BRT Project

[f3cs 1,063]

Hey Guys! One year ago, I was hunting for some "in the median" bus stations to make a BRT concept, that lately I developed and showed here:

Well, I wasn't able to find it, and I realize that I should change my concept of what a BRT should look like in SC4. With the help of rsc204(that did the hard work and I have to say thank you, again) , I was able to use a Station that looks like the real thing and attends the diagram of a BRT Station, being scaled:

(Scale in meters)

Some real world images:

Aerial Images of 2.0 concept

 

What Brings me to the main reason that I am opening this, expanding and making the project popular. This topic will unite evolutions in the concept, links to Stations/Terminals that should be useful, and custom creations of transit stations, terminals and hubs, that would increment style in a lot of cities. So, that's it, and welcome!

Little video to explain the concept:

 

[Edvarz 1,985]

Nice! I had the idea of implementing a BRT system in my cities for a while, but haven't really gotten to it. I have made some proofs of concept, I'll show them here when I get my laptop back from service. And I would gladly contribute with lotting some simple median stations similar to the ones shown in the real world images.

The Real Expressway Mod being developed now might be particularly useful for a BRT system, I think; let's see where it goes and how can we integrate BRT stuff with it.

Looking forward to the evolution of this topic. 

[rsc204 21,866]

Great work @f3cs on implementing these stations. Comparing your city to the real world shots, I think you've done a great job on bringing BRT to SC4. Right now, I think more stations would be a great addition, perhaps you can create a starter-pack of sorts?

One question, did you TE the station as OWR or RHW-4? They might look the same, but they aren't. I guess you can transition to OWR to connect it up, but if you'd like, it's very possible to hook it directly to the RHW-4 on either side. That way you just drag the RHW right through it or drop it straight on top of an existing section.

45 minutes ago, Edvarz said:

The Real Expressway Mod being developed now might be particularly useful for a BRT system, I think; let's see where it goes and how can we integrate BRT stuff with it.

Perhaps, but it's NWM/OWR based, so far as I know, BRT systems rely on RHW to block non-bus traffic?

[JP Schriefer 5,591]

Very nice project indeed.

I can also help doing some BRT stations from RL, but I'd need someone to mod it

[rsc204 21,866]

5 minutes ago, JP Schriefer said:

Very nice project indeed.

I can also help doing some BRT stations from RL, but I'd need someone to mod it

Awesome, having someone like you would produce some great models no doubt... I helped with TEing the lot shown, it's not so hard if you know what to do. As such, if you BAT it and F3cS lots it, I'm willing to cover any modding parts.

[Edvarz 1,985]

24 minutes ago, rsc204 said:

Perhaps, but it's NWM/OWR based, so far as I know, BRT systems rely on RHW to block non-bus traffic?

Well yes, but you can transition from RHW to OWR/OWR1 and if I'm correct, REW will also transition to RHW, plus, I figure it's possible to make a bus blocker similar to the ones already included in the NAM. Come to think of it, RHW seems to be enough except when it comes to signalised crossings and pedestrian accessibility. Perhaps it's better to wait until the project sees the light to see what we can do with it.

[rsc204 21,866]

32 minutes ago, Edvarz said:

I figure it's possible to make a bus blocker similar to the ones already included in the NAM

Not so sure about that. If it's a TE lot, possibly, if it's a puzzle piece, then it gets much more complex.

32 minutes ago, Edvarz said:

Well yes, but you can transition from RHW to OWR/OWR1 and if I'm correct, REW will also transition to RHW

I'd guess so. But RHW is faster, so it would attract more sims to using it. Although OWR probably comes second after RHW, so it might not make a huge difference. But REW may be some time off still too, since RHW is a more than workable solution, I'd stick with that for the time being.

34 minutes ago, Edvarz said:

RHW seems to be enough except when it comes to signalised crossings and pedestrian accessibility

The later works for RHW-2 at least. FTL and the like will cover the former I suppose? If sufficient demand for BRT existed, it's more likely some development effort could cover any needed functionality.

[matias93 7,535]

10 hours ago, rsc204 said:

As such, if you BAT it and F3cS lots it, I'm willing to cover any modding parts.

I'm crying of happiness like a little child now, this project will be so beautiful! I can collect reference images of existent BRT stops if you like.

10 hours ago, rsc204 said:

Not so sure about that. If it's a TE lot, possibly, if it's a puzzle piece, then it gets much more complex.

IIRC, there are road and OWR TE non-bus blockers on the STEX; I've used them with good results on my own BRT project.

[f3cs 1,063]

First: Thank you for your kind comments

On 31/01/2017 at 10:03 PM, Edvarz said:

Nice! I had the idea of implementing a BRT system in my cities for a while, but haven't really gotten to it. I have made some proofs of concept, I'll show them here when I get my laptop back from service. And I would gladly contribute with lotting some simple median stations similar to the ones shown in the real world images.

The Real Expressway Mod being developed now might be particularly useful for a BRT system, I think; let's see where it goes and how can we integrate BRT stuff with it.

Looking forward to the evolution of this topic. 

Nice, I'll be waiting for your prove of concept. REW Maybe will be useful for the outer roads, like in the video.

23 hours ago, rsc204 said:

Great work @f3cs on implementing these stations. Comparing your city to the real world shots, I think you've done a great job on bringing BRT to SC4. Right now, I think more stations would be a great addition, perhaps you can create a starter-pack of sorts?

One question, did you TE the station as OWR or RHW-4? They might look the same, but they aren't. I guess you can transition to OWR to connect it up, but if you'd like, it's very possible to hook it directly to the RHW-4 on either side. That way you just drag the RHW right through it or drop it straight on top of an existing section.

Perhaps, but it's NWM/OWR based, so far as I know, BRT systems rely on RHW to block non-bus traffic?

Thank you. Yes, I think that express-padron stations with higher capacity will be great, and I will develop that later. another types of architecture will be developed too, but that will have to wait, or someone will have to make them, as my bat skills are near to 0.
I'm using RHW-2, not just for blocking traffic (I have a set that I'll be pointing to download later that block lots of types of traffic) but for speed/traffic capacity. In the station, even the buses that will not enter the station have to slow down a little for keep attention. in the pedestrians that in this kind of configuration will cross the exclusive lane.

 

22 hours ago, JP Schriefer said:

Very nice project indeed.

I can also help doing some BRT stations from RL, but I'd need someone to mod it

Oh Yes, please do that! I'm a big fan of your work, it will be great if you BAT some stations!

 

22 hours ago, rsc204 said:

Awesome, having someone like you would produce some great models no doubt... I helped with TEing the lot shown, it's not so hard if you know what to do. As such, if you BAT it and F3cS lots it, I'm willing to cover any modding parts.

Deal. 

[f3cs 1,063]

On 31/01/2017 at 10:52 PM, rsc204 said:

Great work @f3cs on implementing these stations. Comparing your city to the real world shots, I think you've done a great job on bringing BRT to SC4. Right now, I think more stations would be a great addition, perhaps you can create a starter-pack of sorts?

Perhaps, but it's NWM/OWR based, so far as I know, BRT systems rely on RHW to block non-bus traffic?

from now, this is what we need to start:

 

[JP Schriefer 5,591]

@f3cs it's against the STEx rules uploading files from another member without an authorization from him, in this case, Frogface. What you can do is upload the files you edited but without the .SC4Model files, and then list the Frogface's file as a dependence

[f3cs 1,063]

Just fixed. I'm sorry guys

[rsc204 21,866]

17 hours ago, matias93 said:

IIRC, there are road and OWR TE non-bus blockers on the STEX; I've used them with good results on my own BRT project.

Noted. However, perhaps given the scant number of such mods, it might still be advisable to pick a network as the standard and use it. If we have competing networks, either we need more lots to utilise them or it will fragment those people using them into groups. As such, the NAM team I think intended for RHW to be used. Although the project to better support BRT has stalled sadly.

[fredinno 54]

I think it would be best to have a BRT-style network with clear HOV designation to indicate it being for buses. In a realistic scenario, it would indicate it's not supposed to be driven on.

 

Of course, BRT on NWM would also be cool, but I don't think that's possible.

[f3cs 1,063]

1 hour ago, fredinno said:

I think it would be best to have a BRT-style network with clear HOV designation to indicate it being for buses. In a realistic scenario, it would indicate it's not supposed to be driven on.

 

Of course, BRT on NWM would also be cool, but I don't think that's possible.

I'm more prone to this option too, although it's the hardest one. Something like a SAM-Like RHW transition for MIS, RHW-2, RHW-4. But that will not be sufficient for keep bus traffic in the lane, what necessary means, fewer traffic crossings and chanelized intersections. That lead us to one thing: BRT is not just a type of transportation, is a concept, and the concept is arterial-collector, what means that's necessary to cut your lower capacity networks to feed the higher capacity networks (Bus feeds BRT and GLR, BRT feeds Subway and Heavy-Rail) That's what will keep the project so simple and that's why we need to explain concepts (what I have said in the first post of the topic) and the lot of aerial images.

[fredinno 54]

6 hours ago, f3cs said:

I'm more prone to this option too, although it's the hardest one. Something like a SAM-Like RHW transition for MIS, RHW-2, RHW-4. But that will not be sufficient for keep bus traffic in the lane, what necessary means, fewer traffic crossings and chanelized intersections. That lead us to one thing: BRT is not just a type of transportation, is a concept, and the concept is arterial-collector, what means that's necessary to cut your lower capacity networks to feed the higher capacity networks (Bus feeds BRT and GLR, BRT feeds Subway and Heavy-Rail) That's what will keep the project so simple and that's why we need to explain concepts (what I have said in the first post of the topic) and the lot of aerial images.

I mean, the issue I think is that in SimCity and IRL, the bus should be a good bit faster than the car on the same road, (or bus on road w/o BRT), BUT be on the same lane...

 

If that's even possible to do, that is.

[rsc204 21,866]

19 minutes ago, fredinno said:

I mean, the issue I think is that in SimCity and IRL, the bus should be a good bit faster than the car on the same road, (or bus on road w/o BRT), BUT be on the same lane...

Haven't we been over this before?

Network speeds are all relative to each other. You can't simply make one type of transport quicker. Not that it matters, if the bus goes where sims need to, it will be quicker, provided you make the network for the bus more direct. Failing that, change the NAM TSCT setting to a setting where sims prefer Public Transport over driving, forcing sims to use it. Either will produce the desired effect if you think about it.

[Edvarz 1,985]

1 hour ago, rsc204 said:

Network speeds are all relative to each other. You can't simply make one type of transport quicker. Not that it matters, if the bus goes where sims need to, it will be quicker, provided you make the network for the bus more direct. Failing that, change the NAM TSCT setting to a setting where sims prefer Public Transport over driving, forcing sims to use it. Either will produce the desired effect if you think about it.

And the TSCT also gives you the option of making buses go faster on highways. This adds to the argument for making RHW the standard network for BRT systems.

However, I think there's also a case to be made for BRT on NWM, one argument for it is that it would allow players to build a BRT system in a downtown setting. One example of this IRL would be Mexico City's Metrobús, Line 4 cuts right through the Historical Centre; there must be similar examples of this in other cities.

I am aware of the concept's limits, I know we can't have bus-only lanes on multi-lane networks. What I have in mind is bus-only AVE-2, coupled with stretches of ARD-3 for overtake lanes, i'll show this concept when I get my laptop back.

As rsc says, if a BRT system provides a quick route for sims to get to work, they will use it; after all, if you build a GLR or a subway system that are not able to do this, nobody will hop on those shiny trains. It is up to the player to build an efficient network, the modders can only provide the tools to make it possible within the limitations of the game.

Maybe if we have correctly modded transit-enabled lots acting as blockers, with custom markings (maybe props similar to the SHK Parking Pack markings, this should be easy to BAT), and NWM stations with correct pathing (we may need help from the NAM team here) we could piece something together. The only part I'm not sure of is the last one, but honestly I'm just brainstorming here.

[rsc204 21,866]

10 minutes ago, Edvarz said:

Maybe if we have correctly modded transit-enabled lots acting as blockers, with custom markings (maybe props similar to the SHK Parking Pack markings, this should be easy to BAT), and NWM stations with correct pathing (we may need help from the NAM team here) we could piece something together. The only part I'm not sure of is the last one, but honestly I'm just brainstorming here.

TEing lots and pathing are all (relatively speaking) easy enough.

Whatever solution you use, you'll need one network dedicated for the BRT lanes. So using multi-tile NWM would just mean multi-tile bus-only lanes. Since BRT is mostly just single-traffic in each direction, at least until you get to stops, either RHW-2, Road or AVE-2 are best suited to the concept. Now, let's say you are willing to devote one of those networks purely to BRT and never use it elsewhere... then you can do some neat things. For example T21s that will add props that are exclusive to BRT. Custom textures that better represent the concept. But, without it's own dedicated network, you get stuck if you want to use the network in other situations. In this scenario, AVE-2 might be the better solution.

I wonder (thinking aloud), how many pieces does BRT really need? If you can forgo many of the junctions and other pieces that entail a new override network, maybe (just maybe), a new dedicated BRT network could be a possibility? Then I wonder, what about re-using a SAM network? Would that give you sufficient coverage? The problem comes when you want full cross-compatibility. If it needs to be crossed by all manner of RHW, Rail and other networks, the workload and code increases would be too much. But, if a simple limited set was sufficient, I may consider seeing if that's possible. Remember, you could always transition to another network where crossings took place. Using BRT traffic blockers on either side. or switch to FLUPs to cross under many networks. But when you condier AVE-2 is already one of the more flexible NWM networks, that might be the best solution, assuming you are willing to use it only with BRT.

[f3cs 1,063]

4 hours ago, Edvarz said:

And the TSCT also gives you the option of making buses go faster on highways. This adds to the argument for making RHW the standard network for BRT systems.

However, I think there's also a case to be made for BRT on NWM, one argument for it is that it would allow players to build a BRT system in a downtown setting. One example of this IRL would be Mexico City's Metrobús, Line 4 cuts right through the Historical Centre; there must be similar examples of this in other cities.

I am aware of the concept's limits, I know we can't have bus-only lanes on multi-lane networks. What I have in mind is bus-only AVE-2, coupled with stretches of ARD-3 for overtake lanes, i'll show this concept when I get my laptop back.

As rsc says, if a BRT system provides a quick route for sims to get to work, they will use it; after all, if you build a GLR or a subway system that are not able to do this, nobody will hop on those shiny trains. It is up to the player to build an efficient network, the modders can only provide the tools to make it possible within the limitations of the game.

Maybe if we have correctly modded transit-enabled lots acting as blockers, with custom markings (maybe props similar to the SHK Parking Pack markings, this should be easy to BAT), and NWM stations with correct pathing (we may need help from the NAM team here) we could piece something together. The only part I'm not sure of is the last one, but honestly I'm just brainstorming here.

In my opinion RHW-2 should be used as the standard because it is faster than other networks and more stable as well. Being tight may be one of the goals when it comes to highways, but I don't think BRT is one of those cases. In addition, choosing a smaller network can limit content creation and leave the whole system on a smaller scale than the real one. However, I agree with the need to set up a BRT-only network with T21's and all these things and maybe using RHW might make it difficult for real crossings and pedestrians' access to the stations. Because we can simply put some crosswalks near the stations and this doesn't necessarily mean access to the pedestrian.

3 hours ago, rsc204 said:

TEing lots and pathing are all (relatively speaking) easy enough.

Whatever solution you use, you'll need one network dedicated for the BRT lanes. So using multi-tile NWM would just mean multi-tile bus-only lanes. Since BRT is mostly just single-traffic in each direction, at least until you get to stops, either RHW-2, Road or AVE-2 are best suited to the concept. Now, let's say you are willing to devote one of those networks purely to BRT and never use it elsewhere... then you can do some neat things. For example T21s that will add props that are exclusive to BRT. Custom textures that better represent the concept. But, without it's own dedicated network, you get stuck if you want to use the network in other situations. In this scenario, AVE-2 might be the better solution.

I wonder (thinking aloud), how many pieces does BRT really need? If you can forgo many of the junctions and other pieces that entail a new override network, maybe (just maybe), a new dedicated BRT network could be a possibility? Then I wonder, what about re-using a SAM network? Would that give you sufficient coverage? The problem comes when you want full cross-compatibility. If it needs to be crossed by all manner of RHW, Rail and other networks, the workload and code increases would be too much. But, if a simple limited set was sufficient, I may consider seeing if that's possible. Remember, you could always transition to another network where crossings took place. Using BRT traffic blockers on either side. or switch to FLUPs to cross under many networks. But when you condier AVE-2 is already one of the more flexible NWM networks, that might be the best solution, assuming you are willing to use it only with BRT.

 

If we were using RHW as a parameter, BRT Junctions are:

Road Crossings (avenue, road, one way road).

RHW -2 D-Wie (for transition between RHW-2 and MIS)

Transition RHW-4 to RHW-2 (Wie also)

RHW-4 to MIS

Something like a D1shift present in RHW-6C for RHW-4

Over and Underpasses with the rest of the networks

That's it. It's pointless to have a BRT level crossing non-road networks

[fredinno 54]

5 hours ago, rsc204 said:

Haven't we been over this before?

Network speeds are all relative to each other. You can't simply make one type of transport quicker. Not that it matters, if the bus goes where sims need to, it will be quicker, provided you make the network for the bus more direct. Failing that, change the NAM TSCT setting to a setting where sims prefer Public Transport over driving, forcing sims to use it. Either will produce the desired effect if you think about it.

 

 

Quote

From Me: If that's even possible to do, that is.

Ie, I don't think it's possible without .dlls or some other form of trickery.

 

I'm not dumb, I know it's not normally possible.

[Tarkus 6,933]

The traffic simulator does separate the vehicles associated with Type 1 paths (Cars, Buses, and Freight Trucks) into separate speed categories for various networks--the Highway Bus Lanes feature in the TSCT already takes advantage of this fact.  The default setting for speeds on both MHW and RHW are 150 for Cars, 130 for Freight Trucks, and 110 for Buses.  The Highway Bus Lanes option jumps the speed for Buses up to 160.

Since that feature is there, and adding it to another base network would create serious simulation problems, I would agree that using the RHW as a base network would be the best approach.  It is what was originally intended, and if the AVE-2 look is desirable, then we could, in theory, create a new RHW override network that is specifically designed to look like BRT lanes.  Another potential option would be to use a traditionally non-Car-supporting network (like El-Rail) as the base for an override network, but there are some drawbacks there, too.

I did live in a city with BRT for six years (Eugene, Oregon).  There are some things in Eugene's EmX system that probably wouldn't be viable--single, reversible BRT lanes and BRT/turn lane hybrids--but it does give me at least an idea of what they can look like in real world practice, and a little bit of motivation (though I am hemmed in with RL and my other NAM projects).

-Tarkus

[rsc204 21,866]

1 hour ago, Tarkus said:

I would agree that using the RHW as a base network would be the best approach.  It is what was originally intended, and if the AVE-2 look is desirable, then we could, in theory, create a new RHW override network that is specifically designed to look like BRT lanes. 

I was thinking along these lines too, because a RHW-override seems the simplest solution. So long as we didn't have to code the mammoth amount of cross-compatibility that's probably workable. Some sort of transition to RHW could be used when interacting with things like Rail/El-Rail/Monorail, RHW/MHY crossing over it, so it'd be a compact network with basic straights, curves and intersections. The rest all handled by the regular RHW network. If we can keep the specs very tight, it needn't be a huge task to get some code and textures in place. If we can re-work some sort of non-bus traffic blockers into the starters, that would also reduce the need for TE lots all over the place too.

[matias93 7,535]

Wow, this is becoming a very complete project! I'll just mention two considerations, based in what BRT lines are in my city.

1. BRT usually creates barriers to perpendicular traffic, in order to get higher bus speeds, by reducing intersections with small networks, and mainly avoiding pedestrian crossings. Depending on the design (mainly if central stops with inversed bus doors are used or not), there could be incomplete crossings (between the sidewalks of the lateral road and the normal bus stop) or complete crossings distanced to the stop (making pedestrians walk back to the central stops by the centre of the artery). Both methods are evidently inefficient in moving pedestrians but also the cheapest one, a better option would be to rise or sink the pedestrian passes. I guess this should be considered when designing the stops.

2. As a consequence of the previous issue, BRT lines usually cause a huge concrete band to cross the city, where, product of the pollution and concentrated heat, most plants cannot survive; the result is a Bipin-esque landscape. The concrete thing is relevant: it is preferred to asphalt because the aligned passing of hundreds of heavyweight buses displaces the asphalt in parallel wavy patterns, that are very dangerous when changing lanes.

[rsc204 21,866]

7 hours ago, matias93 said:

the result is a Bipin-esque landscape

[f3cs 1,063]

15 hours ago, matias93 said:

Wow, this is becoming a very complete project! I'll just mention two considerations, based in what BRT lines are in my city.

1. BRT usually creates barriers to perpendicular traffic, in order to get higher bus speeds, by reducing intersections with small networks, and mainly avoiding pedestrian crossings. Depending on the design (mainly if central stops with inversed bus doors are used or not), there could be incomplete crossings (between the sidewalks of the lateral road and the normal bus stop) or complete crossings distanced to the stop (making pedestrians walk back to the central stops by the centre of the artery). Both methods are evidently inefficient in moving pedestrians but also the cheapest one, a better option would be to rise or sink the pedestrian passes. I guess this should be considered when designing the stops.

2. As a consequence of the previous issue, BRT lines usually cause a huge concrete band to cross the city, where, product of the pollution and concentrated heat, most plants cannot survive; the result is a Bipin-esque landscape. The concrete thing is relevant: it is preferred to asphalt because the aligned passing of hundreds of heavyweight buses displaces the asphalt in parallel wavy patterns, that are very dangerous when changing lanes.

Now we are on the same page. I spoke to Bipin few days ago and he allow us to use his textures from MHO in our project, giving a link that already have a RHW-2 concrete texture (YEAH!). Despite this, I was not able to find the textures for MIS

 

18 hours ago, rsc204 said:

I was thinking along these lines too, because a RHW-override seems the simplest solution. So long as we didn't have to code the mammoth amount of cross-compatibility that's probably workable. Some sort of transition to RHW could be used when interacting with things like Rail/El-Rail/Monorail, RHW/MHY crossing over it, so it'd be a compact network with basic straights, curves and intersections. The rest all handled by the regular RHW network. If we can keep the specs very tight, it needn't be a huge task to get some code and textures in place.

Yes, I think what Tarkus said really put an end to the discussion of RHW vs. NWM. RHW should be used for the sake of the simulation. This type of modding will certainly require an NAM editing standard. Is it possible to apply something of FLEX pieces in this project?

18 hours ago, rsc204 said:

 If we can re-work some sort of non-bus traffic blockers into the starters, that would also reduce the need for TE lots all over the place too.

Is that even possible using RHW? It will solve 90% of the difficult with the concept and is a great point to implementing a dedicated network for BRT. The only thing that we will have to solve if the answer is yes, is the Buses getting out of the BRT Lanes. I solve it now by channelizing at maximum perpendicular crosses with bus barriers not permitting that buses enter the parallel roads or buses in the parallel roads enter in BRT Lanes.

[rsc204 21,866]

5 hours ago, f3cs said:

Is it possible to apply something of FLEX pieces in this project?

The thing is, every single piece (assuming it's a new network) needs to have unique code, textures, paths, models and possibly T21s. So if the NAM team is expected to cover that workload, the network will have to remain small, at least at first, otherwise it will simply not happen. In theory we can duplicate all the functionality of RHW-2. In reality, I think you'll have to accept just some key pieces, at least in an initial release.

5 hours ago, f3cs said:

Is that even possible using RHW? It will solve 90% of the difficult with the concept and is a great point to implementing a dedicated network for BRT. The only thing that we will have to solve if the answer is yes, is the Buses getting out of the BRT Lanes.

I can't say, more thinking aloud than anything. The reason TE lots work is that they can be set to only allow bus traffic via the transit switches. I'm not sure if such things can be controlled for network items, although now I think about it again, I'm thinking probably not. But that could tie into the other problem. So you use the BRT-RHW to a point, then end in a Traffic Blocking TE lot, much like a "SAM" stopper, this piece breaks the BRT override, so would act as a transition between BRT and the normal RHW-2. Regular RHW-2 comes out one end, BRT RHW-2 on the other. The same TE lot takes care of the traffic switching from Bus only to free movement, the textures upon it transition smoothly from the two also. It's a neat solution IMO.

Bear in mind, this really needs to be a very minimal set of pieces for me to look at the coding/modding. Otherwise it'll be years in development. Unless of course Tarkus or another active NAM dev wants to get on-board, resources are tight right now. But in essence, I was kind of offering to add it to my list of things to do. Nothing will happen from my side until the late spring/summer, in any case not before NAM36 is out the door. Too many projects outstanding and personal commitments will see to that. However, again, if others are willing to work on it, that may change things. For starters that means the basic straight, curves, diagonal and some stuff for stations like the RHW-2 to RHW-4 Wye in BRT form. Extending support out to larger RHW networks would be unlikely, it's too much work. In such instances, transitioning to RHW-2 or utilising RHW-2 FLUPs (if BRT is RHW-2 based, those will work just fine), will be necessary. This keeps the number of pieces small, making the workload manageable. Of course who knows where in future it might go, but a basic usable network in the first instance is the point here.

[Edvarz 1,985]

Got my laptop back! Everything's working as smooth as a Kenny G song... well maybe not so smooth, but neatly so.

So, a while ago it occured to me that those RTMT Interim T-RAM Stations could be repurposed for BRT, I whipped up some preliminary non-functional test lots just to do a proof of concept. Shown here are Ghsmails', Simfox's, and Xyloxadoria's stations from that pack on 2x2 and 1x2 lots; I used AVE-4 and AVE-2 textures. I also used the same prop family the RTMT uses on it's GLR stations, however, I could make a prop family using my own range, that way the only needed dependency would be the models; also, we could add more station models that have similar dimensions to the prop family and let the player choose to have one or several of them, similar to how the RTMT works.

Here's how they would work in-game. The 1x2 lots use AVE-2 textures and should be pathed accordingly, they would also need a transition from the base network, shown here are: RHW-2 to WRHW-2 and a RHW-2 to AVE-2, if the station is Transit enabled as highway it would need the former and if it's TE'd as road the latter; the station lot could also have the width transition incorporated but that would make it less flexible. I don't like how that overhang looks over the WRHW-2, but I can make a separate 3x1 station lot.

The 2x2 lots are simpler, they could be TE'd as Avenue, OWR or Highway without needing special paths; these would need to transition from RHW-2 to 4, RHW to Avenue, or RHW to Avenue and then OWR; a 2x3 lot for the overhanging stations may also be in order here.

So this is just a basic preview, details like zebra crossings can be added with further lotting, and there's still the modding to sort out, I have more concepts in mind but I don't want to make a huge post.

 

On 4/2/2017 at 5:54 AM, rsc204 said:

I was thinking along these lines too, because a RHW-override seems the simplest solution. So long as we didn't have to code the mammoth amount of cross-compatibility that's probably workable. Some sort of transition to RHW could be used when interacting with things like Rail/El-Rail/Monorail, RHW/MHY crossing over it, so it'd be a compact network with basic straights, curves and intersections. The rest all handled by the regular RHW network. If we can keep the specs very tight, it needn't be a huge task to get some code and textures in place. If we can re-work some sort of non-bus traffic blockers into the starters, that would also reduce the need for TE lots all over the place too.

Sweet! A RHW override, BRT-dedicated network sounds better than what I was thinking. Having NAM team support for this project would ensure it gets top notch quality. Anything that we can do to lighten the load, (i.e. lotting T21's, BATing needed props, making textures) I think we would do gladly, just say the word.

About pedestrian accesibility, if the BRT stations are correctly modded we can have pedestrians acces the system via the station's transit switches. Also, if sims take a bus from elsewhere and enter the BRT-only circuit, well we could pretend they took a feeder bus; in the city of León, México, there are regular buses that have an extra door on the left side to allow people to get to the BRT lines, I can't find a picture of such buses, however.

[f3cs 1,063]

1 hour ago, Edvarz said:

So this is just a basic preview, details like zebra crossings can be added with further lotting, and there's still the modding to sort out, I have more concepts in mind but I don't want to make a huge post.

Wow! Sweet stations! But do you think that we can use them as BRT? Tram has a pay-n'-ride system (you pay in the train) and BRT have a pre-paid system (pay before enter the bus). Because of that, GLR stations tend to be smaller then BRT stations because of the prepayment equipment like ratchets, ATMs and that kind of stuff. You know, GLR is just a thing such as a bus stop side to side with a rail and BRT is more like a subway station

 

1 hour ago, Edvarz said:

About pedestrian accesibility, if the BRT stations are correctly modded we can have pedestrians access the system via the station's transit switches. Also, if sims take a bus from elsewhere and enter the BRT-only circuit, well we could pretend they took a feeder bus; in the city of León, México, there are regular buses that have an extra door on the left side to allow people to get to the BRT lines, I can't find a picture of such buses, however.

Here in Brazil we call that BHLS, it means Bus with High Level of Service it's something in Between BRT and Normal Buses, kind of what are being applied in Niterói with it's brand new corridor TransOceânica.  

[matias93 7,535]

2 hours ago, f3cs said:

Wow! Sweet stations! But do you think that we can use them as BRT? Tram has a pay-n'-ride system (you pay in the train) and BRT have a pre-paid system (pay before enter the bus). Because of that, GLR stations tend to be smaller then BRT stations because of the prepayment equipment like ratchets, ATMs and that kind of stuff. You know, GLR is just a thing such as a bus stop side to side with a rail and BRT is more like a subway station

At least here in Santiago (where there isn't any full BRT system implemented), pre-paid bus stops exist, but are not much larger than the conventional stops (they are longer, though), and their access controls aren't much more sophisticated than a couple of bus inspectors with a portable device to pay:

Now the transportation ministry is developing a true BRT line on the main avenue of the city, and the stops, while more sophisticated than the current standard, will be very simple anyway:

(I really love that render)

The point is, stops don't need to be very wide to be adequate for a BRT, particularly if it's structured as a central trunk with branches, being wide stops needed only on the more loaded sections.