Response to interpellation 2025/26:91 on cost control in the state's infrastructure projects
Translated from Swedish by AI; the translation may contain errors. The Swedish text is the original.
Summary AI, written in advance
KD considers that better cost control and budget discipline are necessary 1. KD argues that they work with construction start decisions, risk reserves, and evaluations 1, as well as that procurement of maintenance lowers costs 1 and that they want to investigate alternative forms of implementation 2. KD claims that they are making a record-breaking investment and are prepared to review projects where costs have skyrocketed 3. S considers that costs have skyrocketed due to marketization 4 and that the government is not doing enough 4 5. S argues that a risk reserve only covers extra costs 5 and that there is a lack of a holistic approach to tackle the capacity debt 6.
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! Aylin Nouri has asked me what measures I and the government intend to take to ensure cost control in the state infrastructure projects. She has also asked me how I and the government intend to ensure that municipalities and citizens do not have to bear the consequences of state cost increases in the form of increased fees, diminished welfare, or missing infrastructure.
The Government's firm view is that better cost control needs to be achieved in state infrastructure projects. Cost calculations need to be well-substantiated and good budget discipline must be maintained so that the cost calculations are not exceeded. Extensive work to achieve this is ongoing.
Trafikverket works with cost control, among other things, through increased quality in design documentation, control of incoming requirements and functions, as well as cooperation with the contractor market. Trafikverket also reviews how and when cost assessments are prepared during the planning process to ensure that the correct documentation is available at various decision points.
Trafikanalys has the government's mandate to review and follow up on Trafikverket's work with cost control. Every year from 2024 to 2028, Trafikanalys shall provide a description and evaluation of Trafikverket's work as well as report on areas for improvement. The government follows the work closely and intends to take measures regarding the work with cost control if necessary.
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 caring for the existing transport system and prioritizing maintenance. At the same time, the transport system needs to be developed. It is about more money for infrastructure and more infrastructure for the money.
The government is therefore actively working with construction start decisions to counteract large cost increases in projects. Furthermore, the government has announced that a central risk reserve will be established for handling cost increases that arise in the development of the transport infrastructure. Trafikverket has now, on the government's mandate, submitted proposals regarding such a risk reserve.
As part of this, the government has stated that projects where the conditions for implementation have deteriorated significantly need to be analyzed specifically. These projects may be subject to reconsideration by the government, which is in line with how the planning process is intended to function. This can, for example, be based on large cost increases, socio-economic unprofitability, or other deteriorations of conditions.
This was part of the assignment to Trafikverket to develop proposals for a new national plan for the planning period 2026–2037. The Government has not yet taken a position on Trafikverket's proposals.
The collective material will be prepared within the Government Offices. The Government intends to make a decision on the adoption of the new plan during the spring of 2026.
Aylin Nouri (S)
Madam Speaker! Thank you to the Minister for the answer!
This debate is about something important and fundamental: cost control and respect for our common resources. As Gustav Möller once expressed so well: Every wasted tax crown is a theft from the people. We have a responsibility to use the taxpayers' money wisely.
But today we see a situation that is completely unreasonable and unsustainable. I hope and believe that the Minister agrees with me on this. The costs for Swedish infrastructure have skyrocketed by several hundred percent. Track construction is today seven times more expensive than 50 years ago. And the costs of building infrastructure have increased far faster than productivity in the sector, which means that today we get significantly less done for the same money. Sweden also stands out negatively in international comparison by getting less infrastructure for every invested krona.
Report after report has shown this for a long time. The problems begin already in the planning phase. They are long processes, weak cost control, short-term procurements that reward the lowest price and not the best social benefit or long-term perspective, fragmented responsibility, and a system that does not reward innovation or robustness. They burn large sums on retendering, administration, and legal matters – money that should have gone to work and social benefit. They risk billions of kronor disappearing through inefficiency. It is large sums of money, Madam Speaker, that Sweden needs for defense, for welfare, and for the actual infrastructure.
This upsets me, because it would not have to be like this if the state took its responsibility for governance and cost control. Here I actually mean that several governments have not done enough. But I also want to say that this government is not doing enough either.
Besides the fact that they are not doing enough, the government's and the Sweden Democrats' blind spot is the market forces, which they have an over-reliance on. They do not see the society's infrastructure as critical but as something that market forces can solve. There is an over-reliance on the idea that the market, not the state, should ensure that every invested tax crown in infrastructure goes to what does the most good.
I note that the Minister does not mention what it costs Sweden to have the world's most deregulated railway, and I note that the government and the Sweden Democrats do not dare to speak about what it costs when market steering fails. Let me say something about that!
The extensive marketization of the infrastructure has created a fragmented system. Too much of the money, as has been said, goes to administration, procurement, and legal matters in a marketized system. It is simply much more profitable for the market to invest in and focus on acute and expensive interventions rather than long-term perspective and preventive maintenance.
This, in combination with the fact that we have a system of short and overly detailed procurements from Trafikverket, leads to higher costs and poorer overall management. We do not get the most social benefit for every krona.
What the Minister describes is therefore not enough. A holistic approach is needed. It is not enough to refer to follow-ups by authorities or a few individual assignments. I therefore ask once again: What will this government do?
Infrastruktur- och bostadsministern Andreas Carlson (KD)
Madam Speaker! We are doing a great deal to rectify the cost control and budget discipline in order to return to how it was intended with the planning tool for infrastructure. We are also doing a great deal within the maintenance area.
Aylin Nouri maintains that it does not work as it does today. There are many deficiencies with how it is today. We have taken many measures to strengthen Trafikverket's operational capacity and client competence and to ensure that we use and work together with the innovative sector that can develop maintenance so that we can get more for the money and get more preventive maintenance into the system.
Going back to how it was previously – without different contractors working under procurement – would make the maintenance approximately 1 billion kronor more expensive, according to the Association of Sweden's Railway Contractors. Studies also show that procurement of maintenance can lower costs by 11 percent without diminished quality.
A government investigator has concluded that it would be extremely inefficient and in practice completely unfeasible not to work with contracted maintenance contractors. Here, the Social Democrats are putting ideology before needs, wasting tax money and risking delaying the restoration of Swedish infrastructure.
We now have, for the first time, a target year for when all railway maintenance can be taken back, and that is 2050. It is in 25 years. This, however, requires that one works together with the sector and that every year as much funding as can be extracted is added to railway maintenance work.
This year, 1,700 maintenance works are being carried out. Next year, there will be 1,800 maintenance works. This year has the highest figures – such a large amount of maintenance work has never before been carried out. Next year will also be a record year.
In the interpellation, Aylin Nouri writes in her question that preventive maintenance is being pushed aside in favor of acute interventions, which in the long run becomes both more expensive and less effective. But in the maintenance plan that Trafikverket has developed against the background of the powerful reinforcement that the government is now making, Trafikverket does state that the upgrade includes an increase in preventive maintenance on the roadside.
On the railway side, it is stated, and I quote from the maintenance plan: ”With the possibility of more reinvestments and preventive maintenance, the remedial maintenance” – that is, the emergency maintenance – ”is calculated to decrease from 25 percent to barely 20 percent of the total maintenance.”
The member Aylin Nouri's statement in the interpellation is incorrect. It is exactly the opposite. Between 2025 and 2028, that is, in the coming years, the number of emergency call-outs decreases, which means that significantly more can be allocated to precisely that preventive maintenance. This is an important explanation for why we are now getting more maintenance in the Swedish railway system than ever before. It is, of course, extremely important for us to catch up with the maintenance debt, but also to ensure that the taxpayers' money goes exactly where it should.
The Social Democrats are unfortunately stuck in an ideological perception and put it before the needs, but different studies show that outsourcing of maintenance lowers the costs. The association Sveriges Järnvägsentreprenörer points out that maintenance would cost approximately 1 billion kronor more without competition and that a state investigator already about ten years ago stated that it is practically completely unfeasible.
I hope and believe that instead of having an ideological debate, we could have a truce across the block boundaries regarding railway maintenance so that we get as much maintenance as possible.
Aylin Nouri (S)
Madam Speaker! I think it is unfortunate when the Minister focuses on a perception that he, for some reason, has regarding the Social Democrats' policy on maintenance rather than listening to what I said in my contribution. It is not that the Social Democrats want to re-nationalize all railway maintenance. I have never expressed that, and it is not what we think. There shall be procurement.
What I said was that we need to get procurements that work. Right now, we have a way of working from Trafikverket that is based on procurements being very short and very detail-oriented. They are also geographically limited in a way that prevents the best bids from being possible.
Trying to stick on an ideological mislabeling is not good. What we Social Democrats want is for Trafikverket to perform a part of the maintenance work. I mean that it is primarily about that authority we have which is responsible for our infrastructure actually having the competence to carry out procurements in a correct manner.
This debate was about cost control. There wasn't much about this in the minister's response, so let me return to it. I welcome that the minister says they want to do more, because this is about us getting more for the money and about respect for every tax krona – every tax krona that Sweden so urgently needs. But it is actually about enabling more infrastructure and that the money allocated to infrastructure should not disappear, but that we should actually get more infrastructure in this country by using our limited resources in a correct way.
To then, as the minister did in his response, refer to following up on what Trafikanalys says and awaiting any measures after that is not enough. It also does not solve the skyrocketing costs of establishing a risk reserve. It does not stop the extra costs, but rather it covers for them.
With all due respect, I mean that it is also not enough to refer to what Trafikverket does, because it is rather agency descriptions I hear instead of concrete political directives or a clear will to take a state responsibility so that billions do not disappear into the void instead of going to what they are allocated for.
I am seeking a clear will and state control so that we get procurements that work and an infrastructure that, as it should, is characterized by respect for the fact that this is a completely critical public benefit and not just any market.
In the end, Madam Speaker, it is about something that affects people in their everyday lives. When the state does not cut the skyrocketing costs but instead lets these roll over onto our municipalities and our residents living in the municipalities, one places the burden on ordinary people's shoulders. Ordinary people do not get infrastructure because, so to speak, one saves by in practice making cuts. It is ordinary people who have to wait for trains – wait and wait – and who do not see the housing construction start, jobs come, or the growth begin.
I would therefore like to take the opportunity to ask once again about the matter I did not receive an answer on: How will the government ensure that the cost control does not continue to fall on municipalities and ordinary people? What is the plan?
Infrastruktur- och bostadsministern Andreas Carlson (KD)
Madam Speaker! I can answer very briefly that I am pleased that Aylin Nouri finally sees the need for strengthened cost control. This is what the government has been working on. Much has occurred following the Swedish National Audit Office's finding, which was based on the previous plan, which did not have sufficient focus on cost control.
We also want to test alternative forms of implementation for infrastructure, with Claes Norgren as a special investigator. He has been tasked with proposing how alternative forms for the organization and implementation of state transport infrastructure can be implemented. It could perhaps lead to both more money for infrastructure and, above all, to us getting more infrastructure for the money, and with more focus on function and accessibility, as is the case, for example, in Norway. I believe that it would be a very important part in increasing the pace and strengthening cost control.
Aylin Nouri (S)
Madam Speaker! I thank you for the words about Aylin Nouri finally having opened her eyes to cost control. I have had the assignment for about half a year, but I thank you anyway for the vote of confidence. I have emphasized every day that cost control over the infrastructure line was needed and that it is unreasonable for costs to spiral by several hundred percent.
Let me return to my introduction, Madam Speaker. It is about the respect for every tax krona and the possibility of creating more infrastructure in the country. This is where the government is answerable. There are no proposals that truly tackle the enormous capacity debt that exists in Sweden. There are no solid holistic measures to address the skyrocketing costs that the infrastructure suffers from. I demand this. What I see with dismay are proposals that instead concern cutting important investments in our country.
The Minister and I debated this a few weeks ago, and I say now what I said then: To cut investments that the municipalities have already made plans for, which are intended to create more jobs, housing, and growth, is not cost control. We should be in agreement on that. It is to continue to have bottlenecks that hinder growth in Sweden.
Allowing costs to continue to spiral, sending the bill to ordinary people – as in Western Sweden, where there is concern about an extended congestion tax, or in other parts of the country where people worry that investments will not materialize – means that the burden falls on ordinary people.
Infrastruktur- och bostadsministern Andreas Carlson (KD)
Madam Speaker! I thank Aylin Nouri for the commitment. It was not directed solely specifically to the member that I meant it is finally a focus on cost control, but it was also directed at the member's party.
The previous national plan had as a starting point that the cards were laid. Nothing that was in the national plan was to be moved – no matter what it cost. The plan received harsh criticism from the National Audit Office precisely because it lacked cost control. That is why the government has worked very actively with construction start decisions to counteract large cost increases in projects. We are prepared to reassess if costs have skyrocketed, and it is that political leadership that is needed for us to get the planning process in order and get the maximum possible value out of every krona.
There shall be more money for infrastructure. We are making a record-breaking investment in infrastructure now. We can catch up on all deferred maintenance on the roadside during the planning period, and for the first time, there is a goal to catch up on all deferred maintenance on the railway side. It will be a question of more money for infrastructure and more infrastructure for the money by investigating alternative implementation forms and more efficient implementation forms. I hope that the debate can lead to us achieving a truce for railway maintenance. Furthermore, I hope that we can agree to now test new methods for planning and implementing infrastructure projects.
Claes Norgren will submit his investigation assignment in about a month, in the middle of December. I look forward to a continued constructive dialogue, and I thank you for the debate. It is important to have a focus on cost control because the needs in the Swedish infrastructure are so great. Then the money must go to what it is intended for.
Source: The Swedish Parliament. The speeches come from the open data of the Riksdag, translated into English by AI, which may contain errors.