How the bridge over the Strait would behave in the event of an earthquake and how long it can resist is not yet clear. The project has been dragging on for decades and some aspects remain unclear. Dossier obtained correspondence between the state company in charge of designing and building the bridge – the Strait of Messina – and the technicians of the Superior Council of Public Works. Among the documents never published there are the designers’ responses to the clarifications of the ministerial technicians: out of 361 prescriptions and 77 recommendations produced by the Council, 68 concern earthquakes. Another 24 requests focus on the structure’s response to a possible earthquake: in the documents the admissions on calculations not carried out, analyzes still in progress and in-depth analyzes postponed to the final phases of the project.
What the ministry technicians say about the bridge project and the earthquakes
Regarding the damage and potential collapse of the bridge over the Strait caused by earthquakes “some insights considered essential have not been developed”. In the opinion of 6 August 2026, the Superior Council of Public Works writes this regarding the behavior of the towers subjected to “external” forces. “The present observations are in continuity with the previous ones”, specify the technicians in the chapter on earthquakes: some issues in fact cross several “generations” of the project, since the previous opinion of the Cslp produced in 1997.
Data and references go back in time but, over the years, various parameters remain absent. In the correspondence that Dossier obtained, the Council examines the responses of the bridge designers – shared by the concessionaire company Stretto di Messina – with respect to requests for clarification on the problematic aspects of the work.
For starters, safety is yet to be quantified. According to the ministry’s technicians, “the structural reliability is not defined”. And it is the bridge designers themselves, on Strait of Messina letterhead, who say that the failure rate “has not been explicitly calculated so far, although possible”. “Failure” means violating the safety limits of the facility. However, designers consider the available estimates on exceeding the design stresses to be prudential with respect to the probability of violating the structural limits.
But for the Council it is not enough: new tests and calculations are prescribed and “if necessary”, to “modify the sizing”. The study of the behavior of the entire structure until collapse had already been requested in 2011 and postponed by Eurolink to the executive project in the 2023 response to the findings of its scientific committee.
The 1908 earthquake: what is missing in 2026
The 1908 Messina earthquake, of magnitude 7.1, remains one of the most serious natural disasters in European history of the last century. It is inevitable that it will be a reference for the area, also for the bridge project. The Council requests that the 1908 spring model be reevaluated by considering the available interpretations and their design consequences. The observation concerns how extensively the uncertainties on the fault that generated that earthquake were treated.
The knowledge gaps are confirmed by the ministry’s technicians: “Recognizing knowledge deficits, the SdM has foreseen new investigations to be developed in various sectors of intervention”. To reconstruct the 1908 earthquake, the designers claim to have used only one model (Boschi et al. 1989), but the Council calls for “not a single preferential model, but a set of plausible seismotectonic scenarios”.
The bridge pylon on the fault: the designers’ responses
There was then a lot of talk about the pylon which would be built on an active fault, the Cannitello fault, on the Calabrian side. Since 2011, detailed investigations have been required around foundations and anchorages and in 2023, the same Scientific Technical Committee of the Strait of Messina had returned to request updated models. Also because the reference is to studies from 1995.
In the response on the topic that we tracked down, the experts write that “the obsessive search for active faults on the surface appears senseless” and claim “a density of observation points never seen before in the creation of similar works”.
The Superior Council of Public Works thinks differently: “The conclusive nature is missing due to the limited support of the geological data”. Even for the Sicilian side, for some shear planes in the sediments “a convincing demonstration of the gravitational and non-tectonic origin is missing”. In short, it is not clear which faults are active and capable of deforming the surface, affecting the structure of the bridge.
A study commissioned by the municipality of Villa San Giovanni, and signed by the engineer Paolo Nuvolone, states that under the 400 meter high Calabrian pylon, in Cannitello, there would be a “capable” fault. Carlo Doglioni, former president of the National Institute of Geophysics and Volcanology, and other experts had already asked for new insights into the area to establish the characteristics of this system more precisely.
30 year old tests and data: “Why they need to be updated”
On Cannitello, the planners announce new surveys, which are already underway, statements to which the Council responded thus: “The detail of the ‘recent investigations’ is missing”, asking for more current explanations and references compared to the data identified in 1995.
When the bridge “dances” with the wind: the tests to be redone that could blow up the timetable on the Strait – by Cesare Treccarichi
The designers themselves explain that the picture of the faults “will be profoundly updated compared to that offered by the definitive project, which reflects pre-2010 observations and interpretations”. The ministry’s technicians consider them “an indispensable first cognitive completion”, underlining that the gaps are “confirmed by the answers to the questions” given by the designers.
The limits: the example of the Amatrice earthquakes
The designers define the areas chosen for the towers and anchorages as “among the most stable in the entire Strait”. But the general comparison also concerns the shocks to be considered in the calculations. The “response spectra” describe how much an earthquake stresses the different parts of the structure, which oscillate at different rhythms. The Council observes that, due to the extreme condition of structural integrity, the project assumes a reference consistent with the “average spectrum of the 1908 earthquake”, lower than the most severe estimates.
But some recordings of the 2016 central Italian earthquake show “spectral ordinates higher than those designed”, despite having had a lower magnitude. The designers defend the choices: “According to all three models, the design spectra are conservative.” They also recall the simulations in which the bridge “does not experience damage even under the Maule earthquake (Chile)”. However, they acknowledge that in the final design “there are no explicit comparisons between design seismic spectra” with those of other large bridges. The Council requests these comparisons and further investigation into the effects of faults close to the work.
Earthquake frequency estimates are also still being updated. The authors consider the statistical model used to be prudent “at least for the next three hundred years”, but specify that “the definitive analyzes are underway”.
The rules of the project go beyond national standards
The Stretto di Messina company received our questions, still waiting for a response. Railway convoys also find space among the surveys, given that “the most severe seismic condition” coincides with the train near the towers at the peak of the earthquake: the Council asks for favorable results on transit safety. It also recalls exceedances of the rollover indicator for two freight trains.
Bridge over the Strait, the height changes with the trains: ships blocked and impacts on traffic – by Cesare Treccarichi
Then there is a “clash” between designers and ministerial technicians. The former consider the national regulations as supplementary to those present in the project, with their own limits and parameters, while the Cslp reiterates that the national regulations are “always ‘hierarchically prevalent'”. Thus, numerous seismic investigations are prescribed in the first executive phase, to confirm the project or correct it where necessary. These would not be minor checks: according to the Council, they could produce “less favorable results compared to previous project approaches”. Everything will have to pass through the ministry and its technicians.
All confidential correspondence between the ministry and the designers
The bridge cables are “galloping”, calculations and projects are missing: we need to start from scratch – by Cesare Treccarichi
Bridge over the Strait, the height changes with the trains: ships blocked and impacts on traffic – by Cesare Treccarichi
When the bridge “dances” with the wind: the tests to be redone that could blow up the timetable on the Strait – by Cesare Treccarichi
Bridge over the Strait, planners-ministery clash over earthquake risk: “Research on faults makes no sense”, “No, data is missing” – by Cesare Treccarichi
Dossier is the exclusive subscription investigative section of The Vermilion. If you want to support our journalistic work and subscribe, Click here.