In message , Richard
J. writes

I can think of few places in the UK less suitable for building a huge
airport than an estuary that is liable to tidal surges that threaten to
inundate the capital city, and where the land and sea-bed are sinking.
The Thames Barrier will not be able to protect London adequately by the
end of this century, yet you are proposing to reduce the capacity of
the estuary. Have you factored in the £20bn cost of an estuary barrage?

Is Maplin Sands really in the Thames estuary, though? Its east of
Foulness Island, after the point at which the coast has turned N-N-E and
so is virtually in the North Sea. I can't imagine an estuary barrage
would be necessary (or possible) - there's 17 miles of water south of
Maplin before you reach the Kent coast at Whitstable.

I always thought that the reason why Labour cancelled the Maplin project
was the mistaken belief that air travel would not continue to expand so
rapidly after the 1973 oil crisis, hence the smaller and much cheaper
alternative of developing Stansted was adopted.
--
Paul Terry