Why are we getting worked up about data from a US university, albeit a respectable one? Note the word suggests - ie the conclusion is meaningless.
True. There are forces that are wanting to take the status of Heathrow as the UK's major hub.
Boris Island Airport is preferable to some, that Heathrow with a modest in comparison third runway.
The pollution study from the US is all hypothetical in any case, it also to a degree depends on, how the wind is blowing.
Lets say the go ahead is given for the airport in a river, what is going to be the cost?..Of more importance to the passengers - How would such an airport recoup their construction costs?.
What is happening is while this debate (or lack of) is dragging on..The capacity at Heathrow is eroding..(panic measures have allowed for duel use of Heathrows runways)..The real remedy which is a third runway, will come to late..Boris Island will take an age to complete, that will also be to late and costs will rise just like the RN's Queen Elizabeth carriers.
How can anyone cost a development that is going to be built on sand and sludge?. In truth they will have to play the cost be ear, if they go down that route.
After decades of planning, billions of pounds down the road..A shiny Thames Airport with no aircraft to land..They will all be in Germany and France. IMO