Pre-set unalterable highways?

[Screwballl 196]

Looking at some of the videos and interviews, it appears that this game will not have highways able to be built by you to start with, BUT it does appear to have some sort of high capacity rail and highway system.

One interview said this:

The region is visualized; you can pop out to the region view, and you’ll see your city alive, and highways connecting the cities, and traffic flowing back and forth, so the region feels like an extension of your city.

So my question is how or what role these highways and high capacity rails will place on your region if they are pre-set on each region??? Or will they allow us to build highways from the start? Or a sandbox "create highways and rails" from region view? So many unanswered questions.

[jacksunny 741]

The pre-set highways are there to connect all the cities in the region. Same with the rail. From what has been said so far, it seems that these highways cannot be destroyed and you cannot decide where they go. There is no sandbox mode (as of yet.)

[Culinia 11]

To me it looks like it works like this.

You select a place next to a highway, or more precisely a spur road and create your (medium-sized) city from there, as the video said "from the outside world".

I don't know why they have done it like this, seems pretty basic to me. I think it would have been better to form a proper evolution of (at least most British) cities in the following way: the SC region starts with a single carriageway roads and cities will be able to form along it starting to form small communities (or villages) on the main road. In time as congestion increases and as demand arises for the need bypasses (roads going around the city avoiding the 'busy middle') usually at-grade interchanges (roundabouts) need to be built. This poses an interesting choice since now what? Does the player continue to build frontage properties along the bypass or does it intend to (at slower economic growth) 'reserve' the road for proper grade separated junctions in the future (i.e. a high quality dual carriageway). Obviously there would be more stages of the road needing to be upgraded to dual-carriageway standard (D2) before the grade-separation happens.

Meanwhile, I don't like how what looks to be like medium density just happened on that gameplay demo in that SMALL windmill city.

Then of course with more economic growth and higher density buildings 'upgrading' the need for a bigger road will be required...essentially a limited access road (motorway, highway etc.). This could form as 'regional projects' where funding have to come from 2 or more Mayors which have to agree to do it (thinking that SC wants to be Multiplayer now) depending on where demand needs it players could 'ghost' place/sketch the highway i.e. where they want it/placement like Maxis highway in SC4 but before it is there to be used it has to be approved/fund allocated by the parties involved i.e. when two Mayors agree to build and see each others plans by visiting their cities and agree on funding etc etc.

The highways once agreed with are not allowed to be expanded WITHIN the city limits. ONLY "SPUR ROADS" like the existing set-up are allowed to be built. Then further allowing the player to build if they wish a 'mini highway network' AKA grade separated junctions (e.g. high quality dual carriageways - the ones without hard shoulders in UK and i.e. without roundabouts in between).

In the event of the motorway expansion i.e. north or south for another mayor/city then yourself or the mayor who possess the motorway must make agreements with the city south who wants to extend the motorway from your town to his/her and further co-operation i.e. drafting/visiting/approving of proposed motorway will be required like when you first constructed it.

  Edited October 10, 2012 by Culinia  

[VeritaScientia 150]

My views on this are mixed, part of me is like "Oh cool, highways we won't have to worry about building highway connections to our neighbors when the cities are small." Though only pre-alpha, there's still a potential that the connections will continue to be fixed, in which case this ties the hands of all mayors. I'd suggest, and I have tweeted Mr. Pierre this, that there are highways in SimCity. Having free-form neighbor connections that can then connect to the regional highway network would also allow for a more enjoyable, and open ended, experience.

Without limited-access roads, arterial roads would become incredibly congested if they're used as both the main commercial artery and the main thoroughfare into and out of the city would rapidly cause enough gridlock to shut down an entire city. On top of that, if you do what someone did in the Maxis Live Broadcast had a rail line crossing the arterial with an at-grade intersection, that's just begging for trouble.

I don't know why they have done it like this, seems pretty basic to me. I think it would have been better to form a proper evolution of (at least most British) cities in the following way: the SC region starts with a single carriageway roads and cities will be able to form along it starting to form small communities (or villages) on the main road. In time as congestion increases and as demand arises for the need bypasses (roads going around the city avoiding the 'busy middle') usually at-grade interchanges (roundabouts) need to be built. This poses an interesting choice since now what? Does the player continue to build frontage properties along the bypass or does it intend to (at slower economic growth) 'reserve' the road for proper grade separated junctions in the future (i.e. a high quality dual carriageway). Obviously there would be more stages of the road needing to be upgraded to dual-carriageway standard (D2) before the grade-separation happens.

I would support something like this wholeheartedly, allowing a city to be built alongside an immovable regional road. It could start as a 2-lane road, and as demand increases, so too would the size of the road, it could have a footprint for the largest potential highway, this area would not be able to be built on. Many cities in the United States, such as Dallas, Kansas City, St. Louis, Chicago, Los Angeles, Las Vegas, and Charlotte, in addition to practically any inland American city with a population above 200,000 grew to be that size because there were transportation lines passing through, or near enough to, that city to cause it to grow.

  Edited October 10, 2012 by PTPLauthor  

[cirugo 1,889]

I cannot begin to fathom why anyone would supportive of this design decision...particularly when one of the things that has kept this particular website going as long as it has is the transporation mods that people have worked on and released.

[memo1890 3]

I cannot begin to fathom why anyone would supportive of this design decision...particularly when one of the things that has kept this particular website going as long as it has is the transporation mods that people have worked on and released.

Which you know, we needed because regular sim city 4 wasn't up to code with things. And honestly, from a "realism" standpoint, what "city" has control over the building of highways? Normally that would be handled at the State/Federal level. This is after all a city building simulation, and I think that is the standpoint that they are taking, cities build roads, not highways. Of course, that is just my humble defense of them, one of my favorite parts is routing highways through my cities.

[cirugo 1,889]

I cannot begin to fathom why anyone would supportive of this design decision...particularly when one of the things that has kept this particular website going as long as it has is the transporation mods that people have worked on and released.

Which you know, we needed because regular sim city 4 wasn't up to code with things. And honestly, from a "realism" standpoint, what "city" has control over the building of highways? Normally that would be handled at the State/Federal level. This is after all a city building simulation, and I think that is the standpoint that they are taking, cities build roads, not highways. Of course, that is just my humble defense of them, one of my favorite parts is routing highways through my cities.

and that gets back to my question...why would you defend a design decision that removes one of your favorite things about the game?

[VeritaScientia 150]

I cannot begin to fathom why anyone would supportive of this design decision...particularly when one of the things that has kept this particular website going as long as it has is the transporation mods that people have worked on and released.

Which you know, we needed because regular sim city 4 wasn't up to code with things. And honestly, from a "realism" standpoint, what "city" has control over the building of highways? Normally that would be handled at the State/Federal level. This is after all a city building simulation, and I think that is the standpoint that they are taking, cities build roads, not highways. Of course, that is just my humble defense of them, one of my favorite parts is routing highways through my cities.

and that gets back to my question...why would you defend a design decision that removes one of your favorite things about the game?

Internal routing of highways through cities should be in SC13, and I tweeted Mr. Pierre (and yes I call him this because I can't remember how to spell his first name, am too lazy to copy-paste, and don't want to shorten his name). He got back to me and said he is doing what he can. Hopefully this is a positive step. Let them work their magick and wait patiently to see what will happen, if the game ships without this feature, I will be disappointed.

[plasticboy 36]

I cannot begin to fathom why anyone would supportive of this design decision...particularly when one of the things that has kept this particular website going as long as it has is the transporation mods that people have worked on and released.

And honestly, from a "realism" standpoint, what "city" has control over the building of highways? Normally that would be handled at the State/Federal level.

What if you're simulating central Paris? No highways there. What if I want to simulate a city that does have control over highway design?

Let's not kid ourselves, realism this isn't. More like an arbitrary design decision being forced on gameplay.

  Edited October 11, 2012 by plasticboy  

[CCXXII 79]

I cannot begin to fathom why anyone would supportive of this design decision...particularly when one of the things that has kept this particular website going as long as it has is the transporation mods that people have worked on and released.

And honestly, from a "realism" standpoint, what "city" has control over the building of highways? Normally that would be handled at the State/Federal level.

What if you're simulating central Paris? No highways there. What if I want to simulate a city that does have control over highway design?

Let's not kid ourselves, realism this isn't. More like an arbitrary design decision being forced on gameplay.

No its certainly not realism, but if your playing some larger sized regions, you are in a sense the provincial premier (state governer.)

[CarrotCake07 3]

All of the roads and train tracks are pre-set. They can not be destroyed. As simple as that.

About the roads. The largest I can remember is a 6 lane avenue-type road.

  Edited October 11, 2012 by CarrotCake07  

[Screwballl 196]

I cannot begin to fathom why anyone would supportive of this design decision...particularly when one of the things that has kept this particular website going as long as it has is the transporation mods that people have worked on and released.

Which you know, we needed because regular sim city 4 wasn't up to code with things. And honestly, from a "realism" standpoint, what "city" has control over the building of highways? Normally that would be handled at the State/Federal level. This is after all a city building simulation, and I think that is the standpoint that they are taking, cities build roads, not highways. Of course, that is just my humble defense of them, one of my favorite parts is routing highways through my cities.

Well really, when the modern US Interstate system was started and in the process of being built, they typically got close to the city and then built around it, or if there was room, through it replacing many smaller state highways.

Many times the city HAD to dictate when and where the Interstates went in. SO it was a sort of collaboration with each city.

[FreewayofFlight 41]

There are many cases where cities built their own highway system, look at the expressways in New York City. Los Angeles' Pasadena Fwy was the model used for the Interstate Highway System. Savannah, GA has a few city built expressways. It would be really great to build a crosstown freeway to get commuters around congested spots rather than rely on traffic-light controlled intersections.

[Urban Cartographer 601]

Toronto has many municipally-built expressways as well. They are the Gardiner Expressway, the Don Valley Parkway, and Allen Road.

  Edited October 12, 2012 by Urban Cartographer  

[The Right Excellent Mayor 5]

I sort of like the idea of an interstate/highway system or whatever you like to call it that cities must connect to each other, granted their is some liberty when how it goes through the city. Also their should be spurs and other intercity highways completely controlled by the mayor of that city. But if one is going to play multiplayer I like the reality of having to use certain modes of transportation to create an effective region. I just do not want it to all be too limited. I mean I have already started dreaming of my city.

[Xenocity 343]

I live in Michigan, where only the state and federal government have the power to build highways.

So this doesn't bother me, since highways take a up a lot of room in my cities.

[Cob92 360]

A lot of the time the highways are officially under the purview of county government or higher, but the city has a great deal of say in where the highway will be routed if it is passing through the city limits. Major highway projects aren't run by just one authority; they require collaboration between multiple organizations and/or governments in order to complete.

[AshPikachu 54]

A lot of the time the highways are officially under the purview of county government or higher, but the city has a great deal of say in where the highway will be routed if it is passing through the city limits. Major highway projects aren't run by just one authority; they require collaboration between multiple organizations and/or governments in order to complete.

One example is I-5 built in Washington State is that the city of Olympia(state capital) insisted that interstate 5 be built through Olympia instead of bypassing the city.

[VeritaScientia 150]

I have an idea that would allow for cities to be built directly over the highway and allow for a custom routing in the city:

Code the game so that a highway that goes from one border to another cannot be deleted if there's no alternate highway route between those two borders.

[Cartographer29 13]

What about over time, the "upper level of government" decides that a freeway is needed to a neighbour, or worse (potentially), through your city completely, connecting two neighbours? It becomes a shaded, flexible route that you can manipulate, with the ends being fixed to the neighbours. You can then drag and justify where through the city it goes, within reason (there could be a "max length" code attached to it, so you literally can't drag it along the extreme edges of your map, trying to avoid it). This would give the city (aka "you") the ability to have it built where you want it to go, but have the "upper levels of government" pay for it.

Of course, you could add to the complexity (realism) by having a message pop up stating "The Government is proposing a new highway through your city connecting _______ and _______. Please have a route selected by XX date". In the event you don't fine tune the route (as described above), then "The Government" will just build wherever it wants and needs to (hey, can't say they didn't warn you!). Additionally, you could also add an algorithm to it that determines how much "urban traffic" it will pull off of your city streets. If it's enough, then "The Government" will demand payment from the city (you) to help with the costs of construction. This would change based on the route selected. So if you built a clear-cut bypass around your city, no urban traffic = no city cost. But if you're desperate for alleviating traffic across your city, you'll have to pay up.

Or you could just throw your hands up, ignore the message, then watch the federal bulldozers plow a path right through the middle of your city. But much like any other "issues" around a city (police, fire, etc.) you can then "dispatch" Jane Jacobs to try and stop them from bulldozing too many houses!

Note: those familiar with Toronto's expressway history will know the reference, and may request that such a sim be made for the game.

[cirugo 1,889]

What about over time, the "upper level of government" decides that a freeway is needed to a neighbour, or worse (potentially), through your city completely, connecting two neighbours? It becomes a shaded, flexible route that you can manipulate, with the ends being fixed to the neighbours. You can then drag and justify where through the city it goes, within reason (there could be a "max length" code attached to it, so you literally can't drag it along the extreme edges of your map, trying to avoid it). This would give the city (aka "you") the ability to have it built where you want it to go, but have the "upper levels of government" pay for it.

Of course, you could add to the complexity (realism) by having a message pop up stating "The Government is proposing a new highway through your city connecting _______ and _______. Please have a route selected by XX date". In the event you don't fine tune the route (as described above), then "The Government" will just build wherever it wants and needs to (hey, can't say they didn't warn you!). Additionally, you could also add an algorithm to it that determines how much "urban traffic" it will pull off of your city streets. If it's enough, then "The Government" will demand payment from the city (you) to help with the costs of construction. This would change based on the route selected. So if you built a clear-cut bypass around your city, no urban traffic = no city cost. But if you're desperate for alleviating traffic across your city, you'll have to pay up.

Or you could just throw your hands up, ignore the message, then watch the federal bulldozers plow a path right through the middle of your city. But much like any other "issues" around a city (police, fire, etc.) you can then "dispatch" Jane Jacobs to try and stop them from bulldozing too many houses!

Note: those familiar with Toronto's expressway history will know the reference, and may request that such a sim be made for the game.

Or...they could just let us build our own highways like we've been able to in past games...

[Ocram's Razr 963]

I think that the default regional maps should have a lot of regional highways and farms.

--Ocram

[Urban Cartographer 601]

What about over time, the "upper level of government" decides that a freeway is needed to a neighbour, or worse (potentially), through your city completely, connecting two neighbours? It becomes a shaded, flexible route that you can manipulate, with the ends being fixed to the neighbours. You can then drag and justify where through the city it goes, within reason (there could be a "max length" code attached to it, so you literally can't drag it along the extreme edges of your map, trying to avoid it). This would give the city (aka "you") the ability to have it built where you want it to go, but have the "upper levels of government" pay for it.

Of course, you could add to the complexity (realism) by having a message pop up stating "The Government is proposing a new highway through your city connecting _______ and _______. Please have a route selected by XX date". In the event you don't fine tune the route (as described above), then "The Government" will just build wherever it wants and needs to (hey, can't say they didn't warn you!). Additionally, you could also add an algorithm to it that determines how much "urban traffic" it will pull off of your city streets. If it's enough, then "The Government" will demand payment from the city (you) to help with the costs of construction. This would change based on the route selected. So if you built a clear-cut bypass around your city, no urban traffic = no city cost. But if you're desperate for alleviating traffic across your city, you'll have to pay up.

Or you could just throw your hands up, ignore the message, then watch the federal bulldozers plow a path right through the middle of your city. But much like any other "issues" around a city (police, fire, etc.) you can then "dispatch" Jane Jacobs to try and stop them from bulldozing too many houses!

Note: those familiar with Toronto's expressway history will know the reference, and may request that such a sim be made for the game.

Ah yes, the Spadina Expressway controversy. I have done research on that. It would have destroyed affluent neighbourhoods near downtown.

What about over time, the "upper level of government" decides that a freeway is needed to a neighbour, or worse (potentially), through your city completely, connecting two neighbours? It becomes a shaded, flexible route that you can manipulate, with the ends being fixed to the neighbours. You can then drag and justify where through the city it goes, within reason (there could be a "max length" code attached to it, so you literally can't drag it along the extreme edges of your map, trying to avoid it). This would give the city (aka "you") the ability to have it built where you want it to go, but have the "upper levels of government" pay for it.

Of course, you could add to the complexity (realism) by having a message pop up stating "The Government is proposing a new highway through your city connecting _______ and _______. Please have a route selected by XX date". In the event you don't fine tune the route (as described above), then "The Government" will just build wherever it wants and needs to (hey, can't say they didn't warn you!). Additionally, you could also add an algorithm to it that determines how much "urban traffic" it will pull off of your city streets. If it's enough, then "The Government" will demand payment from the city (you) to help with the costs of construction. This would change based on the route selected. So if you built a clear-cut bypass around your city, no urban traffic = no city cost. But if you're desperate for alleviating traffic across your city, you'll have to pay up.

Or you could just throw your hands up, ignore the message, then watch the federal bulldozers plow a path right through the middle of your city. But much like any other "issues" around a city (police, fire, etc.) you can then "dispatch" Jane Jacobs to try and stop them from bulldozing too many houses!

Note: those familiar with Toronto's expressway history will know the reference, and may request that such a sim be made for the game.

Or...they could just let us build our own highways like we've been able to in past games...

That is an even better idea.

  Edited October 15, 2012 by Urban Cartographer  

[Screwballl 196]

So basically we take was they give us and that it? Pre-set highways? I guess they failed to realize what a failure that Simcity Societies was since this is just Simcity Societies 2 with slightly (and I do mean very slightly) more SimCity based creation.

[VeritaScientia 150]

So basically we take was they give us and that it? Pre-set highways? I guess they failed to realize what a failure that Simcity Societies was since this is just Simcity Societies 2 with slightly (and I do mean very slightly) more SimCity based creation.

You're starting to sound immature now, this is the third post I've read from you basically calling this Societies 2. It is NOT Societies 2, it is SimCity. Societies didn't have nearly the features worthy of the name SimCity, which is why I rarely refer to it by the full title of the game, since it wasn't developed by people that understand Maxis gamers.