Audit raises concerns over Switzerland’s long-term traffic programme

The Federal Audit Office has challenged the foundations of Switzerland’s long-term traffic plan. In a report published on Monday, September 14, the watchdog said the Verkehr’45 programme lacks sufficient transparency in the way it ranks road and rail expansion projects.

The programme is designed to coordinate infrastructure proposals and establish priorities through 2045. The audit office welcomed that coordinated approach. It also found weaknesses that could affect decisions worth many billions of francs, including unreliable cost-effectiveness calculations and funding that has not yet been secured.

The findings arrive as transport demand and spending continue to rise. Swiss transport generated costs of around CHF 117 billion in 2023, according to a related Swissinfo report. That pressure is visible across the country, where rail capacity, motorway congestion, maintenance needs and climate adaptation compete for public money.

The transport ministry has rejected the criticism. It argues that the audit places too much weight on formal cost-benefit analyses and does not fully account for their limitations. The disagreement now moves into the consultation process, with a deadline of October 9, 2026.

Weak cost-effectiveness calculations could distort the ranking of major projects. The Federal Audit Office said the figures used to assess Verkehr’45 proposals are flawed, raising the possibility that some projects appear more beneficial than they are.

Cost-benefit analysis plays a central role in Swiss infrastructure planning. It can compare construction costs with expected gains such as shorter journeys, greater capacity and improved reliability. Those calculations become harder when projects affect several transport modes, reshape regional development or respond to long-term climate risks.

The audit office did not reject the use of economic analysis. Its concern is the way the results feed into prioritisation. If assumptions are unclear or applied inconsistently, Parliament and the public have less ability to judge why one corridor advances while another waits.

The ministry disputes the audit’s emphasis on formalised analysis. Its position is that such models have limits and cannot capture every practical consideration behind a transport decision. The disagreement leaves a technical issue with direct political consequences: which benefits count, how they are measured and who receives priority when funds are limited.

The projects in the pipeline do not yet have secured funding through 2045. That finding places a second constraint beside the audit’s criticism of project evaluation. Switzerland may have a long list of proposed road and rail improvements, but the financial path for delivering them remains incomplete.

Long-term transport planning commits future governments to choices about construction, maintenance and operating costs. It also competes with other demands on the federal budget and with dedicated transport funds. Without firm financing, a priority list can signal intent without guaranteeing construction.

The audit office’s warning matters for the public debate because project selection and funding are linked. A project that ranks highly on paper may still have to wait if revenue falls short, costs rise or another corridor gains political support. Clear information about financing would allow cantons, municipalities and transport users to assess the programme more realistically.

The source report does not identify individual projects or cantons as winners or losers. It does establish a broader concern: the federal government is asking Parliament to consider an expansion programme whose priorities and financial commitments require further clarification before approval.

Motorway expansion faces a separate test: whether alternatives were examined systematically. The Federal Audit Office said the programme focuses on expanding motorways without a comprehensive review of other ways to address rising traffic.

Those alternatives could include better use of existing roads, public transport improvements, demand management or changes to how freight and passenger flows are organised. The audit report, as summarised by Swissinfo, does not prescribe a single replacement for motorway construction. It questions whether the government has compared the options consistently before selecting expansion.

That issue will be closely watched during consultation. Rail users, motorists, freight operators, cantonal authorities and environmental groups have different expectations of Verkehr’45. A transparent comparison would give each group a clearer basis for judging the programme’s effects on travel times, land use, emissions and public finances.

Parliament is due to debate the proposal in 2027. Before then, the transport ministry will face pressure to explain its calculations, clarify the priority-setting process and show how the programme can be financed. The consultation deadline of October 9, 2026 gives institutions and the public a defined opportunity to challenge or support the plan.