Traffic congestion on the GC-1, TF-5, TF-1… During early morning hours, after school hours, or whenever there is a traffic accident. This succinctly summarises the justifying memory of the forthcoming Canary Islands Sustainable Mobility Law: there is an “excessive load” on the roads of the archipelago, particularly in the two capital cities, Gran Canaria and Tenerife, “completely congested in many cases.” This has numerous consequences.
Transport is responsible for almost half of the greenhouse gas emissions in the archipelago. Vehicles emit thousands of kilotonnes of CO2 equivalent (the unit used to measure these gases), jeopardising the health of the planet. The more inefficient urban mobility is, the greater the delays, the loss of time, and the excess fuel consumption. Additionally, we become less satisfied: the Canary Island government itself cites research suggesting that the commute is the most unpleasant routine activity that people endure.
This is where trains come into play—“the only real alternative” to alleviate this situation, stated María Fernández (Coalition Canaria), Director of Transport and Mobility of the Canary government, following the protocol signed between the state, the regional government, and the island councils of Gran Canaria and Tenerife to promote the construction of the railway network, a necessary step prior to signing a multi-year agreement to secure funding.
In Tenerife, two routes are planned: the southern route, nearly eighty kilometres long with seven commercial stations, and the northern route, just over 36 kilometres with six stops. Meanwhile, in Gran Canaria, the train would travel 57 kilometres from the capital to Maspalomas, featuring eleven stations and primarily underground sections. The cost of these three initiatives would total just over €4 billion, equivalent to more than one-third of the annual budget of the autonomous community. According to the regional government, these developments would completely revolutionise commuting.
“Canary Islands’ sustainable mobility strategy must be robust and transversal, combining railway projects with an efficient public transport network,” added Pablo Rodríguez, Councillor for Public Works, Housing and Mobility, also from CC.
However, a number of mobility experts consulted by Canarias Ahora indicate a lack of consensus on this matter. While urban ecologist Salvador Rueda, creator of the concept of “superblocks” (areas where motor traffic is restricted to peripheral streets, leaving inner spaces for green areas, plazas, and play zones), believes that deploying trains is “common sense,” some environmentalists vehemently oppose its development while various specialists remain sceptical, consistently qualifying their views.
Rueda contends that it is high time to discuss this possibility “seriously.” He believes the railway should serve as “the backbone” of mass movement, with stations transforming into “new centralities” within Canary territory, and viewing mobility as “a service rather than mere vehicle ownership.”
“If there is anywhere where a train makes more sense than anywhere else, it is on an island. Why? Because settlements may be dispersed, but they are highly concentrated along the coast. Thus, there is a critical mass of potential users,” he states.
This leads to one of the most controversial points: whether trains will function considering the urban geography of the Canary Islands—a community with a road density of 55.5 kilometres per square kilometre, one of the highest rates in Spain, and a motorisation rate of 866 cars per 1,000 inhabitants. In essence, this suggests that planning here is designed almost exclusively to favour private vehicles, the only mode of transport capable of catering to the “urban grazing” typical of the islands.
“Trains operate most effectively in high-density systems. This is not Barcelona, where everyone lives close to the metro, so to speak. Here, people must be brought to the train. This is a significant consideration that demands reflection,” notes Julián Sastre, Doctor in Civil Engineering with over forty years of experience in the field.
“This implies a change in mindset,” adds Cristina Arjona, Civil Engineer and Mobility Manager at Greenpeace. “Citizens must understand that their journey will involve two stages, but will be more efficient and economical than travelling by car, in addition to reducing emissions.”
The planning of the train in Gran Canaria addresses this. The eleven stations will act as intermodal nodes, equipped with park-and-ride facilities and connections to other transport routes. The Cabildo documents even mention the possibility of creating “feeder lines” of buses to bring users closer to the railway in large areas. However, they also suggest the potential elimination of some routes, such as line 30 from Global, which connects the capital with Maspalomas, or line 80, also from Global, which goes directly from Las Palmas de Gran Canaria to Telde.
The objective is to “avoid duplication that would inflate the overall system of public transport,” although this would imply closing routes that cover their operational costs and whose profits are currently used as “cross-subsidies” to offset losses from other lines, as acknowledged by the insular corporation itself. “If you eliminate the only profitable line, you ruin the company that is obliged to take people to Tejeda or Santa Brígida,” laments Eugenio Reyes, spokesperson for Ben Magec-Ecologistas en Acción.
The railway proposal is also viewed unfavourably by the local population and the councils in Tenerife. 36% of residents surveyed for the mobility plan rated its implementation as “poorly conceived”; and among the councils, that figure rose to 42%. When its use is compared with the deployment of exclusive bus lanes, it falls short.
“The group of alternatives featuring VAO bus lanes with a hierarchical bus network and a broad offer are the most highly valued,” emphasises the plan.
Rodrigo Vargas, an urban architect who contributed to the analysis, delves into the matter. “I believe that Canary society, as supported by many sociologists, is a very individualistic society. People are increasingly moving further away and living alone… It’s not just a road issue. There is a significantly poor perception of public transport here,” he reflects. The architect also questions the impact of construction on the environment.
“Every time we fragment territory, we reduce the ecological capacities of that land. There are edge species, which exist on the boundaries of an organic landscape, and others that live inside. If we split that area in two, we are lowering the capability of the interior species. In other words, we lose biodiversity. I believe we must plan the train very thoroughly to minimise impact and truly achieve sustainability,” he adds.
This last point is a consistent theme among the consulted experts: to study everything meticulously, without overlooking any variables. “Are we going to spend that money for the demand that exists on the island? That is the question to discuss. The train is an excellent solution but very costly. The project must be comprehensive, but we should not wait 15 years for it. In the meantime, we need an immediate stage based on buses and their advantages, which are flexibility and easier implementation,” states Sastre.
“In some cases, brick has been prioritised, ignoring the real needs of people,” warns Arjona from Greenpeace. “Perhaps the first step should be to improve the existing public transport offer, given that demand has increased. Following this, we could explore other measures, such as VAO bus lanes and park-and-ride facilities… And if we see that demand continues to grow, then we could discuss large-scale solutions.”
The expert suggests prioritising everyday and metropolitan mobility over occasional and long-distance travel, as well as planning the public transport network to ensure it is well “connected and coordinated in timing.” Eugenio Reyes from Ecologistas en Acción urges a focus on accessibility and territorial planning before investing in large transport infrastructures.
“Instead of just moving people, we should move services. A mother, for instance, who needs to take her children to school, then go to the health centre, and afterwards sort out some paperwork… spends the whole morning resolving three tasks because they are distant. This cannot continue,” explains Reyes.
Lastly, ecologist Salvador Rueda criticises those who cast doubt on the viability of trains, focusing solely on the financial investment, without considering the “hidden costs” of mass private vehicle use: atmospheric pollution, premature deaths, and the climate crisis. “How much do wildfires caused by indiscriminate car usage cost? How much does that cost? Calculations must be made comprehensively,” he concludes.
