Inför arbetet med den plan som fastställde prioriteringen av infrastrukturinvesteringar under perioden 2010–2021 hade regeringen för avsikt att förmå lokala och regionala intressenter att i ökad utsträckning bidra till det som är ett statligt åtagande. Avsikten var att på detta sätt öka den samlade investeringsvolymen inom området. Denna rapport visar att regeringen har lyckats med sina ambitioner. Däremot är det inte okomplicerat att slå fast hur stort tillskottet är. Ett skäl är att flera uppgifter skiljer sig åt beroende på vilka källor som används. Exempelvis finns en sammanställning som upprättats av Trafikverket, en andra källa är de avtal som upprättats. Det finns dessutom olika uppgifter om vilka belopp som en överenskommelse avser; här används genomgående de belopp som anges i de avtal som ingåtts. Det finns också skillnader mellan antal avtal som tecknats respektive antal projekt som omfattas av avtalen; det finns alltså väsentligt fler projekt än avtal i materialet.

One objective during work with Sweden’s 2010–2021 investment program was to induce local and regional, both public and private, contribution to the financing of investment projects. In this way, it would be feasible to enhance the total volume of spending on new roads, railways and waterways. The present report demonstrates that the government has met this objective. It is, however, not straightforward to establish how much extra resources that have been made available. In this report the problems with using different sources and different definitions are highlighted. With these caveats in mind, the best estimate is that about 40 projects have been cofinanced and that the aggregate cost of these add up to SEK 142 billion.1 This corresponds to 27 per cent of the total program. This includes revenue from congestion tolls and other user charges as well as co-funding through state appropriations to regional infrastructure, which then has been transferred and used for co-financing purposes. It also includes contributions from local and regional governments as well as from private and public firms and from the EU. It is, however, not obvious that all these contributions should be defined as cofinancing. Road user charges are, for instance, levied for using state roads and could for that reason be thought to be a particular way to earmark funding. A more conservative estimate therefore indicates that resources which are coming from outside the central government’s remit accounts for about 10 per cent of the investment program costs. An attempt has been made to compare the average rate-of-return, measured in a traditional way, of the final program with the preliminary version suggested by the responsible agency, the Swedish Transport Administration. With reservations for several measurement problems it is demonstrated that the rate of return was reduced by half as a result of the government’s final adjustments. This was primarily due to that several projects with very low social value were prioritised.