Quote:
How much more environmental damage would building Boris island cause than just building R3 ?
Good question, but academic, Boris Island will never be built, even in the unlikely event of Boris becoming PM.
and neither will Heathrow R3 frank.................
The difference, Harry, is that my comment is fact, yours is balance of probability.
The government decided that Heathrow was full in 1977. The charter and IT business had already been pushed out to Luton, and new airlines were pushed out to Gatwick. Carriers like BUA and British Caledonian were banned from Heathrow (under the "second force" policy) as were all USA carriers except Pan Am and TWA thanks to the UK/USA Bermuda agreement. These days, Gatwick still acts as a waiting room for new carriers wishing to acquire Heathrow slots.
It has taken 40 years to NOT build another parallel rwy at Heathrow.
On that basis, how long do you think it would take to build an airport bigger than Heathrow and all the accompanying infrastructure and urbanisation at a Thames estuary site in the middle of nowhere? 200 years, 300 years?
Time to get real: even if Boris Island was going to be built, Heathrow would obviously
STILL need a third and fourth parallel rwy in the interim, as it would be a very long interim and the existing situation at Heathrow is untenable. Having finally achieved a four rwy Heathrow, there would be no appetite to close it, and without its closure Boris Island is sunk.
The Boris Island thread is full of other reasons why this airport will never be built, so to reiterate, the statement that "
Boris Island will never be built, even in the unlikely event of Boris becoming PM" is
accurate and fact. The statement that "
neither will Heathrow R3 frank" is conjecture, although the
balance of probability may support that statement.