On Thu, 03 Jan 2008 21:01:47 GMT, "Richard J."
wrote:

Terry Harper wrote:
On Thu, 3 Jan 2008 15:10:35 +0000, Roland Perry
wrote:

In message , at
13:43:13 on Thu, 3 Jan 2008, Tom Anderson
remarked:
surely it is time to revisit the case for a new airport to be
built in the Thames estuary.

What, actually in the estuary? I've heard of this idea before,
but it's basically potty. Firstly, building an island in the
estuary would be phenomenally expensive

On Maplin Sands. Not quite as daft as you apparently think. Heck,
you could even name a chain of electronics stores after the
project.

Another advantage of building a new island is that you don't have to
buy ridiculously expensive land on which to site the airport. I
suspect that it would be cheaper than building on-land.

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?

The capacity of the estuary is not necessarily reduced. Where do you
think the material to build the island will come from? The second
barrage will be needed anyway if the eastern side of the UK continues
to sink.
--
Terry Harper
Website Coordinator, The Omnibus Society
http://www.omnibussoc.org