Road traffic and vehicle issues
Translated from Swedish by AI; the translation may contain errors. The Swedish text is the original.
Summary AI, written in advance
M considers that roads are crucial for economic growth and social cohesion 1. M argues that the government is addressing the maintenance debt through a historic investment in infrastructure 1. M emphasizes the importance of charging infrastructure and argues that the market is good at solving problems regarding charging stations 1 2 3. C wants a strategy for shared mobility 4 and wants the regulatory framework for car-sharing to be strengthened 5. C argues that it is urgent to change the regulatory framework for snow removal 4 5. KD insists on technology-neutral policy and realistic climate goals 6 7. S argues that the government is slowing down the green transition 8 9. S considers that the deregulation of vehicle inspections has led to increased fees 9.
Written by AI in advance and may contain errors. The numbers lead to the speech a statement builds on; check against the text below.
Oskar Svärd (M)
Mr. Speaker! Today we are here in the chamber to debate the committee report on road traffic and vehicle issues. Let us begin with the roads. Common roads are one of the most important parts of a functioning society. They create opportunities for transport and communication. They make it possible for people to commute to work, school, and leisure activities while the distribution of goods and services functions.
A well-developed and robust road network contributes to economic growth by connecting companies, industries, and markets, which in turn makes trade and business operations smoother and better. Without efficient roads, it would be difficult to ensure a stable supply of food, medicines, and other necessities.
Mr. Speaker! In addition to providing economic and practical advantages, roads also have social and security significance. They simply make it easier for people to visit friends and family, which strengthens the community and cohesion in society. Roads are also crucial for emergency services and healthcare, as rapid transport can be the difference between life and death in accidents or acute medical cases. Therefore, it is important to invest in both road maintenance and new infrastructure to ensure a robust road network.
Mr. Speaker! The Moderate-led government has pushed forward to address the problems we have seen in the common infrastructure. I am talking about the maintenance debt that has been built up over many years. We are now addressing the maintenance debt for the country's roads and are simply moving from reduced speeds and a debt of 30 billion to a robust road network that everyone can truly rely on.
Mr. Speaker! In October last year, the government presented the infrastructure bill, the economic framework that shall apply for infrastructure investments during the period 2026–2037. We are making a historic investment with an expansion of 203 billion in fixed prices. It totals 1,171 billion. 354 billion of those go to road maintenance.
The large national plan for transport infrastructure will be presented during 2026, and there all projects – both maintenance and new investments – will be included. In this year's spring budget amendment, 500 million is presented for road maintenance from the Tidö parties. It is a welcome appropriation that accelerates the maintenance of the roads. The Moderates' and the other Tidö parties' goal is to prioritize and remove the maintenance debt that has grown, bit by bit of road. We do this so that Sweden will hold together, so that freight transports can arrive, and so that people can live and work in the entire country.
Mr. Speaker! Now we move into the next part of my speech, but without losing touch with reality. We are going to talk about the importance of the car, charging infrastructure, and the electrification of the vehicle fleet.
In the 2022 election, the Moderaterna promised that the price of diesel and gasoline at the pump would fall. The diesel price was to go down by at least 5 kronor. If we compare the 2022 S-prices with today's prices, the difference is closer to 9 kronor. At the same time, we have lowered the tax on work and pension. These are two of many important election promises that the Moderate-led government has fulfilled and which truly make a difference for the Swedish people, for those who need their car for work and for those who need to drive the children to extracurricular activities – quite simply for those who are involved and contribute to making Sweden function.
Does this mean that we are ignoring the climate? No, absolutely not. On the contrary! The electrification of the transport sector is a crucial part of Sweden's entire climate transition. I therefore want to emphasize the importance of the extensive work currently underway to adapt society to large-scale electrification. A central part of this transition is the expansion of the charging infrastructure. For electrification to take hold, it is required that there are charging stations with the right power in the right place and at a reasonable price.
Mr. Speaker! The government's efforts to strengthen the charging infrastructure are of great importance. I view all the extensive support available for that expansion very positively. They apply to both private and public charging stations, but also to fast chargers for both light and heavy vehicles. Thanks to the Riksdag's decision in the budget bill for 2025, funds are now allocated to ensure that the charging infrastructure is expanded throughout the country.
I also want to highlight the inquiry on electrified transport that the government commissioned in 2023. The inquiry submitted its final report in January this year. It is out for consultation right now. I will follow the continued preparation with great interest, as the results can have great significance for the entire transport sector's transition.
Mr. Speaker! In conclusion, I actually want to bring up nuclear power. A friend of order might wonder what a debate on road traffic and vehicle issues has to do with nuclear power. It is important. The Moderate-led government, in cooperation with the Sweden Democrats, promised in the 2022 election to expand fossil-free nuclear power, and during last week, important steps were taken in that work. Fossil-free nuclear power was needed for Sweden to be able to transition, so that passenger cars and freight transport can be electrified, and so that electrification with stable prices and good delivery will become a success in our long country.
Ulrika Heie (C)
Mr. Speaker! Thank you, Oskar Svärd, for the presentation – even though I thought it was a bit strange that the member both began and ended the presentation with questions that do not fall within the scope of this report! I believe that the road issues are in the infrastructure report. This report is rather about vehicle issues and road traffic – the actual traffic work on the road. But the questions belong together, and the member also linked them in his presentation. In the middle, there was nevertheless a section on the car and electrification.
I would like to ask questions about what the member chose not to take up in his speech. There is, in fact, quite a lot in the committee report regarding proposals concerning shared mobility and the possibility of car-sharing. One could argue, even though the member praised the government's policy, that there is a great deal of inconsistency in the area – not least linked to the possibilities for the development of electric cars in Sweden.
The member stated that the government ensures an expansion of the charging infrastructure with the help of an investment in the budget. But we have also seen how stimulus measures and so on, which were needed, have been withdrawn. I would like to hear how the member views car-sharing, the regulatory framework that exists linked to such, and the possibility of shared mobility.
We know that most cars stand still about 97 percent of the time. This means that there is a resource where one could really optimize the use of in order to provide the possibility for increased traffic movements. I understood that the member also was on that. How does the member view the possibility for car pools to become part of shared mobility and to develop them for the sake of the climate and mobility?
Oskar Svärd (M)
Mr. Speaker! I thank the member for the questions.
Car-sharing as a means of transport obviously constitutes an important part, but we have many other important parts. The Moderates and the government parties make no distinction between the transport modes, rather we think that all are needed. It is they that make it possible for us to travel around in our elongated country and move to work and leisure activities or wherever we want to go. The Moderates therefore have no problems with car-sharing.
Depending on where one lives, car-sharing is a better or a worse alternative. I live in the middle of the city, so for my part, car-sharing could be an alternative. But I was born and raised on the outskirts of Kumla, and there one does not have the same conditions to make use of car-sharing.
I do not quite share the view that I did not raise matters related to the report. When I wrote my speech, it was precisely from the report that I took the material I addressed.
In the question regarding charging infrastructure, the government's initiative is incredibly important; we are talking about billions of kronor in the coming years. This is being done to achieve a stable and good charging infrastructure throughout the entire country. At the same time, it is important that housing cooperatives and others take their share of the responsibility for the transition and that politics and the business sector can work together.
Ulrika Heie (C)
Mr. Speaker! I really appreciate what the member is raising about how we can increase mobility. I also appreciate his positive attitude towards, for example, car-sharing. But I have a question about that – I can, moreover, state from the outset that I have three concrete questions. Is the member willing to go as far as that there should be a strategy in Sweden for shared mobility?
My second question concerns electrification. The member raised the government's initiatives on that. How far is the member willing to go regarding the possibility that charging stations in different parts of Sweden can become available to more people? Can privately owned charging stations be made available to those traveling by? Can systems be found to take payment for the electricity sold to someone else at a slightly lower level? I am curious about how the member views this from a micro perspective.
My third question concerns the same issue that the Sweden Democrat member raised in the previous debate. He spoke about the snow chaos on our roads. The sun is indeed shining now, and we are writing on April 2. The snow season is largely over in Sweden. I nevertheless want to raise an issue that has been taken up in motions and debated in, among other things, question periods. It concerns the possibility for common property associations to be part of contracted snow removal.
For the most part, it is Trafikverket that procures the snow removal. In some parts of Sweden, not least in northern Sweden, it can be difficult to procure traffic for individual roads. This has created problems. Trafikverket's vehicles have almost not been allowed to drive there. I do not see that samfälligheter are taken up at all in the committee's position. This surprises me very much. How does the member view the possibilities for samfälligheter to take part in the larger snow removal infrastructure?
Oskar Svärd (M)
Mr. Speaker! I thank the member for the three questions.
In response to question 1, I am not willing to say here today that we need a strategy. I will, however, take the question with me. This is something that is discussed both in the Moderate group and at the ministry when we meet the Minister for Infrastructure and others.
Question 2 concerned privately owned charging stations and whether they could become a bit more public. I believe the market is very good at solving such issues. But we obviously need to look at whether politics and society as a whole need to be involved in the transition. I believe there are even companies already investigating how more charging stations can be used in different places around our elongated country.
In response to question 3, we must, of course, have a snow removal system that works in all of Sweden. The member mentioned something that a Sverigedemokratisk member had said. I do not believe I was in the chamber during the remark, so I cannot reflect on this. I have no clear answer and must pass on the question and return to it.
Ulrika Heie (C)
Mr. Speaker! I may begin my speech by clarifying the last question in the exchange with the previous speaker. Even though spring is coming now, snow removal has been a problem. Member Morell chose to raise it in his speech already in the previous debate. It was therefore not an exchange of remarks, but just part of his speech.
There are problems for individual common property associations, not least in northern but also in southern Sweden, to participate in procurements, and it is a real problem. The Moderate-led government has nevertheless taken a number of initiatives in the area, but the question is whether it will make any difference in reality. Even if one has a strategy, the question is whether it will make any difference. The snow season is now coming to an end, but in just half a year it can strike with full force again. Therefore, it is extremely urgent that something is done about this before the next snow season.
For both 2024 and 2025, there has been a plan from Trafikverket that was intended to address parts of the problem, but we know that many snow removal vehicles can run on idle, that is, with the plow up, and only plow certain road sections. One must, however, be able to ensure that it is snow-cleared in precisely all of Sweden if an emergency vehicle, an ambulance, or a fire truck needs to rush out to residents in parts of the country where one lives at a single road. Even though one has an own responsibility for this, we must, to the greatest extent possible, revise the regulatory framework so that it works for everyone.
Mr. Speaker! In this context, I would like to move for approval of reservation 24 under point 18. It concerns snow removal.
The report deals with very many different issues. I will try to make a summary of the road traffic and vehicle issues during my minutes. The Centre Party has eleven reservations in the report, and I have moved for approval of number 24. But we obviously stand behind all the others.
When we talk about road traffic and vehicle issues, it is incredibly important to sometimes bring up and resolve the smaller issues in this context, for they are big problems in individuals' everyday lives. Therefore, we must tackle them.
I have already mentioned snow removal as an example. It is important to highlight. Another thing is the possibility to convert one's vehicle.
It will, by the way, sound like I am pulling items out of a bag of Gott & Blandat when I bring up different points from the committee report. It truly contains many different issues. I apologize if you do not understand how the different things I bring up are connected to one another. How can I go from snow removal to the conversion of vehicles?
I would like to hear more from the government on how it views the possibility of converting one's vehicle to more environmentally friendly alternatives. How can we ensure that cars become fossil-free? Centerpartiet believes that we should open up the possibility for more people to be able to transition. One might not have the means to buy an electric car, but one may have a specific interest and a will to convert the car one has into a fossil-free vehicle. It should be possible to implement various environmental measures in this area.
Another area I want to bring up concerns car-sharing and the importance of us, as a country, taking action on this seriously. Both in rural areas and in cities across Sweden, trials are being conducted to increase mobility with the help of the vehicles we actually have. I would wish that the government parties listened and incorporated this and saw the demand, which comes from many people, in a broader way when it comes to the regulatory framework for taxation and various licensing issues. People want to be able to use car-sharing and shared mobility. To enable that, the entire regulatory framework needs to be strengthened, which also affects the possibility of operating car-sharing services in an efficient way.
The next question I would like to raise concerns strengthening local climate power. When it comes to parking fees, there has been an opportunity to favor vehicles that are more environmentally friendly. Unfortunately, this cannot be done today. I would like to see initiatives from the government regarding doing this in a good way.
When we are talking about fossil-free vehicles, which may not be electrified, we come to the question of inspection of gas vehicles and proportionality in the rules that exist. Also here, the regulatory framework needs to be reviewed.
This is what I mean when I say that there is a jerkiness from the government's side. Electrification is seen as the only alternative even though there are a number of other possibilities to power our vehicles, ranging from cars to lighter trucks. Why don't we look at the possibilities when it comes to the entire fleet's transition so that we do not just talk about reduced reduction obligation and lower prices for electricity, gasoline, and diesel, but about all the fossil-free fuels that can be developed so that we get better diversification? This is also important for readiness purposes.
I would also like to touch upon autonomous vehicles. Here, increased digitalization also becomes important against the background of the development towards more autonomous vehicles. Even there, the regulatory framework must keep pace and be sufficiently accommodating so that the necessary investments can be made in time. Many exciting projects are underway in Sweden. There are exciting companies working with this in different ways, but they are frustrated by the regulations and the legislation. In this area, the legislation needs to be more flexible so that we do not compromise on safety but favor development forward. I would wish that the Tidö parties took on this issue further. I look forward with anticipation to listening to the upcoming statements from the members on this area.
Road traffic and vehicle issues thus encompass a great deal. I have let it be a bit mixed – everything from snow removal via autonomous vehicles, car sharing and inspection of gas cars to conversion and various parts concerning the fossil-free. There is a great deal we can do, and we need our transport system. We need the possibilities of the car to manage mobility in our entire elongated country. But there are new smart opportunities to achieve shared mobility.
Magnus Jacobsson (KD)
Mr. Speaker! I would like to begin by expressing my support for the committee's proposal in the report and the rejection of the motions.
In this report, which concerns road traffic and vehicle issues, we handle 114 different motions from the general motion period, which means that the report touches upon a large number of different areas.
Mr. Speaker! Sweden and Europe have set goals to reduce the climate impact of transport. Within the EU, this means that the current government has negotiated Fit for 55, which means that the EU shall be climate neutral by 2050. Greenhouse gas emissions shall be reduced by 55 percent by 2030. In Sweden, we have adopted a long-term goal that we shall have zero emissions by 2045 and that we shall reduce our emissions by 70 percent by 2030 compared to 2010.
Up until 2022, emissions in Sweden had decreased by 34 percent – so there is still a long way to go to achieve 55 percent and an even longer way to go to achieve 70 percent by 2030. It is four and a half years we are talking about.
Personally, I already noted during the previous parliamentary term that we will not achieve the Swedish goal for 2030. I was also critical of Sweden using other goals than those we have developed together within the EU.
Mr. Speaker! With this said, the government is working to ensure that we meet the goals that have been set. A package of measures for net-zero has been announced, where the goals are a fossil-free vehicle fleet, fossil-free fuels, and more charging stations. The government also has an action plan for charging infrastructure and hydrogen which is based on, among other things, public fast charging for light vehicles and charging infrastructure for heavy vehicles. Furthermore, the grid connection of charging infrastructure shall be facilitated, the conditions for land access shall be improved, and electric road systems shall be used to complement other charging infrastructure. All of this consists of measures that have already been pointed out.
Within the EU, work is being done on support for infrastructure for alternative fuels in preparation for the phasing out of fossil fuels in the transport sector along the trans-European transport network, TEN-T.
Mr. Speaker! There is thus a national and an international effort to meet our environmental goals, which is good. I would, however, like to add that it is important that Sweden, to the greatest extent possible, works with the same rules that we negotiate within the EU, and that we pursue a policy that is technology-neutral. Right now, there is a large focus on electricity and hydrogen. Previously, there has been a focus on ethanol. At the same time, ammonia engines are currently being developed. It is not the task of politics to steer the technical development, but rather we should focus on what emissions the different technologies generate over time.
Mr. Speaker! Other issues being raised are self-driving vehicles, car-sharing, and vehicle inspections. Regarding the first two questions, legislation is already in place. Now we will see what solutions emerge. Regarding vehicle inspection, we in KD are satisfied with the deregulation. It has led to more and better opportunities to get inspection times, for which we are grateful.
Mr. Speaker! Several motions concern the moving of vehicles, the road traffic register, and vehicle wardens. Here too, the government has acted, and the relevant authorities, including the judicial authorities, are tasked with ensuring that these issues are handled in a good manner. For my part, I have been approached by individuals who have been victims of crime and no longer have control over a vehicle that does not exist but is still registered. In the long run, I believe it is necessary to look at how this type of problem can be handled.
Mr. Speaker! Finally, I want to highlight the historical vehicles, which we in everyday speech call vintage cars. In Sweden, there is a living vehicle culture. People buy vehicles and parts, at a scrapyard but also from each other. Here, a concern has emerged that new rules and court rulings will make it difficult to trade through self-picking at a scrapyard, manage one's own personal stock, or buy two broken parts and build them together into a whole, functioning part. These are issues that we in KD will follow to see how Swedish car culture can be protected even as new environmental and safety requirements emerge.
Finally: One cannot talk about these topics without also mentioning the roads themselves. As has been said before, the KD-led infrastructure department is working on addressing the entire road system. It is for this that the Christian Democrats are extremely grateful.
Carina Ödebrink (S)
Mr. Speaker! Thank you, Magnus Jacobsson, for the contribution! The report on road traffic and vehicle issues covers quite many different areas, and it is difficult to address everything in one contribution.
I listened carefully to what Magnus Jacobsson said, especially regarding the climate goals and the work with the transition. The transport sector is incredibly important there. This is something we must solve if we are to address the high emissions of greenhouse gases.
Magnus Jacobsson was critical of the work the previous government did, and he may also have been critical of the current one – this is something Magnus Jacobsson can explain. This, sending along a direction and working according to the same regulatory framework, is of course very important. But the Climate Policy Council submitted its report in February, and it is clear.
The Climate Policy Council is the government's own expert body. There, they say that we are heading in completely the wrong direction. Emissions increased during 2024. We will not reach the goals with the policy that the current government is pursuing. In that case, it would be interesting to hear a bit more about how Magnus Jacobsson and the government intend to reach the goals, because it is quite urgent.
Magnus Jacobsson (KD)
Mr. Speaker! In my speech, I tried to point out that there are two very clear goals. Those goals do not, in fact, fully go together.
The previous government had, as if in some kind of competition, to set the highest goals possible – in this case, they set the goal at 70 percent by 2030 while the EU landed on 55 percent by 2030. When it comes to the total goal for when to be completely fossil-free, the EU says 2050 while the previous government said 2045.
One can obviously work with those types of goals, but it has effects for our business sector. It has not had the effects that some speak of, namely faster economic development. What one sees in the large study that compares Europe and the USA is that Europe is actually falling behind while the American and Chinese economies are growing.
Then one arrives at one of the hobbyhorses that exist in the Christian Democratic ideology, namely that we must work with social, ecological and economic considerations.
We are likely in complete agreement on the ultimate goal when it comes to the environment, namely that we are to reach net-zero emissions. But setting goals that one cannot even live up to is not realistic. I pointed this out already during the previous parliamentary term when your government sat with your policy, eagerly championed by Miljöpartiet. Even then, it was noted that we would not be going to reach the goal by 2030.
Then I believe it is much better to set realistic goals and then work with actual measures. That is why I was so careful in my speech to point out the actual measures. It is about the energy side and about reviewing engines and technological development.
Carina Ödebrink (S)
Mr. Speaker! Ambitious goals or realistic goals – it is clear that the ambitious goals must also be realistic. But as a Social Democrat, I want Sweden to be at the forefront and for us to have the lead when it comes to the green transition and phasing out fossil fuels. It is a matter of destiny for the entire world. Naturally, it is very important for all of Europe that we can join forces and work together.
I think we should have high goals, but the goals must also be realistic, and I actually think those goals have been like the ones we have had previously.
The business community gives clear signals when we speak with them. They do not quite know how to behave today, because the policy being pursued by the government, which implies that we will not reach the set goals, is something the business community questions. The business community wants the government to be even more offensive. They want Sweden to actually be at the forefront. I think it is important to establish this.
I am concerned about the development we are now seeing with a climate transition policy that does not deliver and where Sweden is somewhat sitting on the sidelines.
Magnus Jacobsson (KD)
Mr. Speaker! The problem is once again that the previous government said that Sweden would have 70 percent by 2030 and that we would be finished before everyone else, namely 2045. But there was no policy that led to that goal. If one looks at what the effects were of trying to live up to the goal, with among other things an increased reduction obligation, one can see that it hit the Swedish countryside directly. It hit agriculture directly and made it difficult for people to manage their daily lives.
One has constantly had the thought of going ahead instead of making large, European settlements, working with the emission systems we have within the EU and ensuring that our business sector has fair, straight rules of the game together with the European business sector that really have an effect over time. And municipalities and regions think the same as the Social Democrats: Let us go a bit ahead! This has led to procurement being made with environmental requirements that go further than Swedish legislation, which makes the infrastructure significantly more expensive. One cannot even manage to finish building on time.
Individual municipalities are taking the lead and setting higher requirements than the environmental legislation when housing is to be built. This means that one cannot develop standard housing types that can be used in all municipalities, because the municipalities choose not to follow the legislation but instead go further. Consequently, housing construction cannot be streamlined.
I am the biggest supporter of good environmental policy, but it must be social, economic and ecological. It must hang together, and unfortunately, it does not.
Carina Ödebrink (S)
Mr. Speaker! I have already partially addressed some of the issues that I intended to take up in my speech. I intended to dwell on some of our demands in the report we are now debating. We stand behind all our reservations, but I move for approval only of reservation 5 under point 3, regarding charging infrastructure for electric vehicles, and reservation 23 under point 18, which concerns winter road maintenance. I think Ulrika Heie exemplary explained that issue, so I will not touch upon it further, but I still want to move for approval of that reservation.
The transport sector is crucial for Swedish competitiveness and accessibility and for the green transition. It is crucial for us to be able to get to work, studies, and leisure activities. This presupposes a policy that gives people and companies the opportunity to take steps towards sustainable transport.
Unfortunately, we see today how the government's policy hinders the transition instead of driving it forward. One of the biggest challenges for electrification is a sufficiently expanded and reliable charging infrastructure throughout the country. It is also crucial for Sweden to reach the climate goals and the transition to virtually zero greenhouse gas emissions by 2045.
In order for more people to dare to invest in electric cars, charging stations need to be available where people live, work, and travel. The Social Democratic-led government enabled the installation of 65,000 charging points through Klimatklivet, of which almost 11,000 were public. But the current government has not continued that work to a sufficient extent.
The automotive industry was in the committee at the beginning of the year. They point to a number of areas that need to be improved for the expansion of charging infrastructure. This involves, for example, a higher degree of transparency regarding costs, timeframes, grid capacity, and processing times. It also involves steering public procurement towards fossil-free vehicles as well as a functioning second-hand market for electric cars.
Previously, the number of electric vehicles increased sharply. Now, the government's policy has led to a dramatic decrease in the number of electric cars sold. We also see a development where used electric cars are increasingly exported abroad instead of contributing to more people in Sweden gaining access to a cheaper electric car. This is something that the SD-government does not address.
Mr. Speaker! I have been looking into the Climate Policy Council and the report that was published in February. There it is clearly stated that Sweden's greenhouse gas emissions increased during 2024. We will not reach the climate goals with current policy. We will also not reach the national emission goal with the decided policy, nor will we reach the goal for domestic transport.
One of the climate council's recommendations to the government concerns a tightened reduction obligation and higher taxes on fossil fuels. These are measures that can contribute to the greatest emission reductions in the short term.
Then I actually want to respond to what Magnus Jacobsson was touching upon. These measures can and should, of course, be combined with distributive policy measures, where profits and costs are distributed and vulnerable groups are protected. But the government chooses instead to use the reform space to lower taxes for already economically strong groups.
To reach our climate goals, we need to achieve increased transport efficiency and reduce the need for transport. Increased investments in renewable fuels and electrification, as well as more energy-efficient vehicles, are required.
Mr. Speaker! The deregulation of vehicle inspections, which was carried out by the Moderate-led government, was supposed to lead to increased accessibility, more freedom of choice, and lower prices. This has not been fulfilled for everyone and everywhere. In rural areas and the countryside, the result instead has been increased fees and poorer accessibility. The deregulation has resulted in stations being closed there. Many car owners have to travel further and pay more to have their car inspected.
At the same time, criticism has been directed at the fact that there are too large differences in the inspection companies' assessments, which creates uncertainty for vehicle owners. A regular and thorough inspection is crucial for road safety and for the cars on our roads to be in good condition. We need a vehicle inspection that is both accessible and legally secure. Therefore, we Social Democrats believe that the government should take the initiative to review how the inspection activities function and ensure that the entire country has equal access to the service.
Mr. Speaker! The development of car-sharing and shared mobility is an important part of a sustainable transport policy. For many people, especially in cities, access to a car when it is needed can be more important than owning a private car. Car-sharing can reduce the need for parking spaces, reduce car traffic, and lower household costs.
But this development of car-sharing requires that politics provides the right conditions. It is about parking solutions, about cooperation between municipalities and the business sector, and about incentives so that more people can choose shared mobility. The government does too little to support this development. We Social Democrats want to see a clearer strategy to promote car-sharing, not least by ensuring that municipalities get better opportunities to plan for and encourage shared mobility.
Mr. Speaker! If Sweden is to reach the climate goals and ensure a modern, accessible and sustainable transport sector, political decisiveness is needed. We need a policy that takes responsibility for the expansion of charging infrastructure, which ensures that vehicle inspections function throughout the country at reasonable prices, and which creates good conditions for new mobility solutions, such as car-sharing.
We need a policy that looks at the whole – with a clear direction and a just transition where everyone is included. We need a policy for road traffic and transport that strengthens the competitiveness of the business sector and that makes it easier for us to travel sustainably. We need a policy where Sweden takes the lead instead of sitting on the sidelines.
Source: The Swedish Parliament. The speeches come from the open data of the Riksdag, translated into English by AI, which may contain errors.