Berne Bern city government against 50 km/h speed limit on traffic routes

SDA

9.7.2024 - 14:36

The Bernese city government wants to continue to have the say on the creation of 30 km/h zones. (archive picture)
The Bernese city government wants to continue to have the say on the creation of 30 km/h zones. (archive picture)
Keystone

The Bernese city government wants to ensure that the municipalities can continue to create 30 km/h zones on important roads. This is the result of an answer to an intergroup interpellation in the city council.

The interpellants from the center-left camp had inquired about the consequences of a motion that was passed in the Federal Parliament in March. The federal councillors are calling for an amendment to the Road Traffic Act, which should make it more difficult to introduce 30 km/h on inner-city roads.

According to the debate, more and more cities are lowering the maximum speed limit from 50 to 30 km/h on important parts of their road network in order to reduce noise. Limits must be set to this development so that traffic can flow.

Bern's municipal council has little sympathy for the motion, as it makes clear in its response. It undermines municipal autonomy and endangers road safety. A statutory 50 km/h speed limit on all so-called "traffic-oriented roads" would jeopardize tried and tested solutions.

"Cities and municipalities know the local conditions in their municipal area and the needs of their population best," writes the municipal council. The fact is that the benefits of a 30 km/h speed limit are highly appreciated in urban districts.

The concrete consequences of the parliamentary decisions are not yet foreseeable. The Federal Council must first show how it intends to implement the requirement. If necessary, the municipal council will examine how it can best defend the interests of the urban population.

Traffic-oriented roads" are defined as traffic axes that are primarily geared towards the needs of motor vehicle traffic. The Association of Towns had already expressed its incomprehension about the Council's decision in the spring. It argued that it endangered the safety of children and the elderly.