Flying cars? The future of transportation or stupid ideal?

[Former Member]

Tonight on Tech24 (on France24), there was a story about flying cars.

 

Personally, I think it’s the stupidest waste of resources. We already have problems with idiots flying their drone helicopters into restricted areas like wildfires. We already have too many people wasting energy by flying across the continent when trains would be much more efficient (yes, yes, I know, you can’t get there using Amtrak and it’s much more expensive anyway). But we don’t really charge the real costs associated with flying.

 

Flying airplanes is one of the worst polluting forms of transportation out there. The US government subsidizes the entire industry by building airports. In the US, most rail infrastructure is built by private companies. If they put as much resources into rail as they do air, we could have a world-class high-speed rail system, but most governments cannot see the benefits like California does. Much of the air traffic in California is between LA area, the Bay area, San Diego, and Sacramento. California’s so-called High-Speed Rail will connect those four regions with a much more efficient system.

 

 

Naturally, other than short distances like the English Channel and between some of the major Japanese islands, there are few practical underwater routes. Cost is the main reason, but lack of demand is the other major reason why other routes could never be practical. (Even adding a second BART tube under the SF Bay has been controversial due to the extreme cost, although there has been more talk about it recently.)

 

 

Convince me that I’m wrong.

[Bill W]

Dumb idea.  If you think traffic on the streets and roads is bad, think what it would be like in the air when there is nothing to restrict the flow of traffic and cars are flying to and fro at the will of a driver who thinks he's more important than anyone else.  It would be like opening the amusement park ride 'bumper cars' in the air, except the cars being driven wouldn't be padded for your protection.  

 

If you thought personal drones were a hazard to air traffic, try putting a bunch of ego-crazed, self-absorbed idiots in the air to mess with air traffic.  On top of that, can you imagine the people that run out of gas, have engine problems, or an accident in the air and then come crashing down into a building, such as your house, or a crowded street?  No thank you, flying cars are not high on my list of desired innovations.   

[Graeme]

On 02/04/2017 at 3:05 PM, droughtquake said:

Personally, I think it’s the stupidest waste of resources. We already have problems with idiots flying their drone helicopters into restricted areas like wildfires. We already have too many people wasting energy by flying across the continent when trains would be much more efficient (yes, yes, I know, you can’t get there using Amtrak and it’s much more expensive anyway). But we don’t really charge the real costs associated with flying.

Do we charge the real costs associated with other forms of transport? The reason we don't build many new train lines (at least here in Australia) is that the cost of doing so is prohibitive. The land costs alone are astronomical without adding in long lengths of infrastructure that then has to be maintained. Air transport has the advantage that the infrastructure costs are only for the start and end points -- the space inbetween doesn't cost anything to maintain.

 

When you look at it from that perspective, are you taking into account the pollution costs of maintenance for trains and their required infrastructure when you say that airplanes are the worst pollution form of transport? What about the cost of concentrating travel pollution in a single narrow channel, as distinct from spreading it around by travelling over a broader channel? There may be more total pollution in the broader channel, but the mere fact that it's spread around more may be enough for the environment to cope better than the fixed narrow channel presented by ground transport. I don't know -- I'm just presenting it for consideration. As you said, we usually don't think about the total cost of things, only the narrow, immediate part that we see.

 

On 03/04/2017 at 3:55 PM, Bill W said:

Dumb idea.  If you think traffic on the streets and roads is bad, think what it would be like in the air when there is nothing to restrict the flow of traffic and cars are flying to and fro at the will of a driver who thinks he's more important than anyone else.  It would be like opening the amusement park ride 'bumper cars' in the air, except the cars being driven wouldn't be padded for your protection.  

 

If you thought personal drones were a hazard to air traffic, try putting a bunch of ego-crazed, self-absorbed idiots in the air to mess with air traffic.  On top of that, can you imagine the people that run out of gas, have engine problems, or an accident in the air and then come crashing down into a building, such as your house, or a crowded street?  No thank you, flying cars are not high on my list of desired innovations.   

But we're moving towards driverless cars. If we have flying driverless cars, would we have the problems you envisage? Many SF stories involve flying vehicles that do not have drivers -- the vehicles are automated, eliminating many of the problems you've mentioned.

[Drew Espinosa]

On trains...

 

[JamesSavik]

When I was a kid, we expected to have flying cars when I grew up. Heck I expected to work at the moon base.

 

Now... just driving the interstate, the idea of some of those idiots flying isn't just a bad idea. It's a nightmare.

 

Some of these drivers are clueless in two dimensions. Give them three dimensions and cue a Yakety Sax musical interlude.

 

Now- I am for all for freedom but, not everyone is cut out to be a pilot. It just won't work. The speeds involved, vision requirements and spatial awareness requirements of flight just aren't there in much of the population. That's why it has always been difficult to find and train pilots. They are a breed apart. 

 

If you make it restrictive, by requiring flight training and licensing, I can see it.

 

I don't think Bubba's flying work truck with tools falling off as it banks towards his next job is going to work, 

 

Hey... is that a miter saw? *runs to retrieve loot*

 

Edited April 5, 2017 by jamessavik

[Dodger]

On 2017-04-02 at 1:05 AM, droughtquake said:

Flying airplanes is one of the worst polluting forms of transportation out there.

On April 14, 2010, the Icelandic volcano Eyjafjallajökull erupted sending a plume of volcanic ash seven kilometers into the sky and causing a potential risk to air-traffic. As a result of this UK and most of Europe were forced to close down their airspace to commercial flights between 15-21 April. Over 100,000 commercial flights were canceled during this period, stranding 10m people. I was living in the UK at the time and the government referred to it as an economic and environmental disaster. The airlines lost $1.7 billion and the airports lost 250 million euros. The stock market took a battering and the tourist industry was badly affected. We were warned about potential health risks caused by breathing in this fine ash which was being deposited across the country and you could see traces of it on parked cars. Some people in London began wearing surgical masks while outside, but although cautious at first, after a few days the air quality in London actually began to improve and it was definitely noticeable. However, while economically the outlook was gloomy, the skies above were clear and quiet. The much-publicised health hazard never materialised and officials later admitted that despite the several tons of volcanic ash that had fallen across the country, the grounding of all commercial flights for seven days had led to a significant increase in air quality across the capital. They didn't need to tell us that; everybody knew, it was that noticeable. I lived directly under the main flight path into Heathrow and commercial flights land at 90-second intervals from 5 am until 1 am every single day. Unfortunately, on 22 of April the powers that be decided that the ash was no longer a risk, and commercial flights resumed, the economy recovered and after a brief respite, the air quality fell again. In London, more people die of breathing related illnesses every year, than were killed during the infamous bombing blitz of world war 2.       

[Dodger]

I'm probably going a little off-topic here but as further confirmation, health officials confirmed in January that 'London breached its annual air pollution limits just five days into 2017',  Calling it, 'a shameful reminder of the severity of London’s air pollution'. However, while there are countless schemes and initiatives aimed at reducing vehicle emissions across the city, there is never any talk about reducing the number of commercial flights at any of London's four civilian airports. In fact, they have recently decided to add another runway at Heathrow to further increase the capacity, of what is already one of the world's busiest airports. They'll need to build a few more hospitals as well or start importing oxygen.

[Former Member]

6 minutes ago, Dodger said:

 

I'm probably going a little off-topic here but…

 

I love tangents!  ;-)

 

I was reading that Iceland and the UK are in very early stages of talks to build an electricity transmission line undersea to export clean geothermally-produced electricity to energy-hungry Britain. That could help the UK shutdown some very dirty coal-fired generation plants…  ;-)

[Dodger]

5 minutes ago, droughtquake said:

I love tangents!  ;-)

 

I was reading that Iceland and the UK are in very early stages of talks to build an electricity transmission line undersea to export clean geothermally-produced electricity to energy-hungry Britain. That could help the UK shutdown some very dirty coal-fired generation plants…  ;-)

 

I thought you would probably appreciate that tangent.

 

Sounds good; I don't know how many coal-fired plants they have left to close. They view nuclear energy as the way forward (very foolish, Fukushima 6 years later and still contaminating the Pacific) and are allowing the Chinese to build and operate nuclear reactors in Scotland to generate electricity for the UK. Some people see this as short-sighted, others as a possible threat to national security or a potential disaster. Unfortunately, the UK is so small there isn't really anywhere you can go to get away from these things.  

[Former Member]

California mandates a certain percentage of electricity be generated by renewable sources, increasing over time. Naturally that means hydroelectric dams, but also solar (panels on roofs as well as large-scale reflective generation plants in the desert) and wind turbines. There is even a relatively small geothermal plant in the Wine Country area.

 

In my area, I have the choice of using the large regional gas and electric utility (with a horrible safety track record) or chose an alternate provider and paying the large utility only a transmission fee. I have chosen the alternate, but not their more expensive even higher percentage renewable source option.