The Alberta government is gearing up to test higher speed limits on some of its major roadways in the new year, a move that has sparked immediate debate among drivers about safety and the reality of how people already drive. The province, under Minister of Transportation and Economic Corridors Devin Dreeshen, will begin testing a proposed 120 km/h limit on select rural divided highways.
Is the Official Limit Already the Norm?
In a letter to the editor published on December 23, 2025, a Calgary Herald reader from Calgary, Dave Mondoux, challenged the minister's rationale. As an occasional driver on the busy corridor between Edmonton and Calgary, Mondoux suggests that the average or de facto speed on Highway 2 is already 120 km/h. He observes that to maintain a position in the fast lane, drivers often need to exceed that speed.
Mondoux points to anecdotal evidence indicating that law enforcement typically only intervenes at speeds around 130 km/h. His central concern is that officially raising the posted limit will inevitably push the unofficial, real-world speed even higher. "Raising the posted speed limit on Highway 2 will almost certainly raise the de facto limit as well," he writes.
Safety Questions at Higher Speeds
While Minister Dreeshen has stated that Alberta's highways are engineered to safely handle 120 km/h, Mondoux raises critical safety questions for the faster speeds that may follow. He questions whether the infrastructure can safely support consistent driving at 130 km/h or fast-lane speeds pushing 140 km/h, particularly during daily peak traffic periods. His gut feeling, shared by many motorists, is that it cannot.
This debate sets the stage for the province's pilot project, which will be closely watched for its impact on traffic flow, safety statistics, and driver behavior.
Other Voices: MAID Access and Immigration Focus
The same letters section featured perspectives on two other nationally significant issues. Mary Valentich, professor emerita at the University of Calgary's Faculty of Social Work, advocated strongly for unimpeded access to information about Medical Assistance in Dying (MAID).
Valentich argues that while systemic issues like housing and mental health care need addressing, individuals who voluntarily seek information on MAID eligibility have a right to it. "To deny them access to information, and perhaps, an application, is unfair, inequitable and discriminatory," she states, emphasizing a person's right to determine the nature of their exit under safe, legal conditions.
Another reader commented on federal immigration policy, applauding a perceived shift in focus. The writer suggests the government is returning to a 1977-style approach once managed by the Department of Employment and Immigration, which prioritized the quality of newcomers and alignment with Canada's employment needs over sheer numerical targets. The letter concludes that this represents a welcome return of "logic and sense" to a long-challenged policy file.
These letters, published together, highlight the diverse and pressing conversations engaging Albertans and Canadians—from provincial transportation rules to profound ethical federal policies.
