The Strait Bridge has passed another step in its very long procedure. Then it will be necessary to delve deeper into the faults on the two banks, update part of the geological and seismic picture, further study the behavior of the work in the wind and complete some safety checks. The bill will also be updated after the executive design. For an infrastructure worth over 13 billion euros, the set of details is discreet.
On 6 August 2026, the Superior Council of Public Works expressed its technical opinion after the investigation into the definitive project. Strait of Messina welcomed him with satisfaction and announced that technicians and designers will respond to the observations before the new transition to CIPESS. The opinion has arrived. It occupies 353 pages and contains several issues that evidently still deserve attention. And some concern matters that are not very ornamental for a suspension bridge with a central span of 3.3 kilometers.
First Phase A, then Phase B
The executive planning is divided into Phase A and Phase B. The first will serve to integrate knowledge, studies, investigations, tests and checks considered preparatory to the second. Between the two there must be a control of the results obtained, so as to establish the technical conditions with which to continue.
The sequence has its own engineering logic: first it delves deeper, then the rest of the executive develops based on what has been found. The administrative calendar adds a less linear element.
The general contractor is already known: Eurolink, the consortium led by Webuild. The 2025 Budget of Strait of Messina recalls that the contract dates back to 27 March 2006. That relationship was terminated by law in 2012; on 5 August 2025 a new additional act was signed, the effectiveness of which remains subject to the registration and publication of the CIPESS resolution and the decree on the convention, in addition to the waivers of disputes and other conditions provided for.
The general contractor is therefore identified through a contractual relationship born twenty years ago and prepared to become effective again with the most recent acts. Executive planning will instead have the curious task of developing the project and, even before that, completing some of the knowledge necessary to do so. It is the procedure built by the rules that restarted the work. Read in its entirety, it still retains a certain bureaucratic charm.
The faults require new investigations
Among the most delicate requirements are the geological ones. The Council notes that some of the information used derives from campaigns carried out decades ago, with technologies, acquisition and processing systems that have changed in the meantime. He therefore calls for new investigations on the Calabrian side, on the Sicilian side and in the sea area.
On the Calabrian side, the consistency, activity and capacity of the Pezzo fault will have to be verified, together with any effects on the planned works. Similar insights concern the Piale-Musalà-Acciarello sector. In Messina, structures that can interact with tunnels, viaducts and junctions will need to be studied. The new campaigns will also be able to exclude or identify further fault lines.
Precision is needed here. Stretto di Messina argued that the Pezzo fault is ancient and that the movements observed in the area do not represent a critical issue for the stability of the work. He reiterated this in November 2025 in a technical note on the feasibility of the Bridge. However, the new opinion calls for further investigations in the context of the executive planning. The two things can be on the same page, even if they look at each other with a certain distrust.
If active faults capable of interacting with the works emerge during Phase A, the different displacement scenarios and the related design consequences will have to be evaluated. In the ITHACA catalogue, ISPRA explains that a capable fault can produce permanent tectonic deformations on the surface and damage buildings and infrastructure. Knowing their position and characteristics before building foundations and viaducts appears to be a fairly reasonable concern.
The wind also deserves attention
Then there’s the air. A seemingly light topic, until the object exposed to the wind becomes the suspension bridge with the longest span ever built. The opinion asks to delve deeper into the uncertainty of the experimental data in Phase A and to better specify the use of CFD, computational fluid dynamics: from the objectives of the simulations to the modeling of turbulence, up to the validation criteria. The numerical analyzes will have to function as a complement to the wind tunnel tests.
On the wind, moreover, the project has been mobilizing specialists for years: the Strait of Messina Expert Panel itself includes a specific expert in aerodynamics and aeroelasticity. Exceptional fire and explosion scenarios and their possible consequences on the structural elements also enter into the subsequent work. They are robustness checks: they serve to understand how the work would react to the loss or damage of components in certain conditions.
The document remains in the more sober terrain of verifications: some decisive aspects still need to be studied before arriving at the executive configuration. In the “green light” formula, much of this work is lost along the way.
13.532 billion, precise and yet to be updated
The economic chapter has a little wonder of its own. Opinion 39/2026 of the Transport Regulatory Authority indicates 13.532 billion euros as an investment from the Economic Framework and 13.857 billion as the overall investment expected for construction, supported almost entirely by public resources. A precise figure up to one million and already accompanied by an asterisk: it will be updated.
ART writes that the amounts are expressed in nominal values and that the Plan does not quantify the effects of the price revision clauses. Depending on actual inflation, these may likely involve significant adjustments. Stretto di Messina also communicated to the Authority that the amounts will be updated after the executive design, based on the technical specifications and performance of the products and systems actually used.
The figure of 13.5 billion therefore describes the current financial picture. The extent of any adjustment will come later. First we need to define in detail what to build and with which solutions; then the account may become less theoretical. The estimate has already learned to be flexible even before the bridge.
The Plan combines the 13.162 billion in public contributions with 695 million in assets from the Strait of Messina, of which 370 paid by the Ministry of Economy through the capital increase. ART also requests structured monitoring of the economic-financial plan during design, construction and management, so as to intercept deviations in costs, times, traffic and risks.
The Bridge returns once again towards CIPESS
The date of 6 August 2026 is a step in a procedure that has already been started a second time. CIPESS had approved the final project on 6 August 2025, then the Court of Auditors refused to approve the resolution. Legislative Decree 32 of March 2026 therefore redesigned some of the requirements necessary for a new resolution, including the acquisition of technical and financial opinions. Both the Strait of Messina and the Transport Regulatory Authority reconstruct it in their budget.
Now Stretto di Messina must examine the observations of the Superior Council, provide the technical responses and allow the MIT to send the documentation again to the DIPE for inclusion on the CIPESS agenda. It is the procedure indicated by Ciucci himself on the day of the opinion. Then comes the executive planning. And with it, Phase A is responsible for updating studies, investigations and checks before moving on to Phase B.
The Strait Bridge has therefore passed another procedural step. The faults require new investigations, the wind further investigations, some security scenarios further checks and the account will have to be updated. Calling it a “green light” takes up two words. The opinion that defines the conditions, requirements and checks deals with 353 of them.
