Council Debates Long Tunnel as Malossini’s Majority Accept Political Price
The council debate on the reasons for the long tunnel is the political price that Malossini’s majority has accepted to pay in order to approve the budget amendments.
The other evening, upon a quick calculation, it was immediately clear that the coalition led by the mayor did not have the 16 councilors needed for the session dedicated to the traditional early summer budget adjustments to be valid.
At that point, the only feasible solution was presented to the mayor: the opposition would remain in the chamber to ensure the quorum, only if they committed that by the end of the week there would be an informal council meeting dedicated to the meeting with engineer Ferrari, the proponent of the long tunnel and decidedly opposed to the conclusions of Dellai and Tiso.
The Negotiations on the Meeting and Positions on the Tunnel
Malossini, after weighing the pros and cons of what could also seem like blackmail, agreed to commit. The most likely date is next Friday, June 30.
The session proves that someone remains steadfast on the trench of the long tunnel, abandoned even by entrepreneurs who now consider the council discussion sterile and outdated, reserving the right to negotiate with engineer Tiso during the design phase for improvements they can secure.
Engineer Paolo Ferrari will present his project. It involves a single tunnel, 2,930 meters long, between Linfano and Lake Loppio, passing below Passo San Giovanni, connected by a modest viaduct to the valley floor (not larger in size or length than one of the bridges over the Sarca).
The tunnel includes an 11-meter-wide roadbed, with two sidewalks of 1.05 meters, a constant gradient of 4.27% (lower than that of the Ledro tunnel).
Two lanes uphill and one downhill, parking bays, an emergency exit at 1,465 meters, in correspondence with a ventilation gallery. Total cost 60 billion lire.
Tiso stated, and Dellai agreed, that a tunnel of this size (3 kilometers) must necessarily be planned as a twin-tube with unsustainable cost escalation. Ferrari continues to propose a single tube. One of the two is wrong: who?
According to the Rivano professional’s hypothesis, the existing traffic system would remain operational only for local traffic, with the coastal road reduced almost to an internal road, while the bulk of through traffic would be diverted via the San Giorgio exit on provincial road 118 and San Tomaso on the 45 bis.
The possibilities of shifting course towards the short tunnel, after the provincial council’s operational mandate to engineer Tiso, are unfortunately nil. Or not?
