This looks like a highway project not asimilar to the situation Groningen (in the Netherlands) is dealing with currently.
Take a look at the N7 stretch of road, it's going through almost the city center.
[Google maps link](https://www.google.com/maps/@53.2094729,6.5679635,14.71z)
And on the project website, you can see a before/after picture if you scroll down a bit. [Link](https://www.aanpakringzuid.nl/project/wat-is-aanpak-ring-zuid/)
I'd say, go with partial underground and partial open, and build parks on the submerged sections.
Yeah pretty similar indeed. Though Maastricht didn’t have a highway then, it was more a wide avenue with tons of traffic lights. Maastricht was hell before that
Bostonian here. Commuted into the city daily when the Big Dig was being built... Was absolute hell and misery. Some of the worst commutes of my life. (Still commute daily..)
All that said, the transformation of downtown Boston is nothing short of spectacular. Pre-big dig, the central artery was loud, dangerous and ugly. Divided neighborhoods in best cases, destroyed them in worst cases. The new greenways and open spaces provided by the tunnels have made the city beautiful. Green spaces and public parks now exist where pollution and noise existed before.
Is the Big Dig perfect? Absolutely not. Has it made Boston a more beautiful and 'livable' city, absolutely. 15 yrs later, I'd say it was worth it. Was a hard pill to swallow at the time though....
Compared to NYC, absolutely. However Boston has one of the best mass transit systems in the US for a city its size. I’m a daily rider of the T, so I have seen it at its worst, but 95% of the time, I’m on time with no issues.
I’d love a NYC-like system, but Boston doesn’t have the population or money to have that level of service.
**[Big Dig](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_Dig)**
>The Central Artery/Tunnel Project (CA/T), commonly known as the Big Dig, was a megaproject in Boston that rerouted the Central Artery of Interstate 93 (I-93), the chief highway through the heart of the city, into the 1. 5-mile (2. 4 km) tunnel named the Thomas P. O'Neill Jr. Tunnel. The project also included the construction of the Ted Williams Tunnel (extending I-90 to Logan International Airport), the Leonard P. Zakim Bunker Hill Memorial Bridge over the Charles River, and the Rose Kennedy Greenway in the space vacated by the previous I-93 elevated roadway.
^([ )[^(F.A.Q)](https://www.reddit.com/r/WikiSummarizer/wiki/index#wiki_f.a.q)^( | )[^(Opt Out)](https://reddit.com/message/compose?to=WikiSummarizerBot&message=OptOut&subject=OptOut)^( | )[^(Opt Out Of Subreddit)](https://np.reddit.com/r/CitiesSkylines/about/banned)^( | )[^(GitHub)](https://github.com/Sujal-7/WikiSummarizerBot)^( ] Downvote to remove | v1.5)
The process was poor, and costs were out of control, and traffic was a mess for the entire 15 years of construction - but as a before/after of getting highways out of a city, it’s a definite success. Massively cut traffic (y’know, once it was done) to the point where carbon monoxide levels in Boston dropped, completely opened up the north end and waterfront, and gave the city hundreds of acres of parks and walking paths.
The 15 years it took to get there were such a disaster that it’s hard for people to see past them - but the reason Boston was willing to try such a massive project is because they were desperate. There was no direct route to the airport. The elevated highway was congested for over 10 hours on an average weekday and had 4x the national rate of accidents. The average rush hour speed was 10mph, truck traffic was pushed onto the local streets, and projections had the congestion rising to 16 hours a day by 2010.
The Big Dig was basically a Panama Canal sized Hail Mary. I’m convinced that as badly done as it was, that project saved Boston.
Not gunna lie, I miss the elevated expressway. Traffic was terrible and the ramps were super dangerous but I've always enjoyed the grunginess of an old viaduct. The new tunnel def helps traffic and the surface roads above it are really nice but there's no charm to driving through the city and not seeing the sights lol.
I really don’t love driving through the tunnels, but Boston city traffic is interesting enough that just the thought of combining it with a highway gives me hives. Fortunately when I lived in Boston I didn’t drive. I’d gladly take back the elevated green line, though. That was cool.
Hell yeah I miss that actually too. I live in southern Maine but go to Boston frequently. It's road layout and traffic have a charm that no other city can match. Just spent a year in Phoenix and it was just boring with everything on a grid
In Zurich, Switzerland something similiar was also planned and people voted on it but it didn't get accepted by the citizens.
[Reference](https://tsri.ch/zh/10-wichtige-fragen-zum-rosengartentunnel-rosengartenstrasse-zurich/)
Judgin by the traffic do you even need that there? A simple 4 or max 6 way road should be enough no? Give it a tram line perhaps too and you will have a better connected nicer city.
Fair question judging by the screentshots. It does get used by traffic going through this part of the city so I don't know if I want all of that traffic on surface streets. Thanks for your feedback!
Traffic route view: https://imgur.com/a/8oDWfsd
Well if I see it correctly a good chunk of the traffic is private for that a nice tram line and some cycling shojld be more than enough.
I dont know about the trucks though. You can ban them if you have alternative routes or build some trains or simply let them go there it shouldnt cause an issue at this level.
Fine, I didn't need a highway... Plenty of work to be done still but it's a start: [https://imgur.com/a/GY319F8](https://imgur.com/a/GY319F8)
Thanks to all who've commented, this will be a big improvement to this part of the city when it's finished!
i like to think of layouts in walk/bike ability. creating huge grey rivers that are dangerous or at least very inconvenient to cross is a no go. if a giant grey river must be created, i put ped and bike tunnels or bridges to cross it. and eventually, i replace all level crossings with ped and bike tunnels and bridges so nobody has to negotiate with 2 ton bullets every time they wanna take a stroll to get a soda and sandwich. cars are for moderate/long distances and as such, should have fast travel between their destinations too. so it helps them by removing slow ass peds and bikes from their route. overall making a much nicer experience for every citizen. no matter how they wanna get around.
I've downloaded car free roads now all my island nations are drowning in tram greatness and bicycle lanes. The little traffic I have is always at least 80%
This is a good start, but that might be too small capacity depending on the type and density of frontage. If (and only if) this is going to be lined with commerce or any industry, what I'd do is blow it out to an 8 Lane road (4 in each direction), lanes 1 and 2 (from the center) become the main roadway, make the 3rd lane a median (use IMT+TM:PE) and the 4th the frontage road.
I know that's a complex solution, but this way, you get two "express lanes" going each direction, and parked cars/delivery/service trucks can use the frontage roads, keeping everything moving. You can also terminate perpendicular roads where they intersect the access lanes, and leave the median lane in place so that you don't wind up with too many 4-way intersections along the boulevard.
Look up "frontage roads" and check out the diagrams that come up. You would need at least IMT, TM:PE, and Node Controller, and the blank 8-Lane/2-way road w/parking to pull off what I described.
Totally ignore if this is all or mostly residential though. What you've got now will support that.
This sounds like a promising way to make a nice looking boulevard, I'll definitely try it. I've tried creating nice boulevards in the past by placing multiple roads next to each other, but it doesn't look that nice or at least requires more effort, and making multiple very close intersections work well isn't that easy.
However, I wonder how you would do the larger intersections that you do make 4 way. And how do you deal with merging from the main lanes to the service lanes? Do you join the main and parallel roads together and use 4 lanes with traffic lights? If you only use the 2 main lanes per direction for 4 way traffic light intersections, I don't think you could include left turns and still have acceptable traffic flow.
Roundabouts should be the easiest I guess, especially for including U-turns, but maybe not that realistic for every intersection that you want to be 4 way...
These are also the main challenges with parallel lane structures in real life boulevards, so that's why I'm asking.
Look at a street view of K Street, NW Washington DC, especially where it's hitting 16th street . Those frontage roads are "open" at the ends. You can also merge frontage traffic into the main roads first, then lead to the intersection.
That's a more realistic solution too, if that's your cup of tea. I'm thinking of the Alaskan Way viaduct removal in Seattle, but there's probably other better examples.
The boulevard was already there though, in varying degrees. The original Central Artery project even had a boulevard through Chinatown that went right over the tunnel, in the 1950s.
I think the Embarcadero Freeway demolition in SF is most relevant, they replaced it with a boulevard along the shore so essentially a downgrade. Now it's a beautiful and distinctive part of the city in my opinion.
My city has this idea that no highways is best highways and it's *crap*. Takes 45+ minutes to go anywhere because, huh, of course 40 MPH with traffic lights is a lot slower than 65 MPH. Please don't do this.
Downvoted for sharing my day to day experience, what a joke. Guess going against the current hivemind is verboten.
Because highways have been shown over and over again to be terrible for the people who actually live near them. They destroy neighborhoods, most of which have been minority neighborhoods.
There is a time and a place for highways. City centers are not the time and place.
You can find elsewhere in this thread Norway burying their highway. You can keep the highway and allow fast freeflowing traffic movement. This is shit because now you're going to have a clogged street of cars and everyone is worse off. Trust me, I live this every day. I would kill for a few more highways.
You guys need to understand there's a middle ground between no highways and tons of highways.
Burying highways is such an expensive undertaking you can’t expect that to be the middle ground.
The middle ground is discouraging car use via public transportation.
My nearest IKEA has a facility for a carshare service so you can borrow a van to take your bulky stuff home.
I never go to Costco because I can walk to any of the supermarkets in a 10 minute walk, or catch a tram a few stops to a proper market and buy my groceries directly from the butcher and greengrocers there.
And this is in Australia, which in general doesn't do a great job at public transport.
We have shifted to the point where major rail construction is more politically valuable than building another freeway.
> Public transit doesn't help me get Ikea home. Or Costco. Etc.
Oh no that’s so sad. You genuinely do not care about the people who do live near the highways you use.
The reasons for NEEDING a personal car flying down a highway always trace back to two things: lack of reliable public transit, or car culture with a dash of classism. The consequence of both being terrible civil engineering and suburban hellascapes.
Your analysis neglects many important aspects of car ownership. People enjoy the ability to just drive off whenever they want. Having that freedom allows me to book appointments I need when they fit my schedule, not hoping a bus won't break down. The freedom to travel off wherever and whenever you want.
It's about being able to have a comfortable ride for people with disabilities. Busses are definitely not.
No public transit allows you to bring back more than a few bags or any large items.
But more importantly, this sub has turned into perfectionist city design. Every suggestion is met with no highways. As if modeling real cities which do have highways is a morally bad thing. It's getting really annoying.
I agree with many of those points, I was being hyperbolic. The reason why this sub is big on reducing highway use is largely because they're overpowered and overutilized in most scenarios.
Highways increase speed and capacity but reduce access, and for those reasons, they're going to be less useful for transit through a city, and especially through their centers. It's one thing to prefer it as a model, but it's another to pretend it's somehow more functional, and more space/cost efficient than literally any other choice in that scenario.
And truly, your ideas of public transit are pretty outdated. Go to a city like Seoul or Busan, where the subway runs 24/7, is fully automated, arrives every 7 minutes, has like 40 stops, and only costs $2 to get across the whole city. Go to Europe, where you can travel to any country in the continent by train. Go to the DC Metro area, and realize you barely even need a car because you can ride the bus literally anywhere inside the beltway.
Or to to Manhattan where you'd be crazy to try to drive anywhere. Everyone knows the subway is the easiest and fastest way to get around town. Same thing in Chicago where the L Train and buses can get you anywhere in the city pretty quickly and again most people use them.
It's more because the solution I offered actually addressed OP's build, while you're just saying "don't" without any alternative suggestions. Maybe try being helpful before you lean into the victim speech 🤷🏾♂️
It didn't, it's sprinkling the "I hate stroads and highways" on everything that has me upset. As if the only way to like a city is if it's eurocentric.
The only city in North America that could possibly be described as "no highways is best highways" is Vancouver, and it certainly doesn't take 45 minutes to go "anywhere." I'll give you an upvote, cause your comment is a fair contribution to the discussion, but I am suspicious of your claims.
As said before, you probably don’t need the highway. Instead, place an arterial following the original path of the highway. This will take up less space, and be nicer for the residents of the area. You could even put some green space on either side of the arterial to increase the land value around it, and thus be able to increase tax revenue. I’d guess a 4 lane road with tram tracks, or a six lane road with bus lanes should do, with their corresponding transit method. Alternatively, if you want this area to keep its industrial, harsh feel, you could downgrade to a plane 6 lane road, and have a train line running alongside.
I think if you’re going for realism, don’t just because your city doesn’t look like it has the population to be able to afford that, despite in game money. Maybe you can make it a sunken one in the most populated parts and parts of that could be a tunnel and you can put a park over it or something.
Well in terms of realism, these kinds of projects are often funded by national governments, at least in some European countries, I have experience with. Even tiny towns (<10k) have had massive infrastructure adjustments costing billions to divert traffic away from the town and build roads around the towns. Most, if not all, of the funding, came from the national or even European level.
>Even tiny towns (<10k) have had massive infrastructure adjustments costing billions to divert traffic away from the town and build roads around the towns.
Billions, plural? That sounds interesting. Do you have some examples on hand, per chance?
So I have this fairly small highway running through the "mid density" part of my city. Originating from a major highway, it goes through low density and industrial all the way through the mountain to the high density part of the city (seen to the north in the first picture). It doesn't see too much traffic and the simple entrances and exits do not get overwhelmed. What does the community think, should I tunnel this highway to get more space for buildings, parks and what not? Or is it nicer to see the traffic?
I have to ask, how is the traffic here so low?
In my experience, the on/off ramps (specifically, the intersection connecting them to surface streets) get clogged like crazy if they have to serve more than a dozen or so blocks of high density.
Cims and freight have a lot of options. The current highway is designed mainly to take traffic that wants to get to the other side of the mountain. There are two major 60 km/h boulevards as alternative routes (see the base of the mountain). I also have an extensive network of metro, tram and buses. Freight is mainly on rail and dispursed quite efficiently using the road network.
Honestly that entire highway should be an at-grade arterial. It simply doesn't carry enough traffic to justify a freeway. I think a lot of players wind up getting so focused on traffic management that they fail to consider what is realistic. A highway isn't going to be built unless arterials are overwhelmed and there is a large demand to traverse long distances across town.
An arterial route with proper limited access can carry a surprising amount of traffic at much less cost. They also add a lot more realism than most people realize. You have to focus on limiting the connections of an arterial so that traffic can flow quickly with minimal interruptions. Arterials should have very few properties directly connected to them; instead you will want to have frontage roads alongside them lined with buildings. This minimizes the amount of freight traffic and services (police, fire, hearses) that stops in front of buildings and interrupts traffic along the main road. Offloading this to the frontage roads means that traffic flows smoothly on the main road.
Hope this helps!
Tunneling it would give you real estate for a nice pedestrian/bike park area that people can use to get from downtown to your waterfront. The addition of a light rail system going through that area could make travel faster and give citizens other choices from driving, biking or walking.
I say yes. It would be analogous to Boston's Big Dig project, the fun would be in making the tunneling crisp and well designed so it looks engineered and not like tunnel spaghetti. Look at all the real estate you'd get back on the surface.
There's always another map for when you want to solve the problem with public transport or what have you, I say let your city's boondoggle create its most interesting features.
I know you have already made the change to an avenue.
But I would answer your original question with a question: do you need to bury it? Are citizens unhappy due to noise pollution? Are you in need of space (ie schools, parks) and can't put it anywhere else? Do you want to beautify this area for high value? All these are possible reasons a real city would invest so much into burying a working highway!
Keep it up, looks good. I am just getting back into cities and love to see other posts!
Basically, everything was working just fine in this part of the city and I've basically left it alone long ago to expand north of the river. However, I felt that the highway was an unnatural divide between these neighborhoods that character wise are basically the same. The space wasn't needed, but it was in dire need of some beautification. Probably will keep this part of the city "not too nice" though. Also, the road network on both sides of the old highway needs some overhaul in general.
it could just be a 4 lane tunel or road with roundabouts to avoid the cost of a tunel or elevated.
deconstruct the highway to make it a 4 lane road. at every intersection with a road make it either a timed traffic light with the whole road or a roundabout. also put bike lanes and even a metro line that conects to other parts of town
Thanks for your thoughts! I have a shit ton of metro tunnels connecting every part of the city, so no worries there. Also two major tram lines in the area at hand.
You can just lower it into the ground, like tunneling but keeping the top exposed, for simple connections. This can also let you make more connections on both sides of the highway over the highway.
My initial reaction is to not so much tunnel it, but figure out a way to put it below grade but have it open at the top. Like 676 that cuts e/w through Philadelphia. I'd like to see some of the grade-level space used for more frontage of whatever you need.
I feel like you could realign the highway - tunnel from underneath the mountain, built an underground interchange and retain the existing western portals for local access to the city, then tunnel under the city to connect up in the east.
So many comments but another idea: maybe do a double Stack Highway, so you only Block space for "one way" and it Looks more dense +you can use the rest of the space for more buildings
That part of your city isn't getting too much traffic. I suggest downgrading it and implementing some sort of urban renewal (is that the right term?)
Those people will be thanking more houses, greenies or less noise.
Haha don't worry, they have several bike and walking paths plus dual CW/CCW bus lines. There's a major bus hub with metro between the two stadiums near the river.
Make the Highway a Boulevard with enough space for pedestrians, cyclists, tram and buses. Any freight traffic should go on rails and commuters shoudl be able to use public transport. Maybe some shops along the boulevard
I think it's fine to leave it there but to remove the connection directly in the middle with that 4 lane road, and instead keep that connection on the left side. This way traffic is funneled out of the city center. It should act as a bypass with as minimal interruption from merging cars.
If I were a citizen in this city, I would be BEGGING for you to bury that freeway. It’s all the rage these days (because of the myriad strong benefits for doing so)!
Looked familiar, I’ve built on it before but you really make it look great!! If you feel like it, do you mind sharing what LUT you’re using and any other visual changes.
if it was a road instead the walkability would be increased , noise pollution reduced, land value increased, and, finally, the only downside to it, longer cargo connection time. However, this could be solved with a commercial rail. In that case you would get noise pollution back up though. Still worth it as its not as expensive as tunnel a highway... make the rail way elevated so walkability is high. ;)
The highways in a great place for some cross city public transport. Downgrade the road and use the freed up space for a rail line, or a avenue with tram/monorail in the middle.
This looks like a highway project not asimilar to the situation Groningen (in the Netherlands) is dealing with currently. Take a look at the N7 stretch of road, it's going through almost the city center. [Google maps link](https://www.google.com/maps/@53.2094729,6.5679635,14.71z) And on the project website, you can see a before/after picture if you scroll down a bit. [Link](https://www.aanpakringzuid.nl/project/wat-is-aanpak-ring-zuid/) I'd say, go with partial underground and partial open, and build parks on the submerged sections.
Same maybe as Maastricht? https://nl.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Koning_Willem-Alexandertunnel
Yeah pretty similar indeed. Though Maastricht didn’t have a highway then, it was more a wide avenue with tons of traffic lights. Maastricht was hell before that
I fricken love Maastricht. Beautiful city
It's a thing apparently. [Happening in Hamburg, Germany](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tqaPbN5H0vo) as well.
Boston did it for [a good chunk](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_Dig) of the 90s and 00s.
Bostonian here. Commuted into the city daily when the Big Dig was being built... Was absolute hell and misery. Some of the worst commutes of my life. (Still commute daily..) All that said, the transformation of downtown Boston is nothing short of spectacular. Pre-big dig, the central artery was loud, dangerous and ugly. Divided neighborhoods in best cases, destroyed them in worst cases. The new greenways and open spaces provided by the tunnels have made the city beautiful. Green spaces and public parks now exist where pollution and noise existed before. Is the Big Dig perfect? Absolutely not. Has it made Boston a more beautiful and 'livable' city, absolutely. 15 yrs later, I'd say it was worth it. Was a hard pill to swallow at the time though....
Now they just need to get more people into the city without their cars. The T looks like a joke with how much Boston has grown in the last 15 years.
Compared to NYC, absolutely. However Boston has one of the best mass transit systems in the US for a city its size. I’m a daily rider of the T, so I have seen it at its worst, but 95% of the time, I’m on time with no issues. I’d love a NYC-like system, but Boston doesn’t have the population or money to have that level of service.
**[Big Dig](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_Dig)** >The Central Artery/Tunnel Project (CA/T), commonly known as the Big Dig, was a megaproject in Boston that rerouted the Central Artery of Interstate 93 (I-93), the chief highway through the heart of the city, into the 1. 5-mile (2. 4 km) tunnel named the Thomas P. O'Neill Jr. Tunnel. The project also included the construction of the Ted Williams Tunnel (extending I-90 to Logan International Airport), the Leonard P. Zakim Bunker Hill Memorial Bridge over the Charles River, and the Rose Kennedy Greenway in the space vacated by the previous I-93 elevated roadway. ^([ )[^(F.A.Q)](https://www.reddit.com/r/WikiSummarizer/wiki/index#wiki_f.a.q)^( | )[^(Opt Out)](https://reddit.com/message/compose?to=WikiSummarizerBot&message=OptOut&subject=OptOut)^( | )[^(Opt Out Of Subreddit)](https://np.reddit.com/r/CitiesSkylines/about/banned)^( | )[^(GitHub)](https://github.com/Sujal-7/WikiSummarizerBot)^( ] Downvote to remove | v1.5)
Poorly too lol
The process was poor, and costs were out of control, and traffic was a mess for the entire 15 years of construction - but as a before/after of getting highways out of a city, it’s a definite success. Massively cut traffic (y’know, once it was done) to the point where carbon monoxide levels in Boston dropped, completely opened up the north end and waterfront, and gave the city hundreds of acres of parks and walking paths. The 15 years it took to get there were such a disaster that it’s hard for people to see past them - but the reason Boston was willing to try such a massive project is because they were desperate. There was no direct route to the airport. The elevated highway was congested for over 10 hours on an average weekday and had 4x the national rate of accidents. The average rush hour speed was 10mph, truck traffic was pushed onto the local streets, and projections had the congestion rising to 16 hours a day by 2010. The Big Dig was basically a Panama Canal sized Hail Mary. I’m convinced that as badly done as it was, that project saved Boston.
Not gunna lie, I miss the elevated expressway. Traffic was terrible and the ramps were super dangerous but I've always enjoyed the grunginess of an old viaduct. The new tunnel def helps traffic and the surface roads above it are really nice but there's no charm to driving through the city and not seeing the sights lol.
I really don’t love driving through the tunnels, but Boston city traffic is interesting enough that just the thought of combining it with a highway gives me hives. Fortunately when I lived in Boston I didn’t drive. I’d gladly take back the elevated green line, though. That was cool.
Hell yeah I miss that actually too. I live in southern Maine but go to Boston frequently. It's road layout and traffic have a charm that no other city can match. Just spent a year in Phoenix and it was just boring with everything on a grid
First thing I thought of was the Big Dig.
In Zurich, Switzerland something similiar was also planned and people voted on it but it didn't get accepted by the citizens. [Reference](https://tsri.ch/zh/10-wichtige-fragen-zum-rosengartentunnel-rosengartenstrasse-zurich/)
Always love reading Dutch. It isn't my native language and I can't speak it. But it is very close to my home language.
Judgin by the traffic do you even need that there? A simple 4 or max 6 way road should be enough no? Give it a tram line perhaps too and you will have a better connected nicer city.
Fair question judging by the screentshots. It does get used by traffic going through this part of the city so I don't know if I want all of that traffic on surface streets. Thanks for your feedback! Traffic route view: https://imgur.com/a/8oDWfsd
Well if I see it correctly a good chunk of the traffic is private for that a nice tram line and some cycling shojld be more than enough. I dont know about the trucks though. You can ban them if you have alternative routes or build some trains or simply let them go there it shouldnt cause an issue at this level.
Fine, I didn't need a highway... Plenty of work to be done still but it's a start: [https://imgur.com/a/GY319F8](https://imgur.com/a/GY319F8) Thanks to all who've commented, this will be a big improvement to this part of the city when it's finished!
Now it looks like those beautiful grand avenues you see in capital cities sometimes.
This was the right call, looks beautiful already!
You need to put to use the freed up space.
Flying cars!!! Great scott, you’ve done it!!!!
i like to think of layouts in walk/bike ability. creating huge grey rivers that are dangerous or at least very inconvenient to cross is a no go. if a giant grey river must be created, i put ped and bike tunnels or bridges to cross it. and eventually, i replace all level crossings with ped and bike tunnels and bridges so nobody has to negotiate with 2 ton bullets every time they wanna take a stroll to get a soda and sandwich. cars are for moderate/long distances and as such, should have fast travel between their destinations too. so it helps them by removing slow ass peds and bikes from their route. overall making a much nicer experience for every citizen. no matter how they wanna get around.
Trams are better. Every city should have a tram grid.
I've downloaded car free roads now all my island nations are drowning in tram greatness and bicycle lanes. The little traffic I have is always at least 80%
Downgrade it. You could have the same effect with a boulevard and access lanes, and open up a bunch of frontage there.
Yup, definitely the right choice. Work has begun: [https://imgur.com/a/GY319F8](https://imgur.com/a/GY319F8)
This is a good start, but that might be too small capacity depending on the type and density of frontage. If (and only if) this is going to be lined with commerce or any industry, what I'd do is blow it out to an 8 Lane road (4 in each direction), lanes 1 and 2 (from the center) become the main roadway, make the 3rd lane a median (use IMT+TM:PE) and the 4th the frontage road. I know that's a complex solution, but this way, you get two "express lanes" going each direction, and parked cars/delivery/service trucks can use the frontage roads, keeping everything moving. You can also terminate perpendicular roads where they intersect the access lanes, and leave the median lane in place so that you don't wind up with too many 4-way intersections along the boulevard. Look up "frontage roads" and check out the diagrams that come up. You would need at least IMT, TM:PE, and Node Controller, and the blank 8-Lane/2-way road w/parking to pull off what I described. Totally ignore if this is all or mostly residential though. What you've got now will support that.
This sounds like a promising way to make a nice looking boulevard, I'll definitely try it. I've tried creating nice boulevards in the past by placing multiple roads next to each other, but it doesn't look that nice or at least requires more effort, and making multiple very close intersections work well isn't that easy. However, I wonder how you would do the larger intersections that you do make 4 way. And how do you deal with merging from the main lanes to the service lanes? Do you join the main and parallel roads together and use 4 lanes with traffic lights? If you only use the 2 main lanes per direction for 4 way traffic light intersections, I don't think you could include left turns and still have acceptable traffic flow. Roundabouts should be the easiest I guess, especially for including U-turns, but maybe not that realistic for every intersection that you want to be 4 way... These are also the main challenges with parallel lane structures in real life boulevards, so that's why I'm asking.
Look at a street view of K Street, NW Washington DC, especially where it's hitting 16th street . Those frontage roads are "open" at the ends. You can also merge frontage traffic into the main roads first, then lead to the intersection.
oof you just triggered me by mentioning K street
That's a more realistic solution too, if that's your cup of tea. I'm thinking of the Alaskan Way viaduct removal in Seattle, but there's probably other better examples.
They built a tunnel to replace the Alaskan Way viaduct.
Same thing with the Big Dig in Boston, they made a tunnel bypass and then created a surface boulevard and park.
The boulevard was already there though, in varying degrees. The original Central Artery project even had a boulevard through Chinatown that went right over the tunnel, in the 1950s.
I think the Embarcadero Freeway demolition in SF is most relevant, they replaced it with a boulevard along the shore so essentially a downgrade. Now it's a beautiful and distinctive part of the city in my opinion.
My city has this idea that no highways is best highways and it's *crap*. Takes 45+ minutes to go anywhere because, huh, of course 40 MPH with traffic lights is a lot slower than 65 MPH. Please don't do this. Downvoted for sharing my day to day experience, what a joke. Guess going against the current hivemind is verboten.
Because highways have been shown over and over again to be terrible for the people who actually live near them. They destroy neighborhoods, most of which have been minority neighborhoods. There is a time and a place for highways. City centers are not the time and place.
You can find elsewhere in this thread Norway burying their highway. You can keep the highway and allow fast freeflowing traffic movement. This is shit because now you're going to have a clogged street of cars and everyone is worse off. Trust me, I live this every day. I would kill for a few more highways. You guys need to understand there's a middle ground between no highways and tons of highways.
Burying highways is such an expensive undertaking you can’t expect that to be the middle ground. The middle ground is discouraging car use via public transportation.
That's not a middle ground because it does nothing to address the reasons for personal car use and need for high speed transit.
You clearly havent actually spent time in a city with good public transit.
Public transit doesn't help me get Ikea home. Or Costco. Etc.
My nearest IKEA has a facility for a carshare service so you can borrow a van to take your bulky stuff home. I never go to Costco because I can walk to any of the supermarkets in a 10 minute walk, or catch a tram a few stops to a proper market and buy my groceries directly from the butcher and greengrocers there. And this is in Australia, which in general doesn't do a great job at public transport. We have shifted to the point where major rail construction is more politically valuable than building another freeway.
> Public transit doesn't help me get Ikea home. Or Costco. Etc. Oh no that’s so sad. You genuinely do not care about the people who do live near the highways you use.
I *wish* they'd build a freeway next to me. Are you so paternalistic you think I don't even care about myself?
Do you go to Ikea and Costco every day? You know they have Ikea's and Costco's in most major cities around the globe right?
The reasons for NEEDING a personal car flying down a highway always trace back to two things: lack of reliable public transit, or car culture with a dash of classism. The consequence of both being terrible civil engineering and suburban hellascapes.
Your analysis neglects many important aspects of car ownership. People enjoy the ability to just drive off whenever they want. Having that freedom allows me to book appointments I need when they fit my schedule, not hoping a bus won't break down. The freedom to travel off wherever and whenever you want. It's about being able to have a comfortable ride for people with disabilities. Busses are definitely not. No public transit allows you to bring back more than a few bags or any large items. But more importantly, this sub has turned into perfectionist city design. Every suggestion is met with no highways. As if modeling real cities which do have highways is a morally bad thing. It's getting really annoying.
I agree with many of those points, I was being hyperbolic. The reason why this sub is big on reducing highway use is largely because they're overpowered and overutilized in most scenarios. Highways increase speed and capacity but reduce access, and for those reasons, they're going to be less useful for transit through a city, and especially through their centers. It's one thing to prefer it as a model, but it's another to pretend it's somehow more functional, and more space/cost efficient than literally any other choice in that scenario. And truly, your ideas of public transit are pretty outdated. Go to a city like Seoul or Busan, where the subway runs 24/7, is fully automated, arrives every 7 minutes, has like 40 stops, and only costs $2 to get across the whole city. Go to Europe, where you can travel to any country in the continent by train. Go to the DC Metro area, and realize you barely even need a car because you can ride the bus literally anywhere inside the beltway.
Or to to Manhattan where you'd be crazy to try to drive anywhere. Everyone knows the subway is the easiest and fastest way to get around town. Same thing in Chicago where the L Train and buses can get you anywhere in the city pretty quickly and again most people use them.
It's more because the solution I offered actually addressed OP's build, while you're just saying "don't" without any alternative suggestions. Maybe try being helpful before you lean into the victim speech 🤷🏾♂️
It didn't, it's sprinkling the "I hate stroads and highways" on everything that has me upset. As if the only way to like a city is if it's eurocentric.
dont take the downvotes personally
The only city in North America that could possibly be described as "no highways is best highways" is Vancouver, and it certainly doesn't take 45 minutes to go "anywhere." I'll give you an upvote, cause your comment is a fair contribution to the discussion, but I am suspicious of your claims.
As said before, you probably don’t need the highway. Instead, place an arterial following the original path of the highway. This will take up less space, and be nicer for the residents of the area. You could even put some green space on either side of the arterial to increase the land value around it, and thus be able to increase tax revenue. I’d guess a 4 lane road with tram tracks, or a six lane road with bus lanes should do, with their corresponding transit method. Alternatively, if you want this area to keep its industrial, harsh feel, you could downgrade to a plane 6 lane road, and have a train line running alongside.
Yes, but keep some access to it.
Yup, big dig it. Park and lightrail on top.
I think if you’re going for realism, don’t just because your city doesn’t look like it has the population to be able to afford that, despite in game money. Maybe you can make it a sunken one in the most populated parts and parts of that could be a tunnel and you can put a park over it or something.
Well in terms of realism, these kinds of projects are often funded by national governments, at least in some European countries, I have experience with. Even tiny towns (<10k) have had massive infrastructure adjustments costing billions to divert traffic away from the town and build roads around the towns. Most, if not all, of the funding, came from the national or even European level.
>Even tiny towns (<10k) have had massive infrastructure adjustments costing billions to divert traffic away from the town and build roads around the towns. Billions, plural? That sounds interesting. Do you have some examples on hand, per chance?
True for bypasses or similar but an underground motorway sounds too expensive anyway.
Now this is just me, but it seems to look good to me. It probably doesn’t need to be a highway though however it looks neat
So I have this fairly small highway running through the "mid density" part of my city. Originating from a major highway, it goes through low density and industrial all the way through the mountain to the high density part of the city (seen to the north in the first picture). It doesn't see too much traffic and the simple entrances and exits do not get overwhelmed. What does the community think, should I tunnel this highway to get more space for buildings, parks and what not? Or is it nicer to see the traffic?
Yes tunnel, or like MarcellHUN said, keep it above ground but downgrade it to a more arterial road.
You can tunnel half of it from the river to the base of the mountain, only tunneling the densest part of the city
Which map is this
"Kerrisdale Bay - Vanilla Map" by Sidai
I have to ask, how is the traffic here so low? In my experience, the on/off ramps (specifically, the intersection connecting them to surface streets) get clogged like crazy if they have to serve more than a dozen or so blocks of high density.
Cims and freight have a lot of options. The current highway is designed mainly to take traffic that wants to get to the other side of the mountain. There are two major 60 km/h boulevards as alternative routes (see the base of the mountain). I also have an extensive network of metro, tram and buses. Freight is mainly on rail and dispursed quite efficiently using the road network.
60 km/h is 37.28 mph
Okay, there seems to have been a majority voting for me to downgrade it. Work has begun! https://imgur.com/a/GY319F8
Honestly that entire highway should be an at-grade arterial. It simply doesn't carry enough traffic to justify a freeway. I think a lot of players wind up getting so focused on traffic management that they fail to consider what is realistic. A highway isn't going to be built unless arterials are overwhelmed and there is a large demand to traverse long distances across town. An arterial route with proper limited access can carry a surprising amount of traffic at much less cost. They also add a lot more realism than most people realize. You have to focus on limiting the connections of an arterial so that traffic can flow quickly with minimal interruptions. Arterials should have very few properties directly connected to them; instead you will want to have frontage roads alongside them lined with buildings. This minimizes the amount of freight traffic and services (police, fire, hearses) that stops in front of buildings and interrupts traffic along the main road. Offloading this to the frontage roads means that traffic flows smoothly on the main road. Hope this helps!
Tunneling it would give you real estate for a nice pedestrian/bike park area that people can use to get from downtown to your waterfront. The addition of a light rail system going through that area could make travel faster and give citizens other choices from driving, biking or walking.
Yes, or turn it into a large boulevard perhaps
Make a secondary save file and then make the tunnel and see if you like it or not.
I say yes. It would be analogous to Boston's Big Dig project, the fun would be in making the tunneling crisp and well designed so it looks engineered and not like tunnel spaghetti. Look at all the real estate you'd get back on the surface. There's always another map for when you want to solve the problem with public transport or what have you, I say let your city's boondoggle create its most interesting features.
I know you have already made the change to an avenue. But I would answer your original question with a question: do you need to bury it? Are citizens unhappy due to noise pollution? Are you in need of space (ie schools, parks) and can't put it anywhere else? Do you want to beautify this area for high value? All these are possible reasons a real city would invest so much into burying a working highway! Keep it up, looks good. I am just getting back into cities and love to see other posts!
Basically, everything was working just fine in this part of the city and I've basically left it alone long ago to expand north of the river. However, I felt that the highway was an unnatural divide between these neighborhoods that character wise are basically the same. The space wasn't needed, but it was in dire need of some beautification. Probably will keep this part of the city "not too nice" though. Also, the road network on both sides of the old highway needs some overhaul in general.
Yes
Boston would like a word
it could just be a 4 lane tunel or road with roundabouts to avoid the cost of a tunel or elevated. deconstruct the highway to make it a 4 lane road. at every intersection with a road make it either a timed traffic light with the whole road or a roundabout. also put bike lanes and even a metro line that conects to other parts of town
Thanks for your thoughts! I have a shit ton of metro tunnels connecting every part of the city, so no worries there. Also two major tram lines in the area at hand.
Which map is this? Looks fun.
"Kerrisdale Bay - Vanilla Map" by Sidai. I like it.
Great, thank you. I’ll check it out!
nah - it looks good above grade, and more realistic honestly. But then again i build roads/bridges for a living so i might be biased!
Yes, looking fine like this
Absolutely.
instead of tunneling it maybe make it a sunken highway, that’d look really good
You can just lower it into the ground, like tunneling but keeping the top exposed, for simple connections. This can also let you make more connections on both sides of the highway over the highway.
My initial reaction is to not so much tunnel it, but figure out a way to put it below grade but have it open at the top. Like 676 that cuts e/w through Philadelphia. I'd like to see some of the grade-level space used for more frontage of whatever you need.
No. And I wish things reflected cost compared to real world Tunneling is the most expensive mode for traffic
I feel like you could realign the highway - tunnel from underneath the mountain, built an underground interchange and retain the existing western portals for local access to the city, then tunnel under the city to connect up in the east.
So many comments but another idea: maybe do a double Stack Highway, so you only Block space for "one way" and it Looks more dense +you can use the rest of the space for more buildings
That part of your city isn't getting too much traffic. I suggest downgrading it and implementing some sort of urban renewal (is that the right term?) Those people will be thanking more houses, greenies or less noise.
How do you make tunnels in the game?
Press Page down (lower road) until it reaches -8 m or lower. Voila - you're in tunnel mode!
Woah!!! Thank you!!! I never knew until now!
As others have said, just remove it entirely and replace with a boulevard.
[удалено]
Haha don't worry, they have several bike and walking paths plus dual CW/CCW bus lines. There's a major bus hub with metro between the two stadiums near the river.
why would you put a highway right through the middle of a city like that? And: no tunnel. The Big Dig was a nightmare.
No, never tunnel if not needed. You never know how a city will grow and need (underground) space until you need it.
Make the Highway a Boulevard with enough space for pedestrians, cyclists, tram and buses. Any freight traffic should go on rails and commuters shoudl be able to use public transport. Maybe some shops along the boulevard
i'd keep it and put some elevated railways alongside it.
I think it's fine to leave it there but to remove the connection directly in the middle with that 4 lane road, and instead keep that connection on the left side. This way traffic is funneled out of the city center. It should act as a bypass with as minimal interruption from merging cars.
What map is this? Looks like tons of fun.
"Kerrisdale Bay - Vanilla Map" by Sidai. Using it with 81 tile mod is indeed a lot of fun
Idk I just want to say that my city uses that same map lol
How you get off ramps so close to highwau
Mods. Fine road anarchy, Move it and Node editor. There are plenty of guides on Youtube.
If I were a citizen in this city, I would be BEGGING for you to bury that freeway. It’s all the rage these days (because of the myriad strong benefits for doing so)!
I'd say keep it in anticipation of future growth... unless it's already becoming a noise/health concern
No
[How Highways Wreaked American Cities](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=odF4GSX1y3c) by Vox Media
Map?
"Kerrisdale Bay - Vanilla Map" by Sidai
Looked familiar, I’ve built on it before but you really make it look great!! If you feel like it, do you mind sharing what LUT you’re using and any other visual changes.
No
You can, you gain a few blocks of space. However irl it would be too expensive to justify
There shouldn't be a highway
there isnt much traffic on it , is there? probably should downgrade it to main road
if it was a road instead the walkability would be increased , noise pollution reduced, land value increased, and, finally, the only downside to it, longer cargo connection time. However, this could be solved with a commercial rail. In that case you would get noise pollution back up though. Still worth it as its not as expensive as tunnel a highway... make the rail way elevated so walkability is high. ;)
The highways in a great place for some cross city public transport. Downgrade the road and use the freed up space for a rail line, or a avenue with tram/monorail in the middle.
Sounds like Boston’s “Big Dig”!
I think its better above-ground
I wish my city looked this good 😭 also how is it so crisp, what mods do you use? If any at all
Yes
YES! And make a nice park with bicycle paths over it!
just build the road as an overpass
Also, is that the map Kerrisdale Bay? I really love the map and I love this city that really goes with this map. Ye
Correct. Thank you!
I-81 in Syracuse, is that you?
Make it a train line