• Welcome to SC4 Devotion Forum Archives.

Urban planning in current events

Started by noahclem, November 06, 2014, 06:04:14 AM

Previous topic - Next topic

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

vester

On Funen the scale of the animals are a bit different:

There is used 2.4 mill € on a passage just for mouse.
The Hazel dormouse is an endangered specie.

noahclem

That's a highly-valued mouse :D  Neat overpass/tunnel system though and I bet it allows a lot of other animals to cross, including the larger ones that are most vulnerable to habitat fragmentation. I've had an interest in doing those in SC4 forever (note that in this case the tunnel fits Rivit's mod almost exactly :D )


APSMS

Interesting article, though FWIW I hate American roundabouts with a strong passion. Not the least because of the insane driving practices that accompany them, and the fact that most of the American ones are supposed to be high capacity, but aren't.
Experience is something you don't get until just after you need it.

My Mayor Diary San Diego: A Reinterpretation

compdude787

Personally, I don't mind single lane roundabouts and I think roundabouts are best when traffic is going in predominately one direction. But I've read that multi-lane roundabouts can be highly unsafe because people don't seem to be using them correctly.
Check out my MD, United States of Simerica!
Last updated: March 5, 2017

My YouTube Channel

Mandarin(a)

Hahah, yes, roundabouts ...  ::) Currently very popular here in Slovenia too, but (I think) mostly because of total lack of motivation to make a proper intersection. As compdude mentioned, people are using them incorrectly most of the time, but hey, they prevent those situations where you step on the gas to catch that yellow light ...

noahclem

I don't mind American roundabouts too much, other than that they seem to be built in clusters instead of just at locations that would be particularly appropriate. And I've never seen a two-lane roundabout in the US, which is probably a good thing. The biggest difference I see between US and European drivers relates to how much education and effort is needed to get a driving license: I paid $15 to get my license at age 15 after cursory training and an easy test in South Dakota while my wife paid over €1000 including months of courses to get hers in Finland where you have to be 18 to drive. I don't like how difficult it is to get a license in Finland (and I switched from driving to biking due to all the other expenses related to driving here) but it is noticeable how much more competent the average driver seems to be, and at least you don't have to worry about people not knowing how to use a roundabout here. We have a 4-lane per direction freeway in Sioux Falls and I swear the slowest drivers were always in the two leftmost lanes  :facepalm: The main use for them that I like in the US is to replace intersections that get lots of accidents. And, of course, in cities with intersections with more than four connecting streets.

threestooges

Hate to scare you, but there's a 2 lane roundabout not too far from me here in Orange County. There's also one that is 2-3 lanes in Long Beach in LA County.

Tarkus

I did a bunch of research on them during my council campaign, as the state DOT was basically forcing a pair of them on us on the main highway going north out of town.  I was skeptical of the idea, so I started poking around the state's accident statistic database.  Long story short, I posted the stats on my campaign site and embarrassed ODOT pretty badly.  Not that it's particularly difficult to do so--ODOT once blew up a whale

My findings were that the last roundabout ODOT put on a major highway caused a long-term 150% increase in accidents with no reduction in accident severity, and that a $9 million+ roundabout that the current ODOT Region Manager was in on in his last job had almost 200 wrecks in five years.  Not exactly something to brag about.  Needless to say, I've become pretty strongly opposed to roundabouts.

-Alex

APSMS

Quote from: threestooges on April 27, 2016, 06:34:46 PM
Hate to scare you, but there's a 2 lane roundabout not too far from me here in Orange County. There's also one that is 2-3 lanes in Long Beach in LA County.
That's the roundabout on the Hwy 1, right? That's a really confusing one, and people always seems to take it too fast.

My biggest issue with roundabouts is that because people know that the roundabout has the right of way, they don't signal. But lots of people forger to yield on entering, which means that, in America at least, the whole thing is a terrible guessing game when is comes to figuring out when to enter, and whether or not the oncoming traffic is going the main direction, or if they're going off to the side.

I will admit, though, that they do look particularly nice in SC4, but that's the result of hard work by the NAM team.
Experience is something you don't get until just after you need it.

My Mayor Diary San Diego: A Reinterpretation

metarvo

Quote from: APSMS on April 27, 2016, 07:27:20 PM
But lots of people forger to yield on entering, which means that, in America at least, the whole thing is a terrible guessing game when is comes to figuring out when to enter, and whether or not the oncoming traffic is going the main direction, or if they're going off to the side.

Yield.  That's the problem right there, of course; in America, Yield signs in general get ignored, at roundabouts and traditional intersections alike.  One wonders how some of us would fare in the UK, where Give Way (read: Yield) signs are far more common than Stop signs or traffic lights, and roundabouts are ubiquitous.
Find my power line BAT thread here.
Check out the Noro Cooperative.  What are you waiting for?  It even has electricity.
Want more? Try here.  For even more electrical goodies, look here.
Here are some rural power lines.

MushyMushy

From what I can tell, the concept of roundabouts is completely sound - it's just that American drivers completely ignore yield signs almost every single time. It's like the signs don't exist, regardless of where they are (intersections, roundabouts, merging traffic, etc). Add to this the fact that they are not covered in the driving manual (at least the one for my state) and you are not required to know how to navigate one to get a license. This makes them dangerous even for people that do know how to drive through them. In my area the only reason they ever build roundabouts (and they are always small) is for decoration in an attempt to make something look "fancy."

I see people do any number of stupid things at a very simple and straightforward one in the middle of a shopping center parking lot that I frequent. I've had people pull out in front of me (can't read a yield sign), get in the extra lane designated for "right turn only" only to cut over in front of me because they didn't want to turn right, and just plain go the wrong direction and almost have a head-on collision with me because they weren't even looking at the road. I've grown to hate the things not because they're bad, but because all of the drivers here are so horrendously awful that they can't navigate them properly.

eggman121

Speaking from an Australian point of view I know that it would depend on the design of the roundabout and the familiarity of using them.

I for one am a very cautious driver but there are a lot of silly people on the roads in Australia (Especially when wildlife like kangaroos come into play), There are lots of them where I live.

Aside from that tangent, It really depends on what driving conditions you are use too. I agree with Alex that they can be a bad idea but it depends on the locality and if a roundabout is warranted. Some are needed, some not so much. Depends on design also (Sight distance and location)

In Melbourne you even have confusing roundabouts with several exits and trams running through the middle. There are examples of when a better system should be considered.

Story short, If there is low traffic but consistent in both directions than a roundabout is fine. Once you get to high level traffic alternatives should be implemented. 

-eggman121

catty

Quote from: APSMS on April 27, 2016, 07:27:20 PM
....the whole thing is a terrible guessing game when is comes to figuring out when to enter, and whether or not the oncoming traffic is going the main direction, or if they're going off to the side....

In New Zealand our single-laned roundabouts rules are quite simple

•slow down as you come up to the roundabout and be prepared to give way
•give way to all vehicles that will cross your path from your right as you enter the roundabout

Multi-laned roundabouts have an extra rule

•slow down as you come up to the roundabout and be prepared to give way
• be in the correct lane for where you want to go
•give way to all vehicles that will cross your path from your right as you enter the roundabout.

There are a few more rules regarding when you should use your indicators, but that's mainly so people will know if you are going straight thru the roundabout or turning off.

:)
I meant," said Ipslore bitterly, "what is there in this world that truly makes living worthwhile?" DEATH thought about it. "CATS," he said eventually, "CATS ARE NICE.

Themistokles

For me, as a non-American, this video was really shocking. I mean, I know about America and highways, but the extent to which politicians and especially corporations were able to carry these plans out really baffles me.

Especially interesting it became when I reached the comparison between Detroit now and in the 1930's. What on earth happened to all the houses? Demolition is so expensive, how on earth were they able to find federal means to support this?

One of the main counterarguments to railway expansion and high-speed intercity rail in the USA, that I hear today, is that it would be exorbitantly expensive to demolish buildings to make way for rails approaching the city centres, that have to reach downtown if they are to gain significant ridership. Why would it be so much more expensive today than it was in the 20th century? And looking at the aerial photographs shown in this video, there seems not to be many buildings left to demolish, anyway.
Come join me on a hike to St Edmea!

Latest update: 7

"In the end, our society will be defined not only by what we create, but by what we refuse to destroy." - John Sawhill

Nanami

Quote from: Themistokles on February 25, 2017, 02:56:39 PM
For me, as a non-American, this video was really shocking. I mean, I know about America and highways, but the extent to which politicians and especially corporations were able to carry these plans out really baffles me.

Especially interesting it became when I reached the comparison between Detroit now and in the 1930's. What on earth happened to all the houses? Demolition is so expensive, how on earth were they able to find federal means to support this?

One of the main counterarguments to railway expansion and high-speed intercity rail in the USA, that I hear today, is that it would be exorbitantly expensive to demolish buildings to make way for rails approaching the city centres, that have to reach downtown if they are to gain significant ridership. Why would it be so much more expensive today than it was in the 20th century? And looking at the aerial photographs shown in this video, there seems not to be many buildings left to demolish, anyway.

Idk how the land clearance and eviction works in US, but here in Jakarta most of the inner city project including highways really badly delayed because of land clearances and evictions. The problem is because people insist to stay where they currently live until they got the money exchange higher than the market prices of area. I find it is rather interesting how they build wide ground-level or semi-ground highways going through the densely populated urban center. like how much money they give if same system done here.

From what I know most of newer transportation infrastructure through the urban center or dense area either its road based like freeway/highway/expressway or rail based project uses the existing road or rail corridors just made it off the ground as it underground or completely elevated to avoiding money and time costly land clearances. This pattern happens in several emerging cities in the developing world and maybe also several major expanding developed world cities.

On the other hand as well as the example in Boston from video, Seoul did a project to convert or should I say restore it's elevated expressway in its inner city into river-park as seen here: http://wwf.panda.org/?204454/Seoul-Cheonggyecheon-river The differences here is that Boston just move the freeway below the ground while seoul did remove it completely except several pillars.

+-----------------------------+

Also I find this as interesting article: https://www.pri.org/stories/2015-10-21/can-modern-megacity-bogot-get-without-subway
BRT or Bus Rapid Transit recently become trends to resolve the need of mass transit in big cities. Most of the policy makers done it due to the low cost and rather faster to make compared toward the rail based such as LRT, MRT/Metros/Subways. However, the drawbacks is its capacity lower than rail based transportation causes it to be easily overcrowded over times.
In my opinion is that BRT should be used in rather low to moderate transport corridor or as the downtown liners complementary toward the rail based mass transit as a feeders.

Wiimeiser

Since it's been in the news here a bit lately, I wonder what people think of the new West Gate Tunnel? Is it necessary? Superfluous? Overdesigned? A terrible, terrible idea? Personally, I think it's all of those and more. My biggest problem is, surprisingly, a bit of redundant surface street connecting the new arterial to Footscray Road via a small stretch of road with two sets of lights. In my opinion, it's as useful as a pagoda roof on an aircraft carrier.
Pink horse, pink horse, she rides across the nation...

Kitsune

Huh - I heard about Sydney getting a new tunnel under the harbour to connect to the Northern Beaches. I guess what ever Sydney gets Melbourne gets.... I've seen this on a provincial scale in Alberta between Calgary and Edmonton.
~ NAM Team Member

eggman121

Quote from: Wiimeiser on April 15, 2017, 05:35:20 AM
Since it's been in the news here a bit lately, I wonder what people think of the new West Gate Tunnel? Is it necessary? Superfluous? Overdesigned? A terrible, terrible idea? Personally, I think it's all of those and more. My biggest problem is, surprisingly, a bit of redundant surface street connecting the new arterial to Footscray Road via a small stretch of road with two sets of lights. In my opinion, it's as useful as a pagoda roof on an aircraft carrier.

I don't really like the idea of the western distributor since it gives the tollway provider (Transurban) more a footprint and a longer tolling lease. I avoid citylink like the plague since it costs so much just to be stuck in traffic. I personally would use the Westen Ring Road and surface streets than use citylink. My personal opinion however.

Since we a talking about this I think something needs to be done in this space since you can't have the port of Melbourne so far away from any arterial.

I personally would like to see the rail network expanded. Especially out in the west.

-eggman121   

Themistokles

My personal opinion, as some of you might have guessed by now ( ()stsfd() ) is that highway/motorway/freeway/tollway/expressway expansions are always

  • actively unnecessary
  • counterproductive
  • a hazard to air quality, nature and health
  • more than a waste of money

Given that we are already beyond our planetary boundaries we should use the money to

  • create attractive urban and denser suburban areas
  • provide people with an alternative transport mod
  • expand railways, and electrify using renewable energy
  • provide people with safe biking opportunities
etc. There are so many things that can be done to ease the transition away from fossil fuel dependence that we really don't need to spend valuable resources on digging ourselves deeper into the pit we're already in.

(OK, I got a little involved up there ::) )

Come join me on a hike to St Edmea!

Latest update: 7

"In the end, our society will be defined not only by what we create, but by what we refuse to destroy." - John Sawhill