Jump to content

irdesi

Member
  • Content Count

    29
  • Joined

  • Last Visited

  1. Guess the Airport!

    berubium, you're right, it definitely is Pocatello. How in the world did you know that?!
  2. Gas Tax

    Originally posted by: duack Originally posted by: manticorefan Sounds like a regressive tax that hits the poor hardest. The jobs lost would also fall on the poor first. A tax credit for higher mileage vehicles, and maybe a gov't buyout for those with low-mileage vehicles would make more sense.quote> Actually it would be a flat rate tax . They also hit the poorest hardest though. The US is unequal enough as it is so no. besides, you want everything to be as cheap as possible quote> Since perhaps not everyone here knows how exactly a regressive tax is defined: A regressive tax means that poorer segments of the population pay more as a percentage of their total income for a certain good, like gasoline. Although the gas tax is flat in the sense that everyone pays the same amount of tax per gallon, it is actually a regressive tax in that the poor lose a larger percentage of their income to that tax than do the rich, especially since the poor may have to use nearly as much gasoline as the rich without making as much income. There are no significant examples of economically-defined flat taxes in the United States at this time. Most taxes are either progressive (income tax) or regressive (sales tax, excise taxes like gasoline). In regard to raising the gas tax, I am all for it. The infrastructure of the United States is crumbling. Sometimes people who live in areas of the country that are newer don't really see the effects, but I can see them all around me here in New England. I can think of 5 bridges off the top of my head that had become/are inservicable in the past two years for periods of months at a time. I had also driven over the I-35W bridge in Minneapolis less than a week before it failed, and my uncle had crossed it earlier that morning bringing his daughter from the airport. Nationally, one bridge used to carry motorized traffic fails every week. We need to repair our infrastructure. There are some people who will have trouble paying the tax, but let's go back to the early 20th century, when this country had no minimum wage laws. Until the time that FDR with his forceful hand pushed through the Fair Labor Standards Act, business consistently complained that it could not afford to pay minimum wage, and it was an obstruction of commerce to have a minimum wage, and that they would hire less workers if they had to have a minimum wage. I think the sweet spot for the cost of gas will be around $2.75-$3.00, where the majority of people were changing their ways while keeping the numbers of people extremely hurt by this down. Unfortunately, I think passing a significant gas tax increase nationwide will be a political nightmare. However, fights like the minimum wage battle started on the state level, where numerous individual states had already required minimum wage. We already have state gas taxes, so the precedent has been set. Here in Massachusetts, a poll was recently conducted among drivers leaving the RMV as to whether to increase the gas tax. Although a majority, obviously, said they would rather have no tax increase, they overwhelmingly prefered an increase in the gas tax instead of an increase in the Mass. Turnpike tolls or in some wacky mileage-based taxation using a transponder chip proposed by the governor (that one appealed to the masses who go for anything with the word "computer"). Generally progressive states will have to take the lead in increasing the tax, as has happened for many other intiatives. Then, other states may catch on as well, until the federal government finally gets its act together and raises the tax nationwide. This method is also appealing because, like the minimum wage, it can be tailored state-by-state depending on the living conditions. We have to do something. In September, most people at my high school were getting picked up in sedans and compacts. Now, even before the snow hit, the mid and large size SUV's have returned in full force. It's the '70s all over again unless we make changes now.
  3. Guess the Airport!

    #3 is Houari Boumedienne Airport, Algiers, Algeria.
  4. Guess the Airport!

    Given craft from BA, Etihad, and SAA, along with modernisation work in the background, #1 is definitely O R Tambo International Airport, Johannesburg. #2 and #3, no idea.
  5. Guess the Airport!

    I don't think its Denver, as Denver uses parallel midfield concourses instead of piers. Is it Phoenix Sky Harbor?
  6. One Blue Sky - Airport Recreations

    I would suggest Boston...but yeah...well, that would be impossible -10/10. Sacramento looks great. For kicks, how about Albany International Airport (NY)? It's fairly small, with two 7200ft perpendicular runways. The only annoyance is a diagonal terminal pier.
  7. Wyreshire

    Wow! What a lovely map and history! Can I make one suggestion? You might want to consider reorienting the river behind a small hill at its headwaters so that it appears naturally. Right now, it sort of feels like the river just materializes without any streams/small tributaries.
  8. I haven't seen much change in Boston because the city is already highly transit oriented. The problem right now across Boston's entire CR and subway network is a lack of capacity. CR trains have always run with every seat taken during rush hour (both directions at each time - Boston has a very high proportion of reverse commuting), but there is still some standing room left even without adding extra cars. The problem is that all the park-and-rides are overflowing, as demonstrated by the fact that the station near me with about 300 spaces fills up by the 7:10am train, after which it is impossible to find a space, even though the trains with the most load would run around 8am. Talk about missed opportunities. Even the Alewife garage at the north end of the Red Line subway and with thousands of spaces fills up by about 8am. We need a serious influx of parking garages all across the system. Even then, the MBTA fleet is aging and facing numerous repair issues, sometimes rendering many tens of cars inoperable, despite the fact that more are needed even if all the current cars were operational. On the plus side, the MBTA did just open a new commuter rail line to the South Shore with much fanfare. Too bad that only put more pressure on the equipment shortage...Ugh...
  9. ACE airport lots

    Yes, that is why I used "generally". I would totally agree with you, there are a number of situations where a turnaround must be used. One of the busiest airports with such a design is CSIA in Mumbai, which requires a turnaround at the end of its (I think) crosswind runway I'm always amazed as to how they manage to keep an airport operating way over its capacity running in such situations without abominable delays. The context I had in making that comment was that 1) I was already getting longwinded and wanted to simplify 2) often, in the airports thread there have been airports constructed with the threshold beyond the last taxiway junction without any turnaround. That's what I wanted to avoid. [edit] Question, I was looking at a picture of Chennai airport. Its secondary runway has access from one end, but nothing at the other end, not even a turnaround. Most of its length has no adjoining taxiway. Still, the runway is fully marked from both ends, and although the airport is currently under renovation, from the grading it doesn't look like there ever was a parallel taxiway for that runway. Can someone explain this? Are small aircraft like CRJs and 737s able to turnaround within the confines of a runway? Thanks
  10. ACE airport lots

    Skybuilder, search the STEX for RMIP. TV-VCR, yes, the number of pieces can be intimidating. The key is to go step by step. Chances are you won't construct a perfect airport the first time. There are three places to look to understand proper airport construction. The readme included in the first segment of RMIP-2 is key to understanding how to construct a proper runway. Everything is expressed in tiles, so just count when you are using the pieces. I'd suggest printing a copy and keeping it for reference. The airports thread, linked above. That'll definitely give you some ideas. Take a look at satellite photos. That'll especially help you get the runway markings right if you want to model a specific country. Some general tips: One of the biggest issues in airports has been too much compression. Airports are big. Ideally, it's great to have a runway at least 3000m, so including the guidance systems at each end of the runway, you need an area around the full length of a large city tile. When you construct your airport, remember the width of aircraft. You want aircraft to be able to move around the airfield without any clearance issues against planes on parallel taxiways, parked at gate stands etc. In the game, the 747 is about 5 tiles wide. Generally, I like to have 3 tiles clearance on each side of the taxiway plus two for the taxiway itself. (so total width 8 tiles). On runways, it's nice to have 5 tiles on each side plus 2 for the runway (12 total). That makes for a 6 tile gap between taxiways and 8 tiles between runways and taxiways. Some layout ideas, Generally, runways will have a taxiway running their full length. Often, this is ignored but is critical. Whatever runway extends beyond the taxiway is useless unless there is space given to turn aircraft. Runways can either be paralleled by 1 or 2 taxiways. Although 1 is fine, most new airports have 2. This allows planes to move in both directions around the airfield without having to use the runway. When there is one taxiway, there will be either low traffic volumes so aircraft can move in either direction using a single taxiway without slowing down the movements of other aircraft, or the airfield will be set up so that all aircraft arrive from the hypothetical east end of the runway and depart from the west end (or vice versa - the point is no aircraft has to break the flow by traveling the other direction as the majority of aircraft). It would be too much to go into all the situations as to when to use two taxiways or one taxiway. Generally speaking, if the airport is more complex than one runway and one parallel terminal, you need two taxiways. Else, 1 will do just fine. Also, you pretty much only need 2 when there is a terminal present. Once you are outside of the terminal area, 1 is fine. This is because for the most part, runways operate uni-directionally. What I mean is, let's say you take runway 9/27. Runway 9 faces east, Runway 27 faces west (I think, it might be opposite). It's the same runway, the same pavement, but each direction is identified as a separate runway. At any given time, because it is preferred for aircraft to land and take off the same direction into the wind, only runway 9 or runway 27 would be used, not both. The plane will be facing the same direction when it touches the ground as when it lifts off. So since the runway is operating in one direction, the taxiway only needs to operate in the opposite direction. 2 taxiways are needed so that planes can move around a complicated terminal. I'm starting to ramble and I'm not sure how much detail you want, so I'll just provide you with a few extra useful links if you want to learn the terms. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Runway http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Taxiway http://virtualskies.arc.nasa.gov/main/mdesign.html One last thing: Arrows - for they will usually face in parallel with the taxiway or towards the inside for pieces constructed as half width. For runways, the arrows will face away from the midpoint of the runway, towards the far ends. Hope that helps.
  11. Guess the Airport!

    Tchyeah! Hm... The vegetation and the cars look pretty North American, but the terminal...hard to imagine that in NA.
  12. Guess the Airport!

    Brussels-Zaventem International Airport...their new concourse
  13. Worst City Planning

    I would also add that no other city in America can compare with Boston for suburban traffic. There are two things that Boston, and the rest of Massachusetts, have never had. Those are, roads wider than two lanes, and turn lanes. Keep in mind that Massachusetts overall is comparatively dense, with absolutely no unincorporated land in the state. My town is about 20 miles out from Boston with 25,000 people. Keep in mind that because Massachusetts is old, each town has less area than in other cities' suburbs. We have 1 four lane road, and that is a partially limited-access highway serving all of the north-central and northwestern part of the state. No other road in the town is 4 lane. <5% of our major intersections have turn lanes, none have dedicated lanes for right turns. We have 8 intersections equipped with traffic signals. The next town over didn't have one until 4 years ago...
  14. Worst City Planning

    Traffic in Boston has gotten so much better since the building of the CA/T. The old viaduct CA was by far the worst concept ever proposed for the City of Boston. Still, the financial district can be a real ***** to navigate. The city is the way it is, and I wouldn't call the whole feel bad planning because it simply was not designed for the automobile (the city is remarkably easy to navigate on foot, especially if you are a true Bostonian who knows how to jaywalk). The thing is though, streets might unexpectedly become ped malls, forcing you to take a little side street back to the next parallel street (there are a couple), forcing a 10 minute loop to get back to where you were and try to find another way around. Or a two way might turn to a one way, a oneway might split into two oneways going opposite directions, a oneway might split into two oneways running parallel but then diverge to different areas without any signage telling you where they go...ugh... Mass transit has fabulous coverage, but it is 100% radial. The city needs at least 3 routes around the circumference, one in the urban core, another in the vicinity of I-95, and perhaps another using existing freight rail lines around I-495.
×