Response to interpellation 2025/26:530 on double track on the Ostkustbanan
Translated from Swedish by AI; the translation may contain errors. The Swedish text is the original.
Summary AI, written in advance
The debate concerns the expansion of double tracks on the Ostkustbanan. S believes that the government has broken a campaign promise regarding completion by 2035 1 and that the Gävle–Kringlan project is being scaled back, which risks longer lead times and higher costs 2. S argues that double tracks would benefit Sweden's and Europe's entire railway system 3 and that the lack of expansion is a broken promise from M and KD 3. KD argues that the government is investing in the Ostkustbanan by adding 7 billion kronor more than Trafikverket's proposal 4 5. KD believes that they are making their largest contribution by allocating 11 billion kronor to the expansion 6. KD argues that reprioritizations are made for the greatest possible social benefit and cost control 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.
Infrastruktur- och bostadsministern Andreas Carlson (KD)
Madam Speaker! Linnéa Wickman has asked me if I can account for the reasons why a completed double track on the Ostkustbanan by 2035 is missing from the government's national plan despite previous commitments.
Linnéa Wickman has further asked me which parts of the Gävle–Kringlan project and its connections to Bergslagsbanan and Norra stambanan that I and the government assess may be prioritized away due to the government's decided funding.
Maintenance of and investments in transport infrastructure need to be carried out in a cost-effective manner where as much social benefit as possible is created within a given economic framework. The Government has taken a number of measures to strengthen cost control. For example, Trafikverket was tasked, during the preparation of the plan proposal, to more clearly justify its proposal but also to review the objects and particularly analyze those where the conditions change and where the objects could therefore come to be reconsidered. This way of working has led to some revisions and some reprioritizations.
Against this background, Trafikverket proposed in its plan proposal a rethink of the project Ostkustbanans etapp Gävle–Kringlan regarding capacity increase. The reason for this was that the cost for the project has become more than twice as high since it was included in the national plan for transport infrastructure 2018–2029, partly because several new measures have been added to the project. The Government notes in the decision on the national plan that the project has been significantly expanded but that a new double track Gävle–Kringlan remains important. The Government therefore decided that the project shall be revised and only include the expansion of Ostkustbanans etapp Gävle–Kringlan to a new double track in western alignment and a traffic junction at road E4.
The Government also considered it important that as much of the project as possible in its revised form can be implemented during the planning period and therefore allocated 7 billion SEK to the project, which is more than 3 billion SEK more during the planning period than Trafikverket's proposal.
Furthermore, Trafikverket had in its planning proposal suggested that the Kubikenborg–Dingersjö section should be omitted, but the government considers that the capacity on Ostkustbanan needs to increase and the Gävle–Sundsvall stretch strengthened and has therefore decided to allocate funds to the Kubikenborg–Dingersjö section so that it can be completed during the planning period. In total, the government allocates 11 billion kronor to these sections on Ostkustbanan during the planning period, which is 7 billion kronor more than Trafikverket's proposal.
Linnéa Wickman (S)
Madam Speaker! I thank the Minister for the answer.
Just over four years ago, Ulf Kristersson stood in Sundsvall and gave a crystal-clear promise: The double track on the Ostkustbanan would be completed by 2035. It was not some general goal or vague wish, but it was a concrete election promise to the residents of Gävleborg and Västernorrland.
Today we can state that the breach of promise is a fact. Following the government's decision on the national plan, it is clear that Sweden's longest railway bottleneck will remain long after 2035. This means that a railway section that is crucial for connecting northern and southern Sweden will continue to run on a single track – literally straight through Hudiksvall's city hotel.
Madam Speaker! This is about commuting, freight, the competitiveness of industry, total defense, and a railway that is important for all of Europe – and not only for Sweden – as part of the European backbone. Since the security situation in our global environment has deteriorated, the arguments for equipping transport routes along the Norrland coast should be stronger today than when the promise was given.
At the same time, we can observe that capacity is being expanded in other parts of the system. The Norrbotniabanan in the north and the four-track line between Uppsala and Stockholm in the south will successively increase capacity. The great weakness in the railway system, namely the Ostkustbanan, is however a bottleneck that will persist and worsen. I think it is remarkable that the government allows this bottleneck to persist.
The Minister refers, among other things, to cost increases, but problems with cost increases in infrastructure projects were nothing new when this promise was made. It can also be stated that the double track on the Ostkustbanan is still cheaper to build – per kilometer – than many other railway projects in this country that have received the green light.
The need for large investments in our railway system was no news when the election promise was given, and it is no news that all urgent projects in the country are not included in the national plan. Nor is anyone claiming that everything can be built at the same time. It is, however, the government that chooses what shall be prioritized, and it was the Moderaterna and Kristdemokraterna who chose to promise a completed double track by 2035.
Madam Speaker! I think it is important to put the government's decision on the national plan in proportion to the promise. The government did not promise two stages, one of which was scaled back, but rather it was promised to build away 27 miles of single track between Gävle and Sundsvall and up to Härnösand.
What the government has decided on is partly the Kubikenborg–Dingersjö stage, and partly a scaled-back version of Gävle–Kringlan, where many important systemic benefits now risk being lost. The investments that have been decided upon are important but still very far from what was promised. The government is happy to compare with Trafikverket's proposal, which everyone thought was a death blow. The residents along the Norrland coast compare the government's decision with the government's own promise.
My question to the Minister is: Why did the Moderaterna and Kristdemokraterna promise a completed double track by 2035 if they were not prepared to make the decisions required to make this possible?
Infrastruktur- och bostadsministern Andreas Carlson (KD)
Madam Speaker! The government is investing in Ostkustbanan; that is indisputable. We are allocating 7 billion more to the section than Trafikverket proposed. This announcement was received with both relief and joy along the route. The government has also confirmed Trafikverket's proposal to proceed with a prioritized investigation of Ostkustbanan. This is an important route.
The adjustments regarding Gävle–Kringlan concern different parts and measures that do not primarily increase the capacity on Ostkustbanan. They instead concern other objects, or measures linked to objects, which have exceeded what was agreed upon and entailed very high costs. That is why the government did not invest in the remedy that Trafikverket proposed but instead allocated money to double-tracking on Ostkustbanan in order not to lose momentum in the important work of upgrading Ostkustbanan. This is a decision that has been very well received, which I welcome.
Linnéa Wickman (S)
Mr. Speaker! Let us talk a bit more about the Gävle–Kringlan project specifically! When Trafikverket proposed significant cuts to the project, it was, rightly so, very many who reacted. It was therefore positive that the government, like previous governments of different political colors, restored funds.
This does not, however, mean that the problems are solved. On the contrary, the government's decision creates several new questions. The project is now estimated to cost 15 billion kronor. Here, the government's decision has entailed cuts – it is several billion kronor less than the project's estimated costs. At the same time, requirements are made for cost savings, re-evaluations, and further analyses.
This may sound good, but I think one should state that this is not just any project. It is also not in its infancy. The double-track expansion on the Gävle–Kringlan section is one of Sweden's most planning-mature railway projects; it has been investigated in depth and in breadth. Gävle municipality has invested hundreds of millions of kronor in preparations to fulfill its commitments according to the agreement that has existed for a long time between the municipality and the state.
The planning has been ongoing for many years. Still, the government now chooses, through its decision, to make even more revisions instead of investing in implementation. It is difficult to understand the logic. It is rarely significantly cheaper to wait with projects; we know that from history. Every new investigation costs money, every pause risks extending lead times considerably, and every delayed construction start risks making the project more expensive.
The government says it wants to have cost control, but it chooses a path that creates more question marks and risks increasing costs in the long run. I will come in on what I mean by that.
Mr. Speaker! There is also a decisive difference between the government's description of Gävle–Kringlan and what the project is and was intended to be. When one listens to the Minister, one might get the impression that it is solely about four kilometers of double track on the Ostkustbanan. Let me be clear that this is extremely positive, but Gävle–Kringlan is about more.
It has all the time been about creating a stronger and more robust railway system around Gävle and in northern Central Sweden. It is about a new track and a new section for the Norra stambanan between Gävle and Ockelbo. It is about a relocation of the Bergslagsbanan and about better capacity. It is about the relocation of the freight yard in Gävle, which the government has not financed in the national plan but which belongs to the state's commitments. It is about a new train station at Gävle Västra; the idea was that the three tracks would pass there. It is about capacity to and from Gävle harbor. It is about redundancy in a very vulnerable railway system.
The County Administrative Board of Gävleborg, the state's own representative in the county, stated in its referral response regarding the national plan that Gävle–Kringlan is crucial for the capacity of the Ostkustbanan, Norra stambanan, and Bergslagsbanan. This project was therefore intended to be something more than just linked to the double track itself.
Which parts of Gävle–Kringlan will, according to the government's assessment, no longer be able to be implemented, and what social benefits is the government prepared to forgo when the project's scope is now reduced?
Infrastruktur- och bostadsministern Andreas Carlson (KD)
Mr. Speaker! What Linnéa Wickman describes are various measures that have been added to the objective during the course of the work. It concerns local and regional requests that may be well-founded for the urban development of Gävle.
It is, however, important for those following this debate to note that a relocation of Bergslagsbanan would mean that funds would be taken from the national plan to demolish existing infrastructure. We prioritize upgrading infrastructure in Sweden from a corridor perspective, where the benefit for all of Sweden needs to weigh more heavily than various local and regional requests. Therefore, we are making some reprioritizations in the national plan. This applies to the mentioned objects and some other objects. It is about ensuring that taxpayers' money has as much impact as possible.
It is entirely possible to proceed with the previous additions regarding local and regional requests, such as the new station Gävle Västra, but it will require full external funding. This shall not burden the national infrastructure budget, and we have been very clear about this, also in the instructions to Trafikverket.
This is a new way of working, and I have full respect for the fact that Linnéa Wickman finds it difficult to understand the logic because the Social Democrats established that the cards are laid. Trafikverket was not allowed to reassess objects even if the costs escalated and became unjustifiably large in relation to the national benefit, that is, cost more than they were worth.
Now we are changing this so that we get more for the money. When we make a historically large investment and spend more money than ever on infrastructure, we also ensure that these funds suffice for more infrastructure. We do not spend billions on demolishing existing infrastructure, but instead refurbish it. This is an important redistribution and an important prioritization.
Ultimately, this is of course a step towards strengthening the work on cost control. In Swedish politics, we should take responsibility across block boundaries so that various local and regional requests are not added along the way and increase the cost of projects. Previously, the additions have indeed meant that not as much infrastructure as needed has been able to be built in Sweden.
Instead, we need to focus on ensuring that taxpayers' money provides as much benefit as possible, and therefore we are putting the expansion to double track on Ostkustbanan back, because it is a very important strategic investment from a national perspective.
It is entirely possible to continue with the various local matters, but it will require full external funding. This should not take money from Norrbotten, Skåne, Värmland or any other part of Sweden, because then the money will not be sufficient to upgrade Swedish infrastructure.
In the national plan, we show that we can both invest more than ever in maintenance and refurbish important routes, including Ostkustbanan, by making the reprioritizations that are required. Thus, we get more money for infrastructure and more infrastructure for the money.
Linnéa Wickman (S)
Mr. Speaker! Here, the Minister's unfortunate view on this is clearly revealed. This is not about regional requests, but about the infrastructure of northern Central Sweden functioning. It is also about public benefit. The Minister cites arguments linked to cost control, but my question also concerned what benefits the government is prepared to forgo when the project's scope is reduced. I know that many back home want an answer from the Minister now that they see that the Gävle–Kringlan project will be scaled back.
It is interesting to hear that the government is making a record-breaking investment in infrastructure. But double-tracking on the Ostkustbanan did not fit, despite the Kristdemokraterna's promises. I regret that, because it means that Sweden's longest railway bottleneck will continue to be a plague in our railway system for a long time to come.
The government's decision could have meant full funding of the Gävle–Kringlan section and the relocation of the freight yard. Rapid steps could therefore have been taken, not only linked to the expansion of double track northward and capacity improvement on three tracks.
This is definitely not just about local and regional demands, but it would be to the benefit of Sweden's entire railway system and all of Europe's railway system. But now this shortage will persist for a long time, and we can state that the breach of promise from the Moderaterna and Kristdemokraterna is a fact.
Infrastruktur- och bostadsministern Andreas Carlson (KD)
Mr. Speaker! It is directly incorrect to say that the Ostkustbanan did not fit into the historically large national plan. On the contrary, it is the largest addition the government makes in relation to Trafikverket's proposal, precisely the Ostkustbanan. We are allocating 11 billion SEK to an expansion of the Ostkustbanan, which is 7 billion more than what Trafikverket proposed. The government's single largest positive change is therefore made to the Ostkustbanan precisely because it is such an important corridor.
Mr. Speaker! It is telling that Linnéa Wickman says that I have an unfortunate view because I want taxpayers' money to have as great an effect as possible from a national perspective. But that is how we get more money for infrastructure and 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.