Photo credits: Facebook/Polizei Oberbayern Süd

Study reveals staggering cost of Austria’s Brenner Pass restrictions

You can read this article in 4 minutes

Traffic congestion on the Brenner motorway has been a persistent issue in North and South Tyrol for years. The Italian Chamber of Commerce in Bolzano has presented a study on the impact of additional traffic restrictions on the Lueg Bridge, outlining two potential scenarios and the resulting freight transport costs. Losses are expected to reach hundreds of millions of euros.

From 1 January 2025 until the completion of the new Lueg Bridge structure, only one lane will be available on most days. Southbound traffic will have access to two lanes for 170 days a year, and northbound traffic for 160 days.

In early November, the Italian Chamber of Commerce in Bolzano released a study detailing the effects of single-lane traffic through the Lueg Bridge starting in 2025. The study, conducted by Uniontrasporti, an in-house research organisation of the Italian Chambers of Commerce specialising in transport and infrastructure, presents two scenarios, including the so-called “darkest scenario.”

The study examines the traffic restrictions already announced by Asfinag. Both scenarios also consider current traffic volumes, already impacted by Tyrolean driving bans.

Losses between €174 million and €600 million

Scenario A – Current Plan

Scenario A aligns with the current plan, assuming a 50% capacity reduction: one lane in each direction and two lanes for lighter traffic during peak times. Under this scenario:

  • 90% of commercial traffic will remain on the Brenner motorway.
  • 10% of commercial traffic will reroute via the Gotthard Pass, San Bernardino Pass, and Tarvisio Pass.
  • Rail freight traffic is projected to increase by 4%.
  • 27% of local traffic is expected to divert to other routes, such as the B182 (Brenner road from Innsbruck to Brenner Pass), or via the Reschen Pass, San Bernardino Pass, and Tarvisio.

According to the study, the consequences will be “serious time delays and additional costs” due to increased transit time, amounting to €174 million per year, of which €93.5 million is related to freight transport.

Scenario B – Total closure

Scenario B simulates a full closure of the route, alongside a prohibition on heavy vehicle traffic on the B182 (Brennerstraße). The Chamber of Commerce warns this could occur due to the lack of hard shoulders and lane dividers. According to the study:

  • HGV traffic would mostly reroute to the Tarvisio Pass, Gotthard Pass, and San Bernardino Pass, with only a small portion using the Reschen Pass.
  • This rerouting would lead to a substantial increase in costs from longer driving times and higher tolls in Switzerland.

Switching to rail is an alternative, though the Chamber of Commerce identifies challenges as the rail route is already at full capacity.

The study forecasts that costs from longer transit times would rise to €640 million per year, with €327.3 million attributable to freight.

“As the final assessment shows, the most critical trade corridor with Northern Europe is at risk of further restrictions due to the Lueg Bridge construction work,” reports news portal meinbezirk.at. This will likely compel many companies to seek alternative solutions and partners, potentially ending contracts and business relationships with Italian companies. There is a high probability these businesses will not return even once the Lueg Bridge work is completed.

Appeal by the Italian authorities

To mitigate the impact, the Italian authorities are calling for capacity assurances along the Brenner corridor. In the study, the Italians request the lifting of night-time truck bans and year-round two-lane traffic in both directions to avoid severe congestion on the Brenner Pass. Additionally, the Italian Chamber of Commerce advocates for shifting more transit to railways, proposing that RoLa services extend to Trentino, with truck and trailer transport by train offered at competitive prices.

Tags:
Drivers receive high fines for ‘lack of GNSS signal’. What can be done to avoid themAcross Italy, hauliers re reporting a surge in fines reaching several thousand euros for alleged ‘malfunctions’ of second-generation smart tachographs. The problem is that – according to explanations from the Italian Ministry of the Interior and EU institutions – in many cases there is no malfunction at all, only a temporary anomaly in the GNSS signal. And that is a fundamental difference. In recent months, Italian drivers and carriers have reported an increasing number of cases involving expensive and severe penalties imposed for the alleged ‘missing GNSS transmission’ in second-generation smart tachographs (G2V2), as reported by the Italian transport press. Control protocols most often record the phrase: ‘lack of GNSS signal’. On this basis, the authorities apply Article 179 of the Italian Road Code – a regulation intended for vehicles with a manipulated or non-functioning tachograph. The sanctions are very severe: from 866 to 3,464 euros, the possible suspension of the driving licence for up to three months, 10 penalty points, and joint liability for the company. However, this is a misinterpretation by the authorities. It should be recalled that the Italian Ministry of the Interior indicated in a circular from February 2024 that errors ‘!1C’ and ‘!0F’ do not indicate a failure but a ‘simple software anomaly or temporary problem with satellite signal authentication’. Such an event does not render the tachograph faulty. The device continues to function, records data, and remains compliant with the law. EU regulations (including EU Regulation 799/2016) also clearly distinguish an anomaly from a failure, and classify the lack of GNSS signal in the former category. What is the problem with GNSS? It is often external interference The issue was highlighted by the Council of the European Union in a document dated 21 May 2025, which points to the growing number of GNSS signal disruptions (jamming and spoofing). Their main sources are Russia and Belarus, and the effects are felt not only by lorries but also by ships and aircraft. In such cases, the responsibility of the driver or carrier for a temporary loss of signal is obviously excluded. What should carriers do to avoid unjust fines? It is not about avoiding inspections, but about asserting your rights and preparing documentation properly. To avoid fines in cases of GNSS signal loss, you should: Immediately secure data from the tachograph and record the error code This is the key evidence. Codes ‘!1C’ and ‘!0F’ indicate an anomaly, not a malfunction, and may determine whether the fine is annulled. Demand that the authorities precisely indicate the legal basis The carrier or driver has the full right to ask inspectors to justify why they classify the anomaly as a ‘failure’. It often turns out that officers incorrectly apply Article 179. Request an assessment from a tachograph service centre An authorised service centre can confirm that the device is functioning correctly and that the issue concerned only the GNSS signal. Such a document is a very strong argument in an appeal. Attach EU documents and ministerial interpretations to the appeal Explanations from the Ministry of the Interior and provisions of EU Regulation 799/2016 clearly state that such anomalies are not failures. In practice, it is often enough simply to refer to these documents for the fine to be overturned. Implement a company procedure for handling GNSS signal loss This could be a short instruction for the driver: •	record the time and place, •	report the issue to the dispatcher, •	take a screenshot of the error code, •	report the incident upon return to the company. Such simple actions allow for an effective defence in the event of an inspection. Additionally, carriers should properly train drivers and explain the difference between an ‘anomaly’ and a ‘failure’. Many drivers unknowingly accept the fine, assuming that enforcement officers know the regulations better. It is important during an inspection to verify the technical and legal grounds for the fine.

Drivers receive high fines for ‘lack of GNSS signal’. What can be done to avoid themAcross Italy, hauliers re reporting a surge in fines reaching several thousand euros for alleged ‘malfunctions’ of second-generation smart tachographs. The problem is that – according to explanations from the Italian Ministry of the Interior and EU institutions – in many cases there is no malfunction at all, only a temporary anomaly in the GNSS signal. And that is a fundamental difference. In recent months, Italian drivers and carriers have reported an increasing number of cases involving expensive and severe penalties imposed for the alleged ‘missing GNSS transmission’ in second-generation smart tachographs (G2V2), as reported by the Italian transport press. Control protocols most often record the phrase: ‘lack of GNSS signal’. On this basis, the authorities apply Article 179 of the Italian Road Code – a regulation intended for vehicles with a manipulated or non-functioning tachograph. The sanctions are very severe: from 866 to 3,464 euros, the possible suspension of the driving licence for up to three months, 10 penalty points, and joint liability for the company. However, this is a misinterpretation by the authorities. It should be recalled that the Italian Ministry of the Interior indicated in a circular from February 2024 that errors ‘!1C’ and ‘!0F’ do not indicate a failure but a ‘simple software anomaly or temporary problem with satellite signal authentication’. Such an event does not render the tachograph faulty. The device continues to function, records data, and remains compliant with the law. EU regulations (including EU Regulation 799/2016) also clearly distinguish an anomaly from a failure, and classify the lack of GNSS signal in the former category. What is the problem with GNSS? It is often external interference The issue was highlighted by the Council of the European Union in a document dated 21 May 2025, which points to the growing number of GNSS signal disruptions (jamming and spoofing). Their main sources are Russia and Belarus, and the effects are felt not only by lorries but also by ships and aircraft. In such cases, the responsibility of the driver or carrier for a temporary loss of signal is obviously excluded. What should carriers do to avoid unjust fines? It is not about avoiding inspections, but about asserting your rights and preparing documentation properly. To avoid fines in cases of GNSS signal loss, you should: Immediately secure data from the tachograph and record the error code This is the key evidence. Codes ‘!1C’ and ‘!0F’ indicate an anomaly, not a malfunction, and may determine whether the fine is annulled. Demand that the authorities precisely indicate the legal basis The carrier or driver has the full right to ask inspectors to justify why they classify the anomaly as a ‘failure’. It often turns out that officers incorrectly apply Article 179. Request an assessment from a tachograph service centre An authorised service centre can confirm that the device is functioning correctly and that the issue concerned only the GNSS signal. Such a document is a very strong argument in an appeal. Attach EU documents and ministerial interpretations to the appeal Explanations from the Ministry of the Interior and provisions of EU Regulation 799/2016 clearly state that such anomalies are not failures. In practice, it is often enough simply to refer to these documents for the fine to be overturned. Implement a company procedure for handling GNSS signal loss This could be a short instruction for the driver: • record the time and place, • report the issue to the dispatcher, • take a screenshot of the error code, • report the incident upon return to the company. Such simple actions allow for an effective defence in the event of an inspection. Additionally, carriers should properly train drivers and explain the difference between an ‘anomaly’ and a ‘failure’. Many drivers unknowingly accept the fine, assuming that enforcement officers know the regulations better. It is important during an inspection to verify the technical and legal grounds for the fine.

Agnieszka Kulikowska - Wielgus

Agnieszka Kulikowska - Wielgus Journalist Trans.info | 17.11.2025