The 10,000 Post Thread v2

[hittwice99 618]

2671

I'm intrigued how this new system works.

[Duke87 1,070]

(2672)

Mine seems to be just about where it was before. Also interesting to know that I'm ranked #6.

As you might have guessed, jackie is #1.

I'm liking that we can see others' now rather than just our own.

And what's this about donating Simoleons? Hmm...

[astronelson 339]

2673.

I am rather curious as to why I only have 2.

EDIT: Now 3. Hmm.

[un1 41]

I have 0.

Must have been quite a depression we entered, I lost all my 4k simoleans.

2674

[NMUSpidey 3,956]

2675

I wonder what would happen if I donated all my simoleons. Would they sing my praises from the hilltops as a great philanthropist?

[Duke87 1,070]

(2676)

Must not have included your post points.

Or maybe you just broke something.

[Forthwall 1,118]

2677

Confused a little

[Timmystwin 201]

2678

On a different note, staying up for almost 60 hrs straight at a scout event really isn't good for you. Still, where else do you get to lash a fridge to a door to stop people getting in.

[jj88 23]

2679

I was in Scouts - why did you have to stand up for 60 hrs straight?

[Skimbo 304]

2680

I've buildt a city with a population of 608.000 today. Tomorrow I will have to fix this terrible traffic jam

[Duke87 1,070]

(2681)

Needs moar freeways.

Or moar subways, either or.

[Larks2242 251]

2682.

Mine seems to be just about where it was before. Also interesting to know that I'm ranked #6.

As you might have guessed, jackie is #1.

I'm liking that we can see others' now rather than just our own.

And what's this about donating Simoleons? Hmm...

I'm 4,256th? I had many more then 6 before odd.

(That is if these are the same as points)

  Edited March 13, 2011 by Larks2242  

[Skimbo 304]

@Duke: Most of my big cities do not have freeways at all, I usually solve theese problems with Metro, Heavy rail, GLR and ferries.

Btw:

My CJ needs some more views

2683

[Duke87 1,070]

(2684)

Most of my big cities do not have freeways at all

Ouch. I wouldn't want to have to visit one of your cities.

[nathanthemayor 1,262]

2685

In Fresno the nearest interstate is 120 miles away, on the other side of the valley(I-5), although the only highways in Fresno are state highways.

[Larks2242 251]

2686.

Most of my big cities do not have freeways at all

Ouch. I wouldn't want to have to visit one of your cities.

Are the roads congested?

  Edited March 14, 2011 by Larks2242  

[astronelson 339]

2687.

If the city is very decentralised then it might be able to get away with not having highways.

[Duke87 1,070]

(2688)

In Fresno the nearest interstate is 120 miles away, on the other side of the valley(I-5)

Google says it's just a bit over 50 miles.

And you've got CA 99 (former US 99, potentially future I-9) plus a few other freeways, so you're fine.

If the city is very decentralised then it might be able to get away with not having highways.

Actually, that would make it worse. That means even longer distances that have to be covered at low speed.

Of course, I'm talking real life here. In SimCity people just travel to the nearest desired zone, never making long trips and never going anywhere except to work. Under such an unrealistic model then yes, a low density city can get away with no freeways since the capacity isn't needed.

[Frdm920 50]

2689

Backbone of my transport system is freeway and heavy rail. Then GLR/BRT for intra-city services

[Larks2242 251]

2690.

So philly forced me to get a facebook, but i refused to fill it out propertly.

[Skimbo 304]

@Duke: First: Don't forget that my cities ain't american, so they are somehow more compact and got a much better publc transport system

A well planned road network forces traffic on the track, forces to use P+R. Indirect jammy roads cause people to use direct and fast trains. A city toll or very expansive innercity parking force more people to use the trains. And the few who still use their car do not need a freeway anymore.

So visiting the cities as tourist is even more easy, everyhing can be reached fast and direct by public transport without worrining about parking spaces all the time.

2691

[Timmystwin 201]

I was in Scouts - why did you have to stand up for 60 hrs straight?

2692

Coz i was helping set up a nighthike on the first night and manning a checkpoint on the next. Also we had a massive pillow / mattress / Fridge fight on the second night. ( Me and about 7 other young leaders.)

  Edited March 14, 2011 by Timmystwin  

[Larks2242 251]

5693.

I think ST is set to the wrong Time zone, it says the post above me was posted at 5:28 PM. So either the forum is from the future or there is an error.

[Timmystwin 201]

5... no wait 2694

It was posted at that time where i was.

[Muck308 55]

2695

It says 12:28 for me.

[NMUSpidey 3,956]

2696

I still play SC4 like it's SC2000. I jam everything really close together, there are few open spaces, and parks only when absolutely necessary. It's a bad habit I've been trying to break recently, and I've been going through my cities to open things up and spread people out a bit better.

[Duke87 1,070]

(2697)

First: Don't forget that my cities ain't american, so they are somehow more compact and got a much better publc transport system

Which is fine and dandy for getting around within the city, but not for getting in and out of it.

Indirect jammy roads cause people to use direct and fast trains.

This is a destructive attitude. If a system is to succeed, it should succeed on its own merits. A system which only succeeds because its competition is forcibly crippled does not deserve its success. If people are to use trains, it should be because they are better, not because they suck less. If you encourage me to use the train by making it pleasant, I will gladly do so. If you discourage me from driving by intentionally making it unpleasant, I will get pissed off. No urban planning should ever rely on reducing the availability of infrastructure. Improve, don't downgrade!

Trains are great, but there is no good reason why they have to exist at the expense of roads. Both systems fulfill somewhat different needs and having good quality of both is better than having good quality of only one (whichever that one may be).

Besides, trains are very often not direct. Systems tend to be designed primarily to take people in and out of the center city. Traveling from one outlying area to another by train will almost always involve going in and then coming back out. Not exactly time efficient or convenient.

A city toll or very expansive innercity parking force more people to use the trains.

This idea I can get on board with... for a major metropolis, at least. For smaller cities, it doesn't make sense.

And the few who still use their car do not need a freeway anymore.

False. Freeways are not just about capacity, they are also about speed. Having to crawl across town through city streets is inconvenient, more costly, and less fuel efficient.

So visiting the cities as tourist is even more easy, everyhing can be reached fast and direct by public transport without worrining about parking spaces all the time.

Yes, yes, tourists can conveniently get around the city by public transport. How do they arrive and leave? The subway won't take them to their home 500 miles away. Besides, carrying luggage on a subway train doesn't exactly work very well.

  Edited March 14, 2011 by Duke87  

[Larks2242 251]

2698.

Don't mind me, just droppin by.

[astronelson 339]

2699.

I'm applying for a job tomorrow.

[Skimbo 304]

This is a destructive attitude. If a system is to succeed, it should succeed on its own merits. A system which only succeeds because its competition is forcibly crippled does not deserve its success. If people are to use trains, it should be because they are better, not because they suck less. If you encourage me to use the train by making it pleasant, I will gladly do so. If you discourage me from driving by intentionally making it unpleasant, I will get pissed off. No urban planning should ever rely on reducing the availability of infrastructure. Improve, don't downgrade!

I actually do not downgrade, I just primally improve the track based transport system and only secondary the roads

Trains are great, but there is no good reason why they have to exist at the expense of roads. Both systems fulfill somewhat different needs and having good quality of both is better than having good quality of only one (whichever that one may be).

Trains are prefeired, so they are the first infrastructure to get new investions, a modern, fast direct and cheap way to get through the citie's Center and it's sourroundings with plenty and attractive P+R option at the outer cities. Secondary a road network that finances itself with parking fees and a city toll. I do not think that this leads to the expense of the road network, it just makes it much more unattractive.

Besides, trains are very often not direct. Systems tend to be designed primarily to take people in and out of the center city. Traveling from one outlying area to another by train will almost always involve going in and then coming back out. Not exactly time efficient or convenient.

Here it actually depends on the network, if it's a base network for serveing the most used ways of traffic, then, of course, yes. It it's an extended network that uses also radial lines (aka. the cind of network that does not exist in U.S.) than mostly no.

A city toll or very expansive innercity parking force more people to use the trains.

This idea I can get on board with... for a major metropolis, at least. For smaller cities, it doesn't make sense.

The city size is not the only important factor, of course this way of network planning will not be efficient at a low density - 40.000 perople city but if the city has about 600.000 people and is located at a mountainous place it might be better to fore people useing the trains and not building more and more roads through the small valleys.

And the few who still use their car do not need a freeway anymore.

False. Freeways are not just about capacity, they are also about speed. Having to crawl across town through city streets is inconvenient, more costly, and less fuel efficient.

Freeways attract more people to use their cars which is less fuel efficient than more people who go by train. The matter of speed: innercity traffic concept uses the trains, traffic through the cities is led around them by roads leading the traffic at least around the city center, more likeley also around the suburbz. Regular traffic from far away into the city is able to use P+R, Irregualar traffic into the cities (like tourists) might just pay the city toll and use the parking garages of hotels etc. but this irregular traffic does normally not affect the system during rushhour.

So visiting the cities as tourist is even more easy, everyhing can be reached fast and direct by public transport without worrining about parking spaces all the time.

Yes, yes, tourists can conveniently get around the city by public transport. How do they arrive and leave? The subway won't take them to their home 500 miles away. Besides, carrying luggage on a subway train doesn't exactly work very well.

As I said: Driving into the city center and parking in the hotel garage during the visit is possible, so why not doo it?

2700