h a l f b a k e r yBreakfast of runners-up.
add, search, annotate, link, view, overview, recent, by name, best, random
news, help, about, links, report a problem
browse anonymously,
or get an account
and write.
register,
|
|
|
Following a couple of recent posts about roads I thought I'd post something I thought of years ago.
Instead of intersections and their attendant danger to vehicle passengers, every intersection is replaced with a bridge.
Every second intersection is an overpass, every other is an underpass.
Turning is only possible at underpass intersections.
The effect is that of a giant basket or cloth weave.
Construction, by the chronically unemployed, creates a massive boost to the economy and teaches construction skills to millions.
They, in turn, can help rebuild other countries infrastructure and see the world, or as [neelandan] suggests, set up in business with sedan chairs or ricksha.
The major benefit to this system is that the design creates two entirely separate road systems, allowing two entirely separate cities to exist in the one spot. This will cut down on overcrowding on our already abused planet.<grin>
Ocean Park and 4th Street
http://www.multimap...=256&multimap.y=221
I'm sure it looks even better if you're there. [angel, Apr 19 2002, last modified Oct 05 2004]
Hemel Hempstead Magic Roundabout
http://www.multimap...=354&multimap.y=241
See also http://www.bbc.co.uk/dna/h2g2/alabaster/A381089 [synaesthesia, Apr 23 2002, last modified Oct 05 2004]
[link]
|
| |
You could turn on overpasses with on/off ramps - there is one at Ocean Park and 4th Street in Santa Monica, CA which is quite lovely - even offers a distracting view of the Mighty, soon-to-be-drained Pacific Ocean. |
|
| |
I have discovered a fatal flaw. |
|
| |
[Added later: as is often the case, it turns out this is not a bug, but a feature.] |
|
| |
If turning is only possible at underpasses, and every second junction is an underpass, then doesn't it follow that you'd have created two distinct grids of traffic flow which would never intersect? In fact, the grid of overpasses would not be accessible at all. |
|
| |
--1--2--3--4--5--6--7--8
A #--+--#--+--#--+--#--+
B +--#--+--#--+--#--+--#
C #--+--#--+--#--+--#--+
D +--#--+--#--+--#--+--#
E #--+--#--+--#--+--#--+
F +--#--+--#--+--#--+--#
G #--+--#--+--#--+--#--+
H +--#--+--#--+--#--+--# |
|
| |
Legend:
overpass: +(turning is not possible)
underpass: # (turning is possible)
road between intersections: -
1,2,3...: avenues (run north-south)
A,B,C...: streets (run east-west) |
|
| |
Start at the intersection at A1. You can drive south or east. If you drive east, along A street, you can only turn onto the odd numbered avenues. Along any of those avenues, you can only turn back on to the 'odd' lettered streets (C, E, or G). And again, along any of _those_ streets, turning is only possible onto the odd numbered avenues. |
|
| |
The situation is exactly the same if you drive south from A1, only the order is switched. |
|
| |
This plan creates two nested street 'grids', the odd grid (discussed) and an even grid, which can never be accessed. |
|
| |
You're going to need to make some turning allowances. |
|
| |
Did I forget to mention that? It also cuts down on urban sprawl, as two cities can peacefully co-exist in the same location, without ever needing to come in contact with each other. |
|
| |
Hehe, that's true. If you start driving at B1, you can drive the whole 'even' grid. Now you just need to provide separate entrances to the grids. |
|
| |
Croissant for this revelation. |
|
| |
And here I always thought the expression was "weft and warp." |
|
| |
You know, Winnipeg, Canada has some streets like this, where one is an overpass with a mild elevation and the street passing under it is set into a small depression. |
|
| |
"peacefully co-exist" -UnaBubba? Not if they start dropping water balloons from overpasses on underpasses. |
|
| |
Same thing, bris. Same roots, wefan (I think) old English, probably earlier Germanic. Both are the crosswise threads, Warp is the lengthwise thread direction in a weave. |
|
| |
Holy shit, I was explaining this EXACT thing to a friend a few months ago! It never occured to me to post it here...Damn you, Mr. Bubba, and your time machine... |
|
| |
Sorry, Mr. Ass. 'Twere not deliberate gazumping, mind thee. |
|
| |
There's a good thought. The local council has started spraying colo(u)red material on inner city roads here. Apparently it's a scheme to denote preferred road usages. |
|
| |
I'm sure this would be popular in Scotland. |
|
| |
Bus stops where I live have recently had all their shelters and even the pole with the details of times and route numbers removed. Now all you have is a different type of kerbside with yellow knobbly paving stones, and a red tarmac place indicating where the bus will park. It looks funny to see people apparently standing aimlessly on the pavement.
In the summer in (I can't remember, is it Athens or Rome?) there is a rule that cars whose numberplates start with the first, third (etc) letter of the alphabet can come into the city on Mondays, Wednesdays (etc) and the other lot vice versa. Meaning that the roads are only used by half the cars which would otherwise be able to get into the city. This cuts down on Pollution.
<joking>If this Upstairs-Downstairs city model were used in the US, of course there is no pollution problem so you can have as many cars as you like</joking> ...you could develop better community integration between the A/C/E/G:1/3/5/7 city and the B/D/F/H:2/4/6/8 city by having odd number cars in the former on Mondays and even number cars in the latter. Then even number cars in the former on Tuesdays and so on... all cars are used at once but eerybody has to have two jobs, both of which are part-time. You could also have two families I suppose... rather like the comedy 'Goodnight Sweetheart', without the time travel. |
|
| |
sappho, I would have thought that the Athens or Rome traffic control plan you relate would create a situation where anyone who works in the city would need to own two cars. |
|
| |
Or, cheaper, two sets of registration plates. |
|
| |
What about pedestrians? Let's have stairs between the cities please! |
|
| |
An alternative to making turning impossible at overpass intersections would be to have one-way traffic on every street, the direction alternating between adjacent streets. Or make the entire area a mesh of Magic Roundabouts like the one in Hemel Hempstead (see link). |
|
| |
That would defeat the purpose of the dual city concept. |
|
| |
The beauty of this idea is that you are not limited to just 2 separate road systems. You could interweave further grids to create 3, 4, 5, or more separate cities sharing the same area of land; with a third grid you would only be able to turn every 3rd junction, etc. |
|
| |
To save myself posting the idea of 'Out of Phase Pedestrian Crossings' which has been sitting in my brain and organiser for at least three months: |
|
| |
If you replace one of the road systems in this idea with pedestrian routes you get a city with easily accessible pedestrian malls at the junction of the pedestrian routes and do away with those silly pedestrian crossings at road junctions that seem to be springing up in the UK with the sole purpose of distracting the driver when he's already thinking of six things at once. |
|
| |
How can an intersection be only an overpass or only an underpass? I presume what you mean is that every second intersection has turning ramps, regardless of whether the road takes the overpass or the underpass. |
|
| |
How exactly do you get twice the number of people in the same space simply by changing the roadways? Is there another city to be built on stilts over the old city. There will still be the same number of buildings. Besides, the model you propose would have the same route going over and under alternately. How does one then stay on the "upper" city roadways. Also, in order to allow traffic to turn (from multiple turn lanes sometimes) you would need larger intersections to hold the seperate turn lanes since they would have to make the turn before they go over or under the intersection. |
|
| |
[synaesthesia] I don't think I'd want to try to drive across an entire city of circles. Think of the potential for accidents. |
|
| |
You really don't understand how this works, do you [nitehawk]? |
|
| |
I guess not [UnaBubba]. Please explain to me how a city magically expands in size due to seperate roadways. Or better yet, how you stop the inhabitants from mingling. |
|
| |
You simply call one city by one name and the other city by another name. |
|
| |
Since the streets don't meet each other you end up with high density housing in city 1 on streets A, C, E, G, I, K, M, O, Q, etc. which has common fences with the housing in city 2 on streets B, D, F, H, J, L, N, P, etc. |
|
| |
2 separate municipalities, 2 separate communities, sharing the same space. |
|
| |
It don't matter what you call them. You are not gonna get anymore people in the city than it can currently hold. You can call them seperate communities, great, whatever, don't see the point, but you will not prevent urban sprawl or any other population related problem. It won't hold any more people than it currently does. Besides, who wants to live in two seperate communities in one area? What's the attraction? Lower taxes? Cheaper rent? I'd simply live in the cheaper community and WALK over to the better paying one to go to work. |
|
| |
Nowhere does the idea state it would fit twice as many people as one city would otherwise hold. You made that part up. |
|
| |
It does mention that it will cut down on overcrowding, with a <grin> after it, but it says nothing about doubling population density. |
|
| |
Sorry. Missed the <grin>. Thought you were serious. Still don't see the benefit or attraction of two cities in one area. |
|
| |
Increased trade; Easier to go on holiday to another city; Shorter commutes for business; Sports rivalry; Different architecture; Parents can be closer to their kids, when they go off to university... |
|
| |
Still don't see it as an improvement other than shorter drive times. If I live right next to the people from the "other city" I don't see how it's going to seem like a separate commnunity and the only way you are going to get seperate architecture is to start from scratch and build a whole new city with that as the plan. People are still going to build and design how they want. You have similar architechture in hundreds of citys. Are you going to prohibit architects from designing for the "other" city? As far as sports rivalrys, you don't need a seperate city for that. Ask the Mets and the Yankees. |
|
| |
Did someone accidentally disable your irony and humour circuits, or something? |
|
| |