14 July 2021
•
5 min read
Which? investigation reveals how planes continue to beat trains on ticket prices, despite much higher carbon impacts
Millions of families planning a greener staycation in 2021 face a financial penalty if they choose to travel by train rather than plane, a Which? investigation has shown.
The consumer affairs brand compared the cost of flying to taking the train on the same dates on 10 popular routes across the UK. The snapshot investigation found that in eight instances it was more expensive to take the train, costing 49 per cent more on average than flying, while one train route cost more than two and a half times more than a plane ticket for the same route.
It means that, at a time of economic hardship and uncertainty for many, holidaymakers face what Which? describes as "a near-impossible trade-off" between low fares and reducing their carbon footprint.
The CO2 emissions caused by flying are, on average, six times greater than those resulting from taking the train.
The biggest difference in price the Which? team uncovered was for a return journey from Birmingham to Newquay, with a flight costing £67 and a train journey on the same dates costing £180 - an increase of 169 per cent. In addition, the train route Which? found involved making two changes and, including the return journey, would take more than 10 hours longer than flying in total.
However, flying the same route would emit more than five times the CO2, creating an average of 156kg of CO2 emissions per person. Taking the train would, in comparison, emit around 27kg of CO2 per person.
Which? said that each route it checked would create at least five times the carbon emissions by aeroplane compared to the corresponding train route, with some flight routes emitting more than six times as much carbon.
The biggest difference in carbon emissions the consumer rights organisation found was on the Bristol to Newcastle route. A flight from Bristol to Newcastle and back would emit 203kg of carbon dioxide per person, compared to the train journey which would emit 33kg per person, a ratio of more that 6:1.
However, at £87 the flight journey would cost less than half of the £172 train journey. The total journey, including both the outward trip and the return, would also take more than six hours longer by train than it would by plane.
The flight routes with the highest carbon emissions were Edinburgh to Bournemouth and Glasgow to Southampton, at 287kg of CO2 per person each. A return trip by train from Edinburgh to Bournemouth would only emit 52kg of CO2 per person - around a fifth of the emissions created by flying - but the journey would cost £70 more and take 14 hours longer.
"As the pandemic continues to cause uncertainty for international travel, many of us are taking holidays closer to home this year," said Rory Boland, travel editor at Which?. "Travellers who choose to take the train face significantly higher fares and journey times, putting those who want to lessen their environmental impact at a disadvantage.
In response to its findings, Which? is advising anyone wanting to reduce their carbon footprint while travelling across the UK to do their research to find the cheapest and fastest way to travel by train by taking advantage of advance booking, railcards, and other money-saving tricks such as split-ticketing.
Boland added: "There are steps that people can take to reduce the cost of travelling by train. Take the time to compare dates and times to see if cheaper fares are available, and look into what railcards you might be eligible for to save up to a third on train travel. You may be able to make further savings by checking if split-ticketing is an option on your chosen route."
The new analysis comes in the same week as research from PwC that revealed commuters are willing to pay more in travel costs to help protect the environment and reduce the UK's emissions. PwC surveyed 2,000 people and found that lower earners were the most willing to pay more to support environmental measures. Just over half of people earning £30,000 and under said they would support paying more, compared to just 45 per cent of those earning £60-90,000.
With work patterns disrupted by the pandemic only 20 per cent of those surveyed said they would be minded to buy monthly rail passes, preferring contactless and reduced off-peak travel tickets. "Our research shows a clear public mandate to sustain the positive environmental effects we have seen during the pandemic even at a financial cost to them," said PwC's transport leader Grant Klein. "A key challenge for national and local government is how to accelerate environmental schemes like ultra-low emission zones across the UK. They will also need to address changes in the modes of travel passengers have available to them, with a growth in cycling and the introduction of new modes such as e-scooters.
"While people expect a significant shift back to normality after the pandemic, travel patterns and plans for greater flexibility have already changed because of Covid. Contactless payments and flexible part-time tickets will become more relevant to travellers as a hybrid of remote and on-site working becomes the norm."
The two new reports come as the government prepares to publish its long awaited Transport Decarbonisation Plan, which is expected to include a wide-ranging package of measures to encourage people to switch to lower carbon forms of transport.
However, the new strategy is not expected to include significant measures to curb demand for higher emission forms of transport such as aviation, with the government unlikely to emulate the French government's recent moves to ban short haul flights on routes where train links are available.
