Construction work on the planned tunnel along Bulevar despota Stefana in Belgrade has been officially postponed, with the start date moved from April 15 to April 21 following an announcement by city authorities. Both opposition and pro-government outlets agree that the main reason cited for the delay is the need for additional site preparation, that the works are expected to last until February 2027, and that significant changes to public transport routes and traffic patterns are foreseen for the duration of the project.

Coverage across the spectrum notes that the project involves multiple city institutions, including the city government and the Secretariat for Public Transport, which has issued an apology for the late communication about the postponement. There is shared acknowledgment that the tunnel is part of a broader package of infrastructural works in Belgrade aimed at reshaping key traffic corridors, and that the long construction period will have a sustained impact on daily commuting and public transport organization.

Areas of disagreement

Framing of the postponement. Opposition outlets characterize the postponement as another example of poor planning and last-minute decision‑making by city authorities, suggesting that the official explanation about additional site preparation is vague or insufficient. Pro-government outlets present the delay as a routine technical adjustment, emphasizing that it is brief, clearly communicated, and done to ensure higher quality and safety standards. While opposition reporting tends to stress uncertainty and potential for further slippage, pro-government reporting underscores the fixed new date and reassures readers that the project timeline to February 2027 remains intact.

Impact on citizens and transport. Opposition coverage focuses on the negative impact on residents, commuters, and public transport users, highlighting expected congestion, route confusion, and the burden of multi-year disruption in one of the city’s key corridors. Pro-government outlets, while acknowledging changes in public transport, frame them as manageable and temporary, often stressing that detailed instructions and alternative routes will be provided. Where opposition sources stress inconvenience and social costs, pro-government reports highlight long-term benefits and the authorities’ efforts to mitigate short-term problems.

Communication and transparency. Opposition-aligned media tend to criticize the city for informing the public too late about both the start of construction and its postponement, framing the Secretariat for Public Transport’s apology as evidence of chronically poor communication and disregard for citizens. Pro-government outlets mention the apology but present it as a responsible and sufficient gesture, emphasizing that updated information has now been clearly shared. The former question what else has not been disclosed about the project, while the latter stress that institutional channels are functioning and responsive.

Broader political significance. For opposition sources, the postponement is woven into a broader narrative of mismanaged mega‑projects and pre‑election showpieces, suggesting that the tunnel symbolizes a governance style focused on grand announcements over execution. Pro-government media instead situate the tunnel within a strategic modernization agenda for Belgrade’s infrastructure, portraying it as a flagship investment that will decongest traffic and improve connectivity. As a result, opposition reporting reads the delay as symptomatic of systemic problems, whereas pro-government reporting treats it as a minor hiccup on the way to a transformative project.

In summary, opposition coverage tends to portray the postponement as symptomatic of deeper planning, transparency, and governance failures with high social costs, while pro-government coverage tends to treat it as a minor, well-managed technical delay within a larger narrative of necessary and beneficial urban modernization.