Response to interpellation 2025/26:463 on the effects for Östergötland of the changed routing of the Ostlänken
Translated from Swedish by AI; the translation may contain errors. The Swedish text is the original.
Summary AI, written in advance
KD argues that the government is making historically large investments in infrastructure and that Ostlänken strengthens capacity for commuting and freight 1. KD considers that the decision to maintain the existing station location in Linköping saves 8 billion kronor and that it is important not to build more than it costs 1 2. KD emphasizes that they prioritize real utility over symbolic urban development projects 3. KD argues that projects with large cost increases can be reconsidered to get more infrastructure for the money and protect the taxpayers' money 3 4. KD claims that the construction involves a significant improvement and that the benefits remain 4. S argues that Östergötland is the big loser and that the state has broken its promises 5 6 7.
Written by AI in advance and may contain errors. The numbers lead to the speech a statement builds on; check against the text below.
Infrastruktur- och bostadsministern Andreas Carlson (KD)
Mr. Speaker! Eva Lindh has asked me what reasons lie behind the decision not to proceed with expanded track capacity between Linköping and Norrköping and what measures I intend to take to solve the capacity problems that may arise on the stretch when Ostlänken now provides neither more tracks nor a new station in Linköping. Eva Lindh has also asked me whether I believe the state has a responsibility towards the municipalities and actors who have invested based on the state's decisions, and if so, what initiatives I am prepared to take. Finally, Eva Lindh has asked me how I intend to act so that the decision does not have severe consequences for freight traffic and exports from the region.
A well-functioning transport infrastructure is crucial for the whole of Sweden to function, and the government has made a historically large investment in infrastructure. Ostlänken will also, with the change, become an integrated part of a railway system that strengthens capacity and promotes, among other things, commuting between the larger cities. It is a misconception that the track capacity between Norrköping and Linköping would not increase. Furthermore, the connection to both Stångådalsbanan and Tjustbanan as well as Linköping Central Station is maintained. This facilitates commuting, is important for the total defense, and from a rural perspective.
The Government has, in the national transport infrastructure plan for the period 2026–2037, decided that Ostlänken, the new double track Järna–Linköping, shall be limited to the section included in the corridor for which the Government in June 2018 decided on permission according to Chapter 17 of the Environmental Code. It was this section that was included in the previous Government's decision on the national transport infrastructure plan for the period 2022–2033. Retaining the existing station in Linköping instead of replacing it with two stations in new locations implies a saving of approximately 8 billion kronor and is in line with the Government's ambition to take care of the infrastructure we have and develop the function of existing infrastructure.
The government's decision on the new national plan involves expanded economic frameworks for both the maintenance and development of the transport infrastructure. Conditions for travel to work and education, as well as the business sector's transport, have been prioritized in new investments in roads and railways. This benefits the companies' competitiveness and competence supply.
Eva Lindh (S)
Mr. Speaker! This debate is about so much – about rails but also about trust. It is about trust between the state and the municipalities, the trust between the state and the residents in Östergötland, and trust that a state promise actually means something.
In Östergötland, people, companies, and municipalities have planned their lives and their future based on the assumption that Ostlänken – that is, expanded tracks through Östergötland and between towns in Östergötland – would be built all the way into Linköping and further. It has not been a secret – on the contrary.
The idea of Ostlänken was born as early as the 1990s. Under different governments, the planning has continued. The Sweden negotiation was made. Feasibility decisions were made. Trafikverket produced railway plans. The municipalities did their work.
Linköping Municipality has invested great resources to meet the state's requirements. Detailed plans have been developed, investigations carried out, and staff allocated for many years. That was not done because they felt like it. It was done because the state asked the municipality to do it. And now the government says: Thanks for the help! But we changed our minds.
For many years, the state has, through Trafikverket, pointed out a direction. Municipalities have adapted their planning. Agreements have been signed. Linköping Municipality did what was expected. When the consequences become obvious, the municipalities are told that they should have understood better. That is not how you build a country.
The Minister – I thank you for the answer – says that the government is making historically large infrastructure investments. We may have different views on that and what this is supposed to be sufficient for and how much is consumed by inflation and other things. But regardless of this, the size of the national plan is obviously not the answer for Östergötland.
It is actually the case that companies, residents, and municipalities have planned based on this. One cannot just sit with one's arms crossed and hope that the state means business. I have myself been a municipal councilor in Linköping. I have witnessed when plans have been developed and expectations have been built. But now that the government is changing its mind, the government chooses to place the blame on the municipality.
Mr. Speaker! I have heard several different figures. I have also submitted a written question to the Minister for Infrastructure regarding the savings he has specified. Today – here and now – the Minister for Infrastructure read that it concerns savings of 8 billion kronor. I have heard 3 billion from Trafikverket on a few occasions. I have heard 2 billion. But what has not been accounted for are the opportunity costs. What does it cost to let the capacity shortage persist? What does it cost when people continue to stand on the platform and wait for delayed trains? What does it cost when companies find it harder to recruit and when municipalities and residents can no longer rely on the state's announcements? Those costs also exist, when potential billion-kronor investments actually cannot be realized, because we are dependent on the railway.
Infrastruktur- och bostadsministern Andreas Carlson (KD)
Mr. Speaker! First and foremost, I want to clear up this figure question once and for all. It is about 8 billion or at least 8 billion – 2 billion in the current planning period and at least 6.5 billion in upcoming planning periods. That is, a total of 8 billion kronor in savings through the decision to maintain the current station location and to ensure that the connection to Stångådalsbanan and Tjustbanan remains. One has also taken into account that we are allocating approximately half a billion to get a good connection from the existing track – from the station and further towards Ostlänken, where the two shall meet, so that this becomes an integrated part of the railway system.
There will be a significant increase in capacity. There will be better opportunities for commuting, not least between Linköping and Norrköping and also further from Norrköping and also, of course, in the other direction.
Mr. Speaker! It is important to repeat what I said in my interpellation answer: What the government is doing is actually to go back to the corridor for which the government in June 2018 decided on permission according to Chapter 17 of the Environmental Code. It was that stretch that was included in the previous government's decision on the national traffic-wide plan for the transport infrastructure, and it was the last time the government made a decision regarding the routing.
Since then, a dialogue has been held between the municipality and other parties and Trafikverket. It needs to be evaluated how it can be improved. It is also important to say that there has been no funding for the various measures that have been on the table. It is only when the government establishes a decision that we distribute the funds. It is then important to emphasize that we must safeguard the taxpayers' money even in those cases where some planning efforts have been made.
It is a mistaken thought that just because something has entered a national plan, it must be exactly as it was intended from the beginning. The whole point of the planning process in Sweden is that one should be able to take in an object and investigate it and see if the costs it entails to build are at the same level as, or, hopefully, lower than the benefits that are released.
Now that we have looked at this issue, against the background that it involves very much money for the taxpayers, we have made the decision to keep the existing station location and to ensure that the connection from the existing railway to the new Ostlänken is good so that we get the benefits of the large project that Ostlänken is. It simply should not cost more than it tastes.
My State Secretary and I have had a dialogue with the municipality. There are a number of issues to pick up after this decision. We are well aware of that. I also respect that such a decision can raise questions and frustration. But I am also surprised, Mr. Speaker, by how much relief this decision has led to in other parts of Östergötland. In Kalmar län, it is about the fact that the connection to Linköping Central Station remains in connection with the Stångådalsbanan. And in Linköping, many actually like the position that the station has today. It is of course important to see how it can become an integrated part of the railway system that is now being strengthened very significantly as Ostlänken continues to be built, Mr. Speaker.
Eva Lindh (S)
Mr. Speaker! I just want to say with this that it is also actually a matter of symbolism. There is a lot of talk now about investments. Östergötland has become the big loser. What is that due to?
I think Östergötland is worth much more. Östergötland, like other parts of the country, is dependent on infrastructure that works. I do not understand how the Minister can stand here and say that commuting will improve between Norrköping and Linköping when the double track is being expanded on the plain and not up to Linköping. They are not being built into Linköping. We do not have much use at all from a double track being built up to the plain outside Linköping.
The Minister says very often that the connection between Stångådal and Tjust has now been secured. I am not so sure about that, but we shall see which of us is right. The station location is not just about a station location. It is also about how it is to be connected and how we are to get space. It sounds from the Minister that it is Linköping Municipality that has come up with this regarding the station location. It is Trafikverket that has planned based on this, and we in Linköping have adapted.
One can, of course, think that a station building is beautiful. I apologize, for now I sound a bit sarcastic, but I and many others were quite provoked when the Minister visited Linköping and celebrated the decision with cake. It was actually quite disrespectful – when this causes so much concern for the future among many companies and residents, not just in Linköping but in all of Östergötland – that the Minister, also after having visited Linköping and been at the station for a quarter of an hour, stated that people feel relief. That is not the picture I have.
People feel great frustration that this has taken so long and that the hopes one once had do not seem to be fulfilled. They are constantly being pushed into the future. To then come to Linköping and celebrate the decision with cake, I think, is therefore disrespectful.
Well, this is not about any municipal or regional prestige. In Östergötland we are in agreement – if not everyone, then at least across party lines – that this is a major problem not only for Östergötland but, in the long run, also further south where the railway track is to lead. There is also a great deal of concern there.
I love trains. I think it is good for many reasons, for the climate and because it is a good way to travel. But it is not just that it feels good. It is also about freight, companies, and everything else.
I wonder what analysis the government has made of the consequences for commuting, regional development, and the trust between state and municipality when one chooses to cancel a project that people have perceived as decided and ongoing. How are they to dare trust the state in the future?
Infrastruktur- och bostadsministern Andreas Carlson (KD)
Mr. Speaker! Eating a piece of cake with Stångådalsbanans Vänner, Järnvägsfrämjandet and some Christian Democrats is quite harmless, but I note the member's views.
The chairman says he does not understand how the capacity can be strengthened by building a predominantly new double track between Norrköping and Linköping for Ostlänken, which will run along most of that stretch. For the final section, connection measures will be taken. There is half a billion allocated in the national plan for that. Then the traffic will be able to be fed more efficiently.
I cannot unfortunately take responsibility for the fact that the member cannot understand how the large investment improves the commute, Mr. Speaker, but the traffic perspective is indeed fundamental here. It is possible to significantly increase the capacity. It will become considerably easier to commute between Linköping and Norrköping as the stretch becomes an integrated part of Ostlänken. It is completely obvious. I hope that the member can receive more material that helps with the understanding of that part.
As for who did what, this is not a question of guilt, as the member is trying to make it, but a question of responsibility. It is about the fact that it would have cost 8 billion kronor to build something that, from a national utility perspective, we do not judge to quite, or rather not at all, fill the very large cost that it would involve to not only build a new station location but two, and to demolish the railway.
Getting this in place would therefore involve a significant cost. If it is then Linköping that has adapted to what Trafikverket wanted, I do not quite understand the frustration I nevertheless note regarding the fact that we are doing what Linköping wanted from the beginning, if that is the case. But very well. Then the question shall be discussed based on that premise.
Mr. Speaker! I must nevertheless comment on what Eva Lindh says about this being a matter of symbolism. It is possible that the Social Democrats can afford to spend 8 billion on something that is about symbolism. But we have been more keen on moving away from symbolic urban development projects and obtaining real benefit for the taxpayers' money, where the state finances the simplest possible solutions that solve capacity needs or other traffic needs. If the municipalities want other solutions in their urban development, it must mean that they have co-financing agreements.
The problem has been that there has not been funding in place for the plans that have been discussed, and therefore the government must take responsibility when it comes to establishing a national plan. That is why the process looks the way it does. The government is responsible for ensuring that this becomes a whole that strengthens the system throughout Sweden.
The government has been clear in the mandate to Trafikverket regarding the planning proposal that if projects have incurred large cost increases or if other conditions for implementation have deteriorated, they need to be analyzed specifically and may be subject to reconsideration. The government has done this in several different places in the country. We have also confirmed some of the proposals that Trafikverket had. This is about getting more infrastructure for the money and not just getting more money for infrastructure.
How the work proceeds lies with Trafikverket, and I expect a good dialogue. But I also believe that the government's announcements and decisions will mean that, going forward, one will be more cautious about planning for measures for which there is no coverage. It is important to hold onto the taxpayers' money.
Eva Lindh (S)
Mr. Speaker! It is naturally not only I who make the assessment that this will not facilitate the commute between Linköping and Norrköping. I therefore choose not to even comment on the Minister's disparaging words regarding my ability to understand.
This is about important investments in Östergötland and all of Sweden. It is about ensuring that entrepreneurs and commuters do not have to stand on the platform and wait for delayed trains. It is about faith in the future for an important part of Sweden.
The government has betrayed Östergötland and the promises that people have believed in. One betrays the railway and also the faith in the future. The municipalities have done their part. Trafikverket has also done a part. Now it is up to the minister responsible for these issues in the government to explain to people what this really means.
The Minister stands and says that nothing will happen, that the station will remain as if nothing had happened and that this will not cause any problems for either work commuting, freight traffic or anything else. Very few people make the assessment the Minister makes. We who live in Östergötland do not. We are quite united, also across at least most party lines in, for example, Linköping and the region. Thus, the question remains: Why does the Minister not realize what a betrayal this is toward Östergötland? Is it just an attempt to muddy the waters?
Infrastruktur- och bostadsministern Andreas Carlson (KD)
Mr. Speaker! It was of course not my intention to be derogatory or to be perceived as derogatory in any way. I was simply answering a question where the member stated that she did not understand how it could get better from this. My intention was to explain that it gets better by primarily expanding the capacity between Norrköping and Linköping when the Ostlänken is connected a bit away. It is not a particularly long distance, but we will allocate half a billion for that construction. It will increase the capacity. More traffic can be routed on the line, so this will result in a significant improvement.
Mr. Speaker! It is also important that we quote each other correctly in the speaker's chair. I have not said that nothing will happen or that it will not cause any problems at all. The Government is aware that the capacity in Linköping may be affected when the new tracks outside Linköping are completed compared to if new tracks were built in to a new station. This must, however, be weighed against the cost of the project and other existing needs.
Ostlänken will also, through this decision, continue to be an integrated part of the railway system. It strengthens the capacity in the railway system, not least on the Södra stambanan, and it promotes commuting between the larger cities, not least between Linköping and Norrköping.
The benefits remain even with the change that means we save 8 billion of the taxpayers' money. We safeguard the connection to Linköping Central Station for both Stångådalsbanan and Tjustbanan. We ensure that we get a good solution.
How to take it further will need to be discussed more. That dialogue is underway. I have personally met with the municipal management in Linköping.
It is ultimately a matter of prioritizing and safeguarding the taxpayers' money, so that we both have more money for infrastructure and get more infrastructure for the money.
Source: The Swedish Parliament. The speeches come from the open data of the Riksdag, translated into English by AI, which may contain errors.