Caution! This message was sent from outside the University of Manitoba.

Speed limits are supposed to be political

MICHEL DURAND-WOOD

https://www.winnipegfreepress.com/opinion/analysis/2025/01/04/speed-limits-a...

I WAS compelled to respond to a recent piece by Curtis Pankratz ( The politics of traffic safety in Winnipeg, Dec. 30). In it, he laments the politicization of speed limits in Winnipeg, while advocating for a science-based approach to traffic safety.

I both agree and disagree. Pankratz argues that a significant turning point in this politicization was the dissolution of the Manitoba Highway Traffic Board in 2019. While I do enjoy the sweet irony contained in the argument that a politically appointed board is somehow apolitical, it completely dodges the point: setting speed limits is inherently a political act. Always.

That’s because there is no universal “safe speed limit.” What constitutes a safe speed limit is entirely dependent on the context surrounding it. Safe traffic speeds on a four-lane divided highway aren’t the same as what is safe on a residential street, or in a busy downtown, or in a daycare’s parking lot. That much is obvious on its face.

But who chooses what that context will be? Who chooses whether homes or businesses will be allowed on a street, whether there will be a bus stop here or there, whether there will be a school or a park, whether pedestrians will be allowed to cross here, whether a given space will be a place you come to or one simply to travel through?

All of those decisions are made based on our goals as a city, our values as a community, which we establish through the democratic process. That’s a political act. In fact, that’s the very definition of politics. And it’s why speed limits are set by provincial law (and by city bylaw) by politicians, instead of by an automated process devised by technocrats in some anonymously bland administration office. Setting the speed limit in an area is the political expression of our objectives, our hopes and dreams, for that area. You can’t separate that from politics.

That said, setting speed limits is the first step, and yes, it’s a political one, but it’s not the last.

Because once we’ve decided, as a community, what we want for a certain area, whether there will be businesses, schools, homes, parks, whether there will be people walking, biking, waiting for transit, whether we want to prioritize low-carbon travel modes, economic activity, lower noise levels in an area, or any other number of factors we might collectively consider, only then do we turn to science to see what traffic speeds will allow us to meet those goals.

And on this, the science is crystal clear. Study after study after study has shown that the maximum safe speed for traffic in most urban contexts is 30 km/h, from Tingwall & Haworth (1999), to Hannawald & Kauer (2004), to Rosen & Sander (2009), to Tefft (2011), to Richards (2010), and even the OECD in 2006. It’s why the World Health Organization officially recommends maximum traffic speeds of 30 km/h wherever “motorized traffic mixes with pedestrians and cyclists.”

Whether our ultimate aim is climate action, or economic activity, or livability, or anything else that has us putting homes, businesses, bus stops, pedestrians, bikes or trees in an area, then scientific evidence dictates that traffic speeds must not exceed 30 km/h in that area. Likewise, if we want high traffic speeds in an area, as is our (political) prerogative as a community, then we can’t have homes, businesses, pedestrians, traffic lights or bus stops there. We can argue the politics of which place is for what, but not the science once we’ve decided.

Which brings me to my final point, one of agreement with Mr. Pankratz: if posted speed limits are aspirational, then physical design is what matters. Science has shown that most drivers will drive at a speed that is consistent with the roadway’s design. Once we’ve debated the politics of our community’s goals, once we’ve followed the science to choose the appropriate speed limit to achieve those goals, then the real work begins to design and build our infrastructure so that every street’s design speed matches its posted speed limit.

Yes, that’s a huge undertaking. But we didn’t get here overnight. Our streets as they are today are the result of decades of political choices dictating the design of our streets. But a city is a complex ecosystem, a human habitat, ever evolving with changing needs, changing technologies, changing demographics and changing scientific knowledge. Our streets must evolve because our goals for our city have evolved.

The City of Winnipeg’s 2025 budget has allocated $169.3 million for road repairs. Nothing says we have to rebuild them as they are. In fact, we shouldn’t rebuild them as they are. We should instead be rebuilding each and every one of them to meet our currently identified community goals. And in a lot of places in Winnipeg, those goals point towards 30 km/h.

Michel Durand-Wood lives in Elmwood and has been writing about municipal issues at DearWinnipeg.com since 2018.