I’m the first to agree with Jan Söderström on to today’s parkeringslagstiftning neither is optimal or effective. Parkeringslagstiftningen was designed in the 1950s, when the car stood in the center. Pedestrians, cyclists and public got a backseat role when major roads and highways were allowed to spread out in the space of the city. The legislation came in a time when green cars were something unknown and where private motoring was the norm.
Parkeringslagstiftningens section if that parking fees should be used to arrange the traffic can be seen as old fashioned in a time where politics needs more tools to be able to steer society in a sustainable direction.
parking charges are also one of the few tools that the municipalities themselves have the opportunity to make use of in the day. Parkeringslagstiftning, congestion charges and fuel taxes are the government. Instead of dismantling the current scheme and to deprive the Swedish association of local authorities of a tool to regulate the traffic so should the law be adjusted so that the municipalities get more possibilities to use parkeringspolitiken not only to ”organize the traffic” but also to influence the society in a sustainable direction.
Here are two suggestions from me on how this could be done:
1 , first, should we as a city have the opportunity to set aside parking spaces for car-pooling. Also the bilpoolsföretag that exist or existed in Stockholm have experienced parkeringsfrågan as a problem, at the same time that we as a city not even had the legal possibility to fold on-street parking to these. Parkeringslagstiftningen should simply be adapted to the new delningsekonomin.
2 , secondly, should we as a municipality are also to be given the opportunity to reserve places, and to differentiate parking rates depending on the type of vehicles using a parking space. for example, It can mean lower parking charges for environmentally friendly cars and higher to the fossil cars with high emissions. This would be a complementary tool to, among other things, environmental zones and further foster the transition to a fossil-free vehicle fleet. Jan Söderström reasoning that it is little wonder that electric mopeds may pay as much parking as motorcycles, therefore, has a points – and I would like to have seen that the legislation allowed for different levels of parking charges for renewable and fossil fuel transport.
. There is no obvious parable. All cities have different conditions, with different well-developed public transport and different degrees of load on the parking spaces and the road network and different major problems with unauthorized parking. If we instead compare with London or New York appear to be in rather than Stockholm parking and felparkeringsavgifter that low. In Tokyo is street parking is completely prohibited.
parking Fees are not any tax levied equally for all citizens, but just a fee, depending on where and when you park. Then it is reasonable that the charge can be completely different in a less urban area than it is in Stockholm, and also that the fee is different in different parts of Stockholm. To regulate this so that it will be exactly the same in the whole country would not be appropriate for either the big cities or rural municipalities. In the former public transport is well-developed, in the latter there are not the same opportunities to find alternatives to the car. The approach that Jan Söderström give vent to, therefore, can be said to be a clue storstadscentrerat.
With the new and developed grounds, we now have reintroduced car parking charges in parts of the Bromma based on distance to public transport and bostadsområdenas different character. The long-term parkeringsstrategin, however, is fixed – as the city grows, it is reasonable to gradually increase parking fees to cover more parts of the city.
It is inevitable that revenue from parking fees and felparkeringsavgifter in total, for a large sum of money in a big city like Stockholm with 962.154 inhabitants. But it does not change the fact of the fees set out precisely in order to organize the traffic, in full accordance with the current legislation, and not to provide revenue or for the benefit of eco-friendly options. The latter would be desirable, and we hope that parliament change the legislation at this point, but this is not the way it looks today.
