|
SlothfulCobra posted:So wait, is it the road to Manbury that's a no, or the roads around towns? Roads around towns. Real estate is starting to get expensive, and the powers-that-be would rather widen the existing roads than build new ones. Bypasses won't really become popular until the 1920s in Nutmeg. Here's the rest!  
|
#
?
Nov 6, 2012 00:16
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 9, 2024 05:07 |
|
|
SlothfulCobra posted:So wait, is it the road to Manbury that's a no, or the roads around towns? Road around towns. Bypasses aren't a thing yet, you little sequence breaker you. e,fb
|
|
#
?
Nov 6, 2012 00:17
|
|
|
I wasn't exactly traffic-savvy enough to know exactly what bypasses are, I was just following the lead of that one guy who built a road to avoid Hartshire.
|
|
#
?
Nov 6, 2012 00:44
|
|
|
If there are no objections, additions, changes, or subtractions, we will move forward to the 1900s tonight!
|
|
#
?
Nov 7, 2012 22:42
|
|
|
 WELCOME TO 1900!"It's not QUITE the 20th Century yet, but hey, close enough."   https://docs.google.com/open?id=0ByQzqtNM0WuFLTVaeGFRMEZMZk0 I've got some good news, and some bad news. Good news first: Nutmeg continues to lead the nation in innovation! Much like being the first to send a warship beneath the seas over one hundred years ago, Nutmeg's noble immigrant citizens have succeeded in launching the first heavier-than-air machine into the heavens! With more cheap, crafty labor flooding our docks, the future looks quite bright. But not for everyone. Sadly, one year ago, the Opiantic Water Company Dam burst catastrophically, sending a 30-foot (10-meter) wave of water down on Norham and annihilating half the city, including the entire downtown area. The debris-laden flood continued downstream to thoroughly soak New Dublin. While this tragic event has taught us a difficult lesson on environmental permitting, we now have an opportunity to re-build one of our most derelict cities from the PCB-impregnated ground up. What's going on in the state? You may notice growth patterns beginning to change. The periphery of cities are growing faster than the centers, mainly along streetcar lines. More and more middle-class citizens are living in these "suburbs." As a result, streetcar lines are more profitable than ever. Unfortunately, a lot of manufacturing industries are still heading out of state, looking for cheaper labor. Transport costs are the lowest ever, and factories make the most profit when they're located right next to either their supply or their demand. High-tech industries are more likely to stick around. Automobiles, while still mainly a rich man's distraction, can be found puttering around most cities. There are frequent horrific accidents due to the explosion-prone nature of these vehicles, the speed at which they move, and their terrible effect on horses and pedestrians when a collision occurs. There is a major national push to rein in industries. As a state transportation industry, this means you get to write more regulations, buy up formerly private roads, and start improving safety. Currently, fields and meadows make adequate airstrips. If you should choose to build an aerodrome, I will allow two to be built around the state - one for military use, one for experimental civilian use. The latter had better be in a rich area so Orangewich's barons can grab some new toys. To Nogahyde's delight, there are periodic wars and "big stick diplomacy" going on in the far South. This promises to add many new colonies for the nation, a secure source of rubber, and, of course, more war profits for Hartshire and the rest of the arms industry. Isolationism is passé! And finally, NutDOT has been founded! Time to work as a team! Roads, railroads, bridges, aerodromes... get building! I'll post an up-to-date map of Norham in the coming days for further discussion. Cichlidae fucked around with this message at 03:16 on Nov 8, 2012 |
|
#
?
Nov 8, 2012 03:14
|
|
|
I propose that the first military aerodrome be built near our state's capital. After all, we've managed to weaponize everything, why not airplanes? Keeping it close to our arms manufacturers will surely help in rapid deployment should the need arise.
|
|
#
?
Nov 8, 2012 03:24
|
|
|
kefkafloyd posted:I propose that the first military aerodrome be built near our state's capital. After all, we've managed to weaponize everything, why not airplanes? Keeping it close to our arms manufacturers will surely help in rapid deployment should the need arise. The area south of Farmingham would be perfect. Nice, gentle land without any mountains nearby, but close to arms, petrol, chemicals, and the state capitol.
|
|
#
?
Nov 8, 2012 04:44
|
|
|
I think that over by West Hartshire might be a better place. That town's full of strong, sturdy, laborers for the military to make use of. Also, not in my backyard. I don't want the vacationers at my resort to be bothered by bombers.
|
|
#
?
Nov 8, 2012 05:55
|
|
|
Cichlidae posted:Currently, fields and meadows make adequate airstrips. If you should choose to build an aerodrome, I will allow two to be built around the state - one for military use, one for experimental civilian use. The latter had better be in a rich area so Orangewich's barons can grab some new toys. I've got it! We'll build an airfield on the shore opposite from Oliver! 
|
|
#
?
Nov 8, 2012 08:16
|
|
|
I think a good place for a civilian aerodrome would be south of Hartshire, on the far side of the Fukov, inside the large bend. A new, state-of-the-art road bridge should connect the south-western road into Hartshire to the aerodrome, so it's accessible by automobile. Perhaps that road should continue south, crossing the river once more, and join the road between Oliver and Meridian near the entry to the old canal.
|
|
#
?
Nov 8, 2012 12:07
|
|
|
By the way, Cichlidae, how do you determine what happens in the time between each decade? Do you have some sort of spreadsheet that you plug numbers into, or are you just winging it ("eh that looks good, harshire grows a bit I guess"), or what?
|
|
#
?
Nov 8, 2012 13:03
|
|
|
Volmarias posted:By the way, Cichlidae, how do you determine what happens in the time between each decade? Do you have some sort of spreadsheet that you plug numbers into, or are you just winging it ("eh that looks good, harshire grows a bit I guess"), or what? I keep my methods a closely guarded secret! As a hint, though, it's much closer to the latter than the former. If anyone's curious, here's how, thanks to your contributions, Nutmeg is doing compared to Connecticut in 1900: - New Sanctum, Hartshire, New Dublin, Opiantic, and Waterbridge are significantly larger than their real-world counterparts New Haven, Hartford, New London, Willimantic, and Waterbury. - Norham and Bridgefield are significantly smaller than their real-world counterparts Norwich and Bridgeport. - Local innovation is 5-10 years ahead of the real world. The first heavier-than-air flight was around 1893 in Nutmeg, and someone is already tinkering with traffic signals. - The railroad network is about as extensive as Connecticut's, perhaps moreso since the entire state's compressed into 1/3 the area. - The road network is less extensive than Connecticut's. - The population of the state is slightly less than Connecticut's, but again, it's a third the size. The cities in Nutmeg are larger overall, but there are fewer towns.
|
|
#
?
Nov 8, 2012 13:31
|
|
|
I think a small agricultural school should be founded in the idyllic hamlet of Colhampton to teach the local youth the joys of turnip management. Nutmeg lacks a land-grant institution!
Ron Pauls Friend fucked around with this message at 17:22 on Nov 8, 2012 |
|
#
?
Nov 8, 2012 17:09
|
|
|
Cichlidae posted:If anyone's curious, here's how, thanks to your contributions, Nutmeg is doing compared to Connecticut in 1900: Interesting! As someone who has yet to actually visit Connecticut and doesn't quite get some of the references this game has, it's nice to finally figure out what everything is meant to represent. For this turn, I'd like to build roads going to Dersonia from Farmingham and Nogahyde, and, if the predicted traffic volume would justify it, a Bridgefield-Dersonia railway with a possible extension to Meridian along the old abandoned ROW. Ron Pauls Friend's idea of an agriculture school should totally be done, as well.
|
|
#
?
Nov 8, 2012 19:11
|
|
|
I'm just glad that my Sanctum bridge is still sticking around.
|
|
#
?
Nov 8, 2012 21:59
|
|
|
nielsm posted:I think a good place for a civilian aerodrome would be south of Hartshire, on the far side of the Fukov, inside the large bend. A new, state-of-the-art road bridge should connect the south-western road into Hartshire to the aerodrome, so it's accessible by automobile. Perhaps that road should continue south, crossing the river once more, and join the road between Oliver and Meridian near the entry to the old canal. I was also thinking that. It would be easily accessible from several urban areas, in the centre of the transport network whilst still (for now) having some room for expansion. Where should the military one go though. Where is our Military Industrial Complex based overall these days? [e] Also, no town planning in the end?
|
|
#
?
Nov 8, 2012 23:48
|
|
|
Do we have a consensus on the aerodrome locations? If you'd like to follow the real-world example, the military airfield would be adjacent to Hartshire, and the civilian airfield would be near Fairport.Ron Pauls Friend posted:I think a small agricultural school should be founded in the idyllic hamlet of Colhampton to teach the local youth the joys of turnip management. Nutmeg lacks a land-grant institution! Land granted! Plenty of good, arable land is available across the river, and there is already excellent road access. The new University of Nutmeg (or UNut, for short) is certain to be a premier institution in the fields of turnip management and alcohol consumption.  Hedera Helix posted:Interesting! As someone who has yet to actually visit Connecticut and doesn't quite get some of the references this game has, it's nice to finally figure out what everything is meant to represent. Everything is a reference; some are just more obscure than others (like Atmington, which is equal to 760 Torringtons). Hedera Helix posted:For this turn, I'd like to build roads going to Dersonia from Farmingham and Nogahyde, and, if the predicted traffic volume would justify it, a Bridgefield-Dersonia railway with a possible extension to Meridian along the old abandoned ROW. Ron Pauls Friend's idea of an agriculture school should totally be done, as well. Sure, right... HEY, WAIT A MINUTE! You're just trying to get a bypass for Waterbridge, aren't you?! Well, just this once, but don't think it's going to happen for every city!  The Bridgefield-Meridian line wouldn't turn a profit. Going through Waterbridge or New Sanctum is a bit longer of a trip, but those routes are well served and have a bunch of political support. BrooklynBruiser posted:I'm just glad that my Sanctum bridge is still sticking around. No reason to tear down a perfectly good bridge; even an abandoned rail bridge makes a great pedestrian crossing, tram bridge, or fishing trestle. Munin posted:[e] Also, no town planning in the end? You'll get your shot at Norham shortly, if that's what you mean.
|
|
#
?
Nov 9, 2012 01:35
|
|
|
Cichlidae posted:You'll get your shot at Norham shortly, if that's what you mean. kk, was just curious since there was a vote for an 1890 town planning session. Norham would be the project to do right now though I agree. We can set out a New City built out along Rational lines!
|
|
#
?
Nov 9, 2012 01:38
|
|
|
A note for those of you considering aerodrome positioning: at this point in history, they're not used for passenger travel. Your field shouldn't be some sort of transit hub; it's a place for  and fiery crashes.----- Let's take a look at post-flood Norham.   https://docs.google.com/open?id=0ByQzqtNM0WuFVDhLajEwWGlrUEE The old downtown area was almost completely destroyed. This is actually a good thing - there are very few remaining important buildings. Additionally, the entire rail line north of the river is abandoned and can be removed. There is an existing brick-and-iron viaduct just north of downtown that is already in danger of falling apart. Unfortunately, most of the city's bridges did not survive the flood, and neither did the only functioning train station. Temporary bridges were put up, but they're not shown, so you have a real blank slate to work with. And yes, the railroad does go right through the graveyard. This isn't an entirely uncommon situation. THINGS TO DO: - Rebuild the majority of the city. Go wild - if we're to make any big changes, now's the time. Heck, re-build parts that didn't even get flooded. - The public outcry against railroad grade crossings is growing every decade. May as well grade-separate now, while you have the chance. - Give the northeastern side of the city some good rail access.
|
|
#
?
Nov 9, 2012 02:17
|
|
|
I hope new dublin is ok 
|
|
#
?
Nov 9, 2012 02:24
|
|
|
Volmarias posted:The area south of Farmingham would be perfect. Nice, gentle land without any mountains nearby, but close to arms, petrol, chemicals, and the state capitol. I remain resolute in my suggestion. It has a perfect location for all of the things aeronauts require!
|
|
#
?
Nov 9, 2012 02:49
|
|
|
Based on the lessons learned in other places, it would probably be a good idea to grade-separate the rail traffic, at least in the inner city. Rebuild the central station, with the tracks raised a story above ground, and let them run on viaducts through the city. In fact, let some good roads run alongside the rail in the inner city, and rent out the space below the rails, it can probably make some good shopping arcades. And the rumbling of the passing trains will only serve to reinforce the sense of progress. (Okay, that's maybe 30 years early but why not. We're progressive here in Nutmeg.) Actually, build the station above the road towards the river, with an impressive arch the cars can drive through on their way to/from the other side of the river. I don't see any good way or reason to connect the northern part of the city to the rail network, it's better to just repair and expand the railcar system. Maybe it can be electrified? Oh, and make for a large square south of the railroad station, and a new park nearby. The grid-ish structure of the roads in the southern part should also just be expanded like that, to make room for new development.
|
|
#
?
Nov 9, 2012 03:09
|
|
|
Cichlidae posted:No reason to tear down a perfectly good bridge; even an abandoned rail bridge makes a great pedestrian crossing, tram bridge, or fishing trestle. I meant my road bridge, the big one I compared to the Brooklyn Bridge.
|
|
#
?
Nov 9, 2012 03:41
|
|
|
Military aerodrome should be near Hartshire. I think the civilian aerodrome could be in a coastal city, as amphibious planes will be relevant, eventually. Fairport's as good as any.
|
|
#
?
Nov 9, 2012 03:43
|
|
|
J.S Martin, now the richest and most powerful of the New Cork bankers and possibly more powerful than the President himself, has acquired complete control of the New Sanctum Line! He proposes a final merger of all the Nutmeg railroads and their holdings in surrounding states to create one regional railroad which will be headquartered in New Sanctum. To smooth over any political roadbumps or misgivings, he offers to finance the reconstruction of Norham personally. His only suggestion is to segregate all industry on the north side of the river and provides a map of the rail service he wishes to restore in addition to a freight bypass around the station.  Go hog wild! Its on the rich mans dime, no ulterior motives whatsoever! Honest! Ron Pauls Friend fucked around with this message at 03:53 on Nov 9, 2012 |
|
#
?
Nov 9, 2012 03:48
|
|
|
Munin posted:kk, was just curious since there was a vote for an 1890 town planning session. Oh, I'd actually forgotten about that! Yeah, we can do Middlefield-Meridian. Baronjutter posted:I hope new dublin is ok New Dublin is mostly full of sailors; they're quite good at swimming, and salvage yards have grabbed a lot of debris from upstream to sell back to Norham. Volmarias posted:I remain resolute in my suggestion. It has a perfect location for all of the things aeronauts require! kefkafloyd posted:Military aerodrome should be near Hartshire. I think the civilian aerodrome could be in a coastal city, as amphibious planes will be relevant, eventually. Fairport's as good as any. South of Farmingham, or adjacent to Hartshire! Next vote wins it! BrooklynBruiser posted:I meant my road bridge, the big one I compared to the Brooklyn Bridge. It's a beautiful awesome covered bridge, much like the one here:  Unfortunately, it will need replacement soon. Hopefully a nice lifting bridge.
|
|
#
?
Nov 9, 2012 03:51
|
|
|
South of Farmingham.
|
|
#
?
Nov 9, 2012 07:30
|
|
|
Sorry to distract from the fun.... but I was wondering what you'd do with this interchange... http://goo.gl/maps/HxEJd The I-90 EB ramp to cambridge St gets backed up onto the roadway during peak hours and on weekend afternoons. Cambridge St can be congested from brighton ave to the I-90 overpass. Would you add more exits nearby? (Market St, something with Soldiers Field Road/Leo Birmingham parkway to the west?) Any ideas to improve the connectivity of storrow drive and the pike? Also, the rail yard is going to be abandoned and the operations shifted somewhere else, so that land should be considered usable.
|
|
#
?
Nov 10, 2012 01:51
|
|
|
Slightly off topic, if only because it's a couple decades ahead of where we are. One of the contributors at Transit Toronto made a painstakingly detailed map of the streetcar, radial and interurban lines of Toronto, Canada and surrounding municipalities, circa 1928. http://transit.toronto.on.ca/archives/maps/Streetcar_Interurban.pdf The network's just a bit smaller today... http://transit.toronto.on.ca/archives/maps/ttc-streetcar-2011-03.jpg Varance fucked around with this message at 02:26 on Nov 10, 2012 |
|
#
?
Nov 10, 2012 01:54
|
|
|
Hedera Helix posted:South of Farmingham.  Look at that, two grass runways! This way, we can launch in nearly any wind. The residents and visitors at Compounce gather to watch those magnificent men in their flying machines! The stuttering hum of engines is the perfect addition to any resort town. Kahta posted:Sorry to distract from the fun.... but I was wondering what you'd do with this interchange... First off, adding another exit will not help. It'll only add weaving issues on the main line. We're doing our best to eliminate exits where we can, cutting them to one per mile. You can't really put an exit to the west, anyway, due to the proximity to the rail line, how heavily developed everything is, and the fact that you'd need tollbooths because that's how the Masspike works. Of course, Boston gets around that by having the ramps split into a veritable octopus of ramplets. The toll booths don't help simplify matters, and you've got a left off-ramp to boot. I'm not sure which rail yard they're closing, as there are two there, but if I got to knock out both, I could certainly improve things.  There's plenty of room for hundreds of different configurations, but they should all have a single pair of booths and full access between the freeways. Varance posted:Slightly off topic, if only because it's a couple decades ahead of where we are. One of the contributors at Transit Toronto made a painstakingly detailed map of the streetcar, radial and interurban lines of Toronto, Canada and surrounding municipalities, circa 1928. I love big images like this  We won't be doing anything so complex in this thread, but a guy can dream.
|
|
#
?
Nov 10, 2012 03:08
|
|
|
Cichlidae posted:
I was expecting it to be more of a couple miles south, but I'll take what I can get. Aeronauts, away!
|
|
#
?
Nov 10, 2012 04:34
|
|
|
Throwing up another "What would you do?" here. If you watched the NBC Republican primary debate, you might have seen this building: the University of South Florida's Marshall Student Center. Built in 2009, great facility... with one exception: it was built without *any* transit or drop-off facilities. There is a road in front of the center, but it's normally blocked off with bollards as a pedestrian mall. In order to make up for it, all traffic was shoehorned into the building's freight entrance - a cul-de-sac. Did I mention that we run all 6 of our bus routes through this thing, all with 10 minute or better headways and over a million passenger trips either starting or ending at the loop every year? It gets crowded.  There's 5 buses in that picture - a 30ft bus is hiding in front of the 40 footer in the foreground, roughly where the freight dock is. We'd love to make improvements to the loop, but there are a few issues.
Varance fucked around with this message at 07:03 on Nov 10, 2012 |
|
#
?
Nov 10, 2012 05:35
|
|
|
Sorry Chiclidae, but you have to have a mainline tollbooth at that interchange. Which complicates things even more!
|
|
#
?
Nov 10, 2012 11:31
|
|
|
Cichlidae posted:Let's take a look at post-flood Norham. I'm agreeing with nielsm that viaducts are probably a smart way to go. Propping up the whole railway and the station on stilts is going to be pretty expensive though; it might be simpler to grade separate the roads where they cross instead.  The yellow lines here are viaducts; we've got viaducts crossing next to the station (I'm not sure if that really needs to be a viaduct; it could just be a bridge if that's more reasonable). We've got one on the northwest shore, crossing two roads and the rail lines. I intend for the left end to be the ramp up, while the center road has a little ramp up drawn in road red. It ramps down just before that historic house, if that's a short enough distance. I"ve also added a viaduct just north of there to carry the rail line, along with extending that rail bridge to allow a road crossing as well. The southeast end of the city has a bridge across the rails, and across the river. The northeast of the city joins that bypass road up to the north end, since it was pretty much there already. Without knowing how Norham was historically laid out, how much actually got wiped away, and how much rebuilding is expected, I left my modifications reasonably conservative. I'll leave the rail access for someone else.
|
|
#
?
Nov 10, 2012 14:42
|
|
|
That is a really good, cheap solution, provided the design vehicles can make those turns. I might smooth out the curbs some more based on bus turning templates. Also, those diagonal painted lines aren't going to last more than a couple years with people driving over them. Anywhere you don't want passenger cars driving, make it concrete, or at the very least, stamped asphalt in a different color. You also may want to consider a second bus shelter, or even a ticketing building. We're building a surprisingly small one for the Busway. kefkafloyd posted:Sorry Chiclidae, but you have to have a mainline tollbooth at that interchange. Which complicates things even more! Spread out the diagonal ramps a bit, and you'll have room for it in the middle of the T-interchange. Hell, doesn't everyone use EZ-Pass these days anyway? (If only, right?)
|
|
#
?
Nov 10, 2012 15:01
|
|
|
Cichlidae posted:That is a really good, cheap solution, provided the design vehicles can make those turns. I might smooth out the curbs some more based on bus turning templates. Also, those diagonal painted lines aren't going to last more than a couple years with people driving over them. Anywhere you don't want passenger cars driving, make it concrete, or at the very least, stamped asphalt in a different color. You also may want to consider a second bus shelter, or even a ticketing building. We're building a surprisingly small one for the Busway.  Plus we have real-time tracking, with a display just inside the doors.  Edit: This is our other (on-street) loop at the university library, with matching real-time display inside.  
Varance fucked around with this message at 17:18 on Nov 10, 2012 |
|
#
?
Nov 10, 2012 16:56
|
|
|
 I think we should rebuild Norham so that the city center is on the other side of the river, so that residents can be assured of their safety should another catastrophic flood happen. This way, they won't be in the path of the water. Old Norham can become a suburb of sorts. Also, the mainline should be grade-separated from the rest of the traffic, as others have said.
|
|
#
?
Nov 10, 2012 19:41
|
|
|
C'mon guys, you're thinking small! Get your hands dirty and really dig in. Don't be afraid to build right up to the river - it's what we would have done in real life.
|
|
#
?
Nov 10, 2012 20:10
|
|
|
Hedera Helix posted:
That actually sounds more sensible. Would it be feasible to rather than raise the mainline, lower it into the ground (open top most of the way) and then tunnel under the river? With the layout Hedera Helix is proposing here, a large park on the south side of the river, where the line is running through might be a viable option, and having the railway below ground will probably be more aesthetic then.
|
|
#
?
Nov 10, 2012 20:13
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 9, 2024 05:07 |
|
|
Oh drat, I forgot that we were supposed to improve rail access on the northeast side of the city, not remove the stub that was there. Um, pretend that the small railroad bridge wasn't removed and that the abandoned railyard is back up and running and all that.  nielsm posted:Would it be feasible to rather than raise the mainline, lower it into the ground (open top most of the way) and then tunnel under the river? With the layout Hedera Helix is proposing here, a large park on the south side of the river, where the line is running through might be a viable option, and having the railway below ground will probably be more aesthetic then. If this is a feasible option, we should totally make it happen.
|
|
#
?
Nov 10, 2012 20:20
|
|