| Topic: | Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Public Drop in session - Thames Tunnel | |
| Posted by: | Roland Gilmore | |
| Date/Time: | 06/08/14 09:19:00 |
| The reality is that the National Audit Office reckon we will pay £70-80 a year for 50 years or perhaps less per year over 100 years (excluding inflation). That means each of us will pay at least £4K for the tunnel. TW have 5.4 million domestic customers so over 50 years they will take £21.6Bn (excluding inflation). The deception is in talking about capital cost and not about what we will actually pay. Independent studies show that the Sustainable Urban Drainage Regulations (they form part of the Flood and Water Management Act 2010 but have not been implemented by DEFRA) on their own would result in reductions of surface water (rain) entering the combined sewers that causes the overflows into the Tideway. These reductions will mean less water being pumped into the tunnel with the result that it could be redundant by 2045; about 20 years after completion. If the government were to study the other options, they would find they result in capital cost savings of at least £1Bn and produce benefits the government have not valued to date. These options are a combination of measures and most importantly help the number one environmental health problem in London, air pollution. Green roofs not only prevent rainwater from entering the combined sewers in the first place but remediate the air; trees more so. Porous asphalt roads help prevent particulate matter from being suspended in the air while acting as detention tanks to slow down the current speed at which rain runs into the sewers. The Thames Tideway Tunnel is not a sewer in the traditional sense but a detention tank, designed to hold about 1.5 million m3 of water until Beckton Sewage Treatment Works can cope with the flows. At 4.5Bn (current capital cost), it will cost £3,000 for each m3 of capacity. Every green infrastructure measure costs less per m3 of detention to create than this. The notion that London is running out of water is another myth, created by Thames Water who only want large budget projects to go ahead since that is where they make their huge profits. These are the actual figures from the TW Water Resource Management Plan: 2006 2180 Ml/d 2021 1943 2030 1917 2035 1952. 2040 2027 Ml/d. As you can see, by 2040, despite predicted population growth to over 10 million, demand will be less than in the base year of 2006. Currently, TW leaks 26% of drinking water that goes into the mains. In climate change terms that is equivalent to a quarter of million tonnes of CO2e a year. Not only that but experts believe about 40% of that leakage finds its way into the sewers. We have a government (The Environment Agency & OFWAT in particular) in Regulatory Capture who have swallowed every lie and deception TW have fed them and the public. The Thames Tideway Tunnel if it were to go ahead will be the greatest mistake London will suffer in the 21st century. There are better, cheaper and faster solutions but government are not listening or acting in the public interest. They are wedded to the notion that Roman technology (gravity drainage) with Victorian enhancement (pumps) are the best solution while throughout the rest of the world, green solutions are being adopted over deep tunnels. In the USA their Environment Protection Agency has calculated that their economy will benefit by $2 Trillion (not billion) by adopting these strategies. In the Far East, India and most of Europe, that is what is being done. Why are the coalition government and Boris Johnson not waking up to the fact that London must become a "smart city" if we are to compete on the world stage? That means becoming a sustainable city and not a museum of wastefulness and stupidity. TTT work at Acton was not part of the original scheme but has been bolted on to it. Disruption will be far greater than the abandoned enlargement of storm tanks. It is absolutely unnecessary however; unlike a multi-Bn tunnel, there is no profit for TW in sustainable solutions. |