| Topic: | Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Thames Tunnel | |
| Posted by: | Roland Gilmore | |
| Date/Time: | 25/09/10 10:02:00 |
| I do not think stopping it is an option (EU law) BUT, the scheme proposed only deals with part of the problem of discharge of raw sewage into the Thames. The regular discharge of millions of gallons of raw sewage by Thames Water via their Mogden Sewage Treatment works near Twickenham will not be addressed by this multi-billion pound scheme and will continue and our stretch of the Thames and it's users will subsequently not benefit. This scheme is mainly to intercept the Victorian discharge points into the Thames. The problem was created by the Victorians and regulatory bodies over the past 130 or so years by allowing foul sewer and surface/rain water to discharge into the system. In modern towns and the larger developments, the two are kept seperate. Once shafts are formed, the main tunnelling drive has to continue 24/7 for technical reasons. The main shafts for the tunnelling machines will be huge and serviced by a very large crane that will remain on the sky line for many years together with other machinery including ventilation equipment/fans, conveyors, generators etc that will not only create noise 24/7 but light polution mentioned earlier. How are the millions of tonnes of tunneling spoil to be disposed of and where? Crossrail have got away with a "dig and dump" policy. They will be dumping their millions of tonnes of waste on the Essex marshes under the precept of forming a bird sanctuary; agreed in principal by the last government. Disposal by river transport is the only reasonable option worth considering without causing crippling traffic congestion in SW London. That will mean wharfs being built in the river and not necessarily on it's banks although they would certainly cause navigation problems and affect flows and the river bed. Then there is the logistical problem of servicing the shafts by delivery of pre-cast concrete tunnel sections, grout and other tunneling accessories. Inevitably, some of these materials will be delivered by road. Then there are the access problems for people who will be employed on the construction process to consider. Where are their cars to be parked? It will be interesting to see how this government acts on undertakings and agreements. I can imagine Boris and DC engaging in fisticuffs over this. The aims of the project should be reassessed and the main site should then be moved to Richmond (Old Deer Park), that much seems clear but there will probably be some powerful and influential opponents to that proposal in Richmond. Siting the main work site at Fulham does not address the fundamental short comings of the proposed scheme. |