Motorcycles are excellent at slipping through traffic. They are less successful at finding a clear place in transport policy.
When Switzerland discusses the future of mobility, the familiar categories appear quickly: rail, cars, public transport, bicycles and pedestrians. Motorcycles are often folded into “motorised individual transport” and disappear inside a much larger argument.
That is convenient for planning documents. It is less useful for understanding what powered two-wheelers can—and cannot—contribute to the transport system of 2045.
On 17 October 2026, Swiss Moto published its position on the federal government’s “Verkehr ’45” consultation. The association supports a coordinated approach to roads, rail and agglomeration transport, while calling for all modes to be assessed equally. It also opposes the definitive removal of 31 national-road projects from long-term planning.
These are the positions of an industry and rider association. They are not adopted government policy, and they should be read as one contribution to a much larger debate. Still, they raise a useful question: where exactly does the motorcycle belong in Switzerland’s transport future?
First, stop treating every motorcycle like a car
A motorcycle uses less road space and less parking space than a car. In slow or stationary traffic, that difference is obvious. One person moving on two wheels does not occupy the same physical footprint as one person moving inside a large car.
That does not mean motorcycles are automatically the cleanest or safest answer to congestion. Engine type, emissions, noise, weather, rider behaviour and accident risk all matter. A serious policy cannot simply declare motorcycles efficient and walk away.
But it should measure them accurately.
If road capacity, parking demand and urban access are being planned over decades, powered two-wheelers deserve their own data rather than being treated as miniature cars whenever that is administratively convenient.
The road is more than the motorway
Swiss Moto’s position emphasises the continuing importance of roads. According to the figures cited in its statement, around 84 percent of passenger transport performance in Switzerland takes place on the road. The association also argues that congested national roads push traffic into towns and villages, affecting buses, cyclists and pedestrians as well as drivers.
The broader point is sound: transport modes do not operate in isolation. A bus needs a road. A railway station needs access. A bicycle network must cross junctions. A motorcycle journey may begin in a rural village, join a national road and end beside a tram line in a city.
Good infrastructure is therefore not a contest with one winner. It is a network in which each mode should be used where it makes sense.
What motorcyclists should ask for
Simply demanding more road capacity is too narrow. If motorcycles want a credible place in future mobility, the agenda should include the details that affect everyday riders:
- road surfaces and repairs that remain predictable for two wheels;
- barriers and roadside furniture designed with motorcyclist safety in mind;
- clear, consistent rules for access, parking and filtering;
- charging infrastructure that also works for electric motorcycles;
- transport planning based on vehicle footprint and occupancy, not only vehicle count;
- noise enforcement focused on actual behaviour and compliance rather than blanket assumptions;
- better links between motorcycles, park-and-ride facilities and public transport.
None of these ideas requires pretending that motorcycles are perfect. They require accepting that they are different.
Rural Switzerland changes the argument
Mobility debates often start from the city centre, where trams are frequent and distances are short. That perspective matters, but it is not the whole country.
In rural and less densely served regions, individual mobility remains important. A motorcycle can be a practical connection to work, education or a transport hub, particularly when a car is unnecessary and public transport does not match the journey.
At the same time, rural roads are also where leisure riding, noise conflicts and accident risk become politically visible. Any long-term role for motorcycles depends on riders and institutions taking those concerns seriously. The right to mobility will always be easier to defend when it is paired with responsibility.
The 31-project question
Swiss Moto rejects permanently deleting 31 national-road projects from the strategic programme. Its argument is not that every project should be built immediately, but that planning options should remain available for reassessment as demand changes.
That distinction matters. Preserving an option is not the same as approving construction. Equally, keeping every project alive indefinitely has costs and can delay clearer priorities.
The right test is not whether a project is “pro-road” or “anti-road.” It is whether it improves safety, reliability, access and overall network performance better than the available alternatives—and whether the result justifies its financial and environmental cost.
A seat at the table comes with homework
Motorcycles can contribute to a more flexible transport system. They take up less space, can complement public transport and offer practical mobility beyond dense urban centres. They can also create noise, emissions and safety problems when machines, infrastructure or behaviour fall short.
Both statements are true.
Switzerland’s 2045 transport system should not romanticise motorcycles, and it should not erase them. It should evaluate them as a distinct mode with specific strengths, risks and infrastructure needs.
For riders, that is the opportunity. The future is not secured by insisting that the motorcycle has always been here. It is secured by showing, with evidence and responsible behaviour, why it still belongs.
Source: Swiss Moto — Stellungnahme zu Verkehr ’45, published 17 October 2026. The policy demands discussed above are Swiss Moto’s stated positions, not enacted legal changes.