Monday 11 October 2010 3.49pm
In answer to Lang
Rabbie's post, Thames Water has said that if they used the longer River Thames route for their tunnel, their preferred tunnel shaft would NOT be King's Stairs Gardens but the large, semi-derelict, brownfield industrial site at Convoys Wharf - a much more suitable alternative.
But an even stronger argument is that, by TW's own admission, the River Thames route would capture MORE sewage than the cheaper Abbey Mills route. It seems daft to make such a massive long-term investment and then not choose the most effective solution to the problem. Of course, we customers of Thames Water who will be paying for the project out of our water bills will be inclined to say let's go for the cheapest option. But that would be a false economy. By 2020 when the project is due to complete, no doubt the EU's regulations will be more stringent, the sewage overflow problem will be more acute, and Thames Water will say "now we've got to do it all over again". They're being really shortsighted as well as lazily going for what they think is the easy option.