If Patrick Allemand and Paul Cuturello call for the cessation of the tunnel work on line 2 of the metrotram (“7 good reasons to demand a temporary halt to the work!”), Dominique Boy-Mottard and Marc Concas simply ask for the establishment of an independent commission to determine the exact state of the situation following the collapse of the building at number 27 Boulevard Débouchage and the fear that other cases might occur as the work continues.
The “everything is fine, Madam Marquise” thesis of the President of the Metropolis does not convince these two elected officials who simply want the truth, as the situation seems rather unclear and open to more than one interpretation due to the lack of official information.
Let’s set aside the political aspect of the matter, specifically Christian Estrosi’s determined decision to choose the “tunnel” option for this infrastructure, whose necessity is undisputed but which the opposition challenges due to the cost increase it entails, totaling 300 million euros.
Regarding the technical question, there is no doubt about the capacity of the contracted company (Bouygues TP) to carry out the work: mountains are tunneled through, a tunnel is built under the English Channel, surely it’s possible to drill a 3.2 km tunnel in Nice… or not?
However, it must be done with consideration for the geological context and accompanied by necessary safety measures. Digging a tunnel is not like driving a nail into a wall: the nature of the land, the water tables, and the seismic situation must be taken into account.
All this was indeed planned in the specifications of the tender and verified by the public investigator and considered in the costs.
Yes, but…
Still, settlements have appeared at the Theater of Photography, and there are cracks in apartment walls as well: are they the result of the work or were they pre-existing?
An inspection has been commissioned by the Metropolis but this report is not released. Why, is it a state secret? asks Dominique Boy-Mottard, who has been walking administrative corridors in search of information.
The technical explanations from Professor Gilli, supporting the two officials’ doubts about safety, cover numerous points and, as far as we know, remain unanswered.
As a professor of physical geography at the University of Paris, geologist, and hydrology specialist, Eric Gilli knows what he’s talking about. He has already worked on similar cases, notably in the Toulon tunnel file.
Contrary to what his detractors are circulating, he is not at all against the underground project. He simply highlights the possible dangers of this choice (the disruption of underground water circulation and its contact with gypsum).
These necessarily technical terms conceal a warning: the risks of this operation should not be ignored.
Trying to skirt them to forcibly advance and not provide answers to doubts is not the best way to reassure the residents of the areas affected by the tunnel.
Transparency in public affairs is not an option but a duty of administrators.
