France has enacted a law banning domestic flights on routes where a suitable high-speed rail alternative already exists.
France has enacted a law banning domestic flights on routes where a suitable rail alternative exists – and takes less than two-and-a-half hours to complete.
The ban aims to reduce carbon emissions and encourage more citizens to choose France’s robust, eco-friendly rail network as an alternative to flying domestically.
On average, air travel produces roughly 77 times more carbon dioxide per passenger than rail travel.
France is the first country in the world to enact a ban of this type.
Conditions of the ban state that the affected air routes must have a high-speed rail alternative, making it possible to complete the journey in under two-and-a-half hours.
Additionally, trains must run between the destinations early and late enough to allow a traveller to spend a minimum of eight hours at their destination before making a same-day return trip.
France’s transport minister, Clement Beaune, announced the ban with enthusiasm.
“This is an essential step and a strong symbol in the policy of reducing greenhouse gas emissions,” said Beaune.
“As we fight relentlessly to decarbonise our lifestyles, how can we justify the use of the plane between the big cities which benefit from regular, fast and efficient connections by train,” he added.
The major cities of Bordeaux, Nantes and Lyon would be affected by the ban, however, the conditions fall just short of including the popular holiday destination of Marseille.
Critics of the ban described it as a purely symbolic gesture by French President Emmanuel Macron, paying “lip service” to environmental concerns.
The president was accused by critics of “watering down” the proposals made by his own environmental panel, which recommended the ban include flights which could be completed by train in less than four hours.
“No-one will be fooled by this measure: passengers are naturally turning away from taking flights on these routes,” tweeted Guillaume Schmid, former vice president of Air France’s pilots’ union.
“The French flight ban is a symbolic move, but will have very little impact on reducing emissions,” said Jo Dardenne, an aviation director at clean transit campaign group Transport & Environment.
Transport & Environment estimates that the flights affected by the ban account for only three per cent of emissions produced by domestic flights within the French mainland.
A ban of this type is possible in France largely due to the country’s highly developed rail infrastructure.
A similar policy in Australia would have little to no effect as there are no flight paths with an alternate rail route of under two-and-a-half hours.
The journey from France to Lyon by train covers a driving distance of over 450 kilometres, nearly double the distance between Canberra and Sydney — a four-hour journey on Australia’s rail networks.
