If Labour gets its way, the legacy of this government may well be a sky thick with vapor trails. Since taking office, the party has thrown its weight behind airport expansion, backing major projects across the southeast of England.
It began with London City Airport, where just weeks after winning the election, the government approved a plan to raise passenger capacity from 6.5 million to 9 million annually. Then came Heathrow, with Chancellor Rachel Reeves confirming support for a third runway in January. Transport Secretary Heidi Alexander followed suit, signalling her intent to approve Gatwick’s second runway. Luton and Stansted airports are pushing for their own expansions, with the latter proposing to increase passenger capacity by 70%.
Reeves has defended the government’s aviation ambitions as a growth strategy. “More air capacity will unlock further growth, boost investment, increase exports, and make the UK more open and more connected,” she said in January. But even if the government’s vision of an airborne Britain takes off, it will be years in the making.
Some, therefore, argue that Labour is looking in the wrong direction. Paul Kohler, the Liberal Democrats’ transport spokesperson, told City News that Britain should focus less on expanding its airports and more on upgrading international rail.
“You go to somewhere like Switzerland or Japan, the transport system drives the economy,” Kohler says. “It’s seen as fundamental to economic growth. We don’t have that approach here – transport is viewed as an add-on.”
Instead of funnelling billions into new runways, Kohler argues, Britain should make better use of the infrastructure it already has, particularly the Channel Tunnel.
A Tunnel with Untapped Potential
Since it opened 30 years ago, just one company, Eurostar, has had access to the tunnel. Last year, the service carried 19.5 million passengers, a record number, but Getlink, the tunnel operator, says it is capable of taking twice that.
Getlink say the tunnel has capacity for 1,000 trains a day. At the moment, only around 350 pass through each day, and less than 50 of them are Eurostar passenger trains.
Kohler says the solution is some healthy competition.
“Competition is the way you bring down costs, and that’s what we need to do,” he argues. “We need more operators in there. The point of the channel tunnel was that it was made for far more trains.”
Soon, Kohler might get what he wants. Over the past few years, other providers have been preparing bids to break Eurostar’s monopoly, and this year, the first non-Eurostar trains are expected to take passengers between England and France.
Spanish-owned startup Evolyn has already bought high-speed trains in preparation for a launch in 2025, and Richard Branson’s Virgin Trains is raising £700 million for its own service. Earlier this month, British firm Gemini emerged as the latest contender.
Crucially, these new operators are not looking to simply replicate the Eurostar destinations – they want to add new European destinations, available direct from London.
It’s possible that a new, competitive model, much like we’re used to with air travel, will drive prices down, boost passenger numbers, and unlock the tunnel’s full potential.
Read more: London MP says Transport ‘Utterly Critical’ to save London’s nightlife
Will It Help the Economy?
International rail could expand the UK’s travel capacity, but it doesn’t necessarily have a sound economic case.
The economic impact of increased Channel Tunnel traffic is uncertain, but economists have examined the effects of expanded international air travel, and the findings apply to rail as well: more movement doesn’t automatically translate into economic gain.
Traditionally, international travel has been seen as a driver of growth through business trips and inbound tourism. But both assumptions are being challenged.
The rise of remote work has significantly reduced business travel. ONS data shows businesses spent £2.9 billion less on air travel in 2023 than they did in 2019. Meanwhile, the government’s own figures suggest Britain’s net tourism balance is negative: 38 million overseas residents visited the UK last year, but Britons took 86.2 million trips abroad.
Dr. Alex Chapman, senior economist at the New Economics Forum, argues that increasing travel options may actually harm the UK economy. “The primary impact [of more international travel] will be to encourage UK households to spend their cash overseas, depriving high streets and domestic destinations of spending.”
However, there’s another economic angle to consider: jobs. Unlike airport expansion, which delivers benefits in the distant future, investing in international rail could create employment more immediately. Rail infrastructure upgrades, new station facilities, and a competitive train market could lead to thousands of jobs in transport, construction, and tourism – especially if lower ticket prices attract more inbound visitors.
Read more: How to half car usage in less than a decade – a tour of Gent
A Gesture to Europe?
The economic case for increased international travel, whether by air or rail, is mixed. But infrastructure projects are about more than just money. They are political statements.
The UK’s airport expansion strategy, as Reeves highlights, suggests a more ‘open’ country – open to transatlantic trade and markets in Asia. International rail, on the other hand, is an overture to Europe.
The idea of a tunnel linking Britain and France dates back to Napoleon’s reign. Engineer Albert Mathieu-Favier first proposed an underwater passage in 1802, believing it could help end hostilities between Britain and France. While that vision took nearly two centuries to materialize, it’s nice to think that investing in international rail could serve a similar purpose today.
As the UK seeks to redefine its post-Brexit relationship with the continent, a thriving international rail network could be more than just an economic asset – it could be a diplomatic one.
