Please do not be so quick to rubbish my comparison, it makes you look like a little Englander.
For your information, the Thames flood barrier was used in anger on 95 occasions between 1982 and January 2007. Being a preventive tool, it is not easy to discern how many times floods would have occured had the barrier not been there, but’s let’s say 100% for the sake of argument.
46% of these operations occured in 2 separate years and 21% within a single month.
My data is from Hansard.
Sure the damage would be larger and there would be loss of life, but the scae of the geographic area and the number of people involved is far larger than Heathrow.
Do you realise that the cost of the barrier was £440M – and that at 1982 values – over a billion these days, I would imagine and that is without considering the operational costs.
It looks like the flood barrier has cost about £4.6m per use, project costs only. Proably over £5m with operational costs added, but I have no data for that.
I woud agree that it is a valid investment considering the stakes.
Given the strategic importance of Heathrow and the immense cost of disruption, I still don’t get how you think that the provision of some extra snow and ice clearing equipment is not justified.