Concerns Over Railway Projects in the Canary Islands Amidst Clean Mobility Challenges

The proposed railway projects are estimated to cost over €4 billion and will take years to complete. While Salvador Rueda, the creator of the superblocks, believes that their implementation is a matter of “common sense,” environmentalists reject their development, and many specialists express scepticism. The stagnation of clean mobility poses a significant threat to climate goals in the Canary Islands.

Traffic Congestion Concerns

Chronic traffic jams plague the GC-1, TF-5, and TF-1 routes during early mornings, after school times, and following traffic accidents. This is succinctly summarised in the justification report for the upcoming Canary Islands sustainable mobility law, which states there is an “excessive load” on the Islands’ roads, particularly in the two capitals, Gran Canaria and Tenerife, which are “completely congested in many cases.” This situation has various consequences.

Transport accounts for nearly half of greenhouse gas emissions in the archipelago. Thousands of kilotonnes of CO2 equivalent are emitted by vehicles, jeopardising the planet’s health. The more inefficient urban mobility is, the greater the delays, time losses, and fuel consumption. Moreover, it contributes to lower overall happiness, with the Canary Executive referencing studies suggesting that commuting is the most unpleasant routine activity endured by individuals.

The Role of Rail Transport

This is where trains come into play, described as the “only real alternative” to alleviate these issues by María Fernández, the Director of Transport and Mobility of the Canary Executive. This statement follows the signing of a protocol between the State, the regional government, and the island councils of Gran Canaria and Tenerife to promote the construction of the railway network, a precursor to signing a multi-year agreement to secure financing.

Two railway lines are being planned in Tenerife: the southern line, nearly eighty kilometres long with seven commercial stations, and the northern line, just over thirty-six kilometres long with six stops. In Gran Canaria, the line would span 57 kilometres, from the capital to Maspalomas, featuring eleven stations and primarily underground. Collectively, these projects are estimated to cost slightly more than €4 billion, over a third of the Autonomous Community’s annual budget. According to the regional government, their construction would completely revolutionise transportation in the region.

Balancing Different Perspectives

“The sustainable mobility strategy for the Canary Islands must be strong and transversal, combining railway projects with an efficient public transport network,” added Pablo Rodríguez, the Public Works, Housing, and Mobility Councillor, also from CC.

However, a survey of several mobility experts indicates there is no consensus on the issue. Urban ecologist Salvador Rueda, who pioneered the concept of superblocks (areas where traffic is limited to perimeter streets, leaving internal spaces for greenery, squares, and play areas), believes deploying trains is a matter of “common sense.” In contrast, ecologists vehemently reject their development, and many specialists remain sceptical, consistently moderating their views.

Rueda states that it is high time to discuss this possibility “seriously.” He believes the railway should be regarded as the “backbone” of mass movement for people, with stations that could transform into “new centralities” within Canary territory, promoting mobility as a “service” rather than merely private vehicle ownership.

“If there is a place where trains make more sense than anywhere else, it is on an island. Why? Because while settlements may be dispersed, they are often concentrated along the coast. Thus, there is a critical mass of potential users,” he points out.

Urban Geography and Railway Viability

This raises one of the most controversial points: whether the train will work given the urban geography of the Canary Islands, a region with a road density of 55.5 kilometres per square kilometre—one of the highest rates in Spain—and a vehicle ownership ratio of 866 cars per 1,000 inhabitants. This implies that local planning favours private vehicles almost exclusively, as they are the only means capable of covering the unique urban sprawl present on the Islands.

“The train functions better in high-density systems. This isn’t Barcelona, where everyone lives next to the metro, so we need to get people to the train. This is a crucial point that requires reflection,” remarks Julián Sastre, a Doctor of Civil Engineering with over forty years of experience in the field.

“It involves a change of mindset,” adds Cristina Arjona, a civil engineer and mobility lead at Greenpeace. “Citizens need to understand that their journey will have two stages, but it will be more efficient and economical than driving, while also reducing emissions.”

The planning of the Gran Canaria train addresses this. The eleven stations will serve as intermodal nodes, with park-and-ride facilities and connections to other transport routes. Some documents from the Cabildo even mention the possibility of creating “feeder” bus lines to bring users closer to the railway in larger areas. However, there is also the potential to eliminate some current lines, such as Global line 30, which connects the capital to Faro de Maspalomas, or line 80, which runs directly from Las Palmas de Gran Canaria to Telde.

It aims to “avoid duplication that could increase public transport system costs,” although this could involve cutting routes that currently cover their operating costs, with their profits being used as “cross-subsidies” to bail out other services, as the island corporation itself acknowledges. “If you remove the only profitable line, you effectively ruin the company that is obliged to transport people to Tejeda or Santa Brígida,” laments Eugenio Reyes, spokesperson for Ben Magec-Ecologistas en Acción.

Projected Demand and Economic Viability

The round island train would achieve speeds of up to 160 kilometres per hour, completing its entire route in 43 minutes and anticipating a demand of up to 26 million users in its first year—slightly more than half of the 48 million passengers recorded by Global in 2024. The Cabildo believes that around 80% of these travellers would originate from private vehicle usage.

Available information precisely outlines the time required to travel between stations (for instance, from Santa Catalina to Telde would take 14.5 minutes; from San Telmo to Vecindario, half an hour). However, determining the “door-to-door” travel time (from home to work and back) is more complex.

The University of Las Palmas de Gran Canaria (ULPGC) conducted an independent study on the railway using stated preference methodology to gauge which transport option a resident from San Mateo might choose when travelling to Maspalomas. The sample consisted of 500 respondents.

The researchers’ findings are not encouraging for the railway project: usability evaluations show that users primarily value cost and travel duration, while access time or the risk of congestion are, on average, less significant. This resulted in a “negative” socioeconomic evaluation of the project.

Concerns About Environmental Impact

One of the authors of that publication, Francisco Javier Campos, Associate Professor at ULPGC in the area of Applied Economics, admits that trains in the Canary Islands could offer “time savings” for travellers on the north-south corridors of Gran Canaria and Tenerife, “gains from newly generated travellers, and environmental improvements,” while also noting “social costs,” in addition to the initial investment, such as increased emissions at the source, noise, and damage to the landscape, among others.

He explains that all these elements are “perfectly quantifiable” and that ULPGC has “internationally recognised experts” in this field. However, he emphasises that the “critical factor” that often determines a positive or negative evaluation is how many travellers would swap their private cars for trains. This is the modal shift that any mobility policy seeks.

“This is where much of the distrust surrounding the project lies,” Campos clarifies, “because published studies (by the University in contrast to the Gran Canaria Cabildo) significantly disagree in their estimated figures, with a notable lack of transparency in official studies conducted on this issue.”

Campos acknowledges that if the train manages to persuade people to leave their private vehicles, it would significantly address the mobility issues facing the Islands. Nevertheless, he notes that “existing evidence” in transport “is not optimistic in this regard.” He points out that “in most cases we know of in Europe,” trains only relieve congestion in the short term and for a limited number of travellers whose journeys more closely align with the rail route and who have easier access to stations.

Once transfers or park-and-ride facilities are required, the situation changes. “Many users find it unworthy (in terms of time and money) to stop using their cars. Unless private vehicle usage is explicitly penalised (which tends to be politically unpopular), the train will likely struggle to become the dominant mode of transport in the corridor. The real issue isn’t whether trains provide benefits to society,” the expert continues, “but whether those benefits outweigh the high costs of construction and maintenance, alongside the long-term impact on the landscape.”

Considerations in Tenerife

In Tenerife, the authors of the recently approved Sustainable Mobility Plan delved into this dilemma. They recognised that the southern train is “the only future alternative” for achieving more sustainable island mobility. However, they noted that “its high cost, construction challenges, and complex operation” compromise its viability “in the short and medium term due to evident funding shortages.” In theory, this is something addressed by the protocol signed with the State.

The “potential” of the northern train is “less,” both due to its high price “and because alternatives exist,” such as dedicated bus lanes or tram extensions. “All possibilities for managing metropolitan roadways must be exhausted,” the technicians insist.

The reports ultimately suggest that despite both trains’ high capacity, they would attract an “insufficient” number of users from private vehicles, create greater noise levels, and their implementation would increase space occupancy, thus potentially impacting protected natural areas and culturally significant sites.

Additionally, the railway proposal is poorly received by local residents and the municipal councils in Tenerife. 36% of survey respondents for the mobility plan deemed its implementation “not at all advisable,” and among local councils, that figure rose to 42%. When comparing its implementation with the deployment of dedicated bus lanes, it falls short.

“The group of alternatives that rely on VAO bus lanes with a well-structured hierarchy of buses and a broad service offering are the best valued,” the plan concludes.

The Individualistic Nature of Canary Society

Rodrigo Vargas, an urban architect involved in drafting the analysis, elaborates further. “I believe that Canary society, as many sociologists would concur, is very individualistic. People are increasingly living further away and more alone… It’s not just a matter of roads. There’s a significantly poor perception of public transport here,” he reflects. The architect also questions the project’s impact and how it might affect the environment.

“Every time we fragment the territory, we are diminishing that soil’s ecological capacities. There are edge species, which exist at the boundaries of an organic landscape, and others are interior. If we cut that polygon in two, we reduce the capacity for interior species. In short, we are losing biodiversity. I believe the train must be planned very carefully to minimize impact and achieve real sustainability,” he emphasises.

This sentiment echoes among consulted experts: every factor must be studied meticulously without overlooking any variables. “Are we going to spend that money based on the demand that exists on the island? That’s the question that needs discussing. The train is a very good, albeit costly, solution. The project should be comprehensive, but we cannot wait 15 years for it to materialise. Meanwhile, we need an immediate preceding stage based on buses, which are flexible and easier to implement,” Sastre states.

“In some cases, construction has been prioritised at the expense of people’s needs,” warns Arjona of Greenpeace. “Perhaps the first step should be to improve the existing public transport service, given that demand has grown. After that, we can consider other measures like VAO lanes, park-and-ride facilities… If we see demand continues to rise, only then should we discuss large-scale solutions.”

Public Transport Usage in Focus

For the expert, it is advisable to “prioritise everyday and metropolitan mobility over occasional and long-distance travel,” in addition to planning the public transport network to ensure it is well “connected and coordinated in timing.” Eugenio Reyes from Ecologistas en Acción calls for a focus on accessibility and territorial planning before committing to large-scale transport infrastructures.

“Instead of moving people, we should be moving services. A mother who needs to take her children to school, then to the health centre, and subsequently to sort out some paperwork… spends the whole morning tackling three tasks because they’re all far apart. That’s untenable,” Reyes expresses.

Finally, ecologist Salvador Rueda criticises those who doubt the viability of the train projects by focusing solely on the financial investment, without considering the “hidden costs” of widespread private vehicle use: air pollution, premature deaths, and climate crisis. “How much do the fires caused by everyone driving their cars freely cost? What’s the price tag on that? Costs must be considered comprehensively,” he concludes.