Quote:
Originally Posted by We vs us
Would you be satisfied if I said the tunnel "has lost 67.3% of [its] factor of safety?"
|
Sure, as long as you understand what that means.
Quote:
Originally Posted by We vs us
You can split hairs about what working or not working means, but the underlying point is that the city, now by its own admission in that letter you linked, is forced to accept a tunnel that is currently 67% a failure,
|
Uh, numbers don't work that way.
It has 2 feet less freeboard in 24 foot tunnel.
Quote:
Originally Posted by We vs us
and that can never be fully repaired.
|
It can't be brought up to quite the original spec, this is true.
It is still above the required (required by the intended purpose, not what the city required of the contractor) spec.
Quote:
Originally Posted by We vs us
If the Fairmont (for argument's sake) is damaged in a catastrophic flood in Waller Creek that could otherwise have been mitigated by that tunnel, the city ... would have potential liabilities.
|
nope.
Quote:
Originally Posted by We vs us
and the contractor both
|
Well, like they say, you can try and sue anybody. Not sure it would work.
Quote:
Originally Posted by We vs us
I feel pretty confident in calling that a major clusterf***.
|
If it was a "major clusterfuck" the city wouldn't be going for a "nominal 10% diminution of value".
Look, it's in the financial best interests of the city to paint the situation as dire as possible, and they still call it nominal.