Vitézy described the increase as meaningful progress, although he argued that it would still not be enough for Hungary to reach the standard of neighbouring countries.
A dispute over road-development priorities
Vitézy argued that the difference between the two governments lay not only in the amount of money available, but also in their priorities. He accused the previous government of using major road projects primarily to enrich business interests close to it.
As an example, he cited a 30-year concession contract that he valued at HUF 23,000 billion and described as heavily overpriced. He said the agreement had been signed with companies owned by businessmen Lőrinc Mészáros and László Szíjj. Vitézy also claimed that Hungary had caught up with Austria in terms of expressways while the national road network beyond the motorways had deteriorated.
In his assessment, large-scale projects absorbed most of the available funding in recent years, leaving little for the maintenance and renovation of main and secondary roads.
Project reviews and claimed savings
Vitézy wrote that the Tisza government had reviewed all major infrastructure projects. He said work already under way would be completed, while the reviews had produced savings of several hundred billion forints over six months.
He cited changes to what he called the excessive technical specifications of the Mohács Danube bridge, competitive tendering for the M6 concession and the termination of the contract with MKIF.
Vitézy identified the renovation of Hungary’s main and secondary road network as the government’s central road policy task for the coming years. He summed up his position with the phrase “public interest instead of private interest”, contrasting the Tisza government’s approach with that of its predecessor.
Source: Vitézy Dávid
