Minister Giovannini forwarded to Parliament the final report of the Technical Working Group for the evaluation of alternative solutions of the stable crossing system of the Strait of Messina. Surprisingly the report does not examine the results of thirty years of analyses, projects, pronouncements and decisions taken by the Italian State, but proposes new analyzes and studies to simply arrive at the declaration of the usefulness of the connection.
The working group analyzes the theme under various aspects referring first of all to theutility of a stable linkand between Calabria and Sicily and subsequently the choice of the best technical solution for the construction of the work. With regard to the general analyses, both the physical-environmental context and the socio-economic situation, as well as the demand for mobility and accessibility, have confirmed that there are profound reasons for creating the stable crossing system, usefulness already confirmed at the time (1987), from the Feasibility Report approved by the Superior Council of LL.PP., ANAS and Railways, which led to the choice of a suspension bridge, excluding solutions in the river bed.
From that date over the next twenty-five years the various design and procedural phases have been completed, up to and including in 2013 to the presentation and approval of the final project, drawn up by the general contractor, winner of the tender announced by the SdM in 2006.
The Working Group, while acknowledging the existence of the project and its long approval process, set the second part of the report practically starting from the 80s. Four hypotheses were tested: single span bridge, multiple span bridge, river bed tunnel and sub river bed tunnel. The latter two were judged unthinkable and discarded due to various technical obstacles, already known since 1987.
The topic was then narrowed down to how and where to build the bridge: if with a single span, evidently to be placed at the point of minimum distance, or with several spans, closer to Reggio and Messina, with a greater length of the bridge and two pylons in the middle of the Strait.
It must be said that on the first hypothesis there is a concrete, verified and approved project, developed in its setting by the English engineer William Brown, author, among others, of two bridges over the Bosphorus and of that of Orensund, which connected Denmark with Sweden, whose positive effects on the socio-economic system of the areas concerned are now ascertained.
The second hypothesis it was already the subject of a feasibility study carried out in 1988 e rejected due to the considerable difficulties to found two pylons in the water, not in a calm bottom but in the Strait of Messina where seismic and fault problems, currents and maritime traffic are certainly unique and very complex.
Despite this, the Working Group believes that the multi-span overhead solution is "potentially" more convenient than the single-span one and with costs that should be lower, a hypothesis that is not supported by project data.
Examining the final sections of the Document relating to the strengths and weaknesses of the two solutions, from which the position of the Working Group should have arisen, it is clear that the single span solution, in addition to being equipped with a definitive project and therefore able to guarantee a considerable saving of time for the realization, shows a reduced sensitivity to seismic risks, a discounted one less impact on the ecosystem of the seabed and no interaction with maritime traffic. Conversely, the element of weakness would reside in thespan span width, higher than what has already been achieved in the world to date, but widely verified in the approved project and in any case further verifiable, also making use of the new calculation capacities and methodologies.
This characteristic would confirm the quality of great Italian engineering, as well as representing an element of particular attraction. Another element of hypothetical weakness would consist in the distance to the respective approaches to the bridge from the centers of the two cities, which may be conversely considered a strong point, removing national traffic to other destinations from the two urban centres, also taking into account that the same Working Group assigns almost similar times for the respective routes to the two solutions (25-23 minutes).
Furthermore, an element to be reconsidered is that the reduction in the height of the towers from three hundred to two hundred meters is indicated as the strength of the multi-span hypothesis, as a solution with a lower environmental impact. Opinion questionable given that the two pylons of the multi-span solution should be positioned in the center of the Strait and therefore certainly more impactful both in visual and environmental and functional terms.
As a weakness, the Group correctly admits that for the multi-span bridge there are no updated feasibility studies, much less plans and that in-depth studies are therefore necessary, referring in particular to the foundations of piers in the sea, to existing faults and to seismic movements; as well as the theme of violent currents, the ecosystem of biodiversity and interactions with navigation.
In conclusion, the Working Group proposes to move on to a "first" phase of the feasibility study, re-examining all the issues already addressed in the studies that have accumulated over the previous decades, which have also obtained the approval of the various competent Authorities, with new findings and investigations to be submitted to a public debate, in order to reach a decision on the usefulness of the bridge by comparing the two solutions.
It seems a particularly long and complex path, certainly not able to pass quickly to an operational phase. In the opinion of the writer, carefully verify the work already produced in these decades, updating it with respect to current regulations and needs, modifying and integrating it when not convincing, also in the light of the availability of new information, bringing the product thus created to public debate and decision-making bodies, it seems to be the realistic solution to move from discussions and controversies and unpredictable times to a real manifestation of concreteness, consistent with the decision already taken to build the high-speed and motorway system in Calabria and Sicily.
