Victoria Street sewage pumping station environmental assessment

I support Option Two. It has a very small footprint, should require minimal maintenance, requires no tree removal and no sewer relocation and disruption. Being the most cost effective makes it the most sensible choice.

In making a decision as to which option is best for the area more information is required as to the area(s) which will be impacted by any construction due to a new location or removal of the pump entirely. Will the construction only impact Victoria St. or will other streets in the area eg. The Parkway, Sherwood, Northdale also require some major work to the sewers. With the current information provided by the presentation our initial response would be Option 2, followed by 4 then 3. From the info provided Option 2 would be the least disruptive to the area and most cost effective.

I favour option #2 given its the least expensive. I don't see the need to move the pump (options 3 & 4) bc the new pump has such a small footprint, I think it would hardly be noticed and I'm assuming that disruptive maintenance needs on the new pump would be minimal. However, if residents that live closer to the pump than I do feel it is an eyesore or overly disruptive, then I would defer to them in the applications of solution 3 or 4.Deb Reitzel-Jaffe, 1072 The Parkway

We believe that option #4 would be the best long term solution. After that, #3, and then #2 would be acceptable alternatives. Replacing the pump would eliminate need for city workers to constantly be checking on the station, and placing the pump away from homes would eliminate the noise and improve the aesthetic appearance of the neighbourhood.

My first pick is alternative 4 followed by alternative 3 if alternative 4 doesn't work. Alternative 4 eliminates the need for an SPS entirely and moves all equipment underground. Alternative 3 takes the SPS away from all but one residence, allows for maintenance equipment to park on a section of Victoria Street not used for getting around and utilizes a piece of property nobody uses today. I reject alternatives 1 and 2 as that leaves the SPS too close to existing residences which is not good because of the noise and traffic disruptions we have been living with for many many years.

I would support option 4 being the west side of the Gibbon's Park entrance on the Upper Thames' land, (then 3, then 2 in that order) as the farther down the street would be the least noise and disruption to the neighbourhood in the long run.

I would support option two as this would be the least expensive and least disruptive while providing a solution to the obsolete pumping station.