^{_{CARBON & COSTS}}
EDGING
AHEAD

Not so long ago the decisions as to whether a business trip was made by air or by rail hinged, more or less, on three elements: cost, time and productivity. But now, in a world in which sustainability concerns are the focus of many corporate travel programmes, carbon footprint has entered the equation.

In fact, rail’s significantly lesser impact on the environment compared to air travel is its greatest appeal for many corporates right now. Companies such as EY and Salesforce are among the many influential organisations introducing policies and procedures designed to shift travellers from planes to trains – where appropriate – in order to reduce their carbon footprint.

In its Ground Monitor 2023-2024 report, American Express Global Business Travel said that where rail offers a viable alternative to air, its clients, together with those of its Egencia division, have achieved 90 per cent reductions in emissions by making the modal shift from plane to train.

But for all the talk of corporate adoption, there remain several barriers in place, chief among them its ‘bookability’ – something that travel associations hope the EU’s Multimodal Digital Mobility Services (MDMS) regulation will address – and rail travel’s cost.

It is far from uncommon to see train fares compare unfavourably with air fares on the same route, giving weight to the argument touted by some that being green sometimes means spending more. However, with more competition arriving on Europe’s rail network and airfares rising sharply in the last year, there is evidence of a discernible shift in how costs measure up.

“Beyond issues caused by fragmentation, cost may be a significant barrier to adoption as client conversations in Europe and North America confirm,” reports Amex GBT's consulting division. “Even where the benefits of taking the train are clear, rail can be expensive versus air, particularly on routes where the rail operator does not face competition.”

Fares are high…

In July this year, Greenpeace revealed findings of a study of rail and air fares on 112 European routes. On 71 per cent of the city pairs rail emerged as the more expensive option and, on average, rail trips were twice as expensive as flying. The UK, Spain, Belgium, France and Italy were identified as the nations with the most expensive train fares relative to air travel.

The report noted that: “In Central and Eastern Europe, trains are more often cheaper in relation to flights than in Western Europe. However, train frequency, speed, connections and services are usually worse than in western countries.”

On some of what the report called the “most effective” train routes in Europe – including Amsterdam-London, London-Edinburgh and Paris-Toulouse – its research found flights remain much cheaper.

The Greenpeace report concluded: “Thanks to the outrageous subsidies that airlines benefit from, they can offer unreasonably low prices – low-cost airlines are at the forefront with their aggressive pricing strategies,” the report concluded. “But these cheap tickets come at a high cost to the planet and its inhabitants, including their employees, airport neighbours, customers, people affected by extreme weather events or biodiversity in general.”

Among a long list of demands from Greenpeace were calls for a ban on short-haul flights where there is a reasonable train alternative – as has been tested in France – and the introduction of an integrated EU-wide ticketing and payment system.

Meanwhile, research conducted by consumer right groups Which? found that eight of the ten UK routes it looked at were cheaper by air than by rail, with train fares on average 49 per cent more expensive. At the same time, carbon emissions per air passenger were six times higher than those of rail passengers on average.

Average air and train fares were at the closest in the study for travel between London and Edinburgh, where new operator Lumo added to the competition with the launch of new services between the capitals in September 2021.