Parking therapy

In St. Petersburg, they do not want to, following the example of Moscow, introduce free parking at social institutions

Smolny doesn’t even want to provide motorists with a certain number of free “parking hours” per month, which could be used at clinics and schools.

All this is successfully resisted by the administration, which adheres to an exclusively fiscal approach to the “parking” issue: the main thing is to collect as much money as possible, and anything that reduces fees should not be implemented.

On February 16, the Legislative Assembly’s commission on urban management and the creation of a comfortable urban environment decided to send negative feedback to the draft federal law submitted to the State Duma prohibiting paid parking at social institutions.

Now federal legislation gives regions the right to introduce such bans at their discretion. The authors of the initiative under consideration decided to make the bans mandatory for all regions, but this idea was not supported in St. Petersburg.

The commission decided that this would not only limit the rights of the regions, but also would not solve the problem of access to social institutions. Because drivers will park their cars for free at schools, clinics and kindergartens, regardless of whether they need to visit the corresponding institution, and all the free spaces will not be occupied by its visitors.

The argument, it must be said, is not new - it has already been heard in the city parliament and was given in responses to parliamentary appeals.

That “from seven in the morning all places will be occupied by strangers,” and those who need to drop off or pick up a child from school, or bring an elderly person to the clinic will obviously not get a seat.

It is very difficult to check whether this is a “client” of the relevant institution or not.

Indeed, administering such free parking spaces is not easy. But this does not reduce the urgency of the problem.

In December, deputies from Yabloko approached the “transport” vice-governor Kirill Polyakov, proposing to create free parking lots near social institutions in paid parking zones. And pointing out that residents are forced to pay for expensive parking sessions (which has become even more urgent after the autumn increase in parking costs, in some places by three and a half times), when they come from various parts of the city for appointments with doctors or see off and meet children. At the same time, there is the experience of Moscow, where there is free “social” parking near healthcare and educational institutions - these places are marked with a special corresponding sign and are available around the clock.

Understanding in advance that it is difficult to control free parking spaces at social facilities so that only their clients get there, Yabloko offered, as a more convenient, second option:

introduce for each car owner in St. Petersburg a certain monthly number of free parking hours, which could be used if necessary to visit a doctor in the center or take a child to classes.

Moreover, within the limit (for example, 5–10 hours per month), free hours can only be used at social facilities.

Technically, this means that there is no penalty for unpaid parking at these properties within the monthly limit. And it's easy to control.

A categorical refusal followed.

The vice-governor said that the allocation of free zones at social institutions will not make it possible to guarantee benefits for visitors to medical and other institutions, while at the same time “creating significant negative costs for the transport situation and fair distribution of parking space.” That the legal and economic analysis of Moscow’s pilot experience in providing the right to free parking for two hours in paid parking lots at three medical institutions in the capital, as well as the study of the results of this pilot project, allow us to formulate a well-founded position on the ineffectiveness of making a similar decision in St. Petersburg. That social facilities are, as a rule, within walking distance from public transport stops. And that free zones may turn out to be legally risky, economically ineffective and “not consistent with the principles of targeting social support.”

The answer to the deputies seemed, to put it mildly, unconvincing.

Firstly, Polyakov did not provide any arguments in favor of the “ineffectiveness” of the proposal. Nor did he formulate the “reasonable position” he mentioned.

Secondly, reducing everything to “economic efficiency”, Smolny confirms that

that only the purely “fiscal side of the issue” is important to him. Not convenience for people. This, as you know, is not the first example: any proposal that reduces the fiscal burden on drivers is met with categorical rejection in the administration.

Thirdly, as for walking distance to social facilities from public transport stops, what should parents do with strollers? Elderly people who find it difficult to travel on the subway and buses?

Finally, Kirill Polyakov does not respond at all to the proposal to introduce a limit on free parking hours. And this is key here: ease of administration and obvious benefits for citizens. Perhaps that’s why he doesn’t answer because it’s difficult to object.

And perhaps also because in recent years the administration has lost the habit of dialogue with both deputies and citizens, having become accustomed to an obedient parliamentary majority, with which there is no need to engage in dialogue, but only need to pass on commands.

And why dialogue when you can decide everything yourself? Several years ago, the Legislature gave Smolny all powers in matters of paid parking and does not want to change this. And the Yabloko faction’s proposal to return part of the powers to parliament was refused to be supported by the transport commission and was not even included on the agenda. If there were objections, opponents could present them during the discussion. But it’s easier not to even organize this discussion.

Vladimir Maksimov