares the Armed Forces' assessment that there is a need for a new connection across Södertälje canal and if he intends to take any measures based on his view on the matter. Ingela Nylund Watz has further asked the Minister of Defence how he views the fact that decisions are lacking regarding Trafikverket's current plans for capacity increase before the question of how the total defence's need for increased redundancy can be met, and if he is prepared to take any measures on this ground.

The work within the government is distributed in such a way that it is I who shall answer the interpellation.

In the infrastructure bill from 2024 (prop. 2024/25:28), it was clarified that the government is working towards a robust and efficient transport infrastructure system where the distribution of all types of traffic can be utilized in the best way and complement each other. A well-functioning infrastructure is crucial for Swedish competitiveness and for all of Sweden to function. The economic framework for the next planning period, 2026–2037, amounts to 1,171 billion kronor. It is a historically large investment, where we have increased the infrastructure framework by over 200 billion kronor compared to the previous planning period and where we prioritize maintaining the existing transport system and prioritize maintenance while the transport system can be developed.

Against that background, Trafikverket has been tasked with developing a proposal for a new national plan for the period 2026–2037. In the assignment to Trafikverket, the government has, among other things, emphasized that socio-economic profitability shall be guiding, that it is important to have a corridor and system perspective, and that the deteriorated security situation and the needs of the total defense need to be considered. Objects that are not transport-politically justified but primarily aim to strengthen civil or military defense must, however, be assessed and financed in a special manner. These objects should therefore not be included in the proposal for the national plan.

Trafikverket's proposal contains, among other things, a new project that involves capacity reinforcements on the existing motorway bridge in Södertälje. The proposed project involves a widening of the bridge to enable an expansion from two to three lanes in each direction, but it also contains measures to strengthen the robustness of the motorway bridges.

The Government decided on 24 April 2026 to establish the national transport-wide plan for the transport infrastructure for the period 2026–2037. The Government considers that the need for robustness and redundancy at the road passage of Södertälje canal increases in light of the changed and deteriorated global situation. The Södertälje passage also constitutes an important transport link for the Swedish economy and the development of the export industry.

That is why the government has decided to allocate funds to the plan to produce an updated basis so that an assessment of potential measures for the passage of Södertälje canal can be made before the next planning period. At the same time, the new project "E4/E20 Södertälje Bridge, Capacity reinforcement as a result of Förbifart Stockholm" remains in the national plan according to Trafikverket's proposal.

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

Ingela Nylund Watz (S)

Mr. Speaker! Thank you for the answer, Minister!

The government's announcement regarding the issue of a new passage over Södertälje canal in the national plan is a disappointment for the entire Stockholm region. A so-called basis for assessing the need is to be developed. Who, one wonders, more than the government can doubt the need for a new passage over or under Södertälje canal?

Here are some facts. The highway bridge with the European roads E4/E20 at Södertälje is of very critical importance for the entire country. The bridge and the canal lack high-capacity alternative connections, which makes the location not only critical but also very vulnerable, where a disruption of operations has extensive socio-economic consequences. It is one of Sweden's most strategic transport links with central importance for both road traffic and shipping. It connects southern Sweden with the capital region and functions as a hub for both industrial and socially important flows.

The fact that the bridge is openable and only has two lanes in each direction increases the vulnerability to both traffic accidents and technical failures. An interruption quickly manifests in the form of congestion, delivery disruptions, and increased socio-economic costs, which we bitterly experienced during the midsummer period of 2016. A serious incident that takes both the bridge and the canal out of service is judged to lead to socio-economic costs of at least 46 million kronor on the first day, mainly as a result of travel time losses. In addition, there are production effects with losses of up to 60 million kronor per day. The freight transports affected represent an annual goods value of over 1,100 billion kronor. This corresponds to a third of Sweden's total goods flows.

Mr. Speaker! Södertälje is an industrial focal point in the Swedish economy, where Scania and AstraZeneca together employ approximately 24,000 people locally and indirectly affect almost 60,000 jobs nationally. Their export and production are largely dependent on a functioning infrastructure.

Södertäljebron plays a key role in the capital region's – not to say the entire country's – food supply. WSP's assessments show that food worth approximately 50 billion kronor is transported over the bridge every year, which corresponds to around 13 percent of the total road transport of food in Sweden.

Mr. Speaker! In the recently adopted national plan for road traffic, it is proposed, just as the Minister said, that the bridge shall be widened to three lanes during the period 2033–2037. During periods, traffic will then be referred to one lane each in the north- and south-bound directions. This in a situation where the new Förbifart Stockholm has been completed around 2029–2030 and the traffic volume is judged to increase by 35 percent towards 2045. This will lead to a serious traffic infarction of a rarely seen magnitude, production losses for the industry, and serious environmental consequences, especially for Södertälje municipality.

I posed my questions in the interpellation to the Minister for Defence. Therefore, I remain interested in hearing answers to the questions I have posed that have a defense perspective. Is it reasonable to assume that the Minister for Defence or the government shares the assessment that a new passage over Södertälje canal is needed?

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

Martin Westmont (SD)

Mr. Speaker! European route 4 and 20 have high traffic loads today. It is not something we solve solely by improving the motorway bridge that this interpellation focuses on. The number of commercial transports on the stretch is high, and many commute to and from Stockholm and Södertälje every day.

The traffic situation will not improve on the stretch. Rather, it will deteriorate further, and the road often becomes congested already at Botkyrka, which is a good distance from Södertälje. What is required is a broader overall solution regarding how to handle the traffic situation, from Södertälje towards Stockholm and from Stockholm towards Södertälje.

With this speech during this interpellation debate, I want to emphasize to the Minister for Infrastructure that this specific road has major deficiencies and that it will only get worse. I share much of what the interpellor raised in his speech. My hope is that the Minister, if this has not already happened, will raise this issue further, first and foremost within Trafikverket.

For the continued growth of the Stockholm region, this is an issue that must be resolved in the long term. Just as the interpellor pointed out, we have very many freight transports in and out of Stockholm on this route. There will come a time when many transport companies do not consider it sufficiently profitable to sit in hour-long queues to make a delivery in the Stockholm area and begin to look for other alternatives. This is an important issue for Stockholm's continued growth, so let us act today before many companies look for other alternatives.

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

Infrastruktur- och bostadsministern Andreas Carlson (KD)

Mr. Speaker! Thank you, members, for the commitment!

The question that Ingela Nylund Watz asked in conclusion was whether it is reasonable with a new passage over Södertälje canal. Yes, otherwise we would not have included that investigation assignment for Trafikverket. There is a reason why the government gives that assignment together with the assignment to widen the existing passage. It is clear that it would have been even better if the widening had been done before Förbifart Stockholm opens. I expect that the work with the widening takes place as efficiently and quickly as possible and also in close dialogue with those who are dependent on the connection being open and high-capacity even during the construction phase.

Mr. Speaker! The interpellation states that the planned widening means that for four years, traffic will only be able to use one lane in the north and south directions on the bridge. I wish to inform the Chamber that after having investigated this question and seeking information from Trafikverket, I have received the information that the solution Trafikverket is now looking at and working from involves the construction of two overhead bridges between the two state bridges. This means that the capacity on the bridge needs to be reduced for one year. This is a significant difference from what the member wrote in his interpellation. Therefore, I wish to inform about this.

Trafikverket emphasizes that the decision on the design has not been made yet and that in that work, it is understood to be important to have a close dialogue with the parties concerned regarding the consequences.

Mr. Speaker! When it comes to the widening, I cannot help but mention that the work was interrupted. It had been planned for a long time, but it was interrupted by previous governments. It is clear that we would have been in a better position if it had not stopped but had been ongoing as a preparation for Förbifart Stockholm to open. The question, therefore, is whether there is any self-reflection regarding the decision that was made earlier. It is clear that it would have had an impact today.

The government has allocated investigation funds for specifically the passage over Södertälje canal as a redundancy to the bridge that will be widened. These are urgent measures to strengthen robustness and reduce vulnerability in traffic. This is not only an issue for Södertälje and the Stockholm area, but it is an important issue for the entire infrastructure in our elongated country.

When it comes to the specific questions, the Armed Forces or the then MSB have not addressed the highway bridge in their referral comments regarding the national plan. Their referral responses are at a more general level and do not concern individual objects. On the other hand, I naturally want to remind that the 30 billion that lie outside the national plan in the civil defense budget we agree upon will follow the Armed Forces' identified needs. It has previously been stated that a large part of those funds will go towards the upgrading of the Inlandsbanan. Additional measures covered by them will be guided by the Armed Forces' needs.

At the same time, the national plan that the government has established is, of course, to increase preparedness through extensive measures to refurbish, strengthen capacity, and also investigate and produce proposals on how the Södertälje passage can be secured for the future.

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

Ingela Nylund Watz (S)

Mr. Speaker! The latest entry from the Minister for Infrastructure illustrates the fact that it becomes chaotic when we, as interpellants, pose questions to one minister and then receive answers from another.

I have posed this interpellation entirely from a defense perspective. Now I am receiving general answers from the Minister for Infrastructure regarding the investments being made in the national plan and a reasoning surrounding it. It is interesting to debate and discuss that with the Minister for Infrastructure, but I was interested in discussing the Södertälje Bridge from a defense perspective with the Minister for Defence. If the Minister for Infrastructure, on behalf of the government, cannot provide clear answers to my questions from a defense perspective, that is unfortunate, but I hope that the Minister for Infrastructure takes the opportunity.

Södertälje occupies a special position on the map of strategic hubs through its role as a road, railway, and maritime hub and with a direct impact on both regional supply and national export capacity. The large industries in Södertälje export approximately 10 percent of the total export value. It cannot be ignored that production disruptions in the form of staff not being able to get to and from work or arrive on time, or that goods cannot come in or out to these industries for long periods, affect and create a significant production loss.

Now the Minister for Infrastructure is saying exactly what is the core of my interpellation, namely that objects that are not transport-politically justified but primarily aim to strengthen civil or military defense must be assessed in a different order and financed in a special order. The Minister points to the 30 billion in total defense investments. It is quite true that these investments will finance a part of the objects. It is, however, unclear whether the Södertälje Bridge will be included in that context.

The Minister for Infrastructure wants to throw the ball back at previous governments. It is a rhetorical trick that one can gladly resort to. But I am trying here to look up and hope that we can agree to push forward an investment that the large industries in the Stockholm region, all municipalities around in the entire Mälardalen and probably also large parts of the government base consider to be necessary. This concerns, for example, a new passage over Södertälje canal.

It is unfortunate if there is a postponement of this project far towards 2040, which will be the consequence of the decisions the government has made so far. It is said that a basis will be prepared to potentially investigate the possibility of a new passage.

I highlight this in my interpellation because I believe that from a defense perspective, it is incredibly bad policy. As a country, we need to be significantly more offensive when we look at the capital region's conditions to function in both crisis and peacetime.

Of the total food transports, 13 percent pass over this section, and the goods that must move in and out here represent 10 percent of the Swedish export value. Given that, and that the personnel supply can fail due to traffic chaos, it should prompt the Swedish government to be a bit more proactive than pushing the project back towards 2040.

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

Infrastruktur- och bostadsministern Andreas Carlson (KD)

Mr. Speaker! It may perhaps be a bit unusual for a Social Democrat that the Minister for Infrastructure takes full responsibility for equipping Swedish infrastructure also from a total defense perspective. The plan that we have now decided on is the first that seriously incorporates the needs of total defense. It has been lacking previously.

I perhaps understand the question marks, but it is not strange that the minister who is responsible for ensuring that the infrastructure holds in Sweden, both in fair weather and in a situation with high alert, also answers questions on how we fortify the infrastructure.

What we do now has a direct impact on the Swedish Armed Forces' needs. It concerns everything from increases in load-bearing class to doubled support for individual roads, upgrading the maintenance of the road network and the railway network, and increased reliability. That we upgrade the Malmbanan so that capacity increases there is something that has a direct impact on the infrastructure's ability to maintain important transports for the military defense.

Part of our deterrence is that we have an infrastructure that holds. It is not only a matter for the Minister for Defence that the different sectors stand strong in a restless situation. It is a change. It is a reinforcement of this in the national plan.

Therefore, as I see it, it is not strange that I answer questions concerning the infrastructure which is also directly linked to the military defense – on the contrary.

We have strengthened cooperation at the Nordic level. We have established a Nordic cooperation, called Nordic Transport Preparedness Cooperation, which is commissioned by transport ministers and infrastructure ministers. It is a direct cooperation with the countries' defense forces. In this, the cooperation between my department and the Ministry of Defence is closer than ever – at least, it has been for a very long time.

In light of this, the question about the motorway bridge in Södertälje arose. I answered the member's question "Is it reasonable?", Mr. Speaker. Yes, it is reasonable. That is why the government is giving this assignment. It is also why we are keen that the widening of the existing bridge occurs as quickly and efficiently as possible.

I do not know if Ingela Nylund Watz noticed what I said in my previous post. The four years she refers to in the interpellation have now been reduced to one year in the planned working method that Trafikverket is carrying out and has on the table. A decision has not been made yet, but it has been planned for and there has been a close dialogue with, not least, the business community's actors. It is, however, important to get this in place quickly.

Based on what I dared to question regarding the previous government's decision to remove this in the national plan. It is not a rhetorical trick, but it is a way to highlight that previous decisions mean that we are in a worse position today. If the decision to widen the E4 had not been pushed through, and if one had not been so eager to get it in place as quickly as possible, today's debate might have been different.

Now we have both a redundancy problem, which the government addresses with this assignment, and a capacity problem here and now, which the government also addresses. We are not satisfied that it would take four years, but Trafikverket's planning indicates that it can occur with reduced capacity for one year. This, however, needs to happen as efficiently and quickly as possible and in good dialogue with those who are dependent on the transport route.

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

Ingela Nylund Watz (S)

Mr. Speaker! If the Minister for Infrastructure has the role of being responsible for ensuring redundancy, strength, and sustainability in the transport systems also from a total defense perspective and thinks it is regrettable that this was removed from the national plan during the previous parliamentary term, one wonders: Does the government really assess that this is a strategically important node that needs to be developed, defended, and given increased robustness? Why, in that case, is the project pushed back to long after 2040?

If the Minister for Infrastructure shares the view that this is a vital strategic hub that needs reinforced capacity, as the Armed Forces have expressed in various contexts, it would be reasonable not to push it far beyond 2040. Instead, one should step up the work. This should have been brought forward earlier.

In practice, this means for us who live in the Stockholm region that the government is actually saying that the defense of the capital region is not so important. Other defense investments are more important. But we can well hope that the bridge holds up and remains stable and that no accident occurs or that we end up in a crisis or some other situation that has a major impact on the traffic flows over the Södertälje Bridge. The capital region is completely dependent on functioning traffic over the bridge for its supply of both freight and goods transport.

I do not think the Minister for Infrastructure's argument becomes stronger when he first says that it was regrettable to remove the widening of the bridge from the plan four years ago and then says that the major solution should come only after 2040. It is not sufficient.

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

Infrastruktur- och bostadsministern Andreas Carlson (KD)

Mr. Speaker! On the subject of rhetorical tricks, this is a very hollow argument. But let Ingela Nylund Watz have her say.

We have accelerated the work. Trafikverket can now carry out the measure in one year instead of four years, as appears from the information that I have given to the Chamber today.

It is not the case that the entire Mälardalen agrees with Ingela Nylund Watz. The City of Stockholm stated that it is positive that the object widening of the Södertälje Bridge is included as a named object in the national plan. The Mälardalen Council welcomed that Trafikverket includes measures in the plan proposal to improve and widen the Södertälje Bridge. They stated that it strengthens the capacity and provides better accessibility between Stockholm and Södertälje.

It is an easy task in opposition to stand and bark at a government that is now implementing measures. I have tasked Trafikverket to investigate the Södertälje passage for strengthened redundancy and am ensuring that the E4 is widened so that it becomes more capacity-strong.

Trafikverket proposed this to the previous government, but one did not have the energy or could for some reason not make such a decision. That is why we stand here today.

Please feel free to talk about the years ahead – but one must also look at the years behind, because infrastructure planning is long-term. I have not heard a shred of self-reflection in Ingela Nylund Watz's reasoning.

We take responsibility; we implement measures. We naturally want to ensure that this proceeds as quickly as possible in terms of total defense, for this is an important corridor and an important stretch – not only for Södertälje and Stockholm but for all of Sweden, as I have also said previously, Mr. Speaker. I am happy to repeat that answer, if it has not been perceived in today's debate; I want to emphasize that. It is therefore why we are now both proceeding with the widening of the bridge and tasking Trafikverket to investigate a redundancy for the Södertälje passage.

The interpellation debate was hereby concluded.

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