Judge the Tunnel on the Geology, Not on Who Owns It.

The Southern Environmental Law Center's sinkhole report asks fair questions. Answering them takes data and oversight, and the same standard should apply to the Loop, to AI, and to anything built by someone you dislike.

The Southern Environmental Law Center's report asks fair questions about tunneling through Nashville limestone. Fair questions deserve evidence, not a verdict that follows from how you feel about Elon Musk. We are for building things: tunnels, data centers, new ways to get to the airport. We are also for knowing what is under the ground before anyone digs. Those positions do not conflict.

What the report says

• The risk. Tunneling through limestone prone to karst "could yield" sinkholes, ground subsidence, flooding or mud inflow, and stuck boring machines, based on "previous (other than The Boring Company) projects in other areas," the report states.
• The route. The Loop's current path requires digging into limestone beneath Browns Creek, Mill Creek and the Cumberland River, the center says.
• The soil. It notes a long history of contamination at the former Aladdin Industries site on Murfreesboro Pike, and warns tunneling could push pollution into groundwater.
• The transparency. It cites a "striking lack" of public detail on how risks will be handled.
• The company. The Boring Company had not responded to the Scene's request for comment on the findings.

What deserves a real answer

Several of these questions are legitimate, and the project should answer them in public. The company's 2025 environmental assessment says it will "avoid tunnel boring in areas where karst development is identified." There is a real distinction in that sentence. Limestone is not the same as karst. The question is how many karst features are identified, how many are not, and what the plan is when a boring machine meets one. The report says the company has not said.

• Sampling. Underground Infrastructure, citing WPLN's reporting, noted that as of last fall the company had scheduled five rock borings, against a state transportation department recommendation of samples every 200 feet for rock projects, which the outlet estimated would mean about 250.
• Blasting. WPLN reported that a company vice president set a goal of "zero blasting" downtown in August 2025, and that the launch site was blasted in late October and early November.
• Liability. Asked whether the company accepts Tennessee's strict liability for subsidence on neighboring property, its general counsel answered, "Subject to applicable law," per WPLN.
• Permits. WPLN reported state agencies cleared the project without a comprehensive environmental review and without a Metro Council vote.

Those are fair criticisms, and we would add a few asks: publish the geotechnical data, commission an independent engineer to review it, monitor ground movement along the route, and disclose incidents. A company confident in its engineering should welcome all four. The Las Vegas track record the report cites, including the environmental violations and worker incidents ProPublica and the Review-Journal reported, is also part of the permitting conversation. It argues for strong oversight in Nashville.

What would have to go right

The Scene gives readers a detailed account of what could go wrong. It barely explores what would have to go right for Nashville to gain a useful transportation option. That distinction matters. A warning deserves investigation. It does not, by itself, establish that a project is unworkable.

The Boring Company should have to demonstrate that its engineering protects neighboring property and groundwater. Critics should explain what evidence would satisfy their concerns. A fair debate needs a standard a sound proposal can actually meet.

What the report does not show

A warning about what "could" happen is not a finding that it will. The report describes risks seen on other projects in other places. Engineers have tunneled through karst for a long time, and advance probing and ground treatment are standard tools for it. Whether this company will use them well in Nashville is exactly what the public should ask. It is a question about practice, not a prediction of collapse. The Scene's story also ran with the company's side still unanswered, which is common on deadline and worth remembering when you read it.

The test for everyone, including us

Ask whether you would reach the same conclusion if someone you admired owned the machine. Dislike for Musk is real and widespread, and it is allowed. But a reflex against the owner can quietly decide the question before any geology is read. The reverse is just as true: admiring him is not a soil sample. The only way to be fair is to ask the same questions of every builder.

That standard applies well beyond one tunnel. In the Scene's own midterm series, Jerri Green and Justin Pearson are both running against data centers, and Pearson says he wants to eliminate AI data centers. The Beacon Center's August poll found only 4 percent of Tennessee voters correctly knew data centers have existed for more than 50 years, while 54 percent approve of public access to AI tools. Skepticism is healthy when it is informed. When it is a mood, it keeps a good idea from getting built and a bad one from getting scrutinized, because neither is judged on the facts.

Why it matters

What you can do

Read the Scene's story and the WPLN reporting, then ask your Metro Council member whether they have seen the geotechnical data. You can also ask the Tennessee Department of Environment and Conservation what monitoring it requires. A public records request is a reasonable place to start.