Low-carbon accessibility to Finland

Alt

ernative and low-carbon

accessibility to Finland

Mapping low-carbon accessibility to Finland

Tourism sector is expected to grow rapidly, but this should be happening in decarbonizing

world. The development and promotion of low-carbon modes of transport play a key role in

supporting the sustainable growth of the tourism sector. One of the goals of sustainable

tourism is to reduce tourism, that causes more greenhouse gas emissions. Developing low-

carbon travel chains will reduce emissions-intensive tourism.

This project was about mapping land and waterway accessibility to Finland from Visit

Finland's target markets in Europe (Belgium, France, Germany, Italy, Netherlands, Spain,

Sweden, Switzerland, UK). In particular, the focus was on connections from the most

suitable railway stations from Amsterdam, Berlin, Brussels, Dusseldorf, Frankfurt, Hamburg,

London, Madrid, Milan, Munich, Paris, and Zurich. During the reference period, most trips

were made to Finland from the airports of these cities.

The idea was to map out alternative accessibility from these destinations, including (and

combining) rail, ferry and bus connections. In addition, since many tourists visit more than

one Nordic country or combine Baltic countries in their visit to Finland, accessibility from

these countries was included in the mapping.

The mapping of the rail, bus and ferry accessibility to Finland included travel time, travel

chain (the number of changes within the route) and estimated CO2 emissions. The results

were compared to the similar data on air routes. The aim was to build a comprehensive

picture of the alternative routes to Finland, should aviation not be an option. In addition,

the objective was to find the lowest emitting route to access Finland.

The alternative routes to Finland were researched during January and February 2024. The

research was conducted by The Travel Foundation in collaboration with Visit Finland.

1: Background

1a: Research Rationale

● Potential Vulnerability of Air Route: Can tourists reach Finland if the air route was

temporarily unavailable, for example due to industrial action or a natural disaster, or

if the prices of flights increased (e.g. due to pricing in of emissions) making them

less competitive?

● Potential Vulnerability of No-Fly Routes: Are the various alternative routes resilient to

disruption?

● Market Opportunity: There is a small but growing market in travellers who are

reducing or refusing to fly due to their concerns over climate change. There is also a

market of those who don’t fly because they don’t enjoy the experience. In addition,

since Finland is seen and marketed as a sustainable destination, it is already

focussing on the demographic most likely to be interested in travelling sustainably.

● Responsibility: As a signatory of the Glasgow Declaration Visit Finland has

committed to bold emissions reductions for the country’s tourism sector. It is

essential to explore the potential of all aspects of the sector in helping to deliver

these commitments.

1b: Research Methodology

● Connections were researched from the most suitable railway stations for the

following Western European cities: Amsterdam, Paris, Madrid, Frankfurt, Milan,

Munich, Berlin, Dusseldorf/Cologne, Hamburg, Brussels, Zurich and London.

● Connections were researched from the three Nordic neighbours’ capitals:

Stockholm, Oslo, Copenhagen, and also from the Baltic countries.

● A range of different websites were used to analyse routes and compare their

emissions

○ a) Seat61 to define the route

○ b) for trains: used Ecopassenger to verify journey time and number of

changes. Travel and Climate used to calculate emissions.

○ c) for ferry: used Direct Ferries to verify, and to extract nautical miles and

travel time. Travel and Climate's emissions data per passenger km were

multiplied by the distance

○ d) for coach: Flixbus used to calculate routes, and google maps to calculate

distance. Travel and Climate's emissions data per passenger km were

multiplied by the distance

○ e) for flights, Travel and Climate used to calculate emissions

● Ecopassenger: used as the main website for calculating exact journey times and

number of changes. Whist detailed C02e journey data was collected from

Ecopassenger, this data was not used for the comparison to ensure consistency.

● Travel and Climate: used as the main source of data for all C02e emissions

comparisons to ensure consistency in system boundaries and data sources.

● Flights and trains were calculated using Travel and Climate’s online calculator based

on Methodological Notes 3.0

(7g CO2e/pkm for electric trains in Nordic countries,

24g C02e/pkm for electric trains in rest of Europe. 133g CO2e/pkm for flights).

Travel and Climate Methodological Report 3.0 Available at https://travelandclimate.org/metod. To be updated to

Version 4.0 in April/May

● Emissions for ferries and coaches were calculated based on Travel and Climate’s

forthcoming Methodological Notes 4.0 2 (30g CO2e/pkm for coaches, 186g

CO2e/pkm for ferries)

● The following assumptions are made about journeys calculated Travel and Climate

○ An average load factor (e.g. normal level of crowdedness)

○ Where countries have Green Certificates for renewable energy, these were not

taken into account.

○ Emissions associated with the extraction, production and distribution of

electricity and fuel were included

○ Additional climate effects of other GHG emissions, especially for emissions in

high altitudes (nitrogen oxides, ozone, water, soot, sulphur) were included.

○ Train journeys are made by electric train

○ Flights are by scheduled economy class

○ Emissions from transport by car or bus to and from airports to city centres were

included

● DirectFerries: used as a reference for ferry journey times and distance. Direct Ferries

was used to provide the Nautical miles per ferry route, which was converted into Km

using a multiplication factor of 1.852.

● Google maps: used to calculate distance for coach travel.

● Seat61: used to get a detailed understanding of route options. For train routes

departing from Western Europe Seat61's exact journey recommendations were used

as a basis for calculations (e.g. via Travemünde or Hamburg). In some cases, such as

from the UK or Amsterdam, there were shorter possible journey times available with

shorter or no stops along the journey.

● Flixbus: Since Seat61 does not provide recommendations for coaches via Tallinn,

Flixbus's website was used, and the journeys were selected with a preference for

reasonable departure times, shortest overall journey and fewest changes.

● Trainline.com: used to compare rail routes

● Individual transport company websites: used to assess information on climate

initiatives or to compare emissions data

Larsson, Jörgen (forthcoming) Methodology Report for www.travelandclimate.org Version 4.0

1c: Factors to Consider

Comparison is complex due to the number of factors.

Comparing Time

● All flights were direct and therefore a single time can be estimated. In order to give

a realistic comparison of the actual journey time (since a passenger needs to arrive

at an airport much earlier compared to arriving at a train station, and because

airports are situated out of main cities whereas rail stations are normally in the

centre), 2hrs 45 mins total was added for check in, security, and real transfer times

on public transport from each airport.

● All train journeys involve one or more connections, which vary in length depending

upon when the first leg of the journey begun. The waiting times were integrated into

the total journey time calculations.

● On average land and sea journeys were 7 times longer than flight journeys (often

more than 30 hours quicker). Considering that London to Paris or Paris to

Amsterdam are quicker by train than flight, and that even Barcelona to Paris is

comparable (9hrs vs 5hrs), it is clear that for any passenger considering coming by

train from Europe to Finland time is not the factor.

Comparing Emissions

● Comparing emissions between different transport modes, and even between

different companies is a challenge due to the use of different methodologies for

measuring and reporting. Different companies report their emissions in different

ways, as do different climate calculators. Factors to consider include:

○ Some report only CO2, others all GHGs.

○ Some report GHGs individually, but without providing a CO2e measurement

to enable comparison.

○ Aviation emissions are considered more polluting, because they happen in

the high atmosphere, but this is not always factored in

○ Some emissions are Well to Wake (i.e. production and transportation impacts

included). Others are Tank to Wake (only usage included).

○ Some transport modes have non standardised methods for comparison. For

example, ferries’ emissions can be allocated between passengers and freight

according to volume, weight or revenue allocation, producing vastly different

results.

○ Such individual complexities necessitate using an emissions calculator to

compare across modes. But these may not have been updated to reflect

individual company improvements. Or they may use averages for one or

more legs of a journey.

○ In the case of ferries, there is a huge discrepancy between what the

individual ferry companies are reporting, and what the independent carbon

calculator companies are stating. Unsurprisingly the ferry companies give

figures that are much lower (by a factor of 10).

● Car Travel: We have not included car journeys for comparison because emissions

vary vastly depending upon the type of car (from electric to diesel). In addition,

while an electric car would be zero (or low) emissions, charging times would vary

considerably depending upon the model, making any estimation of journey time

specific to the make of car. Thirdly, the number of people in the car significantly

affects the per passenger emissions, while also making it possible to cover far longer

distances by swapping drivers.

● Bus Travel: It is possible to travel by bus from Europe to Finland in a single

booking (Flixbus) and travelling via Tallinn. It takes 44hrs from Paris or 25-30hrs from

Berlin.

● Offsetting: Several ferry and airline companies offer different types of offset, and

we have not considered these since they do not reduce the actual emissions from

the journey. However newer ‘offsets’ enabling travellers to investing in financing SAF

(as offered by Finnair and Viking Line) may offer a more effective option. It should

also be noted in this context that the upcoming EU Green Claims Directive will place

greater restrictions on companies claiming Carbon Neutrality through the use of

offsets.

Qualitative Comparisons (not included in measurements)

Time and Emissions (and cost) are numerically quantifiable (even if inexactly) and offer

the most immediate comparable factors by which to assess a journey. However there

are other factors that a traveller might consider (especially where time is not the key

issue).

● Booking Complexity: Researching and booking a flight (including comparing

multiple flight options) is a straightforward process involving the use of one (or

perhaps two) websites. Researching and booking trips using trains and ferries often

requires multiple websites for different legs of the journey (for example a passenger

from the UK might need to use at least four websites - Eurostar from UK, Train in

Mainland Europe, Overnight Train between Hamburg and Ferry from Stockholm to

Finland). In addition, should there be a need for public transport connections (e.g. in

Stockholm from train to ferry port), then more booking systems will be required. This

makes the booking process even more complicated, especially for those less

comfortable with digital / mobile technologies.

● Comfort: While lasting considerably longer, train journeys may be considered a

more comfortable experience.

● Accessibility: Depending upon the specifics of the individual’s access needs, the

route and vehicle, visitors may find different routes more or less accessible.

● Pleasure: Depending upon the route, a train journey may pass through iconic

scenery. An overnight train may be considered an experience in its own right.

● Luggage Allowance: Different companies offer differing luggage allowances,

which is generally far larger and less strictly enforced when travelling by train

● ‘Workability’: Depending upon the class of carriage, the quality of the wifi, many

people consider a train an excellent place to work, and indeed the longer journey

time may provide a better opportunity than the shorter but broken up experience of

flying, with its continual interruptions

● ‘Family Friendly’: With four person booths, wifi, space to move around, access to

a variety of meals, some families may consider the train (and/or ferry) a preferable

option. For others it may be preferable to get the journey over as fast as possible.

● Reasons to Stop: The train+ferry journey from Madrid to Helsinki takes 66hrs with

8 changes, compared to a 6hrs journey using a flight. But it stops in Barcelona,

Marseille, Paris, Cologne, Hamburg and Stockholm (with other options such as

Copenhagen also viable). There is an entire holiday available by slowing down, and

designing a trip that does not seek the quickest route, but rather allows time to

discover at various stops along the way.

2: Key findings

2a: Key European Source Markets

For all 11 western cities assessed, the best route (considering a balance of time,

convenience, emissions) always converges on Hamburg. From there there are multiple

options depending upon what factors are most significant for a passenger. However,

this focussing on one city limits the potential capacity according to the number of trains

running between Hamburg and Copenhagen. In addition, there is a potential

vulnerability should an issue in Hamburg cause problems with the connections or access

to the train network.

Emissions: The lowest emitting way to get to Finland is by train (see Figure 1). From

Hamburg a passenger would therefore take an overnight train to Stockholm, and then

connect up to Tornio-Haparanda, before connecting onwards into Finland. By the end

of 2024, the current bus connection from Tornio to Kemi will be upgraded to a railway.

Figure 1: Alternative accessibility to Finland. The lowest emitting route to Finland is by train via Haparanda,

Sweden.

No Fly: For a traveller who simply wishes to avoid flying, there are multiple train+ferry

options that offer alternative ways to reach Finland.

● Option 1: Overnight train to Stockholm, then ferry to Turku or Helsinki. Depending

upon the destination in Finland, this route offers a balance of convenience and the

chance to spend a few hours in Stockholm.

● Option 2: Ferry from Travemunde: Although considerably slower than Option 1, the

direct connection from Finland to Germany reduces the number of legs in the

journey, and offers the option to take the car.

2b: Baltic States

There is a regular ferry from Tallinn to Helsinki. However, the complexity of the journey

to reach Tallinn by train from Western Europe means that we consider this option to be

only viable for residents of Baltic states. When attempting to search for routes such as

Paris-Tallinn, or even Berlin-Tallinn on rail sites such as trainline.com no results were

given. It is technically possible to access Tallinn by rail from across Europe, but it is

complex and lacks co-ordinated booking options. Tallinn is accessible by train from Riga

in Latvia, which is accessible by train from Vilnius in Lithuania. There is a single daily

train from Warsaw to Vilnius. Warsaw connects to Berlin and Brussels. It would take four

nights to travel from London to Tallinn overland the whole way. Seat61 recommends

that travellers wishing to reach Tallinn from the UK without flying go via Finland.

However, given that you can get a Flixbus with just a couple of changes, this route

offers the cheap and simple to book option. It may be less comfortable, but times are

comparable to trains on the other routes, and it's lower carbon than the other ferry

routes as it's a shorter ferry connection.

2c: Scandinavia

Routes from Sweden and Norway

The best land and sea routes from Oslo and Copenhagen are through Stockholm, from

where the same options for onward travel to Finland exist as from Western Europe

For those already travelling along the Arctic Route, there is a bus connection from

Tromso to Rovaniemi. Similarly, for those travelling within Sweden, there is also a short

ferry connection from Umeå to Vaasa.

While there are multiple other road connections (5 between Norway and Finland, and 7

between Sweden and Finland), these don’t feature a scheduled international bus route

and so are not bookable They can, however, be crossed by foot or bicycle, and some

private tour and shuttle companies operate along them. Key routes to Rovaniemi

include from Kirkenes, Kiruna and Nordkapp.

2d: Russia

Ongoing tensions with Russia have closed all routes into Finland from Russia. It is

impossible to predict the long-term situation.

APPENDIX 1: Other factors to consider

Developments in Cleaner Energy Sources

● Grid: Depending upon the country who is supplying the electricity, the mix of fuel

sources used will vary. As countries shift away from fossil fuels grid source electricity

will continue to become lower emissions

● Trains: While efficiencies will increase, trains are already the most sustainably

powered long distance transport option so the pace of change will be incremental.

● Buses: Until/unless hydrogen becomes a widely used fuel source, the limitations of

battery technologies will limit the abilities of long-distance coaches to reduce

emissions from their fuels

● Ferries: Although increasingly technologically viable, the small number of vessels in

fleets, and the time and cost of updating or replacing them, makes change slow.

Biofuel stocks are also limited.

● Aviation: Although work on the electrification of aviation will continue to develop,

and therefore may offer an alternative for certain short flights and very small aircraft

in the future, battery technology makes larger planes and longer flights impossible.

Hydrogen is discussed, but still far from viable. SAF (so-called Sustainable Aviation

Fuel) offers a short-term fuel solution, but supplies are miniscule, and it will take a

long time for more to be available.

Specific work by transport companies on emissions

All companies report engaging in different climate initiatives. As many are specific to the

companies or individual vessels they cannot be used directly for comparison, but are

included here for context.

Ferries: Viking Line

● The two ferries operating by Stockholm and Turku, Viking Grace and Viking Glory,

are powered by LNG (liquefied natural gas) but can also operate on biogas and

synthetic fuels made from renewable energy sources.

● Passengers can help reduce carbon emissions by purchasing a relative amount of

biofuel that matches their journey.

● Heat Power System produces clean electricity from engine heat waste.

● Land-based power supply facilities in several ports, including Tallinn, Mariehamn,

and Helsinki allow ships to connect to shore power while docked, reducing

emissions during port stays.

● Food waste is converted to biogas.

Ferries: Finnlines

● Every vessel operated by Finnlines satisfies the Energy Efficiency Existing Ship Index

(EEXI) standards without modification.

● Annual measurement of Carbon Intensity Indicator (CII) to ensure ships achieve a

minimum carbon intensity during operation. The required carbon intensity level

decreases by 2% annually, driving continuous energy efficiency improvements.

● Through an Environmental Technology Investment Programme, Finnlines lowered

sulphur emissions by over 90%.

● Finnlines enhanced environmental performance by Breeze Class ro-ro ferries being

extended by 30 metres.

Ferries: Eckerö Line

● The vessels run a low sulphur fuel and optimise operating speeds.

● Waste heat from the ship's engines and seawater temperature is utilised as an

energy source of their ventilation and heating systems.

● Utilises shore power. Adopts recycling and food waste mitigation initiatives.

https://www.eckeroline.com/environment-and-responsibility

Ferries: Tallink Silja line

● All new vessels operate a zero spill to the sea policy.

Ferries: Wasaline

● Wasaline’s Aurora Botnia ferry operates on a hybrid solution of dual-fuel engine and

batteries. It can operate on LNG fuel and BioLNG fuel which it claims can lower

emissions by up to 90%.

Railways: SJ

● Trains powered by electric motors utilise 100% of electricity from hydropower or

wind. Additionally, 50% of this source has the Good Environmental Choice label

(“Bra Miljöval”), imposing additional requirements on electricity production, such as

preserving riverbeds and creating fish passages for aquatic species.

● SJ’s train drivers freewheel (move without using engines) for up to more than 100

km on certain routes.

https://www.sj.se/en/about-the-journey/climate-friendly-travel

Railways: Snälltåg

● Trains are powered by renewable electricity, primarily hydropower. The Transdev

group, a member of Fossilfritt Sweden, aims to become fossil-free by 2030.

● During breaking, energy efficient locomotives restore back the energy.

● Fossil-free fuels (RME or HVO) are used for the connecting buses.

● Meals on board pre-ordering option before trip helps to mitigate food waste.

https://www.snalltaget.se/om-oss/en-klimatsmart-resa-med-snalltaget

Railways: Deutsche Bahn

● Long-distance train services are powered completely by renewable electricity.

Railways: Eurostar

● Renewable energy is used in an increasing number of Eurostar trains - 100% wind

energy in the Netherlands and 40% wind energy in the UK.

● Onboard eco-driving technology is being tested in an effort to cut energy use on

every trip by at least 5%.

Railways: SNCF

● Renewable energy (wind, hydraulic, solar, etc.) will become the primary source for

powering trains by 2025.

● SNCF is testing novel propulsion technologies (biofuel powered, hybrid, battery,

and hydrogen) in partnership with industry partners and regional authorities.

● New SNCF stations with improved insulation can produce their own energy and are

High Environmental Quality (HEQ) certified.

● The driver support system with optimised braking and the engine's system on TGV

INOUIs can minimise consumption by up to 12%.

Railways: ÖBB

● Only renewable energy powers all ÖBB trains since mid-2018 and operating

facilities since mid-2019.

Railways: Trenitalia

● Trenitalia has a partnership with Hitachi Rail investing in innovative green

technologies from hyperloop to hydrogen, biofuels and batteries.

Airlines: Finnair

● Travellers can participate in sustainable aviation fuel (SAF) initiatives and certified

offsetting programmes.

● Biofuel partner is Finland-based Neste, the world's largest producer of SAF refined

from waste.

● Stated aim to have carbon neutral non-flight operations (Scope 1 and 2) from 2023

forward (need update on whether achieved so we can include).

Airlines: Lufthansa

● Lufthansa is collaborating on innovative technologies to mitigate fuel consumption

and CO₂ emissions, including initiatives such as AeroSHARK surface film or the use

of hydrogen as a fuel.

● The company also supports Airbus carbon-removal initiative, which pre-purchases

carbon-removal credits to offset emissions.

Airlines: Norwegian Airlines

● Norwegian utilises the SkyBreathe flight operations analysis tool, Through

optimising flights and reducing fuel consumption they aim to reduce 140,000 tons

of CO₂ emissions per year.

● Travellers can participate in sustainable aviation fuel (SAF) initiatives and certified

offsetting programmes.

● Norwegian collaborates with Norsk e-Fuel to construct a new plant in Norway to

produce sustainable aviation fuels (SAF).

Airlines: Scandinavian Airlines

● Corporate and cargo customers are encouraged to reduce their emissions (Scope 3)

through the Corporate Sustainability Program supporting the use of sustainable

aviation fuel (SAF).

● SAS invests into the development of SAF through partnerships with companies

Preem, Vattenfall, Shell, and Lanzatech. Further, they support the production of

electrofuel powered by wind by joining the Green Fuels for Denmark project.

Airlines: Ryanair

● The Ryanair Sustainable Aviation Research Centre investigates with Trinity College

Dublin zero carbo aircraft propulsion systems, sustainable aviation fuels and noise

mapping.

● Ryanair committed to invest in Boeing 737-8200 aircrafts with reduction of CO2 by

16% whilst increasing passenger carrying capacity by 4%.

Airlines: KLM and Air France

● KLM and Air France aim for 64% of fleet being new generation aircrafts by 2028 with

25-30% improved fuel efficiency and capacity to lower CO2 20-25%.

● Both companies commit to increase sustainable aviation fuel (SAF) use and the

improvement of operational efficiency by favouring more direct routes and

introducing procedures that reduce fuel consumption (single-engine taxi, continuous

descent).

● Air France commits to reducing food waste and its carbon footprint with a more

responsible catering approach, by offering pre-order of meals prior to flight and

elimination of single-use plastics.

Buses: Flixbus

● In collaboration with Scania up to 50 coaches will be fitted with Bio-LNG (LBG)

technology to increase the usage of biogas. Coaches running exclusively on Bio-

LNG are expected to decrease 80% of CO2 emissions.

● FlixBus initiated pilot projects of installing solar panels on their buses to generate

energy and reduce CO2 emissions.

● In collaboration with Atmosfair passengers can voluntarily offset their CO2 emissions

APPENDIX 2: Route Comparisons

The following tables show the comparisons between the different routes using the

limitations, assumptions and data sources described in Sections 1b and 1c.

Journey time (hours)

Departure

from

Trains +

ferry to

Turku

All trains

Tornio

Trains +

ferry to

Helsinki (via

Travemunde)

Flixbus to

Helsinki

(via Tallin)

Direct

flights to

Helsinki

Stockholm 12 12 n/a n/a 5

Oslo 20 18 n/a n/a 4

Copenhagen 19 18 n/a n/a 4

Hamburg 34 27 38 32 5

Berlin 36 29 40 31 5

Dusseldorf 40 34 43 40 5

Frankfurt 41 34 42 36 5

Amsterdam 42 35 45 41 5

Munich 42 36 44 36 6

Brussels 43 37 47 47 5

Paris 45 38 47 44 6

Zurich 44 37 47 44 6

London 47 40 52 57 6

Milan 48 42 51 44 7

Madrid

70 63 72 67 8

C02e Emissions

Departure

from

Trains +

ferry to

Turku

All trains

Tornio

Trains +

ferry to

Helsinki (via

Travemunde)

Flixbus to

Helsinki

(via Tallin)

Direct

flights to

Helsinki

Stockholm 87 9 n/a n/a 54

Oslo 97 19 n/a n/a 107

Copenhagen 91 13 n/a n/a 119

Hamburg 103 25 322 70 156

Berlin 110 32 337 68 148

Dusseldorf 114 36 340 87 201

Frankfurt 110 32 346 91 203

Amsterdam 107 29 347 91 201

Munich 118 40 361 97 214

Brussels 111 33 350 99 221

Paris 119 41 359 116 255

Zurich 122 44 363 109 237

London 120 42 359 88 244

Milan 132 54 373 118 259

Madrid

160 82 411 187 394

Number of changes

Departure

from

Trains

+ ferry

Turku

All

trains to

Tornio

Trains + ferry

to Helsinki

(via

Travemunde)

Flixbus

Helsinki

(via

Tallin)

Direct

flights

Helsinki

Stockholm 0 2 n/a n/a 0

Oslo 2 3 n/a n/a 0

Copenhagen 2 4 n/a n/a 0

Hamburg 2 4 1 2 0

Berlin 2 4 2 2 0

Dusseldorf 3 5 2 2 0

Frankfurt 3 5 2 2 0

Amsterdam 4 6 3 2 0

Munich 3 5 2 2 0

Brussels 4 6 3 2 0

Paris 4 6 3 2 0

Zurich 4 6 2 2 0

London 5 7 4 3 0

Milan 4 6 3 3 0

Madrid

6 8 5 2 0

Hours longer than a flight

Departure

from

Trains

+ ferry

Turku

All

trains to

Tornio

Trains +

ferry to

Helsinki (via

Travemunde)

Flixbus

Helsinki

(via

Tallin)

Stockholm 7 7 n/a n/a

Oslo 15 14 n/a n/a

Copenhagen 15 14 n/a n/a

Hamburg 29 22 33 27

Berlin 31 24 35 26

Dusseldorf 35 29 38 35

Frankfurt 35 29 37 31

Amsterdam 36 30 40 36

Munich 36 30 38 30

Brussels 38 31 41 41

Paris 39 32 41 37

Zurich 38 31 41 39

London 41 34 46 51

Milan 42 35 44 37

Madrid

63 56 64 59

C02e saved vs flight

Departure

from

Trains

+ ferry

Turku

All trains

to Tornio

Trains + ferry

to Helsinki

(via

Travemunde)

Flixbus to

Helsinki

(via Tallin)

Stockholm -33 45 n/a n/a

Oslo 10 88 n/a n/a

Copenhagen 28 106 n/a n/a

Hamburg 53 131 -166 86

Berlin 38 116 -189 80

Dusseldorf 87 165 -139 114

Frankfurt 93 171 -143 112

Amsterdam 94 172 -146 110

Munich 96 174 -147 117

Brussels 110 188 -129 122

Paris 136 214 -104 139

Zurich 115 193 -126 128

London 124 202 -115 156

Milan 127 205 -114 141

Madrid

234 312 -17 207

% less C02e vs flight

Departure

from

Trains

+ ferry

Turku

All trains

to Tornio

Trains + ferry

to Helsinki (via

Travemunde)

Flixbus to

Helsinki

(via Tallin)

Stockholm -61% 83% n/a n/a

Oslo 9% 82% n/a n/a

Copenhagen 23% 89% n/a n/a

Hamburg 34% 84% -106% 55%

Berlin 26% 78% -128% 54%

Dusseldorf 43% 82% -69% 56%

Frankfurt 46% 84% -70% 55%

Amsterdam 47% 86% -73% 54%

Munich 45% 81% -68% 55%

Brussels 50% 85% -58% 55%

Paris 53% 84% -41% 54%

Zurich 48% 81% -53% 54%

London 51% 83% -47% 64%

Milan 49% 79% -44% 54%

Madrid

59% 79% -4% 53%