We are working on a brand new version of the game! If you want to stay informed, read our blog and register for our mailing list.
Bill: Discussion: Sekowan Federal Defense Highway System
Details
Submitted by[?]: United Land Movement
Status[?]: passed
Votes: This bill is a resolution. It requires more yes votes than no votes. This bill will not pass any sooner than the deadline.
Voting deadline: November 2669
Description[?]:
| Federal Defense Interstate Highway Act I. Construction - 0.1 - We Propose the construction of the Defense Highways System as outlined here: http://i37.tinypic.com/20a2iqa.png Funding 1.1 The Folkstamma authorizes the creation of a fund for the purpose of constructing the sekowo's Interstate highway system. 1.2 The Folkstamma authorizes funding in the amount of $42.5bn over a period of 12 years. 1.3 Funding shall not be less than $3.54bn per year. 1.4 Upkeep and maintenance of the Interstate Highway System will fall to the Department of Infrastructure and Transport. 1.5 The Minister of Infrastructure and Transport will allot a minimum of $2.5bn annually from their budget to maintain the system. 2.1 Administration of funds will be overseen by the Secretaries of Defense, Infrastructure, and Finance. 2.2 Construction will be overseen by the Secretaries of Defense and Infrastructure. 3.1 Additional allocation of funds, in addition to the original $42.5bn for the project must be voted on by the Folkstamma. Specifications Defense - 1.1 Defense systems are to be incorporated into parts of the interstate network which are deemed critical by the ministry of defense; these are to include portions of the Interstate systems which will act as runways. 1.2 Upon passing of this bill the Defense Department will outline plans for aforementioned defense systems. 1.3 The Minister of Defense will allocate a portion of the Defense department's budget to cover the additional defensive measures. 1.4 The administration of the Interstate's Strategic Defense Network will fall to the Department of Defense, with exception of sections that are to act as runways. 2.1 High occupancy vehicle lanes, for carpool usage will be constructed. 2.2. Computer controlled traffic control systems will be incorporated in to 1/2 of the initially constructed lanes. 2.3 Traffic monitoring systems will be incorporated in to the Interstate Network to monitor traffic flow. 2.4 Automated speed detection systems will be incorporated in the Interstate Network II. Use - 1.1 Administration of the Interstate Highway System shall be within the domain of the Secretary of Infrastructure and Transport, except when a state of emergency has been declared or in time of active military conflict at home. 1.2 Administration of the Interstate Highway System shall be within the domain of the Secretary of Defense when a state of emergency has been declared or in time of active military conflict at home. 2.1 Only multiple occupancy vehicles may use the High occupancy vehicle lanes. 2.2 vehicles with more than 8 wheels can not use the left most lane on any stretch of the Interstate System. 2.3 The following categorical speed limits are hereby established: Terrain Based Standards: * Class A, B, and C, Vehicles may not exceed vehicle based standards, even when otherwise posted. However, when posted speed is less than the vehicle based standard, posted limits supersede vehicle based speed limit. * Areas where construction workers and/or maintenance workers are present - 80 km/h (50 mi/h) * Areas that contain straight sections with grade greater than 5% - 120 (75 mi/h) * Areas that contain curves equal or less than 15 degrees - 115 km/h (~70 mi/h) * Areas that contain curves equal or less than 45 degrees - 80 km/h (50 mi/h) * Areas that contain curves greater than 45 degrees - 70 km/h (~45 mi/h) * Areas that contain long straight sections with a low road elevation grade - Unrestricted (Vehicle Based Standards Apply) Vehicle Standard Based: Class A *Buses carrying standing passengers - 70 km/h (~45 mi/h) *Motorcycles pulling trailers - 70 km/h (~45 mi/h) Class B *Vehicles with maximum allowed weight exceeding 3.5 t (except passenger cars) - 80 km/h (50 mi/h) *Passenger cars and trucks with trailers - 80 km/h (50 mi/h) *Buses - 80 km/h (50 m/h) Class C *Passenger cars pulling trailers certified for 100 km/h - 100 km/h (62 mi/h) *Buses certified for 100 km/h not pulling trailers - 100 km/h (62 mi/h) Class D *Passenger cars - as posted *Motorcycles Without trailers - as posted -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- NOTES: http://i9.photobucket.com/albums/a80/Lost_It_Again/SekowoDefenseHighwaySystem2.png Additional Route 8, fromPelia (15) to Ibrakai (2) to Se'tle (4) to be added. East- West routes are labeled with even numbers, starting north and going to the south. North-South routes are labeled with odd numbers, starting in the west and going to the east. There are currently 8 routes, in the plan. Total Estimated Costs: $42.5bn Total Estimated Construction Time: 12 years Annual Cost for Construction: $3.54bn It will cost about $2.5bn to maintain the system annually after it is constructed. This is a long term investment in the security of Sekowo. Base Maps: Sekowo Topographic Map: http://i9.photobucket.com/albums/a80/Lost_It_Again/Sekowo.png (Built from the Topographic map of Dovani) Sekowo Topographic Map w/ Cities: http://i9.photobucket.com/albums/a80/Lost_It_Again/SekowoWithCitiesOverlayed.png (Note the topographic map, and the city base map varied slightly, and thus the cities locations were warped a little bit.) Edit - OOC: Photo bucket shank my images down from 1025x1200. If you\'re in need of a full size map, I would happily provide it by other means. -.- /Edit Methodology for cost estimate: By best guess, Sekowo proper is ~1,000,000 square kilometers. Hard to do since there are 3 provinces with 0 square kilometers, but if you estimate them to be roughly the same size as the other two on average, it would come to 1,000,000 square kilometers. The U.S. is about 10,000,000 square kilometers. a system to cover 1/10 the area should cost ~1/10 the amount, and 1/10 the cost to maintain... Thoughts, yes/no/maybe? OOC: If this were to be built all 8 routes, would need toponyms. For example, MD 704 is Martin Luther King Highway, and US 1 is Jeff Davis Highway. |
Proposals
Debate
These messages have been posted to debate on this bill:
| Date | 22:39:43, November 12, 2008 CET | From | 帝国公明党 (Teikoku Kōmeitō) | To | Debating the Discussion: Sekowan Federal Defense Highway System |
| Message | We already have a massive MagLev transport system connecting not only Sekowo proper, but the entire commonwealth. Why do we need highways, which would allow for the furtherment of polluting vehicles? OOC: The map nearly swayed me, but I need a good reason, since Sekowo\'s even more connected by trains and MagLevs than Europe is. |
| Date | 23:37:03, November 12, 2008 CET | From | Normand Pluralist Party | To | Debating the Discussion: Sekowan Federal Defense Highway System |
| Message | [[Nice maps]] We oppose such federal engorgements. |
| Date | 23:41:19, November 12, 2008 CET | From | Normand Pluralist Party | To | Debating the Discussion: Sekowan Federal Defense Highway System |
| Message | [[BTW, In the US route #ering is based on distance from the (West/South) border for interstate routes, and from the (North/East) border for US routes. It\'s a grid-like system. See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/U.S._Highway_System#Numbering]] |
| Date | 01:52:03, November 13, 2008 CET | From | 帝国公明党 (Teikoku Kōmeitō) | To | Debating the Discussion: Sekowan Federal Defense Highway System |
| Message | OOC: A larger version of the map would be helpful. I did\'nt know photobucket actually did that, I mean it\'s never shrank any of my images atleast. |
| Date | 07:31:10, November 13, 2008 CET | From | United Land Movement | To | Debating the Discussion: Sekowan Federal Defense Highway System |
| Message | I\'d like to see a 47 ton Maglev car move 67 ton tank. Maglev, unlike conventional rail is not conducive to moving large amounts of freight. Maglev systems are intentionally made ultra-light because it takes a massive electrical field to levitate heavy objects. It\'s not practical, or possible to move heavy freight with a Maglev. Not to mention, Maglevs are dependent on the power grid and generation systems being operational. Power lines, relay stations, and generation facilities are highly susceptible to sabotage. |
| Date | 07:47:02, November 13, 2008 CET | From | United Land Movement | To | Debating the Discussion: Sekowan Federal Defense Highway System |
| Message | Also, here are full sized images... Topographical - http://i35.tinypic.com/fdacmb.jpg Route Map - http://i34.tinypic.com/29opnw2.png Topographical w/ cities - http://i38.tinypic.com/14bq2ae.png |
| Date | 08:08:39, November 13, 2008 CET | From | 帝国公明党 (Teikoku Kōmeitō) | To | Debating the Discussion: Sekowan Federal Defense Highway System |
| Message | OOC: Was the leaving out of a Route 8 intentional, or accidental? |
| Date | 13:29:50, November 13, 2008 CET | From | United Land Movement | To | Debating the Discussion: Sekowan Federal Defense Highway System |
| Message | Intentional, there were 5 North/South Routes, and 3 East/West Routes. so there are more odd numbered routes than there are even numbered routes. That is why 8 is missing. |
| Date | 19:32:19, November 13, 2008 CET | From | Conservative Party | To | Debating the Discussion: Sekowan Federal Defense Highway System |
| Message | We like infrastructure development as it encourages economics growth. So, you have a tentative support. We would like to mention that we do not see any reason for giving alphabetical names to our highways. However, I\'d like to know why this is a \"defence\" highway. Will this be restricted to defence vehicles or can the general population use it as well? |
| Date | 21:18:47, November 13, 2008 CET | From | United Land Movement | To | Debating the Discussion: Sekowan Federal Defense Highway System |
| Message | The reason why this is a defense highway system is because the system improves the mobility of military troops to and from airports, seaports, rail terminals and other military bases. In addition to providing key ground transport routes for military supplies and troop deployments in case of an emergency or foreign invasion, it would also help facilitate commercial and private traffic OOC: \"\'alphabetical names\" aren\'t really necessary, but it does add a bit a flavor. |
| Date | 03:35:51, November 14, 2008 CET | From | 帝国公明党 (Teikoku Kōmeitō) | To | Debating the Discussion: Sekowan Federal Defense Highway System |
| Message | After considering it we are willing to support this only if the following is included; -Atleast half the lanes have computer control systems, that is cars can be put under the power of the central system to be moved along efficiently and fastly. -The system be completely linked. -Defence systems be incorporated into strategic parts of the network. OOC: That\'s sort of silly, just skipping a number. Also, the last thing, I\'m thinking along the lines of integrating say missile launchers and weapon stockpiles in parts of the roads near major cities and strategic areas. |
| Date | 04:08:18, November 14, 2008 CET | From | Revolutionary State Socialist Party | To | Debating the Discussion: Sekowan Federal Defense Highway System |
| Message | OOC: DSP, you havn\'t studies the US interstates much have you? IC: Don\'t forget long straight strips for bombers/backup runways. (autobahn had them, and US interstates rumored to have some) |
| Date | 04:09:51, November 14, 2008 CET | From | Revolutionary State Socialist Party | To | Debating the Discussion: Sekowan Federal Defense Highway System |
| Message | Also extend route 1 a bit and maybe a connection, we have a major militia base in the area that could benefit. |
| Date | 05:59:21, November 14, 2008 CET | From | United Land Movement | To | Debating the Discussion: Sekowan Federal Defense Highway System |
| Message | Original: http://i9.photobucket.com/albums/a80/Lost_It_Again/SekowoDefenseHighwaySystem.png Route 1 Extended: http://i9.photobucket.com/albums/a80/Lost_It_Again/SekowoDefenseHighwaySystem2.png - All lanes on the system are non-stop, just like interstate systems in reality. -The system would be completely linked by existing local roads, which logically you\'d assume exist but still remain undefined in RP terms, and since as far as I know the rail system, seaports, and airports remain undefined, It\'s kind of hard to say they\'d be \"linked\" to the network, without having a concrete location. Also, not to mention the scale problem of representing them as connected. In Regard to: - Defence systems be incorporated into strategic parts of the network. - Dont forget long straight strips for bombers/backup runways. (autobahn had them, and US interstates rumored to have some) Representing these on the map is not really possible, since 1px on the full 1025x1200 map is about 3.3 km^2. and considering the worlds largest 12.1 km in length. it would be all of 3px in length, and military battery emplacements might be 1px. |
| Date | 06:47:39, November 14, 2008 CET | From | Conservative Party | To | Debating the Discussion: Sekowan Federal Defense Highway System |
| Message | Although we would prefer \'Defense\' removed from the name (to make it apparant that this is a multi-purpose highway system), CP gives full support. DSP, we believe the computer control systems are good in theory but impractical in terms of costs. Perhaps in the future, but not now. We would like to propose four ideas: 1) multi-occupant vehicle 2) vehicles with more than 8 wheels can not use the left lane 3) categorical speed limits (150 km/h, 120 km/h, 100 km/h, 80 km/h, 60 km/h) for different areas (curves, straights, etc.) 4) automated photo laser radar |
| Date | 06:48:26, November 14, 2008 CET | From | Conservative Party | To | Debating the Discussion: Sekowan Federal Defense Highway System |
| Message | 1) multi-occupant vehicle lanes (loaded taxis, loaded buses, car-pools, etc.) |
| Date | 12:44:38, November 14, 2008 CET | From | Normand Pluralist Party | To | Debating the Discussion: Sekowan Federal Defense Highway System |
| Message | We still oppose such a plan. |
| Date | 23:38:05, November 14, 2008 CET | From | 帝国公明党 (Teikoku Kōmeitō) | To | Debating the Discussion: Sekowan Federal Defense Highway System |
| Message | TGP; They don\'t have to be put in the map, just as written in as part of the bill, it makes it possible to refer back to this in the future in any conflict so we are\'nt accused of godmodding. Also, you\'re right o the size, Sekowo, from my best estimates (which are used on the wiki) is 1,048,000 square kilometers in size. Also I\'d like to propose making a route 8 connecting routes 1, 5 and 9. CP; It\'s much more cost effective to have such systems built while the system itself is being built rather than waiting until after and having to spend much more to essentially tear the road up to add them and stall the flow of traffic. |
| Date | 04:46:22, November 16, 2008 CET | From | United Land Movement | To | Debating the Discussion: Sekowan Federal Defense Highway System |
| Message | A possible 8th route could run from Argolia (16) to Kasmenai (1) and connect to route 9 at Set\'le 4 (connecting 1,3,4,5,9), or farther south, it could run from Pelia (15) to Ibaraki (2) bisecting route 9 between Set\'le (4) and Sno\'quam (3) (connecting 1,5,7,4, and 9). OCC: I can edit the map to show the change, when I return to uni on moday. |
| Date | 04:55:58, November 16, 2008 CET | From | 帝国公明党 (Teikoku Kōmeitō) | To | Debating the Discussion: Sekowan Federal Defense Highway System |
| Message | I was thinking having one from Pelia (15) to Ibrakai (2) to Se\'tle (4), since Ibaraki is at a major crossroads. |
| Date | 06:45:38, November 16, 2008 CET | From | United Land Movement | To | Debating the Discussion: Sekowan Federal Defense Highway System |
| Message | Bill updated with bill draft. |
| Date | 04:45:28, November 17, 2008 CET | From |  Imperial Pluralism Party | To | Debating the Discussion: Sekowan Federal Defense Highway System |
| Message | Great job, and very thorough work. We support |
| Date | 05:14:06, November 17, 2008 CET | From | 帝国公明党 (Teikoku Kōmeitō) | To | Debating the Discussion: Sekowan Federal Defense Highway System |
| Message | We echo the AUP. One last thing though, we think it best to set a maximum speed limit of 65 mph, as vehicles become less fuel efficient as speed increases. OOC: Incidentally the efficiency thing is why we had a national speed limit of 55 up until the early 90\'s in the US. |
| Date | 08:09:53, November 18, 2008 CET | From | Conservative Party | To | Debating the Discussion: Sekowan Federal Defense Highway System |
| Message | DSP, first off, it depends on how a car is geared. Car are capable of being efficient beyond 65 mph. Secondly, I think it would be best to use km/h rather than mph. 100 km/h = 62 mph <- intra-city 110 km/h = 68 mph <- suburbs 120 km/h = 75 mph <- farmlands / open highway OOC: Just because Particracy uses metric system and so does 6 billion other inhabitants of this Earth. I am glad U.S. likes to stick up for its history and keep the same thing going on long after its expiry date but you know, just to be more internationally-friendly, metric is a bit better. |
| Date | 00:30:40, November 19, 2008 CET | From | 帝国公明党 (Teikoku Kōmeitō) | To | Debating the Discussion: Sekowan Federal Defense Highway System |
| Message | OOC: TGP is using both, I just use MPH because I don't like converting, and I sort of figured all of us used it, I mean being Canada's one of the two countries that officially use Metric but unofficially use Imperial to some extent as well. |
| Date | 03:49:41, November 19, 2008 CET | From | Revolutionary State Socialist Party | To | Debating the Discussion: Sekowan Federal Defense Highway System |
| Message | DEspite being US, I'm almost more familier with metric by now. |
| Date | 07:29:59, November 20, 2008 CET | From | Conservative Party | To | Debating the Discussion: Sekowan Federal Defense Highway System |
| Message | OOC: Ja. In English Canada, Imperial is used in weight and heights and such although speeds are in metric. French Canada is more pro-metric (probably because of those French seperatists =D). Although at the airports and borders, we have signs that say: 100 km/h != 100 mph Some Americans have used it as an excuse and they have legally gotten away with it because Canada was not "clear" about its speed policy. We don't have the units on the signs. Although, now we do see it more often. Regretably, you can not do such a thing with a provincial license. =) <sigh> |
| Date | 17:04:24, November 21, 2008 CET | From | United Land Movement | To | Debating the Discussion: Sekowan Federal Defense Highway System |
| Message | Cars tend to get the same amount of fuel efficiency at 30mph as they do at 70mph, so if you want to ban driving over 65mph because of emissions then you should also ban driving under 30mph. Since most people do most of their driving at under 40mphs, it amounts to much more emissions than driving over 70mph ;-) |
subscribe to this discussion - unsubscribe
Voting
| Vote | Seats | ||||||
| yes |
Total Seats: 369 | ||||||
| no | Total Seats: 0 | ||||||
| abstain |
Total Seats: 160 |
| Random fact: "Spamming", or the indiscriminate posting of unsolicited messages, is not allowed. |
| Random quote: "Any system that takes responsibility away from people, dehumanises them." - Author Unknown |