14/06/2026
Hungary’s Transport Minister presents a detailed critique of the Mohács Bridge project, one of the country’s largest transport investments, with a total projected cost of approximately 451 billion forints. He argues that while a new Danube crossing near Mohács may be justified for regional development reasons, the project was significantly oversized and financially mismanaged.
The minister highlights that official feasibility studies predicted relatively low traffic volumes on the bridge—around 6,500 vehicles per day by 2040 and no more than 8,000 by 2050. According to these studies, a four-lane (2x2) bridge and road network was not necessary, and a two-lane (2x1) design would have been sufficient even decades into the future. Despite this, the previous government approved the more expensive four-lane version.
He compares the bridge’s expected traffic with major Budapest bridges, which handle roughly ten times more vehicles daily, arguing that the scale of the Mohács project cannot be justified by transportation needs. He claims the decision increased costs by at least 100 billion forints and primarily benefited politically connected construction companies, particularly Duna Aszfalt.
The speech also focuses on a controversial 2026 contract modification. Shortly before the parliamentary elections, the government expanded the project by adding 20 kilometers of additional four-lane roadway, despite studies failing to demonstrate a need for it. This increased the project cost by another 76 billion forints.
Most critically, the minister alleges serious irregularities in the financing structure. Contract amendments reportedly allowed advance payments of up to 98% for project milestones, far above normal construction industry practice and without adequate financial guarantees. As a result, nearly 100 billion forints in additional public funds were paid to the contractor shortly before the election.
The minister concludes that the project represents wasteful spending, budget manipulation, and possible corruption. He announces ongoing investigations, potential legal action, efforts to recover funds, and consideration of redesigning parts of the project to reduce unnecessary costs.