Upload
thamestunnel
View
214
Download
0
Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
8/6/2019 3-TT Case Leaflet AW FINAL for Web
1/24
Why does
London need theThames Tunnel?
TheRiverThamesisnot
ascleanasyoumight
think.Sewagefromouroverstretchedsewernetworkispollutingthecapitalsriver.
JULY 2011
8/6/2019 3-TT Case Leaflet AW FINAL for Web
2/24
8/6/2019 3-TT Case Leaflet AW FINAL for Web
3/242
Ten reasons whyLondonneeds
theThames Tunnel
The River Thames has become an
environmental and public health hazard.
Sewage regularly overfows into theriver rom Londons Victorian
sewerage system.
The current network o major sewers,
ounded 150 years ago, was designed
or a city o our million people and is no
longer big enough to meet the needs
o modern day London. The citys
population is now approaching
eight million.
In a typical year, the citys sewers
discharge 39 million cubic metres* o
untreated sewage into the River Thames
enough to ll the Royal Albert Hall
450 times.
The discharges are the last
signicant source o pollutionin the tidal River Thames. Mixed with
rainwater, the sewage content o the
discharges ranges rom 10 to 90 percent,
depending on conditions.
This pollution kills sh, damages wildlie
and carries pathogens such as hepatitis
A and aecal streptococci, which threaten
human health. Its a serious problem
and getting worse.
More requent and intense storms,
especially in summer, are adding to the
problem, as is the loss o permeablesuraces able to soak up rainall. As little
as 2mm o rainall can now trigger a
sewage discharge.
Years o independent study have
concluded that the Thames Tunnel is a
timely and cost-eective part o the
solution. Alternative options would cost
more, be more disruptive and would
not achieve the environmentalstandards required.
British taxpayers would be at risk o
having to und hety nes rom the EU i
the UK is conrmed to be in breach o
the Urban Waste Water Treatment
Directive.
Other world-leading cities, includingParis, Stockholm, Helsinki and
Washington DC, are orging ahead with
similar schemes.
A clean, healthy River Thames is
essential or the prosperity and global
reputation o Britains capital city.
Future generations would never
orgive us or ailing to tackle this
unacceptable problem.
*one cubic metre o sewage equals 1,000 litres and weighs around one tonne
8/6/2019 3-TT Case Leaflet AW FINAL for Web
4/24
SOUTH
ERN HIGH LEVELSEWER
THAMES
SOUTHE
RNLO
WLEV
ELSEWER
NORT
HERN LOW LEVELMIDDL
ELEV
ELSEWER
NORTHERN
HIGH
LEVE
LSEW
ER
Like many older cities around the
world, the vast majority o Londonis served by a combined sewerage
system, collecting sewage (rom
toilets, sinks and washing
machines etc) together with
rainwater run-o rom roads,
roos and pavements.
The magnicent interceptor
sewers, constructed by Sir Joseph
Bazalgette ollowing the GreatStink o 1858, are still the
backbone o Londons sewer
network today. Rebuilding this
system, using modern methods,
would cost 50-60 billion today.
The citys natural drainage
system, which is a network o
waterways (the so-called Lost
Rivers o London, such as the
Fleet and the Tyburn), had been
built over and was already
conveying sewage when Sir
Joseph Bazalgette incorporated it
into his impressive design. The
system was designed so that
overfows would go into the River
Thames, preventing the back up
o sewage fooding peoples
homes and streets. The system
does this through a network o
CSOs, stretching along the
River Thames.
A brie history
While they are still in excellent
condition, Londons Victoriansewers now lack the capacity to
meet the demands o the vastly
increased population and 21st
century development o the
capital. As one o the worlds
busiest cities, Londons CSOs
discharge more and more
requently into a river which, in
every other respect, is
much cleaner and morevaluable to Londoners.
8/6/2019 3-TT Case Leaflet AW FINAL for Web
5/24
THAMES
SOUT
HERN OUTFA
LL SE
WER
NORTHERNOUTFALLSEWER
EWER
Its time to updatethe capitalssewer network
Case study0n 6 June 2011, ater 30mm orainall, more than 250,000 cubic
metres o sewage rom CSOs at thewestern end o the River Thamesdischarged into the river. This isequivalent to over 40,000 buildersskips ull o sewage. Mogdensewage treatment works alsodischarged around 230,000 cubicmetres. The CSO at HammersmithPumping Station discharged about80,000 cubic metres o sewageover a period o about eight hours.This is equivalent to one builders
skip every two seconds.
*Daily Telegraph 8 June 2011
4
In Bazalgettes day, just over two
and a hal million people lived in
London. Sir Joseph had the
oresight to design his system to
serve our million, but today the
citys population is near to eight
million and continues to grow.
Back in the 1850s, not only werethere ewer people living in
London, but they also used less
water per head and there was
considerably more green space
available to soak up rainall. This
meant that overfows occurred
only very occasionally, and when
they did they went into a river
that was almost entirely
biologically dead.
In 2001, Greater Londons
population density was
18,457 people per square
kilometre, compared to just
6,825 per square kilometre in
Bazalgettes day.
As the population o London
has grown, so has the
development o the capital,
involving the building on and
paving over o large areas. This
has altered the natural drainage
o the area so that now most
rainall and surace water run-o
goes directly into Londons
sewers, rather than being
naturally absorbed into
permeable ground. An area twice
the size o Hyde Park has been
lost to hard suracing every year*.
CSO discharges now happenmore than once a week on
average and as little as 2mm o
rainall can trigger a discharge.
Climate change adds to the need
or action. Rises in average
temperatures will make the river
water warmer and thereore able
to hold less dissolved oxygen,
which in turn will make its
aquatic lie more sensitive to
any pollution.
8/6/2019 3-TT Case Leaflet AW FINAL for Web
6/24
Acton
Mogden
The big pictureWithout the London TidewayImprovements, the annual CSOdischarges would reach 70 millioncubic metres in a typical yearby 2020.
8/6/2019 3-TT Case Leaflet AW FINAL for Web
7/24
8/6/2019 3-TT Case Leaflet AW FINAL for Web
8/24
8/6/2019 3-TT Case Leaflet AW FINAL for Web
9/248
just serving a ew CSOs in the
west would have even more
limited volume and thereore
provide less overall CSO control.
The enhanced primary treatment
plant at Abbey Mills would only
remove a small proportion o the
polluting load. Thereore theenvironmental objectives would
not be met. The deployment o
skimmer crat to remove sewage-
derived litter in the river rom the
remaining unconnected and
uncontrolled CSOs would not
reduce the polluting load in
the river. It would also not be
compliant with the UWWTD.
More recentdevelopments
In March 2007, the Governmenttasked us with taking orward a
tunnel solution to substantially
reduce discharges o untreated
sewage into the River Thames and
its tributary, the River Lee.
In September 2010, the incoming
Coalition Government conrmed
its support or the Thames Tunnel,
subject to a strict review o costs,
and instructed us to continue
developing the project.
A Thames Tunnel continues to offer by far the
lowest cost solution to the problem. Caroline Spelman Secretary o State or the Environment,Food and Rural Aairs, September 2010.
Case studyThe 30mm o rainall on 6 June
would have completely lled the
west tunnel o the Jacobs Babtie
option and overfowed more than
50,000 cubic metres o sewage to
the river. The CSOs betweenVauxhall Bridge and the Thames
Barrier, which would not have been
intercepted by this option, would
have discharged approximately
500,000 cubic metres o sewage
into the river.
It would have taken over our days
to empty the west tunnel via the
existing sewage system, meaning
that the tunnel would not havebeen completely empty or the
next signicant rainall, which
arrived on 10 June. The west tunnel,
thereore, would not have been
ully empty or over 16 days,
resulting in septic sewage and
odorous conditions. By comparison,
the Thames Tunnel would have
intercepted all the CSO fows or
treatment, with no discharge into
the river, and have been emptiedwithin 48 hours.
8/6/2019 3-TT Case Leaflet AW FINAL for Web
10/24
Reasons
to act nowA personal view from Olympic goldmedal rower Andy Triggs HodgeI regularly row on the River Thames, which means paddlingthrough human aeces, tampons, condoms and other such
nasties. It is no un at all and the volumes involved are
rightening.
Its a problem that risks the health not just o rowers but o
river-users o all kinds, not to mention the devastation it
causes to sh and other wildlie.
I do have a personal interest. But theres more to it than that.
This is about protecting Londons river, not just or today but
or uture generations, making it something we can all beproud o rather than a great big overspill sewer or a 21st
century city that should know better.
8/6/2019 3-TT Case Leaflet AW FINAL for Web
11/2410
Human
The human and domestic waste
content o the discharges, along
with waste rom businesses andcommercial properties, is mixed
with rainwater in varying
proportions, but the discharges
are unmistakably sewage and
must be treated as such.
Raw sewage entering the River
Thames contains urine and
aeces, as well as sewage-derived
litter such as toilet paper, wipes,
sanitary products and other
fushable items, including
hypodermic needles. Such raw
sewage typically contains
health-harming pathogens,
viruses and bacteria such as
E coli, hepatitis A and aecal
streptococci.
The requency o CSO discharges
is thereore a hazard to all whouse the river. There are over 30
canoeing, rowing and sailing
clubs using the tidal Thames, the
oreshore is used by thousands o
people every day and the river is
a draw or hundreds o thousands
o tourists every year.
It cannot be acceptable to
allow the River Thames to beused as an open sewer.
Environmental
The Thames Tideway is an
important habitat or a wide
variety o sh. It is an importantbreeding and nursery ground or
many species, including smelt
and others. Some o these, such
as sole, are commercially
important.
Improving water quality in the
River Thames will improve the
conditions to sustain healthy sh
populations and permit the
upstream migration o species,
such as salmon, bass and
founder, which use the tidal
Thames as an important part o
their liecycle.
The River Thames is particularly
vulnerable to pollution because
o its limited dilution capacity.
The tidal eect moves water up
to 15km up and down the RiverThames on each fow and ebb
tide. The net movement, during
neap tides and low river fow, is
as little as one kilometre per day
towards the sea, with very little
mixing. Larger rainall events
create slicks o polluted water
that move with the tide and it
can take up to three months*
or sewage that has enteredthe uppermost reaches o the
Thames Tideway to reach the
sea. Furthermore, solid material
such as sewage-derived litter
will tend to be deposited on the
oreshore during the ebb tide.In act, much o the ne silty
mud ound on the rivers
oreshore and slipways is derived
rom sewage.
It can take up to threemonths* or sewage that has
entered the uppermostreaches o the ThamesTideway to reach the sea.
Expected increases in
temperatures linked to climate
change will make the River
Thames more sensitive to
pollution. The CSO discharges
to the river will deplete dissolved
oxygen at a aster rate,
endangering the number and
variety o species o wildlie
able to survive in its waters.
*Figures supplied by the Environment Agency.
8/6/2019 3-TT Case Leaflet AW FINAL for Web
12/24
Legal
The EU Urban Waste Water
Treatment Directive (UWWTD)
requires that urban wastewater
(sewage) should be properly
collected and treated, other than
under exceptional conditions.
The Water Framework Directive
(WFD) also aims to maintain and
improve the aquatic environment
in the EU by 2027.
The European Commission
initiated so-called inraction
proceedings against the UK in
relation to the Thames Tideway
as long ago as 2004 and hasrepeatedly made clear its
intention to enorce the UWWTD.
Any delay in compliance makes
inraction proceedings more
likely. The case has now been
reerred to the European Court
o Justice.
I the court nds against the UK,
the Government is at risk o
substantial nes i the Thames
Tunnel is not completed quickly.
Fines are calculated using
equations that consider the
duration and seriousness
o the inringement and the
individual Member States
capacity to pay. The maximum
daily penalty payment that could
currently be imposed on the UK
is 620,000 per day. Theminimum size o a lump sum
payment that could currently be
imposed on the UK is 8,500,000
and there is no maximum lump
sum payment. All UK tax payers
may have to help oot the bill.
Case study
Ater heavy rainall during the rst weekend o June 2011, more than250,000 cubic metres o sewage was released into the river rom CSOs
and at least 230,000 cubic metres o sewage rom the Mogden Sewage
Treatment Works in Isleworth. These discharges, exacerbated by the
warm, dry weather and subsequent low river fows, resulted in very low
oxygen levels and sh deaths in a two kilometre stretch o water. This
moved with the tide, depositing dead sh onto the oreshore over a wider
area. More than 26,000 sh were killed between Barnes and Chiswick.
Species aected included founder, bream, roach, eel and dace. In
addition, signicant amounts o other aquatic lie, such as water shrimps,
were also killed. The Environment Agency conrmed it was the second
largest sewage pollution incident along the River Thames in the pastten years.
Even if the Directives did not exist,London still needs the Thames Tunnel.Without it, the pollution of the riverwill get worse and improvements madewill be lost, given the increasingpopulation, new development and theimpact of climate change.
8/6/2019 3-TT Case Leaflet AW FINAL for Web
13/2412
Isnt the River Thames the cleanest its ever been forwildlife? Why do we need to do anything?Since the privatisation o the water industry in 1989, major investment at our sewage treatment
works throughout the Thames Valley, paid or by customers, has greatly accelerated the clean up o
the River Thames. But we will lose ground i we do not tackle the CSOs in London. Once the sewage
treatment works upgrades are complete, the CSO discharges will be the tidal rivers last remainingsignicant source o pollution.
Biologically dead or many years, there is now a much greater diversity o wildlie in the river that
needs to be protected rom the increasingly requent overfows o sewage into the river. The proposed
Thames Tunnel will ensure that the excellent progress in cleaning up the river is not reversed.
Effects of raw sewage on thefish population are bothimmediate and long term.Bacteria feeding on the sewagediminishes oxygen levels whichcan have a devastating effect,especially on juvenile fish, as
they are less likely to swimaway from the affected areas.This leads to large numbers offish fry being killed and asignificant reduction in futurefish stocks.
8/6/2019 3-TT Case Leaflet AW FINAL for Web
14/24
ChallengesEnsuring valueor money
Owat sets limits on water bills
in line with the work that water
companies need to do, and will
continue to scrutinise the
Thames Tunnel costs to ensure
they are kept as low as possible.
As a result o Sir Joseph
Bazalgettes oresight and
previous low levels o investment,
Thames Water sewerage bills are
almost the lowest in the country.
Building the Thames Tunnel will
require a signicant increase to
bills. This is a necessity i we are
to carry on Sir Joseph
Bazalgettes legacy and invest in
a sewerage system that will last
or uture generations.
Why should allThames Watercustomers have topay or the ThamesTunnel when it will
only be Londonerswho will beneftrom it?
The costs o serving the
Thames Water region are spread
out over a very large number
o customers, including all those
in London. Those outside London
are beneting, and will continue
to benet rom this act.
It is only air that bill increases
are shared across our region.
Customers outside London have
seen big improvements rom
investment in sewage treatment
locally, while paying the lowest
water and sewerage bills in the
country or most o the past
20 years.
While the Thames Tunnel is a
very prominent example o a
project taking place in one part
o the region we serve, there are
numerous examples o
investment beneting towns,
villages and hamlets throughout
the area we supply outside the
capital. These are oten projectscosting several millions o pounds
to improve pieces o
inrastructure that serve tens o
thousands or even just a ew
thousand people.
For instance, we are upgrading
Crawley and nearby Merstham
sewage works, which includes
increasing their capacity to meetpopulation growth, at a total
cost o 36.5m. These sewage
works serve a combined
estimated population o just
169,000 people.
As the diagram shows, in the
more rural areas that
neighbouring water and
sewerage companies supply, billsare signicantly higher.
Average waste water charges 2011/12
147
Severn
Trent
Wessex
Anglian
Southern
221
255210
123
8/6/2019 3-TT Case Leaflet AW FINAL for Web
15/2414
Minimisingdisruption
A key ocus or us has been to
optimise the route o the Thames
Tunnel, to ensure we can deliver
the most cost-eective solution
and minimise disruption.
The number o construction sites
now required or the preerred
route is less than hal that we
outlined in our initial plans, and
we are working hard to try and
reduce this number urther.
We will use modern tunnel boring
machines (TBMs) to build our
main tunnel rom Hammersmith
to Abbey Mills and many o the
smaller connection tunnels to
our CSOs.
The CSOs tend to be located
where the sewers enter the River
Thames, which is also where the
original natural drainage
channels o the land entered the
river. These channels were
generally at right angles to the
river and were incorporated into
the trunk sewers in Sir JosephBazalgettes design.
These sewers need to be
connected to the Thames Tunnel
via drop shats and smaller
tunnels. Each drop shat needs a
construction site near the river.
The diculty is nding a suitable
location close to the river or the
drop shat construction site.
The urther away the drop shat
is rom the sewer, the longer the
new sewer connecting the old
sewer to the drop shat will need
to be, which means moredisruption to streets and houses.
Also, to build our tunnels, we
need dierent types o
construction sites. The main
tunnel drive shat sites are at the
start o a tunnel drive and are
where most o the tunneling
activity will take place. At these
sites, we will construct a shatand assemble the TBM at the
bottom o it. The TBM will then
be used to construct the tunnel
by boring through the ground
and then lining the hole with
precast segments. As these sites
are where the TBMs are launched
and received, they require much
larger construction sites, or
which there are very ew areasthat can be considered.
We plan to remove the material
excavated to create the main
tunnel at the three main drive
sites by river, unless there are
good reasons not to do so at a
particular site. We will also be
investigating the ways in which
we can incorporate sources orenewable energy into the
operational energy supply or
the project.
8/6/2019 3-TT Case Leaflet AW FINAL for Web
16/24
In the UK
People living in other cities
around the UK, such as
Blackpool, Brighton and Cardi,
have already unded solutions to
CSOs through charges rom their
local water companies.
Cleaning up the Mersey in
Liverpool, which has a populationo 480,000, cost 170m, while
a similar scheme, estimated at
110m, is under way in Preston,
where the population totals
132,000.
Across Europeand beyond
Cities including Helsinki, Naples,
Stockholm and Vienna have
already implemented tunnel
solutions to tackle CSO discharges.
Major schemes involving tunnels
are also under way in other parts
o the continent to ensure clean
rivers and compliance with the
UWWTD.
Major storage and transport
tunnels are also the backbone o
solutions put in place to tackle
CSOs across North America, in
cities including Milwaukee,
Wisconsin; Portland, Oregon;
and Washington DC.
The scale and cost o the
solutions being implemented
in Paris and the Rhine-Ruhr
conurbation are comparable with
those o the Thames Tunnel
proposed or London.
Paris has a similar CSO problem
to London and is in the nal
stages o investing 3.4 billion on
additional storage and transercapacity, including large-scale
tunnels, to keep sewage out o
the River Seine.
Germany is investing
3.8 billion on a solution or the
Rhine-Ruhr area.
How othercities
are tacklingCSO discharges
8/6/2019 3-TT Case Leaflet AW FINAL for Web
17/2416
People living in other cities around the UK, such asBlackpool, Brighton and Cardiff, have already funded solutionsto CSOs through charges from their local water companies.
8/6/2019 3-TT Case Leaflet AW FINAL for Web
18/24
Alternative
options considered
8/6/2019 3-TT Case Leaflet AW FINAL for Web
19/2418
Separating thesewerage system
Separate systems or rainwater and
oul sewage are now required or allnew developments.
Retrotting such systems across
densely developed London already
congested with inrastructure, both
above and below ground, would be
hugely expensive and impractical.
A sewer separation easibility study
looked at ve study areas and the
cost o building a separate storm or
oul sewer in each. The costs were
then extrapolated across the whole
London catchment. The study
calculated it would cost 40bn to
individually separate the local
sewerage collection system in each
catchment. The study thereore
concluded that, rather than try and
separate the sewerage system in
individual areas, it would be more
cost-eective to construct a whole
new local oul sewer network, rom
scratch, throughout London. This
was estimated to cost 13bn.
Separating the network would
require the construction o a new
sewerage system over 5000km
long; deep pipes would need to be
constructed in almost every street;
the drainage system o virtually
every property would need to bemodied; and new oul pumping
stations would need to be built to
compensate or low gradients.
Constructing a new separate
sewerage system would be three
times the cost o the tunnel and
would cause disruption to
nearly every street in London.
It would take ar longer than the
construction o the Thames Tunnel
and could not be completed within
any reasonable timescale.
Case study on separate systemsIn the Putney Bridge area, nine kilometres o oul sewer network
would need to be constructed under streets and roads at a cost o 27m. In
West Putney, 16km o sewer network would need to be constructed at a costo 34m. A total o our pumping stations would also need to be built in these
two areas to pump the oul sewage through the network. This work would
cause massive disruption.
Other options considered have been assessed
as costing more, being more disruptive and notachieving the required environmental standards.
8/6/2019 3-TT Case Leaflet AW FINAL for Web
20/249
Sustainable urbandrainage systems(SUDS)
SUDS involve a variety o
measures to reduce the amount
o rainwater entering the
sewerage system, and to slowdown the rainwater that does
enter the sewerage system.
These include green roos (such
as grassed living roos) and
soakaways. They require a lot
o space and are generally both
costly and disruptive to retrot.
We ully support the use o
SUDS, as they can enhance theenvironment, can eectively
manage surace water fooding
and have a low carbon ootprint,
not to mention very low whole-
lie operating costs. However,
there are limitations to
sustainable drainage, particularly
in the Greater London area,
where the drainage systems are
complex, most o the land isalready developed and there is
huge potential or fooding.
There is not enough space
in London to retrot sucient
SUDS to control the CSO
discharges and meet
environmental objectives
within the required timescale.
London is also built mainly on
clay and saturated gravels so
that surace water will not soak
away quickly.
Retrotting SUDS in the densely
populated, urban environment
o London would have a
detrimental impact on virtually
every household, driveway,
road and open space in
every borough.
The maximum practicallevel o retrot SUDS wouldtake over 30 years to
implement and cost severaltimes as much as theThames Tunnel. The cost is
estimated to be at least13bn, and would not solvethe problem.
The implementation o SUDS innew developments is essential to
help stop the situation getting
worse. This will play an
important part in ensuring the
uture-proong o the Thames
Tunnel, by helping to reduce the
amount o surace water
entering the system. We are
thereore playing a ull part in
promoting the use o SUDSthrough the London Plan.
However, SUDS cannot resolve
the massive problem o CSO
discharges that already exists,
and certainly not in any realistic
timescale.
The TTSS concluded that,
because Londons catchments
are densely urbanised,
widespread retrotting o SUDS
techniques would be disruptive,
costly and technically dicult, as
insucient land is available.
As an example, in thesmall catchment area o
West Putney, retrotting
SUDS would:
impactonabout2,500
houses or roo drainage
require22hectares
the size o 44 ootball
pitches o open space
or detention basins
requireeighthectaresof
roadways, driveways and
parking areas (equivalent
to 11.5km o roadway) to
be reconstructed.
Pooled capacityRain storms across London historically do not have equal intensity,
creating varied amounts and volumes o surace water run-o. The
major advantage o the Thames Tunnel is the pooled capacity it will
provide. It will be able to take massive volumes o surace water
run-o rom all areas o London something SUDS could never do,
as they are only eective in the areas they are located.
8/6/2019 3-TT Case Leaflet AW FINAL for Web
21/24
8/6/2019 3-TT Case Leaflet AW FINAL for Web
22/24
Doing nothing
is not an option
The current sewerage system is
ull to capacity, with simply
nowhere or excess fows to go,
apart rom into the River
Thames. As the population
increases and urther permeable
suraces are lost, CSO discharges
will continue to rise. It is no
exaggeration to say that, in the
uture, we are likely to see CSO
discharges during dry weather
and not just ater rainall.
Doing nothing will simply
result in:
more requent overfows
more requent
environmental damage
continued increased health
risks to recreational users
worse litter blight
an adverse impact on the
attractiveness o the
water rontage
the risk o heavy nes being
imposed on the UK.
The Thames Tunnel willprovide greater robustnessand fexibility or the uture
impacts o populationgrowth and changes inthe pattern o rainall.
The recommended ull-length
storage tunnel (Abbey Mills
route) achieves compliancewith the UWWTD and
environmental objectives. It is
the most cost-eective scheme,
involving the least disruption to
residents, businesses and
transportation when compared
to alternatives. It also has the
shortest implementation time,
which will acilitate Deras target
date or completion.
At the same time the Thames
Tunnel, which will last or at least
100 years, will ensure our sewerage
system is modernised and ready to
meet the needs o a growing
population and the demands o
uture generations.
Our generation has reaped the
benets o visionary 19th century
planning and construction by Sir
Joseph Bazalgette and his
contemporaries. The needs and
expectations o uture
generations o Londoners will
surely be no less than our own.
With the Thames Tunnel, we can
create our own legacy or them,
which will still be unctioning in
the 22nd century.
8/6/2019 3-TT Case Leaflet AW FINAL for Web
23/24
Weneedtobevisionaryandactnowforthebene
fitoffu
turegenerations.
8/6/2019 3-TT Case Leaflet AW FINAL for Web
24/24
For urther inormation see our website:
Summer 2010First round o public consultation
Early 2011Analysis o responses and tunnel
design amendments
Autumn 2011Second round o public consultation
Mid-2012Planning Submission
2013Start o construction
2020*Completion o the Thames Tunnel
*Subject to review