|
Living in Gin
|
Just out of curiosity, how hard would it be to conduct deep-bore tunneling in the Cincinnati area compared to say, Seattle, in geological terms? Seattle, of course, is an active seismic zone with bedrock consisting of (IIRC) very hard granite and/or volcanic basalt.
Cincinnati has relatively porous and crumbly limestone and shale, which seems like it would be easier for a tunnel boring machine to eat through, but may also be less stable without proper reinforcing of the underground structures.
Inquiring minds want to know...
Regarding a new light rail measure, I hope Cincinnati learns from what went wrong with Metro Moves and adapts accordingly. It would be a disaster to trot out the same plan, use the same tactics, and get the same election results. It helps that the overall political climate is much different now than it was in 2002 and that gas is much more expensive (what the climate is like in 2012 remains to be seen), and hopefully the streetcar will be a proven success by then. Having the full backing of the mayor, council, state, and congressional delegation will also be crucial. But we can't afford to be caught off-guard when COAST fights the light rail plan with everything they've got. You know the same cast of characters will be as dishonest then as they were in 2002 and in 2009.
In your opinions, what should be done differently in 2012, compared to what was done in 2002 and in 2009? What, if anything, should be different about the light rail plan itself, and what should be different about the process of selling that plan to the public?
|
|
|
|
