Contents
The National Council has agreed, now it is the turn of the Council of States. But the communities want to decide for themselves.
The Lucerne FDP National Councilor Peter Schilliger wants to clear up the “wild growth in terms of speed regimes,” as he says. His motion is intended to prevent well-developed traffic axes from becoming crawlspaces.
Schilliger demands in his proposal that a general speed limit of 50 km/h on main roads must be anchored in the national road traffic law.
The federal government specifies the specifications for the main road network.
He does not see any reduction in the competence of cantons and municipalities – because road traffic legislation is a federal matter. “The federal government sets the requirements for the main road network,” emphasizes Schilliger.
Main roads are primarily used for efficient mobility; this is no longer possible at 30 km/h. Schilliger is also president of the TCS Waldstätte section, which includes the cantons of Lucerne, Obwalden and Nidwalden.
Opposition from VCS and community association
The Swiss Transport Club VCS is not happy about this initiative at all. For President Ruedi Blumer it is clear: Bern must not interfere with the cantons and cities because that would contradict federalism.
Blumer knows what he’s talking about. Because there are always disputes between cities and cantons because they keep slowing down their cities when implementing the 30 km/h speed limit.
Cities and municipalities know best where speed limits are needed.
That’s not possible, emphasizes the VCS president. “It is not acceptable for the cantons to prohibit the municipalities from doing this, and even less so for the federal government to prohibit the cantons from doing this.”
The Swiss Association of Cities is also anything but enthusiastic about Schilliger’s motion. “Cities and municipalities know best where speed limits are needed,” emphasizes Deputy Director Monika Litscher.
Parliament overrides federal court decisions
Top-down commanding is un-Swiss and un-federalist, according to those affected. That could certainly be the case, says Alain Griffel, professor of constitutional and administrative law at ETH Zurich. But the Federal Parliament’s process is legitimate. This is about the application of superior law.
Something else bothers the constitutional lawyer much more – namely that Schilliger’s motion is once again ignoring a federal court decision. Because speed reductions are recognized measures to reduce noise, says Griffel.
Parliament is increasingly correcting decisions made by the Federal Court.
And here the highest Swiss court has stated several times since 2016 that speed reductions should also be examined on main roads. “If the initiative becomes law, that would be impossible.”
Schilliger’s motion is by no means an isolated case: “Recently there has been a noticeable increase in Parliament correcting decisions made by the Federal Court.” This disdain for the highest court is problematic when it comes to the rule of law and separation of powers, according to constitutional lawyer Griffel.
Business soon in the Council of States
Transport politician Schilliger is nevertheless convinced that his initiative has a good chance. He already cleared the first hurdle in the National Council last fall. And things are also looking good in the Council of States, says the FDP National Council.
The city association, on the other hand, hopes that the cantonal representatives will be more sensitive. Ultimately, this is about the curtailment of cantonal powers by the federal government. The decision is expected to be made in two weeks.