Economists have written to the government to raise concerns about the government’s airport expansion plans, after Heathrow Airport submitted plans to construct a third runway.
The letter was written to the Chancellor Rachel Reeves and Transport Secretary Heidi Alexander by 29 economists at UK, US and Australian universities, with signatories including 16 professors of economics at top UK universities.
Benefits of the government's plans to expand Heathrow are "at best uncertain", the letter said, with "no indications that the environmental and health impacts of airport expansion can be adequately mitigated".
Heathrow submitted a £49 billion investment plan, including a £21 billion proposal for a third runway and airfield infrastructure, to the UK government last week.
The airport's plans include a north-western runway, additional capacity for 756,000 flights and 150 million passengers, plus another £12 billion for a new terminal named T5X, along with three satellite terminals, and £15 billion to upgrade existing facilities.
Before any of those proposals can be approved, the government has committed to reviewing the Airports National Policy Statement, the framework that sets out the decision-making criteria for a third runway at Heathrow.
"The economic case for airport expansion is questionable from so many angles, but chief among them is the decline of business reliance on air travel," said Dr Alex Chapman, senior economist at the New Economics Foundation, who signed and helped co-ordinate the letter.
"Government’s support for expansion appears grounded in assumptions and industry vibes more so than evidence and research."
He noted that comprehensive recent assessments of airport expansion, conducted by government-appointed inspectors assessing the Gatwick and Luton proposals, both recommended refusal because the balance of benefits and costs did not stack up.
"As a bare minimum the upcoming review of the Airports National Policy Statement must involve a thorough and independent impact assessment of Heathrow’s expansion and should consider other, lower-impact, alternatives."
The letter notes that business flights are down 20% compared to pre-Covid levels and are "not expected to return any time soon".
If the government believes business travel will expand in future, "it might first explore lower cost options, including better utilisation of capacity in the Channel Tunnel, incentivising airlines to prioritise higher-productivity routes, and encouraging businesses to transport goods by rail and sea".