How to change avenue to have the same capacity as one-way in NAM

[pengoyo 0]

Hi I'm using NAM (which I love) and it's traffic simulator, among other mods, but I was hoping to find out how I can change avenue capacity to match that of a one-way (since an avenue is basically just two one-ways right next to each other). Is there already a mod or option in NAM for this? Or is there a file I can edit to change this? If so what program should I use?

Thanks

[Ganaram Inukshuk 906]

Here's the thing: AVE and Road have equal capacities*, but OWR has greater capacity than AVE, about 50% more. The reason being is so it reflects the real-life advantages of one-way roads. Equalising the capacities of both AVE and OWR so that AVEs are raised to the capacity of OWRs makes the capacity of AVEs overpowered than that of TLA-5 or RD-4 (These are NWM networks, another NAM feature). Conversely, lowering the capacity of OWRs so that it matches that of AVEs means that you pretty much eliminate the capacity advantage of having OWRs in the first place.

Additionally, AVE and OWR are NOT the same thing; They're as different from each other as a monorail station is from a bus stop. They are two completely separate networks, and to say that you can make one out of the other is a completely untrue statement. You can mimic one by using the other, but their base functionalities, INRULing, and capacities are fundamentally different. Plus, if you go with dual-OWRs for an AVE, it will take twice as long to draw, their intersections are not pretty, the median is not pretty, and you can't make Neighbour Connections with it. (And no, dragging a Road NC and connecting OWR to it does NOT work.)

With that, I'll say that modifying these capacities is not really recommended, though it is doable using a program called the Reader.

* - Their capacities per tile are equal, meaning that AVE, being twice as wide as Road, will have twice as much capacity as Road. The reason for that is that the default simulator made it so that AVEs had four times as much capacity as Road, which wasn't ideal for several NAM projects.

  Edited August 30, 2012 by Ganaram Inukshuk  

[z1 566]

In support of what Ganaram said, you'll notice that although you can change overall capacity levels in the Traffic Simulator Configuration Tool, you cannot change individual network capacities. This is intentional, as the capacities are set in a fairly fixed ratio for proper operation of the traffic simulator.

[pengoyo 0]

I know they have their difference but I find OWR over powered in NAM in comparison to avenue, due to their increased capacity they "steal" cars from my avenues. And it might just be a product of living in the San Francisco bay area but I find avenues in real life carry way more cars then OWR. Also I find it weird when avenues transition into OWR you suddenly get a capacity boost even though the same number of lanes are going the same way. And yeah I would never just put two OWR next together, it just looks way to ugly, and I'd rather the slight annoyance of this problem than horribly ugly intersections. And definitely understand not decreasing OWR to the same capacity of roads since the way Simcity simulates there would be no purpose for OWR. But I view the benefit of OWR over avenues is not that they have more capacity than avenues but that they are easier to upgrade to from roads especially in the downtown where you don't want to destroy your buildings. And you might be right that avenues shouldn't be fully equal to OWR since they have more efficient intersections than avenues, which Simcity also doesn't simulate. But it would be nice to experiment and find the capacity that works for my cities and at least have avenues in their classic ratio of being between roads and OWR. (And I don't use NWM, even though they do add more realism, I find them too tedious to place).

Thanks for the program What file (or files) in NAM control avenue capacity (including tram-in-avenue)?

[pengoyo 0]

PS I found the file and edited it and my city is running fine. Thanks

[Ganaram Inukshuk 906]

PS I found the file and edited it and my city is running fine.

Yeah, you clearly did not follow the precautions up top. Do not do that, because the Simulator was made specifically to run at a specific ratio of capacities.

[Tarkus 6,933]

In the earlier builds of the NAM traffic simulator, once we began fine-tuning it for the NWM concept over the past few years, the Road, One-Way Road, and Avenue per-tile capacities were completely equalized, because of the fact that the two-way NWM networks had to be Road-based. The idea to increase the One-Way Road capacity was mainly based on actual traffic engineering data and phenomena, such as the Green Wave. At the time of the NWM's initial conception, we did not know how to set up Avenue-based starter pieces, and while we have found a way to do it since, there'd be considerable complications in converting any NWM networks over to Avenues, especially if the Avenue capacity got increased in the process, so there's pretty much zero chance of that happening.

Additionally, the changes that favor the OWR go beyond capacity adjustment. Simply increasing OWR capacity would not do what you think. This is why the NAM Team strongly advises against manual modification of the traffic simulator beyond what is permitted in the Traffic Simulator Configuration Tool (TSCT). The settings have a complicated set of interactions and emergent behaviors that may not seem apparent at first glance.

And it might just be a product of living in the San Francisco bay area but I find avenues in real life carry way more cars then OWR.

I think you may be confusing capacity with volume. There's also the matter that real-life OWRs tend to be concentrated in one-way grids of parallel OWRs, whereas real-life Avenue type networks tend to be spaced out from other roadways of the same functional classification.

-Tarkus

  Edited September 2, 2012 by Tarkus  

[pengoyo 0]

I know that avenues holds more capacity overall in NAM because capacity is set per tile, but it still is the case in my area that OWR tend to hold less even when looking at half an avenue. And you are right that avenues are in the spacious areas in my area and I could use the NAM add ons to build bigger avenues and smaller OWR to match this but to add all those extra roads to my menus just to switch out my avenues and OWR for different sized ones seems a bit odd, and I'm doing this also because I like moding (this isn't the first time I've edited files). And don't worry Ganaram Inukshuk, I know I'm taking a risk; I backed up all my files so if something does go horribly wrong I will just reload my files and have lost some game time, a risk I'm willing to take. Now I didn't just change capacity, I also changed things like traffic speed for all the vehicle types and other values to match OWR. And I have noted many changes so far in my cities. They all got a demand boost, which I wasn't expecting, but makes sense as commute times fell as all my avenues were now better at ferrying people to and from work. And my mass transit took a hit as people switched to driving to work. Some roads, OWR, even highways took a hit as some cars switched to avenues. Though others increased as traffic patterns changed as cars go more out of their way to take an avenue to work. The one thing I've noted that I don't like is slip lanes are no longer used since they are technically a road; so they are now purely cosmetic in my one city that has one. But so far these and other changes I'm fine or even happy they happened.

[z1 566]

And I have noted many changes so far in my cities. They all got a demand boost, which I wasn't expecting, but makes sense as commute times fell as all my avenues were now better at ferrying people to and from work.

The demand boost makes sense, but not because of commute times. With the NAM traffic simulator, commute time has no effect on demand. Clearing up congestion can have a tiny effect, but that doesn't seem to be what you're describing here.

Instead, the simplest explanation is that by increasing road speed limits, you increased road traffic (as you confirm), and this in turn increases customers in commercial buildings adjoining those roads. Increasing customers is a reflection of increased desirability in those buildings, and that increased desirability increases demand for workers.

BTW, during the development of the NAM traffic simulator, I got similar results by reducing the speed of most rapid transit by about 30%. This move cleared up a lot of the remaining abandonment and dilapidation in my cities. This was quite a surprise at the time. It was only much later that I realized that the effect I described above was happening here too - reducing the speed of rapid transit increased the use of cars and buses, which increased commercial customers, which in turn increased commercial desirability and the demand for workers for these buildings. However, I was able to reduce rapid transit speeds without reducing rapid transit usage by combining this change with an improvement to the pathfinding.

So what you've done is all fine and good, as long as you understand the consequences. Now increasing demand sounds like a good thing, but as in many areas, you can have too much of a good thing. What does that mean here? Too much demand can make the game too easy - you have effectively created a cheat. That's why modifying the traffic simulator is so tricky - there are a huge number of interdependencies between properties, and it's very hard to get them all balanced correctly.

And my mass transit took a hit as people switched to driving to work.

This is expected from the changes you made, but it's generally not considered a good thing. It took a lot of work to get the Sims to use mass transit reasonably in the NAM traffic simulator.

The one thing I've noted that I don't like is slip lanes are no longer used since they are technically a road; so they are now purely cosmetic in my one city that has one.

Another sign that the traffic simulator is now out of balance.

If you're happy with these changes, then fine; the purpose of the game is for us to enjoy it. But I did want to point out the specifics of why your changes are not allowed by the Traffic Simulator Configuration Tool, and what some of the consequences are when you make them.

[pengoyo 0]

Yeah thanks z1, that makes a lot more sense for the demand boost. And my mass transit system still takes more than enough people since it's pretty extensive. And it does make the game slightly easier but I like to keep it easy as long as it isn't broken. Yeah the slip lane doesn't matter too much to me but I did look into how to turn it from being a road based tile to an avenue based tile to fix this problem, but so far the files I've looked at I don't notice anything marking it as a road.based tile. But yes I do enjoy my game more and you're right that's what matters. Thanks again for the pointers

[z1 566]

One other thing you might consider - instead of raising all the other road speeds, lower the one-way road speed down to the regular road/avenue speed, or close to it. This would eliminate competition with your avenues, and have much less impact on other parts of your game.

And if you like the increased demand, you can always raise the Customers/Traffic Noise coefficient in the Traffic Simulator Configuration Tool (or in the Reader, for that matter). If you decide to do this, though, I'd recommend reading this property's documentation in the TSCT manual.

Finally, if you're really into modifying your traffic simulator, you'll probably want to read if you haven't already.

[pengoyo 0]

Yes I have read that guide, though it has been a while. And I did think about reducing OWR but it made more sense to me for OWR and avenues to be faster and hold more than roads. Thanks again though