Parking and felparkeringsavgifter is an important and necessary tool to overcome the growing consequence of this country’s major cities. But Stockholm’s handling of these charges have both led to the local self-government in this area can be questioned, and to an increase in political contempt.
Now must the government and the state authorities to take a firmer grip on how the municipalities manage their parking and felparkeringsavgifter. The decision that the Swedish transport agency taken on 20 december and that rocked both trafikpolitiker and their officials in Stockholm was a decision in that direction.
the Decision meant that they rejected 287 regulations on charging of the streets in Bromma . the Reason was that the municipality had not justified why the charges were needed on these streets and not revealed why the charges were the most appropriate measure compared to for example the time limit. Stockholm, sweden was forced to temporarily tape all avgiftsskyltar and have now removed the fees for the larger part of the area that was appealed.
2019 expect Stockholm with get 856 million in p-charges and 505 million in felparkeringsavgifter, the total revenue will greatly exceed a billion dollars.
Stockholm’s use of the parking and felparkeringsavgifter is a clear example that you see such fees as an attractive source of revenue to improve on a scant budget. 2019, the city expects with getting 856 million in p-charges and 505 million in felparkeringsavgifter, the total revenue will greatly exceed a billion dollars.
The law from 1957 which the transport agency relied on in its decision, the statutes that the p-charges may be used only ”when it is necessary to arrange traffic”. For felparkeringsavgifterna is not the equivalent of law, which has one from the parliamentary side contented themselves with putting a ceiling for the maximum allowed amount. The maximum amount for unauthorized parking was 10 years ago for 700 sek. The government has, under pressure from Stockholm in several steps, raised it to 1300 sek, an amount that the city now wishes to raise further.
the Intention from the legislator’s page is felparkeringsavgifterna should be differentiated within the allowed range 75 to 1300 sek and depend on felparkeringens difficulty. However, any significant differentiation is not the case for the Stockholm part. It now proposes is to raise the minibeloppet even for simple infractions, such as forgetting to submit p-rom, for 1100 sek, which it hopes will generate additional revenue to the municipal coffers.
most of The illegal parking is of minor offences where a third party has not suffered any damage and does not constitute any danger to road safety. And for parkeringsvakterna means the high fees are a stressful work situation.
Many illegal parking is genuinely difficult to assess because they are in a gray area of what might be considered acceptable – to you free, or trap? The car parked with one wheel outside the parking slot? Felparkeringsavgift 1100 sek. Elmoppen parked at the wall of the house on a walkway, where there is still plenty of room also for a wheelchair to get past? Put felparkeringsavgift 1300 sek or see between the fingers? One should keep in mind that a single such felparkeringsavgift is equivalent to a tax increase for low-income people with over 50 penny on the municipal tax.
The felparkeringsavgifter that is valid in Sweden and especially in Stockholm, which appears remarkable in a european perspective. In Hamburg – a city of the same size as Stockholm – is felparkeringsavgifterna in the range of 150-350 dollars. The reason for the big difference is obvious. In Germany is felparkeringsavgifterna namely determined by the state and the same all over the country to get a similar sentencing. In contrast to that in Sweden is missing, i.e. where the incentives of individual cities to push up prices to increase their revenue.
In Stockholm, it was earlier free for mopeds class 1 and motorcycles to park in specially marked places without a fee. The system worked great until the spring of 2018 when the parking charges were introduced without any impact assessment. Any motive is to ”organize the traffic” does not seem to have existed solely to increase municipal revenue.
A particular problem for the p-the fees are the explosion of two-wheeled ytsnåla vehicles that we now see. It’s all about the bikes, moped class I moped class II, and motorcycles. Many are fossil-free. It requires a good knowledge of a traffic warden to determine the vehicle classification and if the driver shall pay the p fee. There is no reasonable explanation as to why two vehicles of the same size and almost identical design, except power, are to be treated differently. In order to mitigate the extensive criticism levelled at the p-the fees for two-wheeled vehicles, the commission now proposes the city a halving of the p-charges. The easiest way would be to abolish these charges for all two-wheeled vehicles. But Stockholm did not even wanted to liberate the fossil-fuel-free two-wheeled vehicles that does not take much more space in traffic than a bike cause offence.
the Same kind of low-traffic streets are there as well as in other suburbs, for example, Enskede Gård and Albuquerque, and there are fees already in place. If the Swedish transport agency’s review shows that there are legal obstacles to tear up the previous avgiftsbeslut Stockholm’s politicians to bury our head in the sand and say that when vägmärket come up have only three weeks to appeal, then the injunction.
But the Stockholm politicians must choose between the law and morality. Is it really reasonable to only Bromma to avoid the p-charging of its streets while other neighborhoods are affected by taxes on similar streets? The municipal likställighetsprincipen should mean that you treat all kommunmedborgare equal and thus abolishes tariffs on all streets where they are not ”necessary to organize the traffic”.
In the longer term is, of course, the reason for the government to review the current rules for the municipalities ‘ right to determine the parking and felparkeringsavgifter is reasonable. For parking charges legislation appears to work well, so long as the municipalities adhere to the requirements of the law is to only take out fees ”when it is necessary to arrange traffic”. Felparkeringsavgifterna seems to have become an unhealthy source of revenue to improve the municipal budget.
, both to create a sounder legal system and eliminate the incentive to constantly try to increase these revenues.
