This blog is the second in a series about what lessons California can learn from Sweden’s public transit system. See the first post here, which also includes more background on why Sweden is relevant to California.

As a country larger in area than California but with only about a quarter of its population, Sweden’s division into 21 metropolitan regions, each with its own elected government, plays a critical role in delivering excellent and widely used public transportation. Sweden’s diverse regions have different transportation needs, and its region-led system of governance allows for significant variation in approaches to public transportation while maintaining basic levels of national connectivity.

Sweden’s approach powerfully demonstrates the importance of clear delineation of responsibilities between state, regional, and local levels. In this post, I’ll extract key principles from Sweden's system that may be applicable to California and other regions considering reforms to improve coordination.

Public Transport in Sweden is primarily governed by 21 Public Transport Authorities corresponding to 21 metropolitan regions. In additional, 4 regional ‘joint venture’ trains span regional (and country) boundaries.

Each level of government with a distinct and clear role

Sweden has three main levels of government, each governed by assemblies of elected representatives: national, regional, and municipal. Each level has distinct responsibilities when it comes to transportation.

Today’s clearly defined regions in Sweden are the result of decades of evolution and legislative reform. Up until the 1970s, public transportation was led by individual municipalities and not formally coordinated across boundaries. Recognizing that public transportation is a network requiring regional integration, the state passed legislation in 1978 transferring the main responsibility for organizing public transport to regions, most of which were governed by county councils.

The 26 municipalities that make up the Region Stockholm (pop. 2.5 million), covering urban, suburban, and rural areas.

A subsequent 2010 law clarified roles and responsibilities further, specifying that each of Sweden’s 21 regions had exclusive responsibility for public transportation planning and provision, and that each region had to designate a Public Transport Authority (PTA). PTAs were required to set transportation goals, identify service needs, and develop fare policies. The law states that if the private market cannot fulfill the full transport needs of a region, each PTA can issue a general service obligation to procure transportation services from a contracted Public Transport Operator (PTO) or provide the services directly.

By clarifying the regional responsibility for planning, the 2010 law greatly accelerated integration initiatives across Sweden’s regions.

Today, the most important PTAs in Sweden include:

Trafikförvaltningen (within Region Stockholm), which organizes metropolitan Stockholm’s transit, primarily under the brand SL, including the metro, regional rail, tramways, buses, and local ferries.
Västtrafik, a company owned by Region Västra Götaland, which oversees the Gothenburg region’s network of regional and local buses, trams, ferries, and regional rail.
Skånetrafiken, a division of Region Skåne, which oversees southern Sweden’s buses, ferries, and regional rail network, including services connecting Malmö, Lund, and Helsingborg with Denmark.

A critical governance feature of Sweden’s regions is that each has its own assembly of representatives. Elected officials serving on regional assemblies run specifically for regional office, and therefore bring a specifically regional perspective.

SL bus in Region Stockholm; Västtrafik train in Gothenburg; CityExpressen bus in Malmö, run by Skånetrafiken.

State and Local Roles Remain Essential

While regions arguably play the most active role in public transportation planning, state and local governments also have distinct and well-defined responsibilities, making partnership essential.

The West Link (Västlänken) is a major transport infrastructure project in Gothenburg, West Sweden, converting a stub-end station to a through-running station with a new tunnel, enabling a major increase in rail service across Sweden. All major rail projects in Sweden (with the exception of the SL’s metro) the project is planned and delivered by Trafikverket, the country’s national transport agency, which has deep expertise in project delivery.

Sweden’s national transportation policy is mostly carried out by Trafikverket, an agency of over 11,000 employees overseeing the country’s national road and rail network. Trafikverket owns and maintains all highway and rail infrastructure, manages passenger and freight service on these networks, and leads major capital projects for both rail and highways. In many ways it is similar to California’s Caltrans, although a major difference is that Trafikverket takes a much more active responsibility over the rail network. The agency also oversees the country’s framework funding agreements, negotiated every four years, which determine Sweden’s major rail and transit investments for the next 12 years (I’ll cover this in greater detail in a future blog post).

Sweden’s municipalities, like cities and towns in California, control local streets and roads and are responsible for infrastructure on these roads, including facilities that support public transportation such as bus and tram stops, terminals, tracks, signals, and transit priority measures.

Interestingly, Sweden’s regional governments do not have authority over municipalities; regions and municipalities are equivalent levels of government. As a result, they must work in close cooperation. In general, regions fund service operations, whereas municipalities provide infrastructure (often with funding support from regional and state levels).

Outcome: Simple and Seamless Regionally Integrated Service

The results of regionally planned and coordinated service led from the metropolitan level are immediately perceptible to passengers and have produced impressive ridership outcomes. Public transportation’s market share of all motorized trips in 2024 was 47% in Stockholm, 30% in Skåne, and 28% in Västra Götaland. Regional passenger rail journeys provided by PTAs have more than doubled since 2000, compared with longer-distance rail trips, which have remained largely stagnant.

All three of Sweden’s largest regions have seen major increases in ridership relative to population in recent years; in Skåne, 2024 ridership exceeded 2019 levels.

Fare Integration

All three regions have undertaken fare integration and simplification over the past 15 years, resulting in higher customer satisfaction and increased ridership—though each chose a different approach.

App screenshot from the Västtrafik mobile app.

Västtrafik uses just three zones—A, B, and C—across all modes, for a region larger in area than the nine-county Bay Area. Riders can purchase single, 24-hour, 30-day, or 90-day tickets through the Västtrafik app, which generates a QR code. For local trips (Zone A), riders can also tap a credit card when boarding.
SL (Stockholm) recently switched from a three-zone fare system to a single flat fare across the entire region. The result was an increase in single ticket sales, an increase in customer satisfaction and overall fare revenue (more than making up for the loss of ridership due to COVID). This rollout coincided with the acceptance of credit card payment, which has rapidly become the most popular form of payment. Passes, such as 24-hour, 7-day, and 30-day tickets offer better value and can be purchased through SL’s app only, generating a QR code that opens fare gates or can be scanned when boarding vehicles.
Skånetrafiken simplified its dozens of zones into three—“small,” “medium,” and “large”—which function more like distance bands rather than fixed geographies. Skanetrafiken also simplified its range of ticket types to three - single tickets, 24-hour ticket (priced equal to a return ticket), and a 30-day ticket. The agency also relies heavily off of its app for trip planning, ticket purchasing, and promotions.

Coordinated Network Planning

As required by the 2010 law, each of Sweden’s 21 regions undertakes a regular regional transportation planning process, beginning with goal-setting (e.g., increasing market share and ridership). In the three regions I visited, ambitious goals were linked clearly to planning documents and budgets that determine actual transit services.

For example, Region Stockholm’s hierarchy of planning documents connects high-level goal documents to multimodal network plans (Level 1) and mode-specific plans (Level 2) that delineate networks, levels of service, and funding needs.

Hierarchy of regional and mode specific plans in Region Stockholm - a ‘through-line’ exists between long range-documents, investment plans, and service provision.

As another example, Region Skane sets clear policy goals like proximity, reachability, inclusion, and resource efficiency. One specific target in its most recent plan states:

“92% of citizens should be offered at least 10 double trips (scheduled departures and arrivals) to any of the regional growth centers within 60 minutes.”

Its network plans demonstrate how these outcomes can be achieved with real bus, rail, and ferry services, and budgets are prioritized accordingly.

Network map excerpts from Region Skane’s long range transportation plan, indicating key transit corridors for investment - directly informing service provision.

Consistent Wayfinding, Branding, & Customer information

Signage in Stockholm’s central T-Centralen Station, part of a regionally consistent wayfinding system, featuring the iconic “T” indicating the Tunnelbana metro.

Each of the three regions provides regionally consistent information and wayfinding to great effect. Stockholm’s iconic “T” beacons denoting the metro system (Tunnelbana) are immediately recognizable, and matching icons, maps, and standards are applied consistently across signage, digital apps, and other customer touchpoints. Despite the many operators involved in providing service, passengers encounter a unified brand and wayfinding system for local services in each region.

Each region’s mobile app is an essential part of the customer experience. They enable users to plan trips and purchase tickets for entire journeys, often across regional boundaries. The apps provide more detailed and accurate information than third-party apps like Google Maps or Transit, including platform details and reminders about existing tickets.

Odenplan is a major transfer point between Stockholm’s metro (Tunnelbana) and commuter rail systems.

This contrasts with the San Francisco Bay Area, where the Metropolitan Transportation Commission (MTC) discontinued its regional trip-planning app years ago, assuming third-party apps would fill the gap. Since then, many Bay Area transit agencies have developed their own apps—some with ticketing functionality, some without—leaving riders juggling multiple apps in addition to third-party tools.

Lessons for California

Public transit in Sweden is organized and governed regionally, and it is the opinion of nearly every public transit professional I spoke to that many of the excellent customer experience outcomes relate directly to this. Municipalities and the state government have important roles to play, particularly in the planning and provision of infrastructure, but regions are unequivocally responsible for service planning, tendering, and customer experience. This clarity was the result of successive pieces of legislation from the national government.

Of course, no system is perfect—Swedish transit leaders note that tension and differing priorities between levels of government remain. Negotiation and partnership are still necessary, as no level of government can act effectively alone.

One of the most important lessons for California is how Sweden’s regions create a clear through-line between their regional goals and their service outcomes—something many California regions struggle with. Regional planning in California often identifies strong long-term visions and goals, but lacks clear links to actual service planning or provision, which are handled by individual transit agencies with locally focused or mode-specific priorities. As a result, service delivery and local budgeting often bears little relation to regional goals.

Sweden’s regional responsibility for procuring and managing service—a topic I’ll explore further in a future post—is central to how it maintains this through line between long term planning and service provision. This, in turn, is a key reason why Sweden has been so successful in increasing public transit mode share over the past 25 years.

Notes from Sweden: How Clear Separation of Responsibilities Between Governments Enables Seamless Transit

Each level of government with a distinct and clear role

State and Local Roles Remain Essential

Outcome: Simple and Seamless Regionally Integrated Service

Lessons for California

Ready to Get Involved?