RHW (RealHighway) - Development and Support

[Swordmaster]

Wow, 140 kmph on railroads? Would love to see RL freight moving at that speed.

Cheers
Willy

[AngryBirdsFan436]

WOW! 150km/h So glad you're using the metric system

[Patricius Maximus]

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

Good. I also intend to contribute more about pedestrians and traffic calming, but not until tomorrow. Until then, good night.

[shinkansen1]

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.

Well that explains why my OWR-AVE-OWR setup failed to ease congestion on major routes in my cities. Or is it because I used avenue roundabouts at intersections instead of actual intersections? I was worried that if I left the roundabouts out, there would be far more traffic accidents occurring.

[Patricius Maximus]

As a pedestrian and cyclist, a bridge or underpass is more attractive to me than negotiating a high-speed road with opposing traffic. I wouldn't be concerned with stupid people, since no design will eliminate stupidity. Car drivers have travel needs as great as pedestrians. Total segregation is impossible, but in my ideal city there wouldn't be crosswalks across arterial roads. I've lived in integrated and segregated cities, and when I was walking or cycling I personally found the segregated paths more useful than negotiating arterial roads, as long as the idea is well-executed. I'm actually a fan of making minor roads more friendly to pedestrians, by using "natural" traffic calming, where slower speeds seem natural and in order, as opposed to forced and inordinate. This is an example of forced calming, and this is an example of natural calming. See the difference? Only roads like these should have 30 kph limits, since 30 kph is simply too slow of a speed for any kind of major road (80-100 kph is more like it).

My modus operandi is "move traffic faster, shorten trip time, decrease congestion, increase convenience". Any plan that detracts from that moves us backward instead of forward, and I want to move forward. If I'm coming into a big city, I'll first be on a freeway, then I'll exit off to an arterial road, then I'll take a minor street to my destination. Most of the trip time is spent in the freeways and arterials, so partially pedestrianizing such streets will help pedestrians without hurting car drivers. Shared space would slow down traffic too much on arterial roads.

As for parking, I've always been interested in the idea of Underways, be it for London or any other major city. I know it's impractical to actually build (at least at this time), but I still think it's very interesting.

[Monorail Master]

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.

Is one of the new elevated exits a ERHW-8 - ERHW-4 splitter for the new ERHW-8 in 5.0? I can see that piece coming into good use for ERHW Trumpet/T-bone interchanges and other stuff.

[noahclem]

We're wandering a bit off topic but I wanted to say very interesting post Patricius Maximus! The underways plan would be the perfect traffic solution for big cities if it wasn't for what I imagine would be an insane price tag. One of the things about segregating motorized and non-motorized traffic is that the motorized traffic usually still has a big impact on the surrounding areas. Unsightly motorway viaducts, dangerous and crime-filled pedestrian underpasses, and neighborhoods divided by traffic are common results. Motorway tunnels avoid these problems and are a solution I try to use in SimCity, though our options are somewhat limited.

I've actually seen underways in real life. Despite having only 70,000 people, Tromso has an extensive network of tunnels for its thoroughfares and for parking. Almost all are 2-lane and 70km/hour, though there is a 3km stretch of twin 2-lane tunnels going under the fjord. I guess they built them because there's very little flat land for roads and because Norway has an excessive amount of money.

[Flatron]

Munich(1.2Millions), too has put parts of it's "MittlererRing(middle Ringway)", a 4-6 lane inner city highway(though it's mostly 50/60km/h) under ground. This has made the surrounding neighbourhoods more attractive.
I didn't want to say that segregation is useless on arteries or ringroads. The problem is that we have many stroads nowadays, mixtures between street and road, where neither motorized nor pedestrian traffic can flow comfortably.

[kbieniu7]

Well, I see that my question caused a small minor discussion. May I also add something from myself?

I think that segregation in urban areas is the worst thing that could be done for pedestrians (and cyclists). Like Strucka said, pedestrians and cyclists need energy to move. If you are walking you can not just push the accelerate pedal, whole energy comes from your body. Going up and down, no matter if using stairs or ramp is very tiring. In this case there are a lot of situations, where people cross the road illegaly. Furthermore it makes city harder to walk trough, especially for older people.

In my opinion cities should be as most friendly for pedestrians (their citizens) as possible, even when it means restrictions for vehicles. It makes them most liveable (easier moving, lower traffic noise, etc.). To be honest, sometimes I look with envy at eastern-european western-european* cities and their solutions making them real people-friendly. Unfortunately polish traffic engineers, planists and even local government do almost everything to make the space car-friendly anywhere outside the historical Old Town. 30km/h zones are implemented with difficulty, and on the great amount of main roads there is 70 km/h and the only way used to fight with the traffic noise are soundwalls, which go trough estates and densely built-up areas. For example, there are new (8-meters-high!) ones planned, by the roundabout in the city centre. Nobody in city hall even consider decreasing allowed speed to 50km/h... That's sick...
And bicycle infrastructure... it's often treated like some groundless claims, or whims. Huge part of trouble spots (intersetction, railway crossing, terrain obstacles, etc.) are solved in accordance with "cyclist could dismount from the bike and walk trough the pedestrian crossing as a pedestrian"... that's sick too...

But it's not the most appropiate threadfor such topics. Maybe we will start a new one, or move to another one if such already exists?

* - A mlittle mistake: firstly I wrote "eastern-", but I meant "western-european". Sorry!

[MandelSoft]

Well, let me add my two cents.

From my experience, we need to get a good compromise between car traffic and bicycling and pedestrian traffic in cities. In my home city, Zoetermeer, I think it's done quite well: lots of dedicated bike paths, a good main road infrastructure (which allows speeds up to 70km/h and it doesn't cross bike traffic at-grade) and quite some bridges and underpasses with reasonable slopes. But this is mainly because most of this city is build after the 1960s.

In older cities like the Hague, this is less well organised, where people have to share the road with car traffic quite some times. Now these cities actually can't live without cars, but they are not friendly for all road users either. But with separating bike paths from roads, separating traffic types, this improves a lot of the problems. The city may tend to be a bit more to the car-friendly side, but still it is OK for other traffic.

Best,
Maarten

[wschmrdr]

We're wandering a bit off topic but I wanted to say very interesting post Patricius Maximus! The underways plan would be the perfect traffic solution for big cities if it wasn't for what I imagine would be an insane price tag. One of the things about segregating motorized and non-motorized traffic is that the motorized traffic usually still has a big impact on the surrounding areas. Unsightly motorway viaducts, dangerous and crime-filled pedestrian underpasses, and neighborhoods divided by traffic are common results. Motorway tunnels avoid these problems and are a solution I try to use in SimCity, though our options are somewhat limited.

I've actually seen underways in real life. Despite having only 70,000 people, Tromso has an extensive network of tunnels for its thoroughfares and for parking. Almost all are 2-lane and 70km/hour, though there is a 3km stretch of twin 2-lane tunnels going under the fjord. I guess they built them because there's very little flat land for roads and because Norway has an excessive amount of money.

In my area, we're actually going through a similar predicament right now, they're calling it "The I-81 Challenge".

I've been using sunken highways as of late because the bridges are so much easier with on-slope puzzle pieces (thankfully no precip in SC4 so no challenge associated with the highway flooding), but I always had trouble with intersection traffic from it. This sort of traffic is actually one of the reasons I turned to RHW/TuLEP (especially the SPUI). Any sort of highway is a challenge because access is so limited, while using frontage roads isn't all that nice, especially when you consider that OWR does not have a natural neighbour connection (at least in SC4 rush hour, not sure if any of the patches have it), and I'm not sure if traffic will react to a RHW-4 the same way it would a OWR-2. How does that react? I suppose I could just give it a shot, but I don't want to have to build my sunken infrastructure just to have to go back and re-do it, especially considering I have so many neighbour dependencies.

[Patricius Maximus]

We have sparked quite a little discussion, and perhaps this can be continued in another thread if this tangent gets too out of hand  .

First off, cars have been a boon to humanity and to human lives, and to hold a grudge against car users goes against the whole point of maintaining a transportation system - namely fast, efficient travel for everyone. Going in the other direction, trying to impede travel, to me sounds more like an opposite world than anything real. As for the traffic noise, I can't blame city hall for actually wanting cars to flow at reasonable speeds. Although I'm not a full-time urbanite and experiences/perceptions differ between individuals, I do visit urban areas regularly, and I don't notice much of a difference between 30 kph and 80 kph traffic - the primary factor is volume. Any heavily trafficked urban road will be noisy, and the only way to eliminate the problem is to bury the roadway like Boston did with the Big Dig. Obstructing travel is what strikes me as sick, and what another poster mentioned about bicycle infrastructure neglect qualifies as obstructing travel. All too often town planners strangulate bicycle travel or strangulate car travel, when both should be well-maintained. Bicyclists should be able to travel fast too, and neglecting to put bicycle infrastructure in place at trouble spots is just asking for headaches from everyone.

Well, let me add my two cents.

From my experience, we need to get a good compromise between car traffic and bicycling and pedestrian traffic in cities. In my home city, Zoetermeer, I think it's done quite well: lots of dedicated bike paths, a good main road infrastructure (which allows speeds up to 70km/h and it doesn't cross bike traffic at-grade) and quite some bridges and underpasses with reasonable slopes. But this is mainly because most of this city is build after the 1960s.

Sounds like a very reasonable approach, and your home city dovetails with what I was talking about.

In older cities like the Hague, this is less well organised, where people have to share the road with car traffic quite some times. Now these cities actually can't live without cars, but they are not friendly for all road users either. But with separating bike paths from roads, separating traffic types, this improves a lot of the problems. The city may tend to be a bit more to the car-friendly side, but still it is OK for other traffic.

That perhaps better expresses what I was trying to get across.

We're wandering a bit off topic but I wanted to say very interesting post Patricius Maximus! The underways plan would be the perfect traffic solution for big cities if it wasn't for what I imagine would be an insane price tag.

Indeed. I've always been very interested in an Underways scheme, and although the price tag may be impractical it was actually not that insane. Estimates vary of course, but such a plan would actually be doable if governments were willing to sink very large amounts of money into it.

One of the things about segregating motorized and non-motorized traffic is that the motorized traffic usually still has a big impact on the surrounding areas. Unsightly motorway viaducts, dangerous and crime-filled pedestrian underpasses, and neighborhoods divided by traffic are common results. Motorway tunnels avoid these problems and are a solution I try to use in SimCity, though our options are somewhat limited.

Most of those problems will appear with any major road in a given area, segregated or integrated. As for the unsightliness, it depends on the designers. After all, there is a big difference between the former Boston Central Artery and the Golden Gate Bridge. Infrastructure can be beautiful. All too often it isn't, but that's due to laziness, not the infrastructure itself.

I've actually seen underways in real life. Despite having only 70,000 people, Tromso has an extensive network of tunnels for its thoroughfares and for parking. Almost all are 2-lane and 70km/hour, though there is a 3km stretch of twin 2-lane tunnels going under the fjord. I guess they built them because there's very little flat land for roads and because Norway has an excessive amount of money.

Fascinating.

[wschmrdr]

That's one thing that I think is very important to understand: cities are built around the infrastructure technology and needs of the day. Older cities have somewhat narrow roads, as do cities without NWM. If you can make a plan around your city's needs, for example with Nashville TN (USA), you'll have a much easier time with traffic. Some choose tunneled highways in order to get rid of "barriers" separating different parts of the city, such as walking from a college campus to the downtown commercial district and having to cross under a highway. For volume problems, you see road widening (such as going to a TLA-7), but what are you destroying as a result?

Geography can also play a challenge, and here's a neat little segue into a RHW question: I noticed with the Maxis highways, you can actually have your on-ramp run along a slope, say you want to have access to a frontage road from a sunken highway. Are there any plans to support this with RHW?

[Haljackey]

Used RHW to explain something IRL: http://www.wonderfulwaterloo.com/showthread.php?t=64&page=2&p=40674#post40674

[Monorail Master]

I ran into this problem last week, it seems that there's no puzzle pieces for Pedmall x RHW intersections. Are they in there, but I'm looking in the wrong places? Or do they not currently exist? I know that I have to convert RHW-4 into OWR-2 and RHW-2 into Road for the puzzle pieces, but I can't convert the others. 

If they do exist, please tell me where I could find them.

If they don't exist, can there please be:

----Ped Mall over RHW-2, 3, 4, etc.

----Ped Mall under ERHW-2, 3, 4, etc.


I hope these can get added for RHW 5.0 if they're not in the current NAM/RHW. It is quite a massive inconvience in urban areas for replacing Ped Malls with roads, with path blockers, just so that they can go either over or under RHW networks. We have overpasses for Road, AVE-4, OWR, and Heavy Rail going over RHW, but unfortunately not Ped Malls.   

[Wthrwyz]

I ran into this problem last week, it seems that there's no puzzle pieces for Pedmall x RHW intersections. Are they in there, but I'm looking in the wrong places? Or do they not currently exist?

I don't think those pieces exist. I use FLUPs for getting pedestrians across RHW:

Works quite well. 

[Monorail Master]

@wthrwyz: Ok...... But what about Pedmall going under the ERHW networks? That's where I'm running into major conflicts to where I have no other option but to use a road with path-blocker lots.

[Haljackey]

New RHW Interchange Guides: How to make a 4-level stack: http://sc4devotion.com/forums/index.php?topic=14076.msg440015#msg440015

[Wthrwyz]

@Monorail Master: There are el-rail-over-pedmall and rail-over-pedmall pieces, but I don't think there are counterparts to those for any of the road-based elevated networks. One of the NAM team members will have to speak to why that is, but my guess is that it's probably just a case of no one's gotten around to it yet. 

If I had to do something like what you describe, I'd probably do something daft like this:

[Durfsurn]

Is there a fix for this? Is it possible to fix or does it need to wait for NAM 31?
The problem is ramp lines don't line up.