<p>In the government's bill on infrastructure for 2010-2021, the government presents that road investments should be prioritized before investments in the railway. The grants for operation and maintenance of the railways are much higher then in the last government's bill. Furthermore the current founding of investment in railways is higher then for road investment which is in opposite of the bill on infrastructure's directives. Therefore the purpose with my thesis is to find which factors that can explain how come the government has chosen to take these actions. As a model to help me achieve my purpose I have been using a modified version of the DBO-theory, where the basic factors to explain an action is Desire, Belief and Opportunities. My result shows that the government probably increased the founding for operation and maintenance because of two main reasons. The last government's grant wasn't enough according to the government, so the condition of the current rails is bad. Also, maintenance of the existing rail are more economic profitable for the society, then new investments, to create an infrastructure that is effective. Furthermore, the explanation for that road investments are prioritized, in the bill on infrastructure, may be that the government advocate that the investments that are most economic profitable for society is chosen. According to studies of prior projects, investments in roads give a higher economic profit for society. One probable explanation for that the government is doing the opposite in current grants, and priorities railways, may be because the international negotiation of a new climate agreement is coming up this December where Sweden is the chairman of EU. Therefore it can be in the government's interest to show that they conduct environmental friendly national politics.</p>

In the government's bill on infrastructure for 2010-2021, the government presents that road investments should be prioritized before investments in the railway. The grants for operation and maintenance of the railways are much higher then in the last government's bill. Furthermore the current founding of investment in railways is higher then for road investment which is in opposite of the bill on infrastructure's directives. Therefore the purpose with my thesis is to find which factors that can explain how come the government has chosen to take these actions. As a model to help me achieve my purpose I have been using a modified version of the DBO-theory, where the basic factors to explain an action is Desire, Belief and Opportunities. My result shows that the government probably increased the founding for operation and maintenance because of two main reasons. The last government's grant wasn't enough according to the government, so the condition of the current rails is bad. Also, maintenance of the existing rail are more economic profitable for the society, then new investments, to create an infrastructure that is effective. Furthermore, the explanation for that road investments are prioritized, in the bill on infrastructure, may be that the government advocate that the investments that are most economic profitable for society is chosen. According to studies of prior projects, investments in roads give a higher economic profit for society. One probable explanation for that the government is doing the opposite in current grants, and priorities railways, may be because the international negotiation of a new climate agreement is coming up this December where Sweden is the chairman of EU. Therefore it can be in the government's interest to show that they conduct environmental friendly national politics.