Response to interpellation 2025/26:506 on research and innovation for future transport systems
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 transport infrastructure and that resources are managed efficiently through well-considered priorities 1. KD emphasizes that research and innovation are a fundamental prerequisite for achieving transport policy goals and that they specify the use of 4 billion SEK to increase efficiency, productivity, and electrification 1 2. KD argues that through better contracts, more can be extracted from innovation in the business sector 2 3 and that there are many other sources of funding beyond the grant being discussed 3 4. S considers that the government is significantly reducing resources for research and innovation by almost halving the grant 5. S argues that research is crucial for climate transition, preparedness, and traffic safety 5. S questions why the government chooses to reduce support instead of using clearer steering to solve deficiencies in efficiency 6. S argues that there is a contradiction in the government's arguments as research is described as a fundamental prerequisite while resources are being cut 6. KD argues that the 4 billion SEK should be used where there is a clear added value and that they prioritize extracting existing knowledge 4. KD claims that there are research funds in other areas, such as with Vinnova and in national aviation technology programs 4. KD argues that the priorities are made to ensure that maintenance meets the standards for the citizens 4.
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! Carina Ödebrink has asked me why the government chooses to reduce resources for research and innovation within the transport infrastructure in the national plan, how I assess that reduced research resources affect the possibilities of reaching the zero vision and the milestone targets for road safety, and how the government intends to ensure that the transport sector continues to develop new technology and new solutions to reach the climate goals and strengthen road safety.
The Government has recently established the national transport infrastructure plan for the period 2026–2037, which involves historically large investments in the transport infrastructure in Sweden. A well-functioning infrastructure is crucial both to increase Sweden's overall competitiveness and growth as well as for all of Sweden to function.
The needs within the transport infrastructure are great, and it is necessary to make deliberate prioritizations between different measures and to manage the state's resources in as effective a way as possible. The Government allocates 4 billion kronor to applied research and innovation during the planning period.
In the national plan, it is established that research and innovation continue to be a fundamental prerequisite for being able to develop knowledge, methods and models as well as demonstrate new solutions that link technology and business and societal benefit within the transport area, while simultaneously making it possible to achieve the transport policy goals adopted by the Riksdag.
The government has also identified three priority areas for the use of these research funds: firstly, increased efficiency and productivity within the infrastructure area, with a focus on optimizing resource use and planning and construction processes; secondly, well-maintained and cost-effectively maintained transport infrastructure throughout the country in a redundant and resilient transport system that takes into account security policy requirements and disruption risks and that can utilize large amounts of data on the transport system's status; and thirdly, a transport system that enables increased electrification and automation as well as digital services.
It is also important to emphasize that the research funds in the national plan are not the only funding, but the transport sector's research and innovation includes a broad ecosystem of actors.
Swedish road safety work has been successful, and the work to continue strengthening road safety is a priority for the government. In the national plan, the government therefore increases the investment in trimming and environmental measures by 26 percent, in fixed prices, to 62.5 billion kronor, compared to the previous plan. This is an important investment in the transport system that increases road safety, reduces environmental impact, and increases capacity.
Examples of road safety initiatives included in the trimming budget can include, among other things, safe roadside areas, police checkpoints, railings, center markings, run-off protection for motorcyclists, measures in intersections, and the construction of wildlife crossings. All of this contributes to increased road safety and is important for achieving the zero vision.
Overall, the historically large infrastructure investment, in combination with clear prioritizations of research funds and a strong ecosystem of national and European research funders, means that Sweden continues to have good conditions to develop a secure, sustainable and competitive transport system for the future.
Carina Ödebrink (S)
Mr. Speaker! Sweden has for a long time been a pioneer in the transport sector. We have developed the vision zero. We have built up world-leading research on road safety. We have developed safer vehicles, better roads and smarter transport systems.
It has not happened by chance. It has been the result of long-term investments in research, innovation, and cooperation between authorities, academia, and the business sector that have led to concrete changes and improvements in everyday traffic. Therefore, the government's prioritization is noteworthy when it comes to research and innovation in the national plan for transport infrastructure.
At the same time as the government speaks of a robust transport system, strengthened competitiveness, climate transition and increased traffic safety, one chooses to significantly reduce resources for research and innovation.
The Swedish Transport Administration assessed that the investments should remain at approximately today's level, that is, 7.4 billion kronor during the planning period. The Government chose instead to almost halve the appropriation and reduce it to 4 billion kronor. This is not a marginal adjustment.
Mr. Speaker! At the same time, we face major challenges. The reduction in the number of people killed and seriously injured in traffic is not developing at the pace required to reach the interim targets for 2030.
The transport sector shall contribute to the climate transition. We need to strengthen preparedness and total defense. We need new technology for the maintenance and investment of roads and railways. We need digitalization, automation, and better data to use the infrastructure smarter, Mr. Speaker. All of this is built on knowledge. All of this is built on research. And all of this is built on innovation. Therefore, my question to the minister is simple.
The Minister has, in their response, accounted for why research and innovation is important. However, that is not what is in dispute. If research is so important for road safety, preparedness, digitalization and electrification, why does the government then choose to almost halve the appropriation compared to Trafikverket's assessment of the needs?
Infrastruktur- och bostadsministern Andreas Carlson (KD)
Mr. Speaker! It is very important to get as much effect as possible from the allocated funds for transport infrastructure.
When it comes to the prioritization, it can be a bit difficult for someone listening to a debate to keep the figures straight. Carina Ödebrink very rightly referred to the level proposed by Trafikverket, and the government is making a decision to allocate a full 4 billion to research within this appropriation.
The current level in the national plan is 5 billion kronor. It is a prioritization. It is a reduction. But what we also do, Mr. Speaker, is to more clearly specify what the money is to be used for. It is a lot of money. They will have a great effect.
What has been the great deficiency for many years is that there has been a lot of knowledge. Sweden has been a world leader when it comes to developing methods for maintaining, for example, railways, but it has not gained traction in Swedish domestic policy. On the other hand, the knowledge from Sweden has been able to be used in other countries.
We are changing this now. We are prioritizing and specifying so that there remains a focus on the purposes I mentioned. Such a specification has not existed previously. There have been and are areas in Sweden that are well-researched and where it is known what needs to be done, but the capacity for action and implementation has been lacking. This is what we are changing now, as we in Sweden get more maintenance of the railway than ever before.
I want to agree with Carina Ödebrink that it is very important to use new methods and to use data significantly better. That is also what is being done, not only because Trafikverket has a grant for research in the national plan but because we have now strengthened Trafikverket's mandate as a client, as a contractor, and as a procurer. Consequently, it has been possible to shorten the time it takes to change switches from days to hours.
I was myself in the Kumla area last week when the company Vossloh inaugurated its switch factory, which they have in cooperation with Trafikverket, and saw the innovative power that exists there. The company cooperates with many other companies.
I received information that in the facility, bolts will be installed that are connected with a small sensor in the bolt which will give a signal if the road moves more than 0.00 millimeters – I do not remember exactly, Mr. Speaker, but it will give a signal at very small movements that are impossible to detect with the naked eye because new technology is being used in the facility that allows one to insert stakes much earlier.
This will happen moving forward thanks to the fact that we are now cooperating with the private sector and have clear contracts that prioritize innovation and research. We also clarify more clearly, even in this grant, that that which promotes increased efficiency, productivity, and optimized resource use is what should be prioritized in the distribution of the 4 billion.
When it comes to road safety work, large investments are also being made in the business sector in Sweden. I was at Autoliv a few weeks ago. They are now investing in a new facility where lives will be saved not only in Sweden but also globally.
The key in the continued work is therefore close and near cooperation between the state and the authorities and the universities, the academy, and the business sector. Here the future looks bright. The problems are many, but we have a common work with good speed and good direction.
Carina Ödebrink (S)
Mr. Speaker! Yes, 4 billion kronor is a lot of money. One should have respect for that, but it is, after all, almost only half of what Trafikverket assessed the needs to be. There is no way around that.
I also think that the Minister's answer in his second post raises a question. If the government has perceived that there have been deficiencies and that the support has not been effective, why does one choose not to rectify that through clearer management and clearer mandates? Instead, one chooses to almost halve the support.
We are investing over 1,000 billion in roads and railways, and that is a lot of money. But we must also be able to invest in knowledge on how these resources should be used best. That is what we have historically done, and it has contributed to Sweden being a pioneer country when it comes to research and innovation linked to infrastructure and transport.
There is also an industrial policy dimension. Sweden competes internationally through knowledge. The business sector demands innovation within electrification, automation, digitalization, and sustainable transport. In that case, it is strange that the government chooses to cut back on precisely that research which is to contribute to the development. Here, Mr. Speaker, symbiosis and cooperation between the business sector and the state are required to drive the development forward.
There is, and I will return to this, a clear contradiction in the Minister's answer. On one hand, the Minister says that research is a fundamental prerequisite for developing knowledge, new methods, and new solutions to achieve the transport policy goals. On the other hand, he justifies the reduction by stating that the state's resources should be used as efficiently as possible. Then questions arise, Mr. Speaker. Does the government mean that the research funds are not being used efficiently today? If research is so important, why are the resources being reduced? And is it the case that the government's three priorities for research – increased efficiency, cost-effective maintenance, as well as increased electrification, etc. – require fewer resources for Sweden to be at the forefront?
Investments in traffic safety measures are needed here and now, but solutions are also needed to ensure today's traffic safety. These do not need to be pitted against each other.
My questions to the Minister concern the gap between 7.4 billion and 4 billion. Which projects are it that will not be carried out? What knowledge will not be developed, and what innovations will Sweden forgo? And has the government conducted any consequence analysis of which research programs will need to be reduced or discontinued as a result of the government's decision?
Infrastruktur- och bostadsministern Andreas Carlson (KD)
Mr. Speaker! Carina Ödebrink is requesting clearer governance. That is precisely what the government has now decided on. It has not existed previously, and it is welcome that it is now being prioritized in a direction that also, as it sounds, overlaps quite well with Carina Ödebrink's contribution.
When it comes to what the member says about symbiosis between the state and the business sector, that is where it starts to become interesting. One reason why we have not released the full power of the innovation that exists among all those entrepreneurs who develop new methods is that, not so very long ago, it was pushed that maintenance should be reclaimed under state administration.
We have worked on getting as much as possible out of the innovative companies that exist in Sweden through significantly better contracts and better ordering capacity at Trafikverket, as well as better operational capacity so that one has better control over the infrastructure and knows what to order. That is what has made it possible to get more out of all the billions that are now being invested in maintenance. That is where the focus needs to lie in order to get as much as possible for the money.
For example, it is described in the national plan that the government sees it would be valuable to have a test facility in Sweden to be able to test pavements. It is described that we would gladly do it together with Norway so that asphalt mixtures and paving materials can be developed in an efficient way and that the road paving work can be developed so that it is not just about 354 billion kronor for more maintenance but that one gets as much as possible for that money. It is well described that one could use trimming measure funds for such a facility. It would benefit research and innovation.
Mr. Speaker! This illustrates, just as I said in my opening remarks, that there are significantly more items financing research and innovation than only those that we are now discussing. In that case, it is again important to say that the current level is 5 billion and that the decided level is 4 billion.
What priorities will then need to be made? Yes, they are priorities in the direction and in line with what I said. What will need to be in focus is to develop methods that strengthen efficiency, productivity and also electrification and automation and digital services.
Then there are areas that are well-researched but where one previously has not had the capacity to get the knowledge out into the field. It is therefore why we are now making a necessary prioritization in several areas to reverse the trend and get more for the money because the needs are so great.
Research and innovation will also be a very important part of the continued work. This is clarified, and we are also very precise about it in the decision. It is possibly what has been missing previously: a focus on precisely increased efficiency and productivity and cost-effective maintenance.
The work will continue here, hopefully within the framework that the government has decided on for maintenance. But there is a cause for concern here: Carina Ödebrinks's own party wants to cut road maintenance by a full 45 billion. Then we start talking about draconian cuts that would affect people in their everyday lives. Then we would not be able to extract the knowledge that already exists and which could be developed with the 4 billion that the government has decided shall be allocated to research and innovation in the upcoming twelve-year plan.
Carina Ödebrink (S)
Mr. Speaker! It is not the 45 billion that we have in our proposal that we are to discuss here today. That perhaps deserves its own debate.
The Minister has now been responsible in this government for nearly four years, and I think it is the Minister who becomes answerable when I hear the answer to my interpellation and what the Minister says.
According to the Minister, maintenance is now being prioritized. This is being done at the expense of the research grants, which are being reduced. Research is required so that we can achieve even more efficient maintenance and so that we can achieve even better and smarter investments. The methods that the government prioritizes and that the Minister refers to presuppose that we have a base and a mass that can ensure that we research and produce new innovations. This is absolutely crucial for the transition.
I find it difficult to understand why the government chooses to reduce the investments, but my interpretation of the government's prioritization is simple and very clear, Mr. Speaker. A prerequisite for the minister sitting where he sits is that he has the support of a party that has a strong mistrust and suspicion towards precisely research, science and proven experience.
Infrastruktur- och bostadsministern Andreas Carlson (KD)
Mr. Speaker! The last point is very easy to counter, because it is directly incorrect.
Just as the member pointed out, it is however about priorities, and it becomes very clear when Carina Ödebrink states that at the expense of this budget item, one invests in maintenance. Then it becomes exactly the opposite: In order to put together the 45 billion, which would mean that the roads would not just be roughly as bad as they are now but that the maintenance debt would actually be worsened, the Social Democrats believe that it is a priority they want to make. The condition of the roads is to be poor even going forward, and we are to have a high level in research.
What we are doing is ensuring that the funds we allocate to research – a full 4 billion kronor – go to areas where there is a clear added value. We also prioritize extracting the knowledge we already have in the ground. It doesn't matter if this knowledge exists in the halls of the Riksdag if the man on the street, the family with children who are going to drive this summer, or those who need to be able to rely on the trains arriving on time cannot rely on them arriving on time or on the car holding up, because the maintenance has not met the standard.
This is well-researched. It will become even more important to use new methods, and in that regard, these 4 billion are an important foundation. There are also research funds in other areas. Vinnova has a number of programs, for example, vehicle strategic research and innovation with a budget of over 1 billion kronor. The national aviation technology research program has approximately a quarter of a billion, and innovations for a sustainable mobility system have approximately 200 million kronor. Money is therefore available, and it is important that it is used in an effective way.
Here we have, point by point, shown that we are capable of prioritizing so that we can get more for the money. It is about both more money for infrastructure and more infrastructure for the money. When it comes to this, research and innovation are important moving forward, and we have been clear about which priorities apply.
Source: The Swedish Parliament. The speeches come from the open data of the Riksdag, translated into English by AI, which may contain errors.