RHW (RealHighway) - Development and Support

[ivo_su]

Is there any development decision on networks RHW-10C and RHW-12s

[Tarkus]

Right now, it's looking like the RHW-10C and RHW-12S will have to wait until a later release, mainly because they'll require a large number of on/offramp pieces to be made.

-Alex

[kbieniu7]

Yes and yes.  The latter's been mostly implemented.

-Alex

Cool! 
May I ask just for one another thing? What do you think about pedestrain crossing cosmetic pieces on RHW-2 or WRHW-2? It's very common on polish roads, because many of them goes trough villages or small towns. Huge part of them are equipped in islands.
Examples:
http://maps.google.pl/?ll=50.346479,20.036308&spn=0.000897,0.002642&t=k&z=19&layer=c&cbll=50.346351,20.036205&panoid=KixSq1F1CIAHUiAeYyiznA&cbp=12,28.69,,0,8.68
http://maps.google.pl/?ll=50.143554,19.972769&spn=0.000908,0.002642&t=h&z=19&layer=c&cbll=50.143519,19.972942&panoid=24sXIwJdu7ZNj2TZDm-cKg&cbp=12,120.16,,0,10.78

[Tarkus]

Those roads look like RHW-2s, but after locating the speed limit signs, and noticing that they read 70km/h and 40km/h, functionality-wise, they are more like Roads/AVE-2s.

-Alex

[Durfsurn]

You have got an eye for that Alex. Wouldn't of thought of looking for that!

[Patricius Maximus]

I was wondering if a SPUI piece for AVE-6/TLA-7 is in the works. I've been building an urban area and I'd find it very useful for higher-capacity interchanges.

[Flatron]

By the way, double lines do simply mean "no overtaking" in europe. Pedestrian crossings on RHW2s do in my eyes not make sense, as they would be too dangerous in RL. Overpasses and underpasses are the solution.

[Glazert]

By the way, double lines do simply mean "no overtaking" in europe.

Not quite. If continuous they mean: do not cross this line. If the road is wide enough for traffic to overtake without crossing the line, that is permitted.

[Flatron]

OK, thats true, but the RHW2 is definitely not wide enough for such maneuvres...

[kbieniu7]

Those roads look like RHW-2s, but after locating the speed limit signs, and noticing that they read 70km/h and 40km/h, functionality-wise, they are more like Roads/AVE-2s.

Well, in this case you are right. I didin't think that 70km/h is more like roads, it was always a "RHW with local speed limit" for me. And 40km/h is only due to the sharp bends, not pedestrain crossing.
Thanks for answering! 

By the way, double lines do simply mean "no overtaking" in europe. Pedestrian crossings on RHW2s do in my eyes not make sense, as they would be too dangerous in RL. Overpasses and underpasses are the solution.

Yes it is dangerous. But it's everyday situation, even on 2x2 roads (of course with local 70 in unbuilt-up or 50 km/h in built-up areas).
By the way in Poland double solid divide always opposite directions.

[wschmrdr]

I was wondering if a SPUI piece for AVE-6/TLA-7 is in the works. I've been building an urban area and I'd find it very useful for higher-capacity interchanges.

Here is a real-life link to a double-left SPUI... https://maps.google.com/?ll=42.753215,-73.769014&spn=0.003872,0.004823&t=k&z=18

I wouldn't mind something like this either, although to be fair, it is 4-lane outside of this and merely expands, as this used to be a traditional diamond interchange with two left-turn lanes.

[Patricius Maximus]

I wouldn't mind something like this either, although to be fair, it is 4-lane outside of this and merely expands, as this used to be a traditional diamond interchange with two left-turn lanes.

This is the situation that led me to consider the AVE-6/TLA-7 SPUI piece:



Notice that it's an urban TLA-7. It isn't all that heavily trafficked now, but suppose it was (as I'm sure many TLA-7's are). The only interchange option that we have now that doesn't take up a lot of space is the basic diamond configuration. The AVE-6 SPUI is a natural extension of both NWM and RHW functionality, and would improve urban traffic congestion quite a bit (just as the real SPUI does). If anything it would be more useful than the existing SPUI piece. These sort of SPUIs also occasionally crop up in real-life. This is another example.

Well, in this case you are right. I didin't think that 70km/h is more like roads, it was always a "RHW with local speed limit" for me. And 40km/h is only due to the sharp bends, not pedestrain crossing.

To me 70 kph seems awfully slow for a RHW-2 type of road (70 kph is more like a "RD-2" (in-game roads)), but I suppose it depends on what you're used to. Worldwide, it's not uncommon for 2-lane rural highways to slow to a 70 kph limit while going through towns. The rural highways I make in SC4 are intended to be unrestricted, but that's just my preference (of course, when those NAM smooth curves come up, so do some advisory signs  ).

As for the pedestrian crossing in a rural area, there are three basic options:

1. Paint a crosswalk
2. Build a pedestrian bridge
3. Post a 30 kph/20 mph school zone with flashing lights

Sometimes a combination can be used, such as a 10 kph (or 5 mph) reduction in the speed limit along with a crosswalk, but those are the basic options.

I prefer the bridge route myself, and use this often in Simcity. Segregating pedestrians and cars is the most elegant, efficient, and safest way. It's also the most expensive way, and often isn't cost-effective in rural areas. It is worth it IMO in cities, but oddly enough they are rarely used, despite the fact that officials claim to value safety, and there is no option safer than segregating pedestrians. As a bonus, drivers could go as fast as the road permits. Also, most of the time these school zones are devoid of anything trying to cross the road, so there's no need to slow down traffic to begin with.

Anyway, that's my "tangent du jour".

[sunv123]

Here in my area, all they do is paint a crosswalk, and put a neon yellow crossing sign. They rarely put flashing lights.

[Tarkus]

I am planning more FlexSPUIs down the road, namely, one for the dual-left turn Avenue TuLEPs, and a couple for the triple-tile NWM networks.  But they're most likely to be done as part of the next development cycle, when we focus more on NWM and TuLEPs-related content.

-Alex

[Haljackey]

TuLEPs and RHW were meant to be together. The current SPUI setup is an excellent example, that's for sure! 

[strucka]

I prefer the bridge route myself, and use this often in Simcity. Segregating pedestrians and cars is the most elegant, efficient, and safest way. It's also the most expensive way, and often isn't cost-effective in rural areas. It is worth it IMO in cities, but oddly enough they are rarely used, despite the fact that officials claim to value safety, and there is no option safer than segregating pedestrians. As a bonus, drivers could go as fast as the road permits. Also, most of the time these school zones are devoid of anything trying to cross the road, so there's no need to slow down traffic to begin with.

Anyway, that's my "tangent du jour".

I must highly disagree with what you wrote. Yes it might seem as the safest way, but surely there is more to what meets the eye. I don't know where you live, but where I'm from (Ljubljana), we have big incetitives for infrastructure more friendly to people, than cars. This means sharper turns on intersections, straighter paths for cyclists and pedestrians, removal of parking spaces from squares and streets in the old city centre, transit roads,... and giving space to the cyclists, public transit and pedestrians, as well as making nicer place for everyone, except the poor car, that has to be parked either in an underground garage, or quite a bit further out. One of the main thing that comes in to play is segregation. The new unoficial textbook on how to make new infrastructure in the city explicitly prohibits segregation. You can only segregate cars from certain places. And believe me the city is flourishing more and more. Use of bicycles rose so much in the past years, that one would be amazed by the change in just 6 years. Not just the bycicles, the ambient of the city is totaly different.
So to get back to the point with the overpasses. If a pedestrian walks in front of you on a highway, what are the chances he lives another day? None. You won't see him. You can't predict he will be there, they aren't allowed there, so you're not aware of them. Yet there are probably thousands of deaths like that every year. Same with segregation on much lower level. Cars should be limited to less than 60km/h in urban areas, especially in denser areas. Because the most important part of urban traffic is the pedestrian. They're the weakest and on the other hand the most favourable. They stop at shops and spend money, but don't take up any space, don't pollute,... Then the cyclists, public transit, cars and of course commercial vehicles. So if you give the right of way to the 4th on the list there must be something wrong with the system.
Besides, if you make an overpass for peds, they will still use the shortest route. You need energy for walking and cycling, cars run ''by themselves''. So if I connect this essay of mine. You still get the peds crossing the road, which means you still need to focus. Which you just don't. I mean come on most people don't even focus when driving on a ped-overcrowded street, let alone somewhere where peds shouldn't be.

I mean just saying... Awesome job on RHW guys!

[sunv123]

I don't know f this has been answered or not, but will there be elevated tranistions, as in ERHW 4 to ERHW 6?

Thanks,

[jondor]

I don't know f this has been answered or not, but will there be elevated tranistions, as in ERHW 4 to ERHW 6?

Thanks,

I haven't made any models for those yet, but I am working on a plan to implement them as well as additional revised elevated exit ramps (as they use the same sort of s-curvy barriers).  They probably won't make it until NAM 32.

There will be some elevated exits, most likely only the already existing ones from RHW5.0 though.

[Flatron]

I have a question: Is it possible to raise the speed limit on RHWs? 100-120 km/h would be great. Same for the Roads, as they are normally only restricted in built up areas. Would it be possible to make the speed depending on if there's zoning next to the road?
OT(strucka): Segregating Pedestrians from cars is horrible I think. It does of course make sense if there's a road/"highway" of a higher class(for instance federal or state roads that don't really run in the built up area, but only tangential) crossing through a small village with only a 70 km/h limit instead of 50 for the real built up areas. By the way, in Bavaria there are some people who have the opinion that the speed limit in built up areas should be 30 km/h, which I find quite useful.Nowadays, everything is 50km/h and 30-zones have to be announced. With the new rule, it would be the other way round.

[GDO29Anagram]

I have a question: Is it possible to raise the speed limit on RHWs? 100-120 km/h would be great. Same for the Roads, as they are normally only restricted in built up areas. Would it be possible to make the speed depending on if there's zoning next to the road?

You generally don't wanna be tampering with network speeds, because they've already been calibrated to reflect their capacity.

For the record, RHW speed is already higher than that: 150 km/h, or 93 mph. This is so that they overtake the speed of Rail (140 km/h), thereby granting RHW more usage than it would otherwise have.

Additionally, speed is constant, regardless of what's zoned along it, so you can't have a variable-speed road. The only way to make it look like a network has a lower speed is by giving it a lower capacity. The NAM Unified Traffic Simulator does this so that the tiles approaching an intersection have a lower capacity. This is not a bug; It's to simulate the braking you would do in real-life.

For the record, here's the list of speeds, which I conveniently written down on a card:

Street 30, RD/AVE 50, OWR 75, MHW/RHW 150, Rail 140, Subway 105, El Rail 115, Monorail 225.

NAM Team Member Z explains one of the traffic simulator's properties (Congestion versus Speed) here:

In short, what this property means is that the nominal network speed applies only when the network is exactly at 100% of capacity.  As network usage drops, speed rises, to a maximum of 130% of the nominal speed when the network has essentially no traffic.  On the other end of the spectrum, when network usage rises over 100%, the speed of the network drops, reaching a minimum of 30% of nominal speed when the network is at 250% of capacity.  This 30% is hardwired in by Maxis; we can't make it lower.

I scratched out part of my above comment; Speed can be variable, but it's dependent on capacity, not by what's zoned along it.