Quasi-tram/light-rail on existing full-width tracks?Idk about the specific terms but anyway here's the meat of the issue;Trams are popping off in Finland. After Tampere successfully opened their tram to a roaring success some years ago other finnish cities are looking on with envy and now want their own trams. One such city is Vaasa. However, the city is quite small (65k + 10k just outside in commuting distance) and doesn't have the funds for a proper new tram network. The city officials have however prepared a plan. The plan includes to use the already existing rail for a local city train. The train/tram(?) would at the very least travel between the airport and the harbour with about 10 stops in between. The line from the train station to the harbour is basically not in use (I've marked it as 'derelict' but it's in very good condition, just unused) In the plans it is also discussed that the train could out into the countryside (bottom right of the map) to provide local train service for people out in the villages where the main service provider (VR, state rail) has stopped servicing a decade ago.So, are there any other examples of this? Could this work?Are the city officials insane, or simply trying to appear busy?Would this be the joke of the century, or the missing link in the city's transport infrastructure?Discuss, ask if anything was unclear. Also discuss transit feasibility in small cities.Problems I see:>too low population>whilst the rail line technically passes by the airstrip, it's nowhere near the airport where you'd check in>a new line to the actual airport would thus be needed>it's mostly single track rail, suboptimal, especially when regular trains are coming and going on half of the proposed line.Positives:>connecting transport methods to each other (harbour-train station(includes busses)-airport)>it's a train>using existing infrastructure>connecting industries with residential areas
Of course it's possible, Austin converted a freight line to a light rail-style train (diesel powered) that's compatible with the existing network, it just added stations, a few pass-through points, and upgraded crossings.Problem is ridership will be abysmal and the fixed costs alone will just make it a waste of money.
>>2030517How do you know ridership will be abysmal? Austin is building a shitton of new apartments all over town, and has been building like that for a decade. And with no slowdown in sight it sounds like they're the ideal place to build a light rail. Unless it's just placed very poorly in the city.
>>2030546I was talking about the small train in Finland. And Austin's train line is still an underperformer.
>>2030517That's what I was thinking as well. How big would a city need to be though for it to be worth it? As I mentioned the city of Tampere opened their tram in 2021 and had their final station open just a week ago, and it has been a roaring success. Tampere has 260k people and maybe another 50k in nearby villages. 16 million trips were made last year or >40k/day. And they built it from scratch.The main problem I see with Vaasa in particular is that the centre of the city is quite compact (and small so you can easily walk across it) but the surrounding suburbs are pretty much american style car dependent suburbs. So the people who do live in the centre don't need it and the suburbs are so low density it's not worth it. It only really makes sense as a commuter train for the villages which currently do not have any train service (but have had previously so all infrastructure is still there)
