Still no flying cars? The future of transit promises something even better(theguardian.com)
theguardian.com
Still no flying cars? The future of transit promises something even better
http://www.theguardian.com/technology/2015/nov/02/transportation-self-driving-car-google-uber-lyft-waze-low-emissions
7 comments
That's the crux of it alright. I myself am completely torn.
On the one hand, there's something to be said for owning your transportation outright and being able to do whatever you want with your vehicle.
When you rent it on-demand, there's major tradeoffs. Safety will likely improve dramatically with self-driving vehicles. That's an amazing thing. But it will go under-appreciated by anyone who gets a vehicle where the previous occupant smelled funny, left crap in the car, etc. Basically all the downsides of a cab will be translated to your personal vehicle.
On the one hand, there's something to be said for owning your transportation outright and being able to do whatever you want with your vehicle.
When you rent it on-demand, there's major tradeoffs. Safety will likely improve dramatically with self-driving vehicles. That's an amazing thing. But it will go under-appreciated by anyone who gets a vehicle where the previous occupant smelled funny, left crap in the car, etc. Basically all the downsides of a cab will be translated to your personal vehicle.
> anyone who gets a vehicle where the previous occupant smelled funny, left crap in the car, etc
This technology will be pervasive and interconnected. If the previous passenger damaged the car or disrespected the future occupants, a good ride sharing company would discontinue their service after a number of infractions. It is in their interest for profit to insure their riders are happy, and bad apples ruining the experience destroy their reputation.
You will probably be able to, from your phone, flag the previous driver as negligent. Depending on the degree of confidence the company has in you and automated tools, they may face consequences without human involvement. Or maybe someone needs to review surveillance footage to confirm the infraction. Either way, that person is told to stop or lose their service. If you false-flag, you can face your own consequences.
That also means there is a market for companies that respect their customers in that way and those that do not, that would be cheaper since they cannot attract wealthier clients.
The same applies to airlines and busses. If you are disrespectful of your fellow passengers you can easily get yourself banned from future service.
This technology will be pervasive and interconnected. If the previous passenger damaged the car or disrespected the future occupants, a good ride sharing company would discontinue their service after a number of infractions. It is in their interest for profit to insure their riders are happy, and bad apples ruining the experience destroy their reputation.
You will probably be able to, from your phone, flag the previous driver as negligent. Depending on the degree of confidence the company has in you and automated tools, they may face consequences without human involvement. Or maybe someone needs to review surveillance footage to confirm the infraction. Either way, that person is told to stop or lose their service. If you false-flag, you can face your own consequences.
That also means there is a market for companies that respect their customers in that way and those that do not, that would be cheaper since they cannot attract wealthier clients.
The same applies to airlines and busses. If you are disrespectful of your fellow passengers you can easily get yourself banned from future service.
I agree that it seems likely there will be mechanisms for rating/handling passengers who damage a vehicle. Where those will fall woefully short and will still result in the issue I cited are situations like:
- Someone who smelled funny, had bad gas, etc.
- Baby threw up and the mom wiped it down best she could but the entire car has a whiff of puke
- Dirt and grime being tracked in. Different people have vastly different standards for cleanliness in their vehicles
- Water/snow/sludge. Something to be said about going from an indoor garage to your vehicle to an indoor garage at a destination during bad weather. If the vehicle is picking up other people, etc., there's likely to be lots of water/dirt inside.
- Food smells and perfumes can set off allergies, sensitive noses, etc. I sure as heck don't want to be in a vehicle where someone was just transporting McDonalds, or where an old lady with way too much perfume was sitting for the past hour
- Wrappers, etc. can be left and often times dropped without any sort of onboard camera picking it up
- Germs. Dear god the germs. How many sick people will be in these things without any way for future passengers to know? If I had a child, I sure wouldn't want them in such a vehicle. I personally would also not want to be in such a vehicle. Worst case scenario, someone with a serious disease transmitted via blood or bodily fluids (read: HIV+, STDs, etc.) could leave hard to detect amounts on various surfaces. What is the company going to do? Require a blood sample and medical testing from all passengers?
So there's a whole host of things that are hard to track/place blame on people for without being a technological/legal/political nightmare. And I totally realize some of these are a bit on the extreme end of the spectrum. Point is, when owning a vehicle is no longer possible, you won't have a choice about being subjected to this.
And worth calling out specifically here is the whole surveillance aspect of it. Forget your vehicle knowing where you are. Between traffic cams, license plate readers, OnStar, Google Maps/Waze, etc. I think the war on tracking your location has been lost. What hasn't been entirely lost yet is privacy within the vehicle. I fully expect there to be invasive cameras and sensors watching everything I do in these self-driving cars in the future.
Ad-supported ride? Eye-tracking software will monitor whether you are watching the screen when the ad plays. Temperature/pulse monitors in seats could measure your response to such ads. And that's just scratching the surface of the privacy invasion.
I'm trying not to sound like I am wearing a tin-foil hat, but I think the past few years have proven that these things aren't just possible, they are likely and maybe even inevitable.
- Someone who smelled funny, had bad gas, etc.
- Baby threw up and the mom wiped it down best she could but the entire car has a whiff of puke
- Dirt and grime being tracked in. Different people have vastly different standards for cleanliness in their vehicles
- Water/snow/sludge. Something to be said about going from an indoor garage to your vehicle to an indoor garage at a destination during bad weather. If the vehicle is picking up other people, etc., there's likely to be lots of water/dirt inside.
- Food smells and perfumes can set off allergies, sensitive noses, etc. I sure as heck don't want to be in a vehicle where someone was just transporting McDonalds, or where an old lady with way too much perfume was sitting for the past hour
- Wrappers, etc. can be left and often times dropped without any sort of onboard camera picking it up
- Germs. Dear god the germs. How many sick people will be in these things without any way for future passengers to know? If I had a child, I sure wouldn't want them in such a vehicle. I personally would also not want to be in such a vehicle. Worst case scenario, someone with a serious disease transmitted via blood or bodily fluids (read: HIV+, STDs, etc.) could leave hard to detect amounts on various surfaces. What is the company going to do? Require a blood sample and medical testing from all passengers?
So there's a whole host of things that are hard to track/place blame on people for without being a technological/legal/political nightmare. And I totally realize some of these are a bit on the extreme end of the spectrum. Point is, when owning a vehicle is no longer possible, you won't have a choice about being subjected to this.
And worth calling out specifically here is the whole surveillance aspect of it. Forget your vehicle knowing where you are. Between traffic cams, license plate readers, OnStar, Google Maps/Waze, etc. I think the war on tracking your location has been lost. What hasn't been entirely lost yet is privacy within the vehicle. I fully expect there to be invasive cameras and sensors watching everything I do in these self-driving cars in the future.
Ad-supported ride? Eye-tracking software will monitor whether you are watching the screen when the ad plays. Temperature/pulse monitors in seats could measure your response to such ads. And that's just scratching the surface of the privacy invasion.
I'm trying not to sound like I am wearing a tin-foil hat, but I think the past few years have proven that these things aren't just possible, they are likely and maybe even inevitable.
I'm sure in the same way many people can own and ride horses, or own their own boats while most travel on communal naval vessels, the option will still exist to own your own private auto. The technology needs to advance to the point where it can handle human drivers, and at that point it will be more than sufficiently capable of handling peer autos who behave much more logically.
It will just be way more economically efficient to have the subscription model so you maximize vehicular utilization, so you just pay the premium difference of that efficiency. I cannot imagine they will be significantly more expensive than a Tesla is today.
It will just be way more economically efficient to have the subscription model so you maximize vehicular utilization, so you just pay the premium difference of that efficiency. I cannot imagine they will be significantly more expensive than a Tesla is today.
>> Flying cars promised unprecedented degrees of freedom.
All cars promise that in the commercials but it never really works out like that. We would just use them to commute 400 miles in the morning and tell everyone that it is with it!
Feeling that kind of freedom is a leisure activity. Go ride a bike, ski, surf or even fly a paraglider. The rest of the time it would be nice to be able to walk through my town without having to constantly wait stressed out people in cars.
All cars promise that in the commercials but it never really works out like that. We would just use them to commute 400 miles in the morning and tell everyone that it is with it!
Feeling that kind of freedom is a leisure activity. Go ride a bike, ski, surf or even fly a paraglider. The rest of the time it would be nice to be able to walk through my town without having to constantly wait stressed out people in cars.
I'm not sure why you think self-driving cars necessarily mean the end of all private vehicle ownership?
Certainly cheap readily available taxis will be a popular choice, but if people feel there are advantages to owning their vehicle then they will do so.
Certainly cheap readily available taxis will be a popular choice, but if people feel there are advantages to owning their vehicle then they will do so.
I would bet that owning your own car is going to be very marginal, and human-driven cars will eventually become illegal to drive on public roads.
Why? One can rent/lease a car on a month-to-month basis nowadays, yet when you crunch the numbers for continuous use, ownership makes sense.
A rental has a certain set of expectations on maintenance and cleanliness, and maintaining those expectations come at a higher price, whereas most people are not strictly adhering to manufacturer's maintenance schedules and don't wash/vacuum their cars on the daily basis.
As one moves away from urban centers, the cost of getting the car to them as well as getting it back to the owner from them is becoming higher, and whoever is in charge of those rentals has to incorporate those costs into the final price, which might or might not be competitive with outright ownership.
A rental has a certain set of expectations on maintenance and cleanliness, and maintaining those expectations come at a higher price, whereas most people are not strictly adhering to manufacturer's maintenance schedules and don't wash/vacuum their cars on the daily basis.
As one moves away from urban centers, the cost of getting the car to them as well as getting it back to the owner from them is becoming higher, and whoever is in charge of those rentals has to incorporate those costs into the final price, which might or might not be competitive with outright ownership.
I'm not modeling the future as car rentals, I'm modeling the future as driverless uber--on-demand transport from A-to-B. Fleets of cars in constant rotation.
But you're right, rural areas are clearly harder to make that model work.
But you're right, rural areas are clearly harder to make that model work.
> owning your own car is going to be very marginal
I think there are actually quite a few advantages. Persistent storage space. Interior customisation. Instant availability in less popular areas.
> human-driven cars will eventually become illegal to drive on public roads.
Certainly, but that's a separate issue to vehicle ownership.
I think there are actually quite a few advantages. Persistent storage space. Interior customisation. Instant availability in less popular areas.
> human-driven cars will eventually become illegal to drive on public roads.
Certainly, but that's a separate issue to vehicle ownership.
> I would bet that owning your own car is going to be very marginal
Given how much of the country is rural, I doubt that.
> human-driven cars will eventually become illegal to drive on public roads.
I really doubt that one since we haven't seen large scale testing of driverless cars in adverse conditions.
Given how much of the country is rural, I doubt that.
> human-driven cars will eventually become illegal to drive on public roads.
I really doubt that one since we haven't seen large scale testing of driverless cars in adverse conditions.
I don't think I'll care as much about delays when I don't have to do the driving and I can be occupied doing things on some mobile device instead.
I suspect that any service which operates shared driverless cars will figure out things like cleanliness if they're a serious issue. They can just let people complain / refuse this care / send it out for cleaning/service and charge the person who made the mess a surcharge.
I'd be more worried about driverless cars not getting proper maintenance. When the driving computer starts going bad, I want to be sure it's fixed properly.
I suspect that any service which operates shared driverless cars will figure out things like cleanliness if they're a serious issue. They can just let people complain / refuse this care / send it out for cleaning/service and charge the person who made the mess a surcharge.
I'd be more worried about driverless cars not getting proper maintenance. When the driving computer starts going bad, I want to be sure it's fixed properly.
what does it mean to choose your preferred route anyway, and why would you have a preference?
if its because 'this route is less busy' well, thats your idea but the car should be able to tap into traffic information anyway and route around busy areas. Even ones you didn't know about.
if its because 'this route is more comfortable' then I think the car will drive safely and smoothly anyway. If the road is bumpy, then it probably won't go that way (damage to vehicle is expensive)
if its because 'this route is nicer to look at' then apart from the fact that people mostly don't care to look out the window while travelling along, when they can just fiddle with their phone, the case is that it is more expensive now to travel the longer, scenic, route already so if you are willing to pay the extra you can continue doing that.
The common freedom of owning a personal vehicle you mention doesn't seem to me that much of a positive thing in any case. I don't own one and when I do drive around I am always shocked at how much trouble it is to arrange to park it in a safe place when I want to get out, or maintain it. Simple self-driving vehicles that turn up when you want them and take you where you want to go, and then disappear.. Well, that sounds like a whole lot of freedom!
if its because 'this route is less busy' well, thats your idea but the car should be able to tap into traffic information anyway and route around busy areas. Even ones you didn't know about.
if its because 'this route is more comfortable' then I think the car will drive safely and smoothly anyway. If the road is bumpy, then it probably won't go that way (damage to vehicle is expensive)
if its because 'this route is nicer to look at' then apart from the fact that people mostly don't care to look out the window while travelling along, when they can just fiddle with their phone, the case is that it is more expensive now to travel the longer, scenic, route already so if you are willing to pay the extra you can continue doing that.
The common freedom of owning a personal vehicle you mention doesn't seem to me that much of a positive thing in any case. I don't own one and when I do drive around I am always shocked at how much trouble it is to arrange to park it in a safe place when I want to get out, or maintain it. Simple self-driving vehicles that turn up when you want them and take you where you want to go, and then disappear.. Well, that sounds like a whole lot of freedom!
Exactly.
auto piloting VTOL gives you the ultimate freedom.
how to do a self separating ATC system with robot planes is the thorny problem.
But once that is solved uber for robot planes will beat any ground bound system (except in really bad weather).
auto piloting VTOL gives you the ultimate freedom.
how to do a self separating ATC system with robot planes is the thorny problem.
But once that is solved uber for robot planes will beat any ground bound system (except in really bad weather).
> uber for robot planes will beat any ground bound system
"Beat" as in get to the destination faster, but the ground system would probably be cheaper (use less energy) as it doesn't have to continually expend energy fighting gravity. Perhaps if traffic conditions are very bad (e.g. stop-start driving with no regenerative braking) then the air option would be cheaper.
"Beat" as in get to the destination faster, but the ground system would probably be cheaper (use less energy) as it doesn't have to continually expend energy fighting gravity. Perhaps if traffic conditions are very bad (e.g. stop-start driving with no regenerative braking) then the air option would be cheaper.
air can probably beat rubber tires.
Platooning has been demoed.[1] CALTRANS had a huge effort in the 1990s, resulting in a 1997 live demo on a San Diego freeway with dedicated lanes. Nothing came of it. Platooning works, but the long road trains that result are a headache for everything not part of the road train. It's a solution to the problem of long-distance travel over roads with few exits with very high vehicle density. But that's not where the congestion is.
(It's also a job that trains do better than trucks, which is why there are so many long trains loaded with double-stacked containers rolling through the midwestern US.)
Partial automation of driving may be a big mistake. At the point where the driver can take their hands off the wheel, the manufacturer must assume financial responsibility for accidents. Volvo's CEO accepts that, Google agrees, and other car companies are starting to come around. NHTSA Level 2 systems (smart cruise plus lane keeping) must require hands-on-wheel. Hands-off driving requires NHTSA Level 3 (where Google currently is.) Systems which allow hands off driving need to be at NHTSA level 3 or 4.
Cruise (YC W14) and Tesla's autopilot are Level 2 systems pretending to be Level 3. This is scary; I've called it the "deadly valley". It's pretend automatic driving, just good enough that drivers tune out but not good enough to use hands-off. Tesla is already removing some of their autopilot features.[2][3] This sort of thing [4][5] is why.
[1] http://www.path.berkeley.edu/sites/default/files/documents/i... [2] http://www.autoblog.com/2015/12/11/tesla-autopilot-feature-c... [3] http://www.teslarati.com/tesla-beta-firwmare-7-1-adds-autopi... [4] http://www.autoblog.com/2015/11/09/why-tesla-needs-update-au... [5] http://www.dailymotion.com/video/x3d5k7b
(It's also a job that trains do better than trucks, which is why there are so many long trains loaded with double-stacked containers rolling through the midwestern US.)
Partial automation of driving may be a big mistake. At the point where the driver can take their hands off the wheel, the manufacturer must assume financial responsibility for accidents. Volvo's CEO accepts that, Google agrees, and other car companies are starting to come around. NHTSA Level 2 systems (smart cruise plus lane keeping) must require hands-on-wheel. Hands-off driving requires NHTSA Level 3 (where Google currently is.) Systems which allow hands off driving need to be at NHTSA level 3 or 4.
Cruise (YC W14) and Tesla's autopilot are Level 2 systems pretending to be Level 3. This is scary; I've called it the "deadly valley". It's pretend automatic driving, just good enough that drivers tune out but not good enough to use hands-off. Tesla is already removing some of their autopilot features.[2][3] This sort of thing [4][5] is why.
[1] http://www.path.berkeley.edu/sites/default/files/documents/i... [2] http://www.autoblog.com/2015/12/11/tesla-autopilot-feature-c... [3] http://www.teslarati.com/tesla-beta-firwmare-7-1-adds-autopi... [4] http://www.autoblog.com/2015/11/09/why-tesla-needs-update-au... [5] http://www.dailymotion.com/video/x3d5k7b
Platooning really needs to to be taken one step further to convince: not just dedicated lanes, but dedicated right of ways with optional use of tramway-style integrated rails and electrification. If robotic driving is solvable, then a robotic, on-the-fly mode switch between road and rail wheelsets should be easy in comparison.
The vehicles traveling hybrid routes like that would probably be seen as (much) better railcars () rather than as slightly better trucks/buses. Your point that those won't directly reduce congestion on urban road networks is certainly valid, but i am convinced that the increase of long distance passenger service quality (many single-car direct connections instead of switching between few long trains) would have a network effect spillover influencing the modal split in favor of public transportation also on the urban level. So indirectly urban congestion might still drop.
() benefits of the "better railcar": frequent, nonstop hub to hub connections for passengers, door to door transport for freight, easy fallback to regular roads for maintenance or incompleteness of the hybrid network, fallback to the road wheelset for emergency braking power, for switching tracks and to climb gradients much too steep for rail traction. Because of the much more relaxed gradients, a hybrid network might even be cheaper to build than a pure rail network when the terrain is not perfectly flat. Of course "hybrid" would only mean optional rail use for increased efficiency with heavy loads, not mixed use including rail-only vehicles.
The vehicles traveling hybrid routes like that would probably be seen as (much) better railcars () rather than as slightly better trucks/buses. Your point that those won't directly reduce congestion on urban road networks is certainly valid, but i am convinced that the increase of long distance passenger service quality (many single-car direct connections instead of switching between few long trains) would have a network effect spillover influencing the modal split in favor of public transportation also on the urban level. So indirectly urban congestion might still drop.
() benefits of the "better railcar": frequent, nonstop hub to hub connections for passengers, door to door transport for freight, easy fallback to regular roads for maintenance or incompleteness of the hybrid network, fallback to the road wheelset for emergency braking power, for switching tracks and to climb gradients much too steep for rail traction. Because of the much more relaxed gradients, a hybrid network might even be cheaper to build than a pure rail network when the terrain is not perfectly flat. Of course "hybrid" would only mean optional rail use for increased efficiency with heavy loads, not mixed use including rail-only vehicles.
There's a long series of things tried for "intermodal" operations, dating back to the late 1940s. RoadRailer [1] still operates trailers which can run on both roads and railroad tracks. But standard shipping containers have won out for freight.
For passengers, there's a long history of buses that can also run on rails.[2][3] This has remained a niche product.
[1] http://www.triplecrownsvc.com/who-we-are-and-what-we-do/equi... [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Road-rail_vehicle [3] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Guided_bus
For passengers, there's a long history of buses that can also run on rails.[2][3] This has remained a niche product.
[1] http://www.triplecrownsvc.com/who-we-are-and-what-we-do/equi... [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Road-rail_vehicle [3] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Guided_bus
Interestingly, the video referenced in [4] has been taken down due to "a copyright claim made by News Media"...
I think the future of transit is no transit. I.e. VR from home in a virtual office where you interact with other VR-from-home coworkers. I don't think people are ready for this right now, but maybe in 1-2 generations. It's not uncommon for people to feel closer to chat friends than real-life neighbors.
I'll just leave this here.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vzm6pvHPSGo
Anyone remember the IBM "Flying Cars" commercial with Avery Brooks from Star Trek DS9? Watch the whole thing, and wait for the punchline.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vzm6pvHPSGo
Anyone remember the IBM "Flying Cars" commercial with Avery Brooks from Star Trek DS9? Watch the whole thing, and wait for the punchline.
Ah wow thanks for the blast from the past! Your posting of this commercial drilled a hole in my brain right to the year 2000.
Possible to some degree, though life isn't all about work and socialising. Some people like actually visiting new places, seeing the sights and all that sort of thing. They'll still need some form of transport to get there.
And those places could theoretically be programmed into the VR system which would allow for visiting places you can only imagine.
The basic problem with flying cars is that flying is very energy intensive.
Birds are basically two massive chest muscles and some hollow bones, and not much else.
Normal planes get away with flying because they make maximum passive use of the air via the wings.
Now consider the Harrier, i think it has a hover capability measured in minutes. And thats at full fuel load and no weapon load.
Birds are basically two massive chest muscles and some hollow bones, and not much else.
Normal planes get away with flying because they make maximum passive use of the air via the wings.
Now consider the Harrier, i think it has a hover capability measured in minutes. And thats at full fuel load and no weapon load.
total energy = power * time
planes can give you greater mpg than cars. A 70 year old cessna can gives you 15mpg. A modern plane can give you 40 MPG. Hovering is inefficient (10gph) but it can be only 2 minutes of a 20 minute, 60 mile VTOL commute.
The real barrier is cost, currently 50k per seat for a 4 seater. it would need a 3x improvement to compete with teslas.
planes can give you greater mpg than cars. A 70 year old cessna can gives you 15mpg. A modern plane can give you 40 MPG. Hovering is inefficient (10gph) but it can be only 2 minutes of a 20 minute, 60 mile VTOL commute.
The real barrier is cost, currently 50k per seat for a 4 seater. it would need a 3x improvement to compete with teslas.
The sustainable solution is transport-oriented development. Replace suburban with a sustainable urban that puts retail, office, and even agriculture very close to modest but comfortable homes.
http://runvnc.github.io/tinyvillage
http://runvnc.github.io/tinyvillage
When you have a fully automated motorway, with vehicles able to drive safely at any speed, I wonder what the cost and physical limitations of driving very very fast while still on the ground are, vs potentially flying.
Why would you have an automated motorway? Why not have rail instead and get a self driving cab from the terminal to your final destination. Self driving cars make more sense for short distances.
Railroads are better than self-driving cars for most purposes -- more efficient, safer, simpler to maintain, and _much_ less complicated to create -- but the US apparently doesn't have the political will to build new ones anymore. It reminds me of the failed attempt to upgrade the air-traffic control system back in the '80s and '90s...
you could reduce some aerodynamic drive by putting the cars end to end. essentially your car knows its destination and moves to the appropriate lane, the further you need to travel the more likely you end up in a far lane where cars are kept at a higher pace and closer together.
think of it as a modern version of Chicago highways where the left lanes get sectioned off on occasion with less chances to exit all to keep people in lanes consistently to reduce accidents from moving lane to lane.
fully autonomous cars and lanes dedicated to them and similar buses will remove the need for rail with in city limits beyond what exist. with no need to transfer vehicles and dedicated lanes you don't need as much planning for changes in travel patterns. fixed rail is always trapped, worse you end up with periods where you have too much capacity or too little and the inflexibility of track means no one else can use it. dedicate roadways can use the same space and be entirely flexible with easier maintenance and lower overall costs
think of it as a modern version of Chicago highways where the left lanes get sectioned off on occasion with less chances to exit all to keep people in lanes consistently to reduce accidents from moving lane to lane.
fully autonomous cars and lanes dedicated to them and similar buses will remove the need for rail with in city limits beyond what exist. with no need to transfer vehicles and dedicated lanes you don't need as much planning for changes in travel patterns. fixed rail is always trapped, worse you end up with periods where you have too much capacity or too little and the inflexibility of track means no one else can use it. dedicate roadways can use the same space and be entirely flexible with easier maintenance and lower overall costs
In Toronto we have the collector/express system for the 401, it is still a mess: https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/f/f9/Highway_...
At a certain scale congestion is inevitable, whether automated or not, faster traffic will eventually need to merge with slower traffic...
At a certain scale congestion is inevitable, whether automated or not, faster traffic will eventually need to merge with slower traffic...
You get a lot more drag close to the ground. So, it depends on how 'fast' you mean by fast.
Still, I think in and near city PRT will have a much larger impact. If you could average 40mph in and near city's that's a huge difference in peoples lives.
Still, I think in and near city PRT will have a much larger impact. If you could average 40mph in and near city's that's a huge difference in peoples lives.
Anything over ~80-90mph is going to be extremely inefficient due to drag coefficient.
Flew to Orlando from PA. Drive time would be 15 hours. Flight time is 2.25 hours. Left for airport at 7:30 am arrived home 8:45 pm (Traffic and just getting there 1.5 hours early and a non-direct flight)
I saved 3.5 hours, but cost me hundreds of dollars. I think self-driving cars will change the way we travel to things on land that are 16 hours of driving or less.
I saved 3.5 hours, but cost me hundreds of dollars. I think self-driving cars will change the way we travel to things on land that are 16 hours of driving or less.
That's an interesting point, and also seems to fit in to the supersonic jet narrative: people aren't willing to pay a (sufficient) premium to shave a few hours off a flight. In the same way, you might be willing to accept a couple of extra hours travel time to be in the comfort of your own vehicle.
Yeah, I think this gets especially fascinating if people don't own their own vehicles. Uber, etc., are pretty big now, but they're still employing people with regular off-the-shelf cars. I think eventually we could reach a tipping point where most people don't own their own vehicles and Uber, etc., get so large that it makes sense for them to start building/buying purpose-built vehicles that could be dispatched according to your particular task. Commuting solo? You get a super-fuel-efficient one-seater. Driving 16 hours? You get a car with a bed in it, and your trip will take place overnight. Go to sleep in PA, wake up in Orlando. And so forth.
See, that's the thing. These days you need to hurry up to get the to airport hours before your flight, then wait. Etc...
I do this a lot flying to Ottawa. Leave at 6am, get home at 10:00pm. I'd consider driving if the car was autonomous.
I do this a lot flying to Ottawa. Leave at 6am, get home at 10:00pm. I'd consider driving if the car was autonomous.
It costs ~300$ to drive 1,000 miles. So, I don't think a few hundred is for a ticket is actually more expensive.
Not for gas, not in the US right now, unless maybe you plan to travel in an old truck or some horribly inefficient sportscar. If you're factoring in wear and tear on your car, maybe... But highway driving isn't particularly hard on most vehicles either.
The time invested is probably the most expensive part of driving, and that's where flying has been losing its lead for years.
The time invested is probably the most expensive part of driving, and that's where flying has been losing its lead for years.
There is a wide range of costs, but 30c/mile of highway driving is actually fairly cheap if you include everything.
PS: "57.5 cents per mile for business miles driven, up from 56 cents in 2014"
"The standard mileage rate for business is based on an annual study of the fixed and variable costs of operating an automobile, including depreciation, insurance, repairs, tires, maintenance, gas and oil."
PS: "57.5 cents per mile for business miles driven, up from 56 cents in 2014"
"The standard mileage rate for business is based on an annual study of the fixed and variable costs of operating an automobile, including depreciation, insurance, repairs, tires, maintenance, gas and oil."
Where I live I can travel in a electric car for roughly 1/6 of the cost of petrol. Of course the calculation is more complicated than that, cost of the vehicle, service etc. My guess is that this will be competitive with this type of air travel.
What about a couple or a family though?
But during most of that time you could read, work on a laptop, etc. Not so when driving.
Just the two hours of flight time actually. Otherwise you're driving, waiting in line, walking, getting luggage, etc
With sufficiently networked cars, you can reduce the following distance between cars and significantly reduce the drag coefficient.
(Obviously there are safety issues, but we're playing the 'cars are smart enough to make everything perfectly safe' game)
(Obviously there are safety issues, but we're playing the 'cars are smart enough to make everything perfectly safe' game)
Assuming we have fully electric cars and "solved" the electricity production problem, I don't see the inefficiency of going fast at ground level as being a significant problem. That's a big "if" though.
underground evacuated chamber?
Electric cars locally, hyperloop for greater distances, aircraft running on biofuels as a last resort.
At 200+ mph it becomes hard to stay on the ground. :)
It's the polar opposite of what flying cars promised. Flying cars promised unprecedented degrees of freedom. You could hop into your private aircraft and fly everywhere you want unimpeded by the usual hurdles of road traffic.
Self driving cars take the common freedom of owning a personal vehicle away from the individual. Private transportation will be transformed from a thing you own to a service that you subscribe to. You probably won't even be able to choose your preferred route anymore, at least not without addition expense.
I'm not being negative. Just pointing out the difference between the two.