Show us your...Intersections

[Kitsune]

see ... nothing is wrong with rail going over a highway .. I've seen a lot of examples of it in Canada. The only thing it needs is a longer embankment.

[compdude787]

 know SC4 saves screenshots as PNGs when you use the in-game screenshot feature, but it's generally discouraged to post images in that format because they take forever to load, even on a ~4 Mbps DSL connection. Right now, I'm connected to a wi-fi network with a really weak signal, so not only do I have slower internet, but I often lose the signal before the pictures have a chance to load all the way. So basically, I can't see them and I can't give you any feedback on the interchanges.

This is why people generally post images as JPGs, not PNGs here. Heck, it'll even take you less time to upload the images. Thanks!

EDIT: Pictures finally decided to load, so I'll give you some suggestions.

-Making use of smooth curves would make your RHW look a lot better
-I don't think it's that bad to have a rail overpass over a freeway since they're quite common in RL. But I'd recommend having an gently-sloping embankment leading up to the overpass and then an on-slope transition instead of that steep ground-to-elevated transition puzzle piece. And if you have rail overpasses close to each other, keep the stretch between the two overpasses elevated or on an embankment to eliminate unnecessary grade changes.
-Definitely use avenue roundabouts in the first picture to keep the entire stretch be the same capacity.

[APSMS]

see ... nothing is wrong with rail going over a highway .. I've seen a lot of examples of it in Canada. The only thing it needs is a longer embankment.

True enough... but generally by longer you should indicate how long. 10 to 15 tiles should be enough, though of course 40 is more realistic. I usually stick with around 15-25, depending on my mood and the proximity to existing development. I'm not a crazy realism nut, but I do agree that longer is better whenever possible.

That being said, these are decent starts at using the RHW, though the approach is rather heavy-handed. With some nice embankments your trumpet interchange would look a lot smoother. If you stick to elevated pieces, some thorough scouring of the ramps menu will reveal some pieces that would have let you make it roughly 2/3 the current size, and look much smoother/natural as well.

On the first interchange, not sure why you have an avenue switch to a road and then back to an avenue just for an on/offramp/intersection. There is no added capacity that way and in my opinion it just looks really weird (bad).

Acceleration/Deceleration lanes are also something to consider adding. They aren't needed on every exit, but more often than not indicates that you're a good highway designer.

[dyoungyn]

Here is one that I ABSOLUTELY LOVE as it is MUCH MORE realistic with Intersections, some thing I have been wanting for years.

I am proud of this and only WISH that there were the same for AVE 6.

dyoungyn

[sincitybaby]

I would like to show you the evolution of an interchange in the city of New Concord.

This interchange connects the city's northern suburbs (on the right side of the images) to both Downtown to the south and the Port and Industrial sectors to the West.

PR-17 runs from the west to the north (from the top of the image to the right side of the image), while PR-117 merges with PR-17 as it comes from the south (from the left of the image to the right).



Here is the first version of the interchange, but a need for another connection into the densely populated peninsula inspired a more efficient design.



Here is the second design, which featured express lanes that provided another much needed entrance into the densely populated peninsula.  However, I felt another redesign to create an even more efficient interchange would be necessary.



Here is the current interchange, now with a total of 2 express lanes in each direction connecting New Concord's northern suburbs directly to Reifer Beach, the city's premier shopping and entertainment district.  Eventually, I plan on expanding the SB ramp from PR-17 to PR-117 from one lane to two lanes.

[simonvangenderen]

Built this interchange in a coastal city which was supposed to be a village. It was supposed to have 40.000 inhabitants, but now contains about 233.000.

[IronMetal]

Hi, this is my first post in this awesome forum. I know it for years, but never found the time to write. So... here are my first three NAM intersections since a lot of time not playing SC4 (sorry for my faulty english )







My favourite is the T-intersection (the last one), hope you enjoy it

[isii94]

That's true, the last one is the best.

Some things you could improve:
first pic
- Don't join the ramps on the cloverleaf to a RHW 2, that's extremely dangerous in RL as you can get on the wrong side very easily. Better separate them to two MIS ramps.
- Put the railway in a tunnel or on an embankment, that rollercoaster looks strange and is unrealistic.
second pic
- I don't see the point for the four loop ramps, especially the ones on the left side of the motorway. They create unnecessary weaving issues. A simple trumpet interchange would be the way to go here. By doing that you could also avoid this strange rail viaduct loop because there will be enough space for a shorter bridge

[joshua43214]

@Ironmetal
Merging the MIS ramps into RHW2 is fine in a tight urban environment. We have this type of thing all over the place where I live. Yes, people do get on the wrong ramp at times (drunk drivers), but they save valuable space and sims do not drive drunk. No sense in wasting valuable space, and replacing a very nice looking set up with ugly MIS ramps that are never quite parallel on curves. Also, in RL they are almost always separated by a concrete barrier.

Also, don't worry too much about weaving unless it is a really major interchange. Some weaving on minor ramps is fine, especially with the distance they have to merge in pic 2. I would probably replace the whole mess with a parallel junction anyway. It is just a road that the traffic is getting onto after all, even the round abouts are eye candy (and they suck to live around). No need for a free flowing high speed interchange. I would not even consider something that fancy unless I was exiting onto something like road 6, or TLA 7. If an avenue or road 4 needs a high speed interchange, it needs to be upgraded to something bigger anyway.

I would suggest dumping the 15m, crap altogether. US FHWA recommends 4.3m to 4.9m overpasses. Even the new NAM paradigm is over-scaled, and the 15m bridges are just plain dumb. With the 7.5m overpasses, you can get very smooth transitions, and do 8x8 tile MIS curved ramps that look very nice.

I would also suggest swapping the rail and el-rail bridge crossings. You can neatly get over the water with the rail where the el-rail bridge is, and the el-rail will make the tight turn onto the bridge better. Might take some "urban renewal" on the other side, but probably very worth it, and you can probably use underground rail to get the heavy rail back where it belongs.

I like the trumpet. That would be the perfect place for the diagonal on-slope ramps that do not exist except in out dreams.

[Tarkus]

I would suggest dumping the 15m, crap altogether. US FHWA recommends 4.3m to 4.9m overpasses. Even the new NAM paradigm is over-scaled, and the 15m bridges are just plain dumb. With the 7.5m overpasses, you can get very smooth transitions, and do 8x8 tile MIS curved ramps that look very nice.

There is actually a long-running idea in the SC4 BATing/modeling community that the game's camera causes the vertical dimension to appear compressed, and to compensate for this, the general rule of thumb used by many content creators is upscale objects on that axis by a factor of 130%.  If we apply this scaling to the top end of the FHWA standard, we end up with 4.9m * 1.3 = 6.37m.  The elevated RHW and Road viaduct models actually have a substructure that extends 1m below the road surface, so for the L1 7.5m overpasses, the actual clearance is 6.5m, which is only 13cm/5.9 in. higher than that standard.  I had actually looked at 5m at one point, but that went against the Rule of 130%, and more critically, some taller custom automata out there, like the double-decker buses and some freight trains, would have clipped the overpasses.

Oddly enough, Maxis' standard on the El-Rail and Monorail networks was not 15m but 15.5m, and the Maxis Highways are even taller, with the paths at 15.7198m.

-Alex

[joshua43214]

The elevated RHW and Road viaduct models actually have a substructure that extends 1m below the road surface, so for the L1 7.5m overpasses, the actual clearance is 6.5m, which is only 13cm/5.9 in. higher than that standard.  I had actually looked at 5m at one point, but that went against the Rule of 130%, and more critically, some taller custom automata out there, like the double-decker buses and some freight trains, would have clipped the overpasses.

Oddly enough, Maxis' standard on the El-Rail and Monorail networks was not 15m but 15.5m, and the Maxis Highways are even taller, with the paths at 15.7198m.

-Alex

That is really interesting. I had assumed 7.5m was just half of 15m, and made the whole flex transition thing much simpler.

Either way, it looks amazing in game. I can't say enough good things about the latest NAM, I actually use huge amounts of RHW now, in the past I avoided it because 15m elevated curves made my eyes hurt. Now I can do almost everything by terraforming and take advantage of all the smooth diagonal and FA stuff.

BTW, how much do we have to bribe you for the diagonal flex on-slope piece? I am sure the community would be willing to pitch in Its been on my wish list forever and I would take it before smooth elevated curves.

[triplennn86]

I like the trumpet. That would be the perfect place for the diagonal on-slope ramps that do not exist except in out dreams.

BTW, how much do we have to bribe you for the diagonal flex on-slope piece? I am sure the community would be willing to pitch in Its been on my wish list forever and I would take it before smooth elevated curves.

You're both in luck! There is a way to do Diagonal On-slope Transitions with some pretty simple finagling... McDuell even made a whole tutorial!
http://sc4devotion.com/forums/index.php?topic=16525.0

[tomatentobi]

Great Intersections everyone! The things I see here always inspire me!

here are some of my own recent experiments, and some already included in a city. I hope you like them:



















Resized the pictures.

[Gugu3]

Very nice!!!

[vortext]

Great city tomatentobi! Wouldn't mind seeing more pics of it some time! 

[compdude787]

I like the interchanges that are actually located in your cities best, because they're more compact than the ones you did in your test regions. Honestly, I like seeing interchanges with other things around them. It appears that having a city around your interchanges makes you build them to be more compact.

The interchange in the second picture looks nice, and it reminds me of this interchange in Vancouver, WA. The first and third ones seem like they would exhibit a lot of weaving problems, and/or take up too much space to be of practical use anywhere.

[isii94]

Another one from me:



This is the interchange between the M1 and the M12 in my upcoming MD region. This city tile holds two interchanges of which this one is the smaller (I'll keep the other one for another time).

[tomatentobi]

here's a new one i made


this one only needs more decorations


and here are some more from all around my city:








Thanks for the tip guys! I resized them 

[compdude787]

Nice interchanges, tomatentobi! But please remember to keep the width of them under 1024 pixels, so we don't have to scroll to the right to see the whole picture.

Anyway, I just finished making this diagonal T-interchange:


Hope you like it!

[APSMS]

here's a new one i made:
<snip>

You can use the following tags on your images:

Code Select Expand

[img width=1024]http://www11.pic-upload.de/11.08.14/oeyuemgcw1av.jpg[/img]

Which looks like this:

And you can click on it to view full size.

Of course, 1024 is a fine width resolution, and is actually a maximum required per the site rules. 1024 is also more useful, as we can then see the whole image at once, and then zoom in if we want to, which isn't an option with the really big or small images.

Compdude787, that looks nice, though some embankments would have been nicer even though I understand the space constraints.