I totally agree with the criticism she directs against the lack of rules that apply in Sweden today. When you compare it with what applies to our nordic neighbours appears to be the rules that we given the private parkeringsbolagen as pure ”wild west”.
the Landowner has the right to meet with the so-called ”nollavtal” with the company that will manage the monitoring, which means that övervakningsföretaget undertakes to manage the monitoring of ”free”.
On private land it is not about the exercise of public authority, except to earn the maximum amount of money, both for those who own the car park and for those who do the monitoring. The framework is completely separate from the one that applies for parking on the land for streets, even the nomenclature is different. It is not, for example, if felparkeringsavgifter but if the ”fees payable”.
. The only income they can get is the issue the fees payable, preferably as many as possible to be able to pay övervakarnas salary and make the company profitable. And thus is no unauthorized parking too insignificant to not result in an inspection fee. It has created an unhealthy culture that does not strive to get the parking to do the right thing, but to park wrong as often as possible.
It is surprising that the government so long as the allowed this business to live in undisturbed prosperity. As Boel Flodgren points out, there are good examples from our nordic neighbours how consumer protection and legal certainty would be improved.
the Laws have never anticipated the development of environment-oriented transport planning which now is the cynosure in all municipalities. Reformed legislation should, for example, provide both car-pooling and eco-friendly vehicles in more favourable conditions at the parking.
the Legislation has never anticipated the development of environment-oriented transport planning which now is the cynosure in all municipalities. Reformed legislation should, for example, provide both car-pooling and eco-friendly vehicles in more favourable conditions at the parking.
But it is strange that a leading miljöpartist Daniel Helldén do not want to use the opportunities the law provides, namely, that avgiftsbefria parking of all two-wheeled vehicles. Admittedly, this is still most motorcycles fossildrivna, but with the rapidly growing traffic congestion is the biggest problem that must be handled in Stockholm. A return to free parking for two-wheelers would encourage more people to choose this space-saving transport. Also from the environmental point of view, this has a point because the number of electric motorcycles and mopeds are now on the road to break through on a broad front. Most outrageous is parkeringspolitikens effects for electric powered mopeds. Many electric powered mopeds look like an ebike, but are classified on the basis of the power class 1 moped. When such is parked in a bicycle parking area renders it a felparkeringsavgift on 1300 sek!
the Goal should be to get as many vehicles as possible to park in p-houses. It is not so long gatumarksparkering is significantly cheaper than the p-houses.
I have not at all done – on the contrary, I believe that the Stockholm p-fees for gatumarksparkering is too low in the inner city. The city has a goal that the tariff should be so high that a casual visitor should have a reasonable chance to find a p-place. This is not the case today. Why must pay 119 dollars to park for an hour in the p-house Parkaden while the man on the street only need to pay 50 dollars? The goal should be to get as many vehicles as possible to park in p-houses. It is not so long gatumarksparkering is significantly cheaper than the p-houses. Today almost all the streets in the inner city långtidsparkerade with cars that have relatively cheap residential parking, the possibility for a temporary visitor to find the p-spot is minimal.
Daniel Helldén definitely think that it is a bad idea that the state would establish felparkeringsavgifterna and retain the proceeds. But what are the differences against the fines for speeding where the state sets the fines and the proceeds will go to the treasury? And there is, of course, the fines just as big in Stockholm as in Älvkarleby. But a trafikfarlig parking immediately before a pedestrian crossing is just dangerous in both municipalities? Still believes that such a breach shall be coated with a felparkeringsavgift of sek 400 in Älvkarleby and 1300 sek in Stockholm!
But the question is who has the power and interest to take the initiative for such an investigation? You can expect resistance, both from the municipalities, who want to retain the proceeds of their felparkeringsavgifter, and the private p companies who live well on the current regulatory framework. The question is if the government or any influential politician dares to take an initiative?