|
If the city centre can handle being essentially without rail access for a year or two (or more), I would suggest moving the main station a bunch westward, and then placing the entire rail line through the city centre below ground level. Not in a tunnel, just lower the entire terrain it runs on. That will make it easier to run roads over it. The station needs to be moved westward to allow the track to slope back up to cross the river, without making the grade too steep. (Unless, of course, some crazy engineer comes up with a way to tunnel under the river.) The northbound track west of the city probably can't join the east-west mainline reasonably when the track is lowered like that, so I would abandon that and build a new line around the west of the city. Would it be a problem, water-table wise, that the track might end up below sea level? In the time the construction is going on, temporary stations should perhaps be erected slightly outside the city. Another suggestion for the main station, which might make it easier to relocate: Have only the two central tracks be through, the two northern terminate the westbound line, and the two southern terminate the eastbound line. That should cut down on the space required for switching around the station. As for the north-western tram problem, make the line fork and each branch continue further down the road. End both of them with a neat loop, and build a
|
#
¿
Oct 26, 2012 14:47
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 20, 2024 23:58 |
|
|
Jonnty posted:Tram-trains? In the 19th century? Well if it's the same gauge, why not? And if it isn't, it's probably less work to move one of the existing rails that to lay entirely new track.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 27, 2012 20:51
|
|
|
Manbury doesn't have a good connection to the coast, I propose building the final edge of a wye between Waterbridge/Nogahyde/Manbury. And I think we should take another look at Hartshire.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 1, 2012 01:13
|
|
|
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
|
|
|
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
|
|
|
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
|
|
|
I think it would be possible to have "thick" clients at the intersections, which are programmed remotely through the mobile network (i.e. with a GSM radio in them), as well as report back status and keep their internal clock in sync. That wouldn't require new cabling but would still give much more flexibility. The failsafe would consist of the unit not having reported back within some timeout (e.g. 5-10 minutes) and that would require an engineer dispatch. This is probably way harder than I think. (The rule of "can it really be that hard? Yes it can.")
|
|
#
¿
Nov 12, 2012 22:13
|
|
|
So what happened to the rail? Did it end up under ground? Or is it a long-rear end bridge it takes across the river and a road on each side?
|
|
#
¿
Nov 13, 2012 01:13
|
|
|
The level crossing right by the central station might have to stay (real life example: Exeter St. Davids has the Red Cow level crossing by it, and is still a quite busy station), although something would have to be done about the tram crossing there. Assuming the trains are running to a timetable, it should be possible to guard the crossing.  At area A, there is a conflict. Either the train track would have to change level (problematic due to the yard) or the road+tram would have to change level (problematic due to the canal and tram). I think the most realistic would be to raise the road. The little southward street into the rail yard area might need to go under the bridge or something, depending on things. At area B, I would suggest lowering the track into a trench. If it isn't an oversight on the drawing, it also seems like there are some missing connections on the rails, north/south movements seem odd, unless both sides of the track is run in both directions. It might be a smaller operation to lower the track a bit, and raise the road crossing it. At area C, I think the best would be to completely rip out the rails, and convert the bridge to road use. Instead build a new track northward, as shown. That should give better capacity on the line, partly because it can be double tracked more of the way and partly because it avoids some quite tight curves by Meridian central station. Of course this means that there isn't a direct rail connection between Middleport and Meridian, but they do have a tram connection, and now another road bridge too. Would there be opposition to making the current small bridge (that only fits one tram at a time) and the converted rail bridge into one-way roads? Finally, I re-routed the tram north of Middleport central station a bit and put a road along the north of the track. The other end of the new stretch of rail: 
|
|
#
¿
Nov 17, 2012 05:06
|
|
|
Jaguars! posted:While we're talking about design speeds, I'd like to post a pet peeve of mine. See those houses alongside the road? I bet there's lots of families with children living in those.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 22, 2012 13:15
|
|
|
I think we should assign each major city a two letter code and then each of those cities gets to assign numbers to the roads passing through them. Sure, it would mean that some roads had to change code in the middle, that shouldn't become any kind of real problem.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 10, 2012 01:28
|
|
|
Cichlidae posted:Alright folks, if there are no new route numbering proposals, we can begin voting. Choices are: Voting for Roflex, looks like much more By the way your post links are wrong, they go to the "post reply" page.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 14, 2012 23:56
|
|
|
Banemaster posted:At least here in Finland, speed bumps' point is that speed is lowered even beyond the speed limit. I have never heard anyone even consider that it should be possible to drive through one at speed limit. This. Whenever there are speed bumps in Denmark, the speed limit is reduced to (typically) 30 km/h, and you are expected to slow further down to 15-20 km/h when driving over one. They are also only used in residential areas outside of thoroughfares. I have never heard of problems with emergency vehicles tripping on them, most likely since if they need to cross any it's only on the very last leg of the trip.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 26, 2012 20:22
|
|
|
Jonnty posted:It's situations like this where you wonder why railfreight isn't used more often. This is really just a guess, but likely the railways are too occupied by passenger traffic to easily fit more freight, and adding extra tracks is too costly or even impossible.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 17, 2013 00:55
|
|
|
Someone posted this in the SimCity 2013 thread: SUMO - Simulation of Urban MObility Cichlidae, how does it compare to the tools you usually use?
|
|
#
¿
Apr 1, 2013 15:20
|
|
|
Apparently, while that SUMO thing is open source, the graphical editing tool for its network file format is not. That one is "only available to project partners".
|
|
#
¿
Apr 1, 2013 15:38
|
|
|
JingleBells posted:I love unfinished bits of road - Manchester has a ski-jump of it's own: What? Did they design and start building the ramp, and then 75% through construction someone suddenly noticed the design was wrong?
|
|
#
¿
Apr 18, 2013 15:03
|
|
|
Carbon dioxide posted:I think I read about a stretch of unused/unfinished freeway (or another road type) in the UK that has been used to film car chase scenes and the like. Can't seem to find it right now, though. Following a few links, I landed here... http://www.cbrd.co.uk/badjunctions/58-577/ Is that a dong? 
|
|
#
¿
Apr 19, 2013 12:30
|
|
|
FISHMANPET posted:I get in a lot of local slap fights over transit modes on a local forum I'm a member of, and I'd like to have some first hand experience on the ride quality of an electric rubber wheeled vehicle. The electric buses in Copenhagen (battery-driven, no overhead wires) aren't very interesting. I've only used them twice or so, from how I remember last time somehow it was still vibrating a lot. On the other hand, a hybrid test-model they had on another route, was really comfortable when it was running only on battery, no horrible vibrations while stopped and obviously no motor noise. Unfortunately it very rarely turned the fuel motor off, making it not as great as it could have been.
|
|
#
¿
May 29, 2013 23:06
|
|
|
Yeah, a hybrid that only turns the fuel engine on after being up to speed is wonderful, but it doesn't work well in stop-and-go traffic, or with short distances between stops. Otherwise the battery simply doesn't get a chance to recharge sufficiently, and then you get idling with the fuel engine on.
|
|
#
¿
May 29, 2013 23:26
|
|
|
Lead out in cuffs posted:That said, best cycling practices do sometimes advocate grey-area manoeuvres, like making a left turn "perimeter style" as an alternative to crossing multiple lanes of traffic to get to the turning lane (see "making a left turn" in this cycling guide for a diagram.) In that guide they urge you to dismount in the crosswalk (as required by law), but in practice cyclists required to dismount to get somewhere just don't. What the gently caress.  Those hand signals are wrong/make no sense/don't match up with the instruction you get in Denmark. (Trust us, we know about cycling.) Left and right turn, stick the left/right arm out in a clear fashion. That also forces you to check for traffic from behind, so you don't stick your arm into someone else. Stopping, raise your left hand (right hand in left-drive countries) shortly before you begin braking, and make sure you can stop somewhere you leave plenty of room for others to pass you. You raise the arm towards the side the rest of the traffic will be passing you, so it's the most visible to them. And taking a left turn at a signaled intersection practically always involves driving across on the right side, stopping at the corner, waiting for green in the other direction, then continuing. Exception would be if there's no other traffic in sight. Also, when in a car, if you are turning right, make sure to drive close enough to the curb that a cyclist can't pass you on the right. Force cyclists turning right to stay behind you, and those continuing straight, to pass you on the left.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 6, 2013 10:41
|
|
|
Stumbled into this video today: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GA-5KJS88AE A previously closed rail line was re-opened two years ago, the video covers the economic aspects of it, and also gives a brief tour of the construction work and how it also affected some road reconstruction. Also Scottish 
|
|
#
¿
Jun 13, 2013 22:47
|
|
|
Install Gentoo posted:The google map says there's a "Fuglevad Station" on that road segment, as part of a "Nærum Line". I imagine those people are going to the train station and returning later that day? It's a small local railway, there is no real parking space by the station. Locals would likely either walk or bike there to take the train, I don't think bikes count in these statistics. More likely, I think, is simply that the numbers might not have been measured during the same period. Edit: Actually it isn't entirely unreasonable that the small branch road could count several hundred cars a day, especially considering that the nature in the area is somewhat of an attraction. nielsm fucked around with this message at 21:10 on Jul 17, 2013 |
|
#
¿
Jul 17, 2013 21:06
|
|
|
JointHorse posted:So, one stupid thing has bothered me when reading this thread, and it's that it seems like you must build separate roads/paths for bicycles. What's stopping you from using the excicting sidewalks as a combined bicycle/pedestrian thingie (like we do here in Finland, see example), or is that already in use and I've got the wrong idea because the posts here just happened to be mostly about separate bike lanes? It seriously sucks, for both bikers and pedestrians, to use a combined path. Pedestrians have to watch out for sudden bikes, and bikers have to weave around the pedestrians. I'd rather share the road with cars than share the sidewalk with peds when I'm on bike. For myself, I'll want either grade-separated bike lane or none at all. A lane just marked with paint on either road or sidewalk is no better than no lane at all. Actually, a painted separate bike lane on the sidewalk level is just as bad as shared sidewalk. Please don't do that.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 21, 2013 10:31
|
|
|
Lead out in cuffs posted:Why would it be based on GPS and not the car's built-in speedometer? I mean I'm sure the speedo on a car is not 100% accurate, but it's probably accurate enough and pretty reliable. It needs GPS to know which road you're driving on, so it can look up the speed limit. Any kind of roadside or in-road system would be giant on installation, maintenance, and be susceptible to spoofing or hacking.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 4, 2013 20:36
|
|
|
GWBBQ posted:Cloverleaf intersections cause weaving, which is among the more dangerous things you can be forced to do while driving. Yeah, with the weaving they cause, you could say danger is looming in them! 
|
|
#
¿
Oct 10, 2013 18:34
|
|
|
Alakantar posted:I've been reading this thread for the past several months (it's been fascinating!), and I've got two questions. I was driving through Maryland several weeks ago on MD 5/235 and saw several of these strange intersections: http://goo.gl/maps/fM7r8 Three Notch Road seems to be larger/more important. If that was in Europe, Point Lookout Road would probably have had a yield sign towards Three Notch Road, and Three Notch Road no controlling signs apart from notices that there is a side road. The turn lanes would have been removed, except for turning southwards coming from east (left turn from the larger road.) It lets the traffic on the larger road glide instead of forcing everyone to stop because of a side road that might not receive a tenth the traffic. (I'm basing this guess on the number of lanes on each road.) nielsm fucked around with this message at 12:55 on Oct 11, 2013 |
|
#
¿
Oct 11, 2013 12:52
|
|
|
MrYenko posted:gently caress your square grid bullshit. What's SimCity 2013 screenshots got to do with anything here? (That kind of layouts look really dumb in reality.  )
|
|
#
¿
Jan 9, 2014 00:49
|
|
|
Roundabouts? We LOVE roundabouts! Roundabouts EVERYWHERE! Even where they don't make sense! Yes, that roundabout only has two exits. They're probably planning to extend a third road from it some time in the future.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 23, 2014 03:42
|
|
|
Cichlidae posted:Some more diagrams. Tell me how I did! The peak/off-peak pie, consider if you can have the angle of the slices present the time-span the traffic takes place in, and the relative surface area of the slices represent the amount of traffic in each. The result would be that the "peak" slice is narrow, but sticks far out to have 1/3 of the total pie area. That might better communicate "1/6th of the day gets 1/3rd of the total volume." Also for the through/non-through, maybe use a straight and turning road lane with relative widths for the traffic volumes, posisbly improving visual readability. These might also just make things look more busy and be no more helpful.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 3, 2014 21:41
|
|
|
Groda posted:While it's not as bad as the three-lane system in the undeveloping world, the usual barrier for Swedish 2+1 highways is the wire barrier, which looks incredibly dangerous for motorcyclists. Is this actually the case in practice? Wire barriers will tend to act as a cheese cutter on anything that hits it at speed.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 14, 2014 12:00
|
|
|
Baronjutter posted:Nope but I'll have a light sensor at a station just before the intersection that could be used to time/trigger it all. If the tram gets power from the tracks, track circuits are probably not realistic to do. Baronjutter posted:PS how would you mark this situation? If the bike lane is separated from the road with more than just a curb for a longer stretch, perhaps a crossing bikes sign along with an advisory arrow. I.e. reminding the motor vehicles that if they turn right there might be bikes. It'd seem like the driveway is rather small so the owner/users would presumably already be aware of the bike lane and not need to be warned of it. Motor vehicles turning left into the driveway also seem they should see approaching bikes without additional signage.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 19, 2014 07:32
|
|
|
Crankit posted:How are roadworks planned, I have a friend who thinks there's a conspiracy to congest a road because whenever there's roadworks on one section there's often multiple roadworks elsewhere on the road... i.e. 10 months of the year there will be no roadworks at all, then there'll be 3 or 4 all running at the same time over the course of a few miles. How do roadworks get planned? Would he rather prefer that the roads are always blocked somewhere? It's probably cheaper in all kinds of factors to concentrate roadworks. Of course there's no arguing with conspiracy theorists, even if they can't name anyone who would actually benefit from roads being congested it's still a conspiracy of someone. Well, it probably is a conspiracy (see above), but the goal is certainly not to build congestion.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 5, 2014 22:07
|
|
|
Entropist posted:In the Netherlands this wouldn't work, it'd just be a speed bump. There has to be a roundabout sign and something with a significant diameter that you can't drive across. But even if it legally isn't one, would it cause drivers to behave as if it was a real roundabout?
|
|
#
¿
Jan 16, 2015 01:40
|
|
|
Let's do some quick maths on that. Say an express train runs at 240 km/h, that's a quite reasonable speed. A typical train might be 500 m long, and the platforms the same length. The train speed could also be expressed as 4000 m/min, and since train+platform length is 1000 m, it follows that the train has entirely passed the station in 15 seconds. Good luck boarding. (It will be more reasonable if you slow down the train to 60 km/h first, but still very risky. And you lose most of the intended advantage.) nielsm fucked around with this message at 04:00 on Jan 16, 2015 |
|
#
¿
Jan 16, 2015 03:57
|
|
|
First thing to do there would be close off Sunset Dr from that direction. That would simplify traffic to/from the diagonal road a lot. Then move that parking lot in the southwest further north, such as W Sunset Blvd gets two new sharp turns (first south, then east again) and meets only N Virgil Ave south from the main intersection. After that you'd still have an awkward diagonal intersection, but it would at least only have 4 legs. E: Like this. 
nielsm fucked around with this message at 10:37 on Feb 28, 2015 |
|
#
¿
Feb 28, 2015 10:31
|
|
|
Drop the new road to grade early, but don't intersect it with the existing street. Instead cut the street into two dead ends, and build a ped tunnel under the new road.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 27, 2015 06:11
|
|
|
Possibly of interest: A major new railway route is under construction in Denmark, it's not a very long route but it's quite involved. Most interesting, they've published a detailed map of the new route and the terrain changes required. It indirectly also shows the road and bridge realiagnments required, as well as relocated homes and more. Make sure to zoom in close on the map. E: If you open the Layers menu (second button) and fold out the first category, there's several additional layers you can enable too. nielsm fucked around with this message at 11:49 on Apr 8, 2015 |
|
#
¿
Apr 8, 2015 11:34
|
|
|
Agreeing that past "not being farms left and right" cycling infrastructure being relevant depends little on population density. Instead, if the local population could reasonably make many (most?) of their daily trips on bike, cycling infrastructure is relevant on all roads with a daily car traffic peak above some threshold. If the local children could distance-wise bike to school, make their routes safe and watch them bike to school. If the local workforce could distance-wise get to work on bike, make their routes safe and watch them bike to work. If grocery shopping could be reached by bike, make it safe and let people make quick trips to buy small amounts, and perhaps overconsumption will fall. And when you've enabled some of those trips the community might change shape to allow more of them.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 16, 2015 18:06
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 20, 2024 23:58 |
|
|
In Denmark it's clear cut, motor-assisted bikes must not assist to speeds above 20 km/h, above that it's a scooter. Of course you can still pedal them faster than 20km/h but then all the power has to be supplied by pedaling.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 16, 2015 22:18
|
|