In 2016 already, I started writing on this blog about how insane I think it is to invest hundreds of billions of Swedish crowns in high-speed trains, prior to fixing our existing rail network. At the end of last month, the Swedish Transport Administration announced that they were cutting back on the maintenance of our railways this year, simply because there is no more money. Several thousands of people has been laid off, despite the politicians' promises of investments in the railway. Against this background, I find it difficult to understand how someone can continue propagating the high-speed trains.

The high-speed rail could be ready in about 20 years, but Sweden faces major social challenges linked to jobs, integration, business cycles, climate and housing, which must be solved now –not in 20 years. It becomes especially clear now that the Swedish Transport Administration has had to stop maintenance for this year.

Therefore, I gladly embraced KD's decision, which was published on October 2, to follow the Moderates and Liberals in their decision to behesitant towards the high-speed railways. The background to this is that the government has not made any proposals for financing a project that has been estimated to cost at least 230 billion SEK.

I firmly believe that this money should be invested in maintenance and expansion of our existing railroad. Without any party political valuation, I am glad that some parties are now beginning to say no to this madness. Soon, I hope everyone will follow. I have always argued that the money, which the expansion of the high-speed trains would entail, should instead be invested in the railway we already have.

The Swedish Transport Administration believes that 200 billion SEK in maintenance is needed by 2030, while at the same time pointing out that capacity must increase as the need for more trains is growing. Something must be done immediately.

As I have written earlier, there is a lack of maintenance, not least when it comesthe regional railways. Right now, the railways are neglected to the extent that the Swedish Transport Administration does not consider itself able to continue. Over the years, they have gone from preventive rail maintenance to concentrating largely on fault-remediation measures. Measures that are more expensive than maintenance, which has caused costs to skyrocket. This is also the reason why they now have to stop the maintenance work, three months before the end of the year.

The neglected maintenance has in turn resulted in problems with rails, delayed trains, lower speed, etc. Thisin turn has resulted in more travelers choosing the car,and the industry choosing trucks instead of trains. It is safe to say that this has become a profoundly negative spiral. Here you can read more about the Swedish Transport Administration canceling maintenance for the rest of the year.

https://www.svt.se/nyheter/lokalt/dalarna/trafikverket-avbryter-underhallsarbete-pa-jarnvagen-underentreprenorer-maste-varsla-personal

Thomas Ström

We at NTEX, as well as several other companies, operate with HVO diesel, which reduces greenhouse gas emissions by up to 90% compared to fossil diesel fuel. If all transport companies in the world would do this, the transport sector’s impacton the climate would decrease dramatically.
However, it will take time before we are there.

Sweden today accounts for about 0,1% of the world's CO2 emissions from combustionof coal, gas and oil. Compared to the two countries that emit the most, China and the United States, it is almost nothing. China emits almost 28 percent, while the United States accounts for just over 15 percent.

One of the biggest offenders when it comes to CO2 emissions is coal power. It accounts for about 30 percent of all the world's CO2 emissions. Against this background, it is quite strange that one of the major debates now is about aviation and its impact on the environment. In fact, aviation accounts for about 2 percent of all the world's CO2 emissions while coal power, as mentioned, accounts for 30 percent.

Still, there is talk about flight shame and that we should cut the aircraft's CO2 emissions in half. I am not hearing anything about doing the same withcoal power. Sure, I agree that we should work on reducing the environmental impact of aviation. But what if we could also get everyone in the world using coal power to reduce it or stop it altogether? Imagine what a huge reduction in CO2 emissions it would be if we focused on cutting the use of coal power in half.

Against this background, I think we should expand our nuclear power. It is much safer now than when we started with it. One facility that should beback into operation is Barsebäck, which is one of the world's safest nuclear power plants. With Barsebäck operating again, the Danes could buy good energy from us and we would not have to feel the smell of burning kerosene and coke from the Danes whenever the western wind is blowing.

Thomas Ström