|
Hedera Helix posted:Are you sure you're not thinking of a different railroad, by chance? You too can be part of something big & and constantly on shaky financial ground. SlothfulCobra posted:You can't just convert a railroad to a normal road anyways, can you? Even without cars to plan for, a railroad is a totally different beast from a normal road. Yes and no. I know that many old railroads in my area were turned into freeway corridors. I think one is a major street that was built over a narrow gauge railroad back at the turn of the century so it isnt too far fetched
|
#
?
Oct 17, 2012 05:10
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 9, 2024 15:55 |
|
|
Bear in mind that paving isn't really a major thing yet, especially in the countryside. A defunct railroad corridor will be used as a road by people in the area simply because it'll be cleared, and flattish.
|
|
#
?
Oct 17, 2012 05:37
|
|
|
 Diverging diamond interchange. What do you think about these Cichlidae? Any plans to install them all over the place in Connecticut? Also cool post Arrath, that road runs right through where I'm at in Corvallis.
|
|
#
?
Oct 17, 2012 10:38
|
|
|
Hedera Helix posted:I vote for Fairport. Alright, Fairport will be the first city to get fixed up this decade! Hedera Helix posted:Is there much difference between abandoning track and railbanking it, in terms of (imaginary) money spent? All the railroads have a sweet deal with the State and do not have to pay any property taxes. Holding onto it (railbanking) is free. SlothfulCobra posted:You can't just convert a railroad to a normal road anyways, can you? Even without cars to plan for, a railroad is a totally different beast from a normal road. By modern standards, a railroad track wouldn't make an ideal road, if only because it's too narrow. But back then, it'd be great - you can even re-use the bridges, which would be massively overdesigned for horses and buggies. Wolfy posted:
I have always been a big fan of DDIs. There aren't any solid plans to build one in CT yet, but their popularity is skyrocketing nationwide.
|
|
#
?
Oct 17, 2012 12:19
|
|
|
Is it too late to put in a vote for New Dublin as the second city to be altered? Abandon the upper branches and concentrate logging operations on the lower part of the line. We can't let these so called 'Preservationists' win!  
|
|
#
?
Oct 17, 2012 20:50
|
|
|
Alright, guys, time to get to work!  https://docs.google.com/open?id=0ByQzqtNM0WuFR1pEb1BvMTdtaEE Fairport is probably in decent shape, but the railroad to the west (New Sanctum - Fairport Express) is in the red. There is definitely a lot we can fix. 1) Fairport's main rail station (in the southwest of the city, adjacent to a park) is way over capacity, due to its very short platforms. The city has been calling for the old canal to be filled in, as it's currently a swath of sewage, and they'd have plenty more room to expand. 2) The three rail lines are not connected at all. 3) The development between the canal and river, west of downtown, is hemmed in and quickly turning into slums. Tram passengers have been getting robbed as it passes around "Beggar's Curve" on the old turnpike. I am headed off to a wedding in California, and I will not be back until late Monday night. You have all weekend to work on this, and then I will post the next two cities. Also, feel free to keep voting on what those two cities should be, and what will happen to your rail line, if you own one. Have fun, and good luck! Cichlidae fucked around with this message at 02:24 on Oct 18, 2012 |
|
#
?
Oct 17, 2012 22:38
|
|
|
Once again I humbly beg for some sort of scale. Road widths, block sizes, railway curves and yard lengths are all super important... (to me...)
|
|
#
?
Oct 17, 2012 22:52
|
|
|
Baronjutter posted:Once again I humbly beg for some sort of scale. Road widths, block sizes, railway curves and yard lengths are all super important... (to me...) Please express all distances in chains, rods and leagues.
|
|
#
?
Oct 17, 2012 22:57
|
|
|
Baronjutter posted:Once again I humbly beg for some sort of scale. Road widths, block sizes, railway curves and yard lengths are all super important... (to me...) The entire city is 5 miles from the northern tip to the southeast corner. At full scale, 250 pixels/mile, or 20 feet per pixel. Obviously, the road widths are exaggerated.
|
|
#
?
Oct 17, 2012 23:01
|
|
|
"Which one of those is even the canal? All the waterways seem to be the same width here." Answer: The leftmost is the canal. And yes fill in that shithole and extend the station far in that direction. That old westward railroad line in the red needs to go, somehow. It's just in the way right now, for this thing: Kill the terminus on the northbound line and re-route it so it crosses the western river and old canal north of the city, takes a light bend around the west side and form a wye with the coastal line. Northbound trains can then use the new, expanded central station. (This needs to cross the tracks of the "express line" (it's single track, did it ever have more than 2 departures a day like that?), which could become messy if that line doesn't close.) On the new northbound line, build a small through station somewhere in the north-western city, it might be slightly outside the city bounds, but having a station there might help re-vitalise the slums. The new northbound line should make sure to at least get ROW for dual tracks, if maybe only lay single tracks initially. Oh, and make for a yard (maybe not that large, for now?) around where the wye will be. Lastly, build a new outer ring road. It should cross the eastern river slightly south of there the river splits, meet the turnpike following the western river just about where the old northbound rail has a spur in, and continue around the western side of the city, approximately following the new northbound line. It shouldn't need to do much east of the eastern river, just join the road that follows that river.
|
|
#
?
Oct 17, 2012 23:13
|
|
|
.
sincx fucked around with this message at 06:32 on Mar 23, 2021 |
|
#
?
Oct 18, 2012 01:49
|
|
|
My modest proposal. I also decided to embark on a 19th century urban renewal scheme, creating two tree lined boulevards along the corridors of the abandoned rail line and canal, with a Revolutionary War Monument at the intersection of the two boulevards. Edit: On second thought, forget the bypass. I've made something way way way better (and cheaper in this era of thrift.) STREET RUNNING!!!!  
Ron Pauls Friend fucked around with this message at 02:34 on Oct 18, 2012 |
|
#
?
Oct 18, 2012 02:21
|
|
|
This might be based a bit more on state law but I'm curious. My girlfriend was asking about something she ran into driving in town the other day. If you're making a right on green do you have a right of way to enter a lane at will or just to enter the closest lane? Mostly just curious as to how that applies when you have another driver taking a left at the same time. Should they have just not taken that left, or is it acceptable under traffic law for them to turn into the left most lane because the right turning driver should be turning into the right most lane? If that makes any sense. Also, who the hell thought this was a good idea. 4 road intersection with 3 railroad tracks crossing it at an angle. This just seems like trouble.
|
|
#
?
Oct 18, 2012 02:57
|
|
|
Opals25 posted:This might be based a bit more on state law but I'm curious. My girlfriend was asking about something she ran into driving in town the other day. If you're making a right on green do you have a right of way to enter a lane at will or just to enter the closest lane? Mostly just curious as to how that applies when you have another driver taking a left at the same time. Should they have just not taken that left, or is it acceptable under traffic law for them to turn into the left most lane because the right turning driver should be turning into the right most lane? If that makes any sense. As I understand it, you should turn into the closest available lane. Some states have this as a traffic law, and cops sometimes camp at intersections waiting for you to gently caress up while turning left or right.
|
|
#
?
Oct 18, 2012 03:42
|
|
|
sincx posted:Don't you mean New Sanctium? Um, yes, of course! I don't know what fantasy world I was living in. As Waterbride and New Dublin have a lot more votes than Middleport/Meriden or West/New Sanctum, it looks like those will be the other two cities. And since I'll be absent, here is Waterbridge:   https://docs.google.com/open?id=0ByQzqtNM0WuFNUNnVVF6N0dXMGc What's wrong with the city? That's up to you to decide!
|
|
#
?
Oct 18, 2012 04:04
|
|
|
Opals25 posted:This might be based a bit more on state law but I'm curious. My girlfriend was asking about something she ran into driving in town the other day. If you're making a right on green do you have a right of way to enter a lane at will or just to enter the closest lane? Mostly just curious as to how that applies when you have another driver taking a left at the same time. Should they have just not taken that left, or is it acceptable under traffic law for them to turn into the left most lane because the right turning driver should be turning into the right most lane? If that makes any sense. Texas state law says that "To make a right turn at an intersection, an operator shall make both the approach and the turn as closely as practicable to the right-hand curb or edge of the roadway." and I think that this varies state by state. As far as oncoming traffic turning left, I would think they are still required to yield to traffic turning right if the traffic turning right has a green light...
|
|
#
?
Oct 18, 2012 04:17
|
|
|
Waterbridge only has one road one? That could be a slight issue especially as it has three major sections each separated by rivers. Also, no trams.
|
|
#
?
Oct 18, 2012 11:21
|
|
|
The Universal Vehicle Code says that left-turning vehicles have to yield to right-turning vehicles. You're also expected to turn into the nearest lane, regardless of whether you're turning right or left. Most people obey the former, very few the latter.Munin posted:Waterbridge only has one road one? That could be a slight issue especially as it has three major sections each separated by rivers. They never got around to building trams, believe it or not. Too much infighting among factory owners, and the existing bridge wasn't wide enough to handle it. As you can imagine, it's quite congested at this point.
|
|
#
?
Oct 18, 2012 12:17
|
|
|
I'm going to suggest making more street/mainline rail boulevards for this city. Those horses know to stay away from their iron brethren and the horses ain't goin anywhere.
|
|
#
?
Oct 18, 2012 19:08
|
|
|
Opals25 posted:Also, who the hell thought this was a good idea. 4 road intersection with 3 railroad tracks crossing it at an angle. This just seems like trouble. I live in the apartments right below. There's a north south track one street over that is their main track through town. The top track runs all the way through my university.
|
|
#
?
Oct 18, 2012 20:11
|
|
|
So long as someone puts a fork in the road somewhere, I'm happy.
|
|
#
?
Oct 18, 2012 23:30
|
|
|
Totally a case of Muppet Mania  
|
|
#
?
Oct 19, 2012 14:50
|
|
|
grover posted:Totally a case of Muppet Mania If you read the article, the guy mentioned his inspiration as being the muppets movie, and wanting to do that for 30 years.
|
|
#
?
Oct 19, 2012 16:52
|
|
|
Opiantic's water supply is polluted to hell and back, and with the advent of electricity we can now pump water uphill. Thus I propose building a dam across the Little Norham Branch and making a reservoir, complete with pumping station and pipes to Norham and Opiantic, with the Norpiantic Water Corporation willing to put down a significant portion of the construction costs if the cities agree to fund operations and maintenance of the water system. (Feel free to move it as appropriate for the topography.) This should bring much-needed industrial work to Norham residents (food packing is great and all, but can't employ everybody) with building and maintaining the dam, pumps, and pipes, and we can always build a bigger dam later. We can also stock the lake with freshwater fish, further supplanting Norham's business. This also allows Opiantic to pollute away without having to worry about not being able to tell when the tea has been brewed. Ideally we'd like to sell to New Dublin in the future as well, and they'll probably need it considering the amount of crap coming downstream from Opiantic. (I'm presuming around this time we just have basically stone and mortar to work with, although my 8 seconds of research says this is around the right time to start damming rivers for water.)
|
|
#
?
Oct 21, 2012 05:21
|
|
|
Ron Pauls Friend's plan for Fairport gets my vote, especially if the street-running trains are allowed.  As for Waterbridge, well...  * Five road bridges have been added, which should ease traffic on the single bridge in place considerably. If budget precludes some of these, then feel free to drop the ones that don't have trams on them. * There is one additional rail bridge, used as a bypass for traffic between Atmington and Fairport. * This city has a very strange grid plan, particularly on the north side. I'm assuming that running roads across double-tracked lines would be too disruptive, but that won't stop this plan from adding a north-south street there. * The Waterbridge-Bridgefield line is assumed to be abandoned. The station on that line is to be demolished and turned into an industrial stub. Part of the ROW will be used by a tram. * Finally, there are a bunch of tram lines now. Would this suffice?
|
|
#
?
Oct 21, 2012 21:56
|
|
|
Fairport: A low cost minimal change plan. The orhanage destruction/mile ratio of this plan can't be beat! Waterbridge  General conectivity improvements No to rain on your parade or anything, but... putting an enormous reservoir on what appears to be a floodplain immediately upstream of a large town may require a rethink. Of course, being 1880, THERE STILL ARE NO loving LAWS, so do what you want.
|
|
#
?
Oct 21, 2012 21:59
|
|
|
Well, it looked like a relatively low spot, the dam isn't going to be very high (30-50 feet depending on how steep that valley is) and it may not fill up quite that much. Maybe my sense of scale is way off too (should be about 2x1 miles). If anyone has ideas for a better spot I'm open to them. The valley east of Killingham might work but would require much more piping to serve the southwest part of the state, an investment that may not be viable at this time. Plus, Killingham is upstream from Opiantic, the water's fine. e: Plan two, pick whichever is more appropriate. Once again feel free to resize/adjust as appropriate for the local topography. Yellow is pipes, and the extra distance from any established cities necessitates building a service road. (The north pipe is supposed to run alongside the road.) Norpiantic would pick up less of the total bill for this project because one of the owners is a rich Norham meat baron who likes to fish on the weekend.  Xerol fucked around with this message at 07:48 on Oct 22, 2012 |
|
#
?
Oct 22, 2012 07:37
|
|
|
Alright, I'm back from vacation (and loving these dam ideas.) An update is coming tomorrow, so if you want to add anything, now's the time. Edit: And some photos from a field visit!  Back to the roundabout! Check out those sweet stamped concrete chevrons.  It's a bit scuffed up already - and only the surface is stained.  What's this block of stamped concrete doing over here? It's a sample - it is poured with the same mix, stamped the same way, and kept in the same conditions as the final concrete. If the sample sucks, the final concrete is not poured.  And the final concrete is in. Those islands look a lot more solid now.  Detectable pedestrian warnings: check. UNFORTUNATELY, there is a change order to move this sidewalk, so it's going to get ripped up.  They're putting in signs. Let's see what they've got up.  Lane use signs, with fish-hook arrows...  Directional signs, with fish-hook arrows...  And the GIGANTIC advance guide signs. That's some real traffic engineering porn!  There's some curbing installation, but that's boring as heck.  Our roundabout is awesome enough that you can drive a HOUSE through it. Cichlidae fucked around with this message at 03:04 on Oct 23, 2012 |
|
#
?
Oct 22, 2012 23:26
|
|
|
Is a 15 mph school zone as much a blatant revenue generator as I think it is? The road is normally 35. Also remember to delete my suggestion for a rail bypass if you are going to run rail in the streets of Fairport.
|
|
#
?
Oct 23, 2012 18:25
|
|
|
Cichlidae posted:
Wouldn't the signs for the state parks usually be brown?
|
|
#
?
Oct 23, 2012 21:46
|
|
|
Ron Pauls Friend posted:Is a 15 mph school zone as much a blatant revenue generator as I think it is? The road is normally 35. Low speeds in school zones are based more on pedestrian survivability than design speed. Around here, they're only active when school is in session. porkfriedrice posted:Wouldn't the signs for the state parks usually be brown? We're not supposed to have apostrophes, either. I needed these all to go on the same assembly (very limited space), and my boss won't let us put different color guide signs on the same post anymore, so green was the only real choice. ----- Let's see how Fairport turned out!   For once, I can accommodate everyone's suggestions! Looks pretty good, and that ring road will really help out. Another day or so for Waterbridge, since there haven't been as many suggestions. Go ahead and chime in!
|
|
#
?
Oct 24, 2012 00:06
|
|
|
Gentlemen! I propose a bridge! Open up the island for profitable expansion. Don't know what we'd put there, or how how to arrange the roads. I'm an idea man, damnit. No time for details. I suggest "heythisguyhere's folly" as an unofficial name, since it's likely doomed to fail! Cichlidae posted:Another day or so for Waterbridge, since there haven't been as many suggestions. Go ahead and chime in!  At least It sets up an eventual bridge onto that that little triangle of land there. That's about the best I can draw it with a pizza-greased trackpad in my few spare minutes before class, so feel free to un-jank it. Please un-jank it, rather. Normal Barbarian fucked around with this message at 00:50 on Oct 24, 2012 |
|
#
?
Oct 24, 2012 00:38
|
|
|
If anyone's interested, my Arrigoni Bridge job is finished, 2 months early and $2.3M under budget. We had a nice little rededication ceremony today with the Governor. The Courant has a summary video: http://widget.newsinc.com/_cfvp/pla...ww.courant.com/
|
|
#
?
Oct 24, 2012 03:27
|
|
|
I was hesitating to say anything for a while, but would it be at all feasible to extend light rail out from Fairport to the surrounding cities? You've already said that most anyone with money has moved out of Fairport and just commutes now.heythisguyhere posted:Gentlemen! I propose a bridge! That was a great idea back when I had it.
|
|
#
?
Oct 24, 2012 03:38
|
|
|
SlothfulCobra posted:That was a great idea back when I had it. Excellent! Is two a quorum? Two is totally a quorum; let's build! 
|
|
#
?
Oct 24, 2012 05:37
|
|
|
Cichlidae posted:If anyone's interested, my Arrigoni Bridge job is finished, 2 months early and $2.3M under budget. We had a nice little rededication ceremony today with the Governor. grover fucked around with this message at 11:29 on Oct 24, 2012 |
|
#
?
Oct 24, 2012 10:58
|
|
|
grover posted:Did anyone get in trouble for blowing the estimates that badly?? The original engineer's estimate was in the neighborhood of $30M. The bid came in around $17M, and we had to add another million or two for extra cops, sidewalk rehab, and approach paving, which weren't included in the original contract. That was extra work we got to do because the bids were so low. There's nothing wrong with the estimates, really; all our quantities were fine, and we use AASHTO Estimator, which automatically calculates estimated item prices based on quantities and job type, based on previous bids. Plus, 10% either way is basically negligible. We usually set aside 40% for incidentals and contingencies; once you hit that 40% mark, going over budget, you need to start explaining yourself. Going under budget, on the other hand, is perfectly acceptable and is considered to be a favorable bid rather than an estimation error.
|
|
#
?
Oct 24, 2012 12:18
|
|
|
Yeah, the only people I can see getting upset because it's under budget are other companies who failed to under-bid it. And that's their fault.
|
|
#
?
Oct 24, 2012 14:39
|
|
|
Wow, that's crazy, in Project Management we were taught that over-bidding is just as bad as under-bidding, because over-bidding ties up money in an allocation that could have been used elsewhere.
|
|
#
?
Oct 24, 2012 20:16
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 9, 2024 15:55 |
|
|
Chaos Motor posted:Wow, that's crazy, in Project Management we were taught that over-bidding is just as bad as under-bidding, because over-bidding ties up money in an allocation that could have been used elsewhere. When we end up with left-over money, it's not like it disappears. It just gets spent later than it otherwise would have. We have hundreds of bin jobs that are shovel-ready and unfunded; as soon as that cash is available, they're out the door.
|
|
#
?
Oct 24, 2012 21:49
|
|