^{_{MODAL SHIFT}}
ALL ABOARD

Moving business travellers from air to rail is an effective and one of the most widely deployed tactics of organisations seeking to reduce their carbon footprint. But that doesn’t mean it’s easy.

Companies such as EY and Salesforce (see their respective case studies elsewhere in this report) are among the many influential organisations to have introduced policies and procedures designed to accelerate this modal shift.

EY has identified more than 100 air routes worldwide where there is a viable rail option and, using its Sustainable Travel Approval Tool, provides messaging and nudges to push travellers onboard trains. The result? Rail bookings among EY’s business travellers have increased from 10 per cent of all travel bookings in 2019 to 22 per cent now. For one participating firm where there is an extensive rail network, rail bookings increased from 20 per cent to 63 per cent following implementation of the approval tool.

Meanwhile, Salesforce has worked to shift travellers to rail over the last three years, identifying 10 high-volume routes, mainly in Europe and the Northeast US, where it has been able to negotiate preferred rates.

In its Ground Monitor 2023-2024 report, American Express Global Business Travel said that where rail offers a viable alternative to air, its clients have achieved 90 per cent reductions in emissions by making the 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 – as well as rail travel’s sometimes prohibitive cost, its lack of visibility alongside air in some booking tools, and ingrained traveller habits.

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.

“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.”

Indeed, one European travel manager told BTN Europe: “Procurement and travel sit under finance in our company and you can imagine how that affects decision-making when rail is often more costly.”

Although that company has committed publicly to a net zero target, it’s culture of not mandating policy is hindering rail adoption. On the plus side, its preferred booking tool can display air and rail options alongside each other at the point of search. Not all can do so.

BEHAVIOURAL CHANGE

The good news is that, according to a study conducted by digital business travel information platform TouristMobile and the University of Innsbruck, business travellers can be ‘nudged‘ highly effectively to reduce carbon impact by shifting from air to rail on routes where both options are viable.

TouristMobile CEO Marina Hegemann presented the EU-funded research, which surveyed 1,200 business travellers and analysed data from one million business trips, at the annual conference of German travel management association VDR in Berlin earlier this year.

The study ran an A/B test for a mocked-up online booking tool on various routes, such as Berlin to Munich, with business travellers offered air and rail options at a similar price. In Test A, the duration of the trips was shown prominently as 1 hour 10 minutes for air and 4 hours 30 minutes for rail. Only half the travellers chose rail in this scenario.

For Test B, two modifications were made to the booking screen. The first was a graphic showing that the air option emitted 154kg of CO2 and the rail option 0kg (rail operator DB Business uses 100 per cent renewable energy). The second modification was the addition of a statement: “Flight time doesn’t include check-in, boarding and security checks.” In this scenario the proportion of travellers choosing rail rose to 66 per cent.

However, Hegemann said the significant potential to shift travellers to rail is not being met because most corporate booking tools are incapable of nudging business travellers. 

“Some are not able to display air and rail on one screen, so you have to decide before you enter the online booking engine whether you want to go by train or fly,” she said. “You can do it in Opodo or Expedia in the consumer world but not in the business travel world.”

Demographic analysis of the results found infrequent travellers are easier to influence. The study also revealed that nudging is vital in the quest for sustainability because environmental consciousness on the part of travellers is unlikely to suffice alone. 

Sustainability ranked only sixth out of eight criteria considered by travellers when planning a business trip. Travel time, cost and comfort were the top three factors by some distance.

Unsurprisingly, distance between the traveller’s home and the nearest airport or high-speed rail terminus proved a key factor in choice of transport mode. But, tellingly, flights were more popular than rail where the two departure points were equidistant.

The study also found that corporate booking tools are used by 70 per cent of travellers to plan their trips, but the wider internet is also used by 50 per cent to research travel options. 

“All the travel managers we presented to were shocked that their travellers research the internet so much, and wanted to know what they were looking for,” said Hegemann. The reason, she added, is that travellers are not finding the information they need on corporate booking tools.

PRICE PROHIBITIVE

Price also remains a barrier. 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.

“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 Greenpeace 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.

COMPETITION BRINGS BENEFITS

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.

As Amex GBT points out, in 2019 rail accounted for one-third of all trips between London and Edinburgh. By 2022, rail's share was up to more than half, at 54 per cent, which was attributed to more competitive fares but also rail’s increasingly important carbon credentials. The TMC declared that “competition is working”.

In the decade since competition arrived on the Rome-Milan rail route, the number of rail passengers quadrupled, notes Amex GBT, and more than two-thirds of people travelling between the cities now take the train. And in France, train fares have fallen by seven per cent on average since the arrival of competing operators between Paris and Lyon.

In Spain, meanwhile, a study conducted earlier this year by Phocuswright and data intelligence provider Mabrian also showed how new rail entrants helped level things up on one of the country’s top business routes, Barcelona to Madrid.

“Train operators have been expanding their offerings and attracting more passengers, posing a threat to the sustainability and future viability of the air shuttle between Barcelona and Madrid,” reported Mabrian.

Its report notes that three airlines – Iberia, Vueling and Air Europa – together provide 16 daily flights between the cities on average. Meanwhile, four train companies – Renfe’s AVE and AVLO, SNCF’s Ouigo and Trenitalia’s Iryo – provide, on average, 21 daily services.

France’s Ouigo entered the fray in May 2021 and was followed in November by Trenitalia’s Iryo. Since then, average train fares between the cities have dropped 43 per cent and ticket sales have quadrupled. Both operators are planning to expand to other high-speed routes in Spain, such as Madrid-Valencia and Madrid-Seville-Malaga.