The Swedish government’s proposal to maintain toll fees on the Öresund Bridge after the loans have been repaid entails a risk of double taxation for residents of Skåne and marks a major departure from how infrastructure in Sweden has traditionally been financed. This is the conclusion of researchers Johan Nyström and Jonas Westin in a new report in the SNS Analysis series.
The government intends to use future revenues from the Öresund Bridge to fund new infrastructure projects in Skåne. According to the authors of Permanent Tolls on the Öresund Bridge – A Threat to Swedish Infrastructure Planning the proposal has not been subject to a socioeconomic analysis and risks leading to double taxation. They warn that the proposal may distort planning and undermine the legitimacy of how infrastructure in Sweden is financed.
– Introducing permanent fees on infrastructure that has already been paid off is a new funding solution in Sweden. Road users risk paying twice, both through taxes and through tolls that are no longer needed to cover bridge costs, says Johan Nyström, researcher at the Swedish National Road and Transport Research Institute (VTI).
Since 1979, Swedish transport infrastructure has been financed through general taxation. User fees have only been applied temporarily, until bridges such as the Svinesund Bridge, the Sundsvall Bridge, and the Motala Bridge have been repaid. The government’s proposal breaks with this practice and represents, according to the report, a paradigm shift: a “fiscal infrastructure charge” without a clear link between payment and benefit.
– The proposal may create political incentives to maintain and expand fees rather than to focus on socioeconomically viable projects. The drawbacks we highlight must be thoroughly examined before the government proceeds with the proposal, says Jonas Westin, researcher at Umeå University.
Key facts from the report
• Revenues from the Öresund Bridge amount to approximately SEK 1.2–1.4 billion per year, totaling around SEK 25 billion by 2050.
• The established practice in Sweden has been to remove fees once the loans for the infrastructure have been repaid.
• The government’s model lacks socioeconomic analysis and implies that fees would fund infrastructure not necessarily used by those paying.
• Calculations show that the cost of the toll’s displacement effect is of the same magnitude as tax financing, making the rationale for continued fees weak.
Main conclusions of the report
• The government should investigate the identified disadvantages before proceeding with the proposal for a “fiscal infrastructure charge.”
• A permanent bridge fee after the bridge has been paid off results in double taxation for road users, breaking the link between payment and benefit.
• The proposed model distorts socioeconomic assessments and may lead to inefficient planning.
• There is a risk that incentives arise for the state and regions to prioritize toll-based roads over socioeconomically justified investments.
• The legitimacy of transport planning may be undermined when fees lack a clear connection to the infrastructure paid for by users.
About the report
Permanent Tolls on the Öresund Bridge – A Threat to Swedish Infrastructure Planning is part of the SNS Analysis series. The aim of SNS Analysis is to make research accessible to decision-makers in politics, business, and public administration, and to contribute to broader media outreach. Financial support has been provided by the Jan Wallander and Tom Hedelius Foundation. The authors are solely responsible for the analysis, conclusions, and proposals.
About the authors
Johan Nyström is PhD in Real Estate Economics and affiliated researcher at the Swedish National Road and Transport Research Institute (VTI).
Jonas Westin is Associate Professor at the Department of Mathematics and Mathematical Statistics and researcher at the Centre for Regional Science (CERUM), Umeå University.