|
Also use fine road heights / no pillars to make nice smooth roads and not those kinked hills there.
|
#
?
Jan 2, 2016 22:22
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 13, 2024 18:03 |
|
|
Cichlidae posted:I get so obsessive with my interchange designs. I hate to waste a single extra tile that could instead be used for skyscrapers. The best highway design for maximizing buildings in skylines, just like real life, is no highway at all  
|
|
#
?
Jan 2, 2016 23:19
|
|
|
Baronjutter posted:The best highway design for maximizing buildings in skylines, just like real life, is no highway at all The hard part is getting a ridiculous amount of goods into your central businesses once your city gets to a couple million people. If you don't have freeways or a ton of railroad connections, they'll go abandoned due to lack of goods. Heck, I had a map with a CBD right next to a container port, and just the delay from the time it took for the ships to get to port was enough to kill the businesses. I guess Cims have lost the art of inventory management. Edit: Wait, are those tram lines? How did you get trams in there? Cichlidae fucked around with this message at 02:52 on Jan 3, 2016 |
|
#
?
Jan 2, 2016 23:38
|
|
|
Cichlidae posted:Edit: Wait, are those tram lines? How did you get trams in there? Me love make tram line! You can do a lot with no-pillars. Also if you minimize the amount of commercial in your city traffic is a breeze. Speaking of highway-free cities and the growing popularity and success of urban highway reclamation, here's more dutch success. Of course they replaced the highways with canals. https://bicycledutch.wordpress.com/2016/01/05/motorway-removed-to-bring-back-original-water/
|
|
#
?
Jan 5, 2016 19:55
|
|
|
Yeah I'm super glad they decided to get rid of the Catharijnebaan. If there's anything that's supremely hosed up with the urban form in this country, it's the mistakes that have been made in the first couple of postwar decades wrt 'cityvorming' (substituting dense urban dwelling spaces for newbuilt workspaces, literally named after London's City). I almost feel sad for brutalism as a style to have become so intertwined with this broader spatial policy.
|
|
#
?
Jan 5, 2016 21:03
|
|
|
Baronjutter posted:Me love make tram line! You can do a lot with no-pillars. Also if you minimize the amount of commercial in your city traffic is a breeze. Here's the thing with urban freeway reclamation - all the popular stories have been done where there's a good alternate route for cars, or where the road was incomplete to begin with. Portland had a big bypass built nearby, Chicago, Milwaukee, and San Francisco (and Utrecht, it seems) were just freeway stubs, and Boston and (soon) Seattle were replaced with tunnels. In Hartford, we don't have that option. There's no bypass around Hartford, no way to tunnel, and it's a major freeway. There is tremendous freight traffic through the city, and the fact that it's so congested, and reduced to 2 lanes at I-91, makes it the 18th biggest freight bottleneck in the country. We don't talk much about moving goods, but 80% of freight in the US, by value, travels by truck.
|
|
#
?
Jan 6, 2016 13:19
|
|
|
Just over a month ago Ontario's first cable stayed bridge opened. Today, it decided it didn't like how it was sitting...    
|
|
#
?
Jan 10, 2016 23:55
|
|
|
Cable didn't stay bridge
|
|
#
?
Jan 11, 2016 00:13
|
|
|
That's one hell of a fail, considering the Nipigon River Bridge is the chokepoint between Eastern and Western Canada. Only way to get between the two by land right now is through the United States.
|
|
#
?
Jan 11, 2016 00:13
|
|
|
less than three posted:Just over a month ago Ontario's first cable stayed bridge opened. How the heck did that happen? This is hardly brand new technology...
|
|
#
?
Jan 11, 2016 00:14
|
|
|
fishmech posted:How the heck did that happen? This is hardly brand new technology... Mistake by the engineer, mistake by contractor, or some weird field condition that caused the problem, but was not something that necessarily should have been caught. Edit: Here's an article, says the bolts broke. But you can't say what the problem was yet http://www.tbnewswatch.com/News/379810/Newly_constructed_Nipigon_Bridge_splits_in_cold_
|
|
#
?
Jan 11, 2016 00:16
|
|
|
less than three posted:Just over a month ago Ontario's first cable stayed bridge opened. An Ontario lady just gave a presentation at TRB this morning on how well Canadian concrete roads were doing. Good thing she wasn't a bridge engineer. 
|
|
#
?
Jan 11, 2016 00:59
|
|
|
less than three posted:Just over a month ago Ontario's first cable stayed bridge opened. At least it failed gracefully, though I'm sure the jolt would've been enough to toss cars a couple feet into the air. Other bridges have failed much less gracefully in the past. The collapse of another bridge (admittedly still under construction) killed 75 workers, which was the worst bridge construction disaster ever. ----- This hasn't quite gone public yet, but we're going to take a look at relocating the I-84 mainline outside of Hartford's CBD. It would go alongside the railroad, cross the Connecticut River on a new bridge, and reconnect with the I-284 ramps (now serving Governor Street) in East Hartford. The new I-91 interchange would have full access between both freeways. The Bulkeley Bridge would be turned back into a local road connecting Morgan Street with Connecticut Boulevard, and possibly host an expanded CTfastrak busway into East Hartford.  Pros: It would do a better job of connecting the CBD with the area immediately to the north. It would improve freeway access and, possibly, travel times. It would give us three through lanes in each direction on I-84 from Waterbury to the Mass Pike, and on I-91 from Meriden to Springfield. It would reduce traffic on all the other river crossings in the area. It would free up some good real estate for development, though I'm hesitant to use that as an argument, because there is PLENTY of developable land in and around the CBD that is unused. Cons: There are almost certainly environmental justice concerns. It would go through one of the nation's poorest neighborhoods. Ironically, Robert Moses proposed putting I-84 here to avoid the CBD and to get some of that sweet Federal slum clearance money. Building a new bridge across the Connecticut River would almost certainly incur a decade's worth of environmental permits. It might derail the rest of the I-84 project. It would definitely result in some property impacts, especially at the new I-91 interchange. Demand is so high that the additional through lane would be filled up pretty quickly. Total expected cost is somewhere around $4 billion, which is chump change as far as Connecticut projects go.
|
|
#
?
Jan 11, 2016 12:20
|
|
|
Cichlidae posted:This hasn't quite gone public yet, but we're going to take a look at relocating the I-84 mainline outside of Hartford's CBD. It would go alongside the railroad, cross the Connecticut River on a new bridge, and reconnect with the I-284 ramps (now serving Governor Street) in East Hartford. The new I-91 interchange would have full access between both freeways. The Bulkeley Bridge would be turned back into a local road connecting Morgan Street with Connecticut Boulevard, and possibly host an expanded CTfastrak busway into East Hartford. I buy the pros and cons of that list. it seems like a sensible solution, except the lane drops / left exits in the Governor Street ramps seem woefully under capacity. Wouldn't that interchange also need a massive reconfiguration to at least carry proper through lanes, especially if it still intends movements between CT 2 and the Founders bridge?
|
|
#
?
Jan 11, 2016 15:25
|
|
|
It seems like a pretty reasonable alignment. It's hard to tell what the impact would be on the west side of the river, since all those existing roads have to be dealt with somehow. Are the "environmental justice concerns" related to taking houses, or about putting a highway next to them? Also, unless it's buried in a tunnel, it's still splitting the city in two, just at a different point.
|
|
#
?
Jan 11, 2016 16:56
|
|
|
It's along a rail ROW so the splitting's already been done.
|
|
#
?
Jan 11, 2016 17:17
|
|
|
True, I guess the main impact is right above where it says Ely St on the map, because the ROW is buried there.
|
|
#
?
Jan 11, 2016 17:50
|
|
|
fishmech posted:How the heck did that happen? This is hardly brand new technology... Through the magic of an economic downturn and lowest-bidder contracting, I would guess.
|
|
#
?
Jan 11, 2016 18:41
|
|
|
smackfu posted:It seems like a pretty reasonable alignment. It's hard to tell what the impact would be on the west side of the river, since all those existing roads have to be dealt with somehow. Adverse impacts doesn't just refer to property takes. It can be additional noise and air pollution, damage to a view or setting, or disruption to a historic resource. You're right that it is still a split. That's why it's not an ideal solution, but I don't think an ideal solution really exists here. The best we can do is avoid impacts where possible, minimize and mitigate where not.
|
|
#
?
Jan 11, 2016 23:03
|
|
|
Cichlidae posted:At least it failed gracefully, though I'm sure the jolt would've been enough to toss cars a couple feet into the air. Other bridges have failed much less gracefully in the past. The collapse of another bridge (admittedly still under construction) killed 75 workers, which was the worst bridge construction disaster ever. Frozen bridge update: One lane is now usable again while they figure out what to do going forward. How? Pile concrete barriers on the ends of the deck until it's pushed back down.  I was genuinely impressed at the ingenuity.
|
|
#
?
Jan 12, 2016 07:34
|
|
|
I had a bridge do that on my model train set. It was wood and I guess curled a bit from the paint. Ended up ripping it up and re-gluing it with a big weight right where they put theirs. I can only imagine this whole situation was caused by the engineering company forgetting the paint both sides to help prevent warping. Also in the city I live this same company is doing a bridge that's barely got its foundations made and has gone massively over budget and has been wracked with scandals and incompetence and borderline criminal misinformation from the moment it was announced.
|
|
#
?
Jan 12, 2016 07:53
|
|
|
I looked up where that was to see what "driving through the US" as a detour meant and it's hysterical.
|
|
#
?
Jan 12, 2016 07:53
|
|
|
Chemmy posted:I looked up where that was to see what "driving through the US" as a detour meant and it's hysterical. Please share! Is it ridiculously long, or ridiculously short?
|
|
#
?
Jan 12, 2016 18:08
|
|
|
Cichlidae posted:Please share! Is it ridiculously long, or ridiculously short? Although it's slightly shorter in driving time and distance, you have to factor in hours spent waiting at customs control at least twice:
|
|
#
?
Jan 12, 2016 18:20
|
|
|
I've never been to the Michigan U.P. and I'm sure the Canucks who had to take that detour would be jealous of that fact.
|
|
#
?
Jan 12, 2016 18:23
|
|
|
If you just want to cross the bridge, this detour is even worse. It's debatable whether this route is even passable too, since it goes pretty far North into nothingness. Once you leave the Trans-Canada highway, it looks like a gravel road.
|
|
#
?
Jan 12, 2016 19:27
|
|
|
Apparently the issues with the stadium construction in downtown Hartford will now cause the Yard Goats to have their first scheduled 35 games of their season on the road. With the opening day now being scheduled for May 12th
|
|
#
?
Jan 12, 2016 22:00
|
|
|
smackfu posted:If you just want to cross the bridge, this detour is even worse. It's debatable whether this route is even passable too, since it goes pretty far North into nothingness. Once you leave the Trans-Canada highway, it looks like a gravel road. Apparently this shot is on a part of that alternate route, at the "town" of Armstrong Station, population 220:  And most of the other "towns" on the route aren't even big enough for someone to have taken a picture..
|
|
#
?
Jan 13, 2016 00:29
|
|
|
nimper posted:I've never been to the Michigan U.P. and I'm sure the Canucks who had to take that detour would be jealous of that fact. ...What? It's the best part of the state. If you're gonna visit Michigan, that's where you should go. It's got pretty forests, lakes, waterfalls, cliffs, the whole shebang. Eskaton fucked around with this message at 19:23 on Jan 13, 2016 |
|
#
?
Jan 13, 2016 19:19
|
|
|
will_colorado posted:Apparently the issues with the stadium construction in downtown Hartford will now cause the Yard Goats to have their first scheduled 35 games of their season on the road. With the opening day now being scheduled for May 12th But the Whalers are coming back any day now guys 
|
|
#
?
Jan 13, 2016 20:13
|
|
|
D.N. Nation posted:But the Whalers are coming back any day now guys *whistles Brass Bonanza* Five bucks they'll loving play it when the Goats hit a home run.
|
|
#
?
Jan 14, 2016 03:28
|
|
|
Cichlidae posted:
I like this. Would the re-alignment be in conjunction with the Aetna Viaduct options the public can vote for on the I84 project website? And what would happen to all the strange off/on ramps from that were built for the highways that were never built? You're right about opening up the land for development, though. Isn't downtown Hartford something like 40% parking lot? I've seen some of those development plans for infill.
|
|
#
?
Jan 15, 2016 02:07
|
|
|
Minenfeld! posted:I like this. Would the re-alignment be in conjunction with the Aetna Viaduct options the public can vote for on the I84 project website? And what would happen to all the strange off/on ramps from that were built for the highways that were never built? It would be a separate, but related, project. We don't want to jeopardize what's been a very positive and smooth-running project with scope creep and a decade of additional permits. However, we can design our current project to dovetail into it with minimal waste, regardless of whether or not the relocation occurs. As for the strange on/off ramps, that entire interchange would be completely reconfigured. There are 20-30 local road ramps there, too, which could easily be consolidated. East Hartford is against that, though; they love having freeway ramps on every neighborhood street they can reach. It'll be an uphill battle to remove even a handful. There have been development plans for downtown Hartford's unused space as early as 1970 in the Joint Use Study, which recommended upgrading Union Station and building dense development around the city's strongest corridors. Ultimately, there's just not a lot of demand for it. Some people think that we should really put as much air rights development on top of I-84 as possible, but what we need to explain is that, even in Boston, where there's a ton more demand and much higher density, it's not economically viable to develop air rights these days. Hartford wouldn't stand a chance. Why would you, as a developer, build on top of a freeway when you could just as easily build next to it for 40% of the cost? We've tried over and over again to explain this, but the people who live there seem to think it's Manhattan and developers are knocking down the door trying to put high-rises on every available square inch of real estate.
|
|
#
?
Jan 15, 2016 04:29
|
|
|
Tom Scott made an interesting video on pedestrian safety. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ki8BLLnWyJY
|
|
#
?
Jan 17, 2016 11:29
|
|
|
Yesssss, finally considered the client to consider Dutch-style protected bicycle lanes and intersections! The next obstacle will be getting the city's traffic engineer to allow dedicated ped phases instead of concurrent.
|
|
#
?
Jan 22, 2016 00:18
|
|
|
Cichlidae posted:Yesssss, finally considered the client to consider Dutch-style protected bicycle lanes and intersections! The next obstacle will be getting the city's traffic engineer to allow dedicated ped phases instead of concurrent. Amen, brother, you are doing the Lord's work!
|
|
#
?
Jan 22, 2016 00:57
|
|
|
Cichlidae posted:Yesssss, finally considered the client to consider Dutch-style protected bicycle lanes and intersections! The next obstacle will be getting the city's traffic engineer to allow dedicated ped phases instead of concurrent. You do amazing work. I greatly appreciate your efforts to drag Hartford out of the national shitter.
|
|
#
?
Jan 22, 2016 01:30
|
|
|
Cichlidae posted:Yesssss, finally considered the client to consider Dutch-style protected bicycle lanes and intersections! The next obstacle will be getting the city's traffic engineer to allow dedicated ped phases instead of concurrent. Congrats, you're one of the good ones!
|
|
#
?
Jan 22, 2016 02:48
|
|
|
Cichlidae posted:The next obstacle will be getting the city's traffic engineer to allow dedicated ped phases instead of concurrent. I assume this means a walk signal everytime, but could somebody please explain / post a link Thanks!
|
|
#
?
Jan 22, 2016 03:41
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 13, 2024 18:03 |
|
|
zzuupp posted:I assume this means a walk signal everytime, but could somebody please explain / post a link With a dedicated pedestrian phase, all the signals turn red at the same time, and then the walk signal lights up. Pedestrians (and bicyclists, in this case) can cross any leg they want without having to worry about anything except inattentive motorists turning right on red. With a concurrent pedestrian phase, pedestrians get the walk signal parallel to the adjacent green light. So they cross the road that currently has the red light, but have to dodge right- and left-turning cars, which also have the green light. Dedicated pedestrian phases eat up a lot of time, but they're better for anyone on foot, especially if they have disabilities. I've been designing everything with a dedicated ped phase, against the city engineer's wishes, who wants to make everything concurrent.
|
|
#
?
Jan 22, 2016 03:44
|
|