Widths of taxiways

Any requirement for the width of taxiways for different sizes of aircrafts? (if no required widths, any recommended widths for aesthetic purposes?) planning my new airport for the large aircrafts :smiley:

3 tiles width is fine for small and 5 for medium a/c for a regular taxiway, bc taxiway width does not need to cover the whole wingspan of an aircraft. Since large runways will be 7 tiles wide, I would recommend that for taxiways too, not sure if 5 will be enough for large a/c. In apron area or for parallel taxiways you will need 5 tiles width for small and 9 for medium a/c to keep the wings clear of stands, roads or buildings. Large stands will be 16x16. My guess is 13 tiles width will be enough for apron taxiways but until we know for sure, 15 tiles width between stands for example is a safe bet.

1 Like

I do just about the same as fredehorn but a couple minor differences.

Parallel Taxiways

medium (and small if medium taxi need to taxi via) =
<-5 taxi-> <4 buffer-> <-5 taxi-> minimum (sometimes 3 buffer if I really need the extra space - however this is very very rare for me to do)

small (only) =
<-3 taxi-> <-1 buffer-> <-3 taxi-> minimum

Taxiway <–> Stand Clearance

medium =
<-5 taxi-> <-1 buffer-> <-2 service road-> <-Stand->… (so 3 tiles between taxiway and stand buffer)

small (if a large aircraft can transit the taxiway) =
same as medium

small (if no large aircraft will transit the taxiway) =
<-3 taxi-> <-0 buffer → <-stand-> … (GA CESSNA182 extra small a/c only)
<-3 taxi-> <-1 buffer → <-stand-> … (if no road need and/or I need to conserve space)
<-3 taxi-> <-2 service road-> <-stand->(if road needed and need space)
<-3 taxi-> <-1 buffer → <-2 service road-> <-stand-> (if I have lots of room and need the road there for vehicle access)

not sure about the large aircraft yet…

Hope that helps @alexwonglk

I go for 5 width + 2 safety margin as well, but the safety margin can be freely used by streets (expecting vehicles to be low enough to go underneath the wings).
For big aircraft I probably will stay with 5 width and just add more safety margin.
Maybe a funny example, I checked Google Maps at Munich Airport and they managed to show 3 different airplane sizes at once:

I can’t tell from the wings what is what, but the big one would probably fit into the large stand in ACEO. You can see that 50% of the total width is covered by taxiway.

The Taxiiway needs to be wide enough for the wheels of the aircraft - so I use 3 wide for small, 5 wide for medium and I imagine 7 wide for large.

To allow for the full wing span when taxiing past gates or structures, I use 5 for small, 7 for medium and I imagine it will be 9 or maybe 11 for large.

I’m hoping the developers will give us three types of taxiiway centre lines we can use - small, medium and large. So that large aircraft only use large, medium can use medium or large and small aircraft can use any. Otherwise we may see situations with a GA aircraft parking alley off a taxiiway with a Heavy being unrealistically routed down it.

1 Like

i use 3 for small aircraft and 5 in limited money for medium but wen not i use 7 for medium

In limited money I use simply 1-tile width taxiway just for the centerline with unoccupied space reservation around it, until I finish building everything else and I don’t need to worry about money. Then I start filling the reserved space around. I’ll be doing it this way for as long as widths aren’t enforced.

I do that too for my grass taxiways, one tile width with room to develop the rest of the taxiways in asphalt later on.

What about the sizes of the upcoming s/m/l runways?

S and M will be the same like now, just differ in length (S is like the current standard length, M will be 800m). L will be longer (I think somewhere I read 1400m) and wider (I’m not sure right now how wide).

So Little update on Taxiway/Runway, Parallel Taxiways & Taxiway/Stand Clearances including Large Runways. Here is how I design my airports.

Taxiway <–> Stand Clearance

< 3 Taxi > < 0 Buffer > < Stand > - Small (GA CESSNA182 extra small a/c only)
< 3 Taxi > < 1 Buffer > < Stand > - Small (with the new SAAB aircraft!—if no road need and/or I need to conserve space)
< 3 Taxi > < 2 Buffer > < Stand > - Small (for larger SAAB aircraft —if road needed and need space)
< 5 Taxi > < 1 Buffer > < 2 Service Road > < Stand > - Medium + Small
< 7 Taxi > < 2 Buffer > < 2 Service Road > < Stand > - Large + Medium + Small

Parallel Taxiways

< 3 Taxi > < 2 Buffer > < 3 Taxi > - Small
< 5 Taxi > < 4 Buffer > < 5 Taxi > - Medium + Small
< 7 Taxi > < 6 Buffer > < 7 Taxi > - Large (-A380) + Medium + Small
< 7 Taxi > < 8 Buffer > < 7 Taxi > - Large Aircraft (+ A380) + Medium + Small

Runway <–> Taxiway Clearance

< 3 Taxi > < 4 Buffer > < Runway > - Small
< 5 Taxi > < 6 Buffer > < Runway > - Medium + Small
< 7 Taxi > < 8 Buffer > < Runway > - Large (no A380) + Medium + Small
< 7 Taxi > < 10 Buffer > < Runway > - Large (+ A380) + Medium + Small


Images would really help! I understand this, but others may not.

1 Like

Also possible could be to choose it like the one-way system by a rightclick and then select the max. span.

But will the planes start respecting it? I find that one-way taxiways in the game have been treated by planes rather like a suggestion than an order. I’ve been trying to block some fast exits from runways by both setting them as exit only and next putting a one-way taxiway from some 2 to 7 tiles away from that exit when planes were still entering it, but some of the planes still entered that runway exit-only from the taxiway, crossed the runway and used taxiway at another side of runway, instead of the taxiway of similar length on the side they departed the terminal (the other side’s taxiway was meant to be used for GA only). Similar was happening for GA planes that instead of using their runway side’s taxiway first crossed the runway by the exit-only and used commercial side’s taxiway instead. I think they didn’t see any of red ‘NO ENTRY’ signs on their way in path calculations. It finally ended that I stopped using one way taxiways in my recent games. One way roads on the other hand are blocking cars and buses just great.

I don’t know if it is planned to be in the game at all but all the “moving” elements (planes, vehicles and pax) not only shouldn’t overlap with each other but they all should have a minimum distance with each other. Even when planes don’t collide (which happens way too often at the moment), they move around way to close to each other.

This will really increase the feeling of realism, like seeing a service vehicle stopping (at a safe distance!) because a plane is passing by.

Sorry I am only making critics recently, it’s constructive criticism because I enjoy the game so much that it hurts to see pax on top of each other in piles :slight_smile: and vehicles and planes happily passing on top of each other.


This topic was automatically closed 31 days after the last reply. New replies are no longer allowed.