Response to interpellation 2025/26:553 on the state's long-term perspective in infrastructure planning from the perspective of Jönköping County
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 has made a historically large investment in infrastructure and that a transport-wide perspective is necessary 1. KD believes that by cancelling the new railway Byarum–Tenhult, they save 2.7 billion SEK, protect existing infrastructure, and preserve commuting opportunities for 15,000 people 1 2 3. KD claims that they have followed the four-step principle by rethinking when costs increased by 97 percent 2 3, which ensures that a company does not need to move 3. KD argues that they are strengthening the four-step principle to get more infrastructure for the money 4 and that the travel time between Jönköping and Värnamo will decrease 4. S criticizes the decision to cancel the project as a breach of the state's long-term perspective and predictability 5 6. S argues that the government has not followed the normal preparation procedure and that the funds allocated for upgrades are insufficient 5 6. S believes that the government's decision appears to be shrouded in mystery 7 and that the state's credibility is affected when projects are abandoned without finished documentation 7. S considers the four-step principle to be a very important principle for infrastructure planning 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! Carina Ödebrink has asked me four questions concerning the government's decision to establish the national transport infrastructure plan for the period 2026–2037 and what that decision means for railways in Jönköping County.
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. A cross-modal transport perspective is needed for a well-functioning, long-term sustainable and reliable transport system. This includes all modes of transport, both road and rail traffic as well as sea and air transport. The different modes of transport should not be pitted against each other – on the contrary, they complement each other. That is how increased efficiency in the transport system is achieved and the transport policy goals are met.
The Government, through its decision to establish the plan, has added the object national road 40 Jönköping–Ulricehamn to strengthen the accessibility in the corridor Jönköping–Göteborg. Thus, the entire remaining road section between Stockholm and Göteborg will be expanded to two-plus-two lanes, including traffic areas, during the planning period. In Trafikverket's proposal for the plan, the object national road 26 Mullsjö–Slättäng, the section Mullsjö–Mon, was included. To further improve the accessibility and increase traffic safety in both the east-west and the north-south corridor, the Government decided to add the section Mon–Slättäng so that the entire section Mullsjö–Slättäng can be expanded in its entirety during the planning period.
These measures collectively and together with other measures in the plan, for example riksväg 26/40 trafikplats Hedenstorp and E4 trafikplats Ekhagen as well as objects previously included in the plan, improve accessibility and increase safety in both the east-west and the north-south corridor.
In line with the government's will to maintain existing infrastructure, funds have been allocated to the existing line Vaggeryd–Jönköping for electrification and certain upgrades. Consequently, the new railway on the section Byarum–Tenhult has been omitted. The adjustment that the government makes, namely that the section of the new railway Byarum–Tenhult is omitted, is in line with the government's ambition to take care of the infrastructure we have and develop the function in existing infrastructure. This means a saving of 2.7 billion kronor while the existing line in Tabergsdalen is maintained, which means travel time gains for the residents there compared to removing those tracks.
The government's decision on the new national plan involves, overall, both expanded economic frameworks for the maintenance and for the development of the transport infrastructure. The 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.
Carina Ödebrink (S)
Mr. Speaker! Thank you, dear Minister! I could not have concluded this parliamentary session without raising an issue that is very close to my heart and which I believe also has some significance for the Minister. I would like to thank you for the answer.
Mr. Speaker! Jönköping County is not just any county. It is located in the middle of Sweden's most important transport intersection. Here, the major freight and passenger transport routes between Stockholm, Gothenburg, Malmö, and the rest of the Nordics meet.
Jönköping County is one of Sweden's most export-intensive counties. We have a strong industry, high employment, and a business sector that depends on functioning transport to be able to grow, invest, and compete.
That is why the government's decision to stop the planning of a new railway between Byarum and Tenhult is remarkable. It may not have hit like a bomb directly, but I must say that many at home in Jönköpings län were incredibly surprised when the government presented the decision to scrap this investment.
After having heard the Minister's answer, the most central question actually remains: On what grounds did the government make the decision to remove Byarum–Tenhult from the national plan?
This is not a new project that has suddenly appeared. It is a project that for many years has been the subject of investigations, analyses, planning and dialogue. Trafikverket has led the work. Municipalities, the region, the business community and other actors have participated based on the conditions that the state itself has created.
Therefore, this debate is not just about a railway section in Jönköping County, it is also about the state's long-term perspective and predictability. How can municipalities, regions and companies be able to trust the state's planning process if the government can at any time, without dialogue, choose to cancel a project after many years of work so that the process is not completed?
I also react to the fact that the government does not seem to have followed the normal preparation procedure. When costs change or when new circumstances arise, projects are usually sent back for further analysis and preparation. But here, the government has chosen another path. The project has not been sent back for supplementary investigations. They have not requested further analyses. They have not given Trafikverket the opportunity to test alternative solutions.
Instead, it has been decided to scrap the project. That raises questions, Mr. Speaker.
What new basis has the government had that justifies such an extensive decision? What new knowledge has emerged that causes many years of work to now be set aside? What concrete facts and analyses formed the basis for the decision not to let the regular preparatory process continue?
Infrastruktur- och bostadsministern Andreas Carlson (KD)
Mr. Speaker! First and foremost: When it comes to the planning process and that this should have deviated from the norm, it is important to emphasize that it is the government that has directed the work with the construction start processes.
It is this that I believe Carina Ödebrink is referring to. If something has escalated in cost, the government has, on several occasions during the mandate period, Mr. Speaker, sent it back to Trafikverket. The benchmark we have had is that if something has exceeded 10 percent in cost, it has gone back to the drawing board before the government is ready to make a construction start decision.
This has become significantly clearer during this parliamentary term. But just as clear is actually the planning process tool from the beginning, namely that one first investigates the costs, reviews objects and assesses whether the costs incurred are in parity with the benefits realized with an investment.
Regarding the Byarum–Tenhult project, it is not just a 10 percent cost increase from when the project first came in to be investigated. It is a cost increase of 97 percent, Mr. Speaker. Then a government must be prepared to listen to the referral bodies that have given comments on Trafikverket's proposal and to reconsider the project, regardless of how long one has worked on the investigation.
I understand that this is news for the Social Democrats, as that is not how one has worked previously. The principle was "cards played lie" – if something has just been submitted, it must remain there regardless of the cost.
This is one of the major shortcomings of the planning process that has developed over time. It has resulted in the money not being sufficient for all the needs that exist.
The government has therefore made reprioritizations in a number of different areas. One of them that has been easiest to make concerns the object we are now discussing, because new information and new facts emerged in the case before the government was to make a decision.
The members of the committee ask which referral bodies are involved. One of them is KTH, which has submitted a referral comment on Trafikverket's proposal. In its referral response, it highlights a great concern regarding precisely this object. It points out that they, as early as 2015, committed to the travel time goal of 50 minutes between Värnamo and Jönköping. It writes that it appears that Trafikverket has taken the travel time goal of 50 minutes Värnamo–Jönköping for granted and thus ruled out other alternatives than via a new line already in the measure selection study in 2015.
In the rejoinder, it also states that the decision to rule out the upgrade option, i.e., to retain the existing railway running through Tabergsdalen south of Jönköping where many commute today, may be due to an error in an early planning stage.
It becomes a bit strange that an error early in the planning stage should lead to the fact that one cannot make a decision late in the planning stage, regardless of when the error is discovered or when it is seen that new information has entered the case. It becomes a bit strange that one cannot protect the taxpayers' money and ensure that commuting options remain for thousands of residents in Tabergsdalen.
With the half billion that the government is allocating to the upgrade option, the travel time between Värnamo and Jönköping will come closer to 50 minutes than was first thought. It will be a bit strange not to be able to take in new knowledge and actually change one's mind. That is what the government has done.
Carina Ödebrink (S)
Mr. Speaker! For many years, the state, through Trafikverket, together with the municipalities, the region, and the business community, has participated in the planning based on the conditions that the state itself has set.
If there were question marks surrounding the project, the conclusion should have been further preparation, not that the project should be scrapped entirely. Why did the government not choose to produce a comparison alternative? Why did the government not choose to engage in a renewed dialogue with the representatives in the county?
Trafikverket is expected to work methodically, step-by-step, and evidence-based according to the four-step principle. But when the government reaches the conclusion that it does not want the project, the four-step principle suddenly seems to be replaced by a one-step principle of scrapping the project.
It is difficult to see how this would strengthen trust in the state's long-term infrastructure planning. Therefore, this is ultimately a matter of the state's credibility. When the government minister visited the committee some time ago and was asked about the phasing out of the urban environment agreements, he said that with the substantial resource reinforcements in the county plans, he had confidence that regions and municipalities could make wise decisions.
It is difficult to make wise decisions if the state changes the conditions and the rules of the game. Now we stand here. Through its determination decision, the Government has scrapped 2.7 billion in railway investments in Jönköping County. Instead, it allocates 450 million kronor to the existing Vaggeryd–Jönköping line for electrification and some upgrades. I would like to know how the Minister has arrived at that sum.
I have spoken with several people with knowledge in the subject. They question whether these funds will be sufficient for both electrification and certain upgrades. I would therefore like to hear the Minister's view on how these funds are to be used, since they are not expected to suffice for both. If the Minister and the Government see that these funds and measures are in line with the Government's ambitions and priorities, is one prepared to highlight and prioritize the electrification so that the effects come sooner?
I have also received the referral responses, Mr. Speaker, and it should be said that the points in the referrals should be taken seriously. But KTH's referral response does not stand alone. If the state thinks the referral statement is important, it should instead investigate the issue further, and that is exactly what KTH says. They write that there might be another alternative that could be just as good, but that a new investigation is required. The government chooses not to do so. I find that to be regrettable.
Infrastruktur- och bostadsministern Andreas Carlson (KD)
Mr. Speaker! The figures on means are based on calculations from previous upgrading measures. It will also be possible for Trafikverket to take additional measures with trimming means. This is, for example, being worked on at Malmbanan. There, they combine named objects with reinvestments, trimmings, and measures for maintenance, that is, preservation. It is now up to Trafikverket to produce the assignment to upgrade the existing section as effectively as possible. The other alternative that KTH speaks of in its response is the upgrading option, and that is what we are now moving forward with.
I had expected to hear many arguments in this debate, but it was a bit surprising to hear about the four-step principle, Mr. Speaker. The first principle, or the first step in the four-step principle, is "think if". This shall always be applied when approaching a new issue and large amounts are to be invested in infrastructure.
The second step is "optimize". The third step is "rebuild", that is to say a limited reconstruction of existing infrastructure. It can be trimming measures, load-bearing measures, siding tracks or platform extensions to optimize existing infrastructure. Not until the fourth step is there the point "build new".
Carina Ödebrink said that the government has not applied the four-step principle. I mean that it is precisely the opposite. That is what we have done. For the first step, we have thought about it. I note that the member has not done so. We have established the decisions for a reason. There is a reason why it is the government that, from the given frameworks that the Riksdag decides on, makes decisions to establish objectives.
It seems that Carina Ödebrink would rather have had Trafikverket simply work on and establish this themselves. We mean that it is perfectly in order for the government to apply the four-step principle in and during the establishment decisions and that one can also rethink there.
What was not revealed in the member's reasoning was how many who would lose commuting opportunities if one had not reconsidered. It concerns approximately 15,000 people south of Jönköping who would have lost commuting opportunities. There would have been fewer stations and fewer commuting opportunities, but it would also have created new problems. Not least in KTH's and others' referral responses, it is highlighted that the connecting Jönköpingsbanan had reached its capacity ceiling. There are no measures to meet this with Byraum–Tenhult.
There are definitely flaws in the process that has taken place, and the costs have spiraled. Even if one has worked on an issue for a long time, which I know the member has done in this case, one must be prepared to look at the new circumstances, safeguard the taxpayers' money, and make decisions that secure commuting opportunities for many thousands of people.
In this way, the travel time between Jönköping and Värnamo can be reduced to 50 minutes without making the interventions that, among others, the caravan manufacturer Kabe AB has said would affect their operations to a significant extent. With this decision, we have ensured that they do not need to move or scale back their operations. It is a positive side effect of the government now protecting the taxpayers' money.
Carina Ödebrink (S)
Mr. Speaker! I choose not to comment on an individual referral from a business operator in Jönköping County. I believe that two questions remain after today's debate. The first question concerns how the government's decision strengthens one of Sweden's most important industrial, export, and logistics links.
The second question is even more important. It concerns the state's credibility. The projects in Jönköpings län with electrification and upgrading of the railway Värnamo–Jönköping and Värnamo–Vaggeryd–Nässjö as well as the new railway Byarum–Tenhult have been Jönköpings län's primary priority and have been included in the national plan. The work has been investigated by Trafikverket according to the four-step principle, and it has been concluded that it is the best solution. This is rejected by the government in a single stroke, but on what grounds? It still appears to me to be shrouded in obscurity.
If municipalities, regions, companies and authorities are urged for many years to participate in planning and investigations, but the government then chooses to cancel the project without finished underlying documents, a simple question remains: How is anyone to dare trust the state's long-term commitment in future infrastructure planning?
I am surprised that the Minister thinks it is noteworthy that I raise the four-step principle. I think it is a very important principle when it comes to infrastructure planning. That is exactly what Trafikverket has done: on the state's assignment, they have reconsidered and taken these necessary steps to then land on that the best option is indeed an alternative with new construction. The government, however, chooses to refrain from it.
Thank you for the interpellation debate! I would like to wish the Speaker, the Minister, and the Presidium a very pleasant summer soon.
Infrastruktur- och bostadsministern Andreas Carlson (KD)
Mr. Speaker! No, we are not making any concessions from the four-step principle. On the contrary, we are reinforcing it. I hope that what we have learned from this process and some other measures in the national plan, where we have reassessed and removed some objects, can ensure that it becomes a significantly better planning process moving forward, so that it is not just about more money for infrastructure but also about getting more infrastructure for the money.
I have explained how thousands of people can maintain their commuting options with the government's decision. I have highlighted that the travel time between Jönköping and Värnamo will come down towards the 50 minutes that was initially locked in and for which no alternatives were seen, which has been criticized by referral bodies.
I have also highlighted the business community's view on this, which, together with other circumstances, has resulted in the estate taking a different path today. What was on the table when decisions were made regarding the direction more than ten years ago has changed, and in that case, one must also be able to make changes in the planning process.
I note that Carina Ödebrink does not want to highlight a single company. However, we have received all referral responses – very many have written comments on the proposal. Kabe AB in Tenhult writes: "After having analyzed both previous investigations and having had railway engineers perform new investigations, we find that the new construction between Byarum and Tenhult is not only socio-economically questionable, but directly negative for the region's commuting as well as for Tenhult's future development and our future location in the region."
I think we have a fine system in Sweden where everyone can submit consultation responses and make their voices heard. I do not want to diminish that. The side effects that a large Swedish company can continue its operations because the government protects the taxpayers' money and commuting opportunities is not something we see as anything negative.
I also want to thank you for the debate.
Source: The Swedish Parliament. The speeches come from the open data of the Riksdag, translated into English by AI, which may contain errors.