I believe an express subway line can do a better job. Though the initial cost for building new infrastructure is high, it also have the other two benefits you mention: Bypass all ground traffic and being very predictable (in fact more predictable than flying cars as it won't be impacted by whether). Moreover it can carry much more people at much lower cost. The benefit of high capacity could probably compensate for the high initial cost.
If regular subway is not fast enough, maglev train like the one connecting PVG airport to Longyang Rd subway station can complete its 19 miles trip in 8 minutes, with a fare less than 10 US dollars, and it has been running for almost two decades.
And you could do the security check at the downtown station to offload some of that from the airport (while also handling the need to screen people before they get on the flying taxi.)
I think the chances “flying taxis” become a thing before fully autonomous cars is actually pretty high.
It’s an easier technical problem I’d think, and the regulatory issues are probably about the same.
But a flying, electric, quiet, self-flying drone taxi will mean no traffic issues, as-the-crow-flies travel, and higher top speeds. It may eventually mean the death of roads and the ability for people to live 100 miles from where they work, possibly solving a lot of housing issues in metropolitan areas.
Also it’d be a better way to get around watery/mountainous areas, not to mention just a few helipads to clean off after snowstorms.
Flying cars or taxis will (IMHO) never take off for various reasons:
- they are inherently fuel inefficient compared to devices with wheels
- they are noisy, a problem which can probably never be solved unless breakthroughs are made in science-fiction fields like anti-gravity
- airspace is very limited. In my country, we have already serious planning problems with the current amount of air traffic
- it's not sustainable from nature-perspective. Current air traffic accounts for quite some insect & bird loss. Imagine a multitude of current airtraffic; it would be disastrous for the already dwindling quantity of airborne creatures
- flying is inherently weather-bound. Especially for relatively small aircrafts this is true. Taxis fit this property. This means service is limited to a subset of all weather conditions; YMMV depending on the area of flight.
- flying is heavily regulated, which poses barriers. Obviously, startups can overcome these barriers, but they don't help in solving the overall problem
- social opposition will always be a thing unless 100% security is neared and near-100% noiseness is reached. Until that time, there will be fierce opposition to add any type of aircraft for mass-use to the airspace
This being said, I really, really, really do like the idea of hopping in an airborne transportation device and go straight to any place in a +-(a few hundreds of KM) range.
> But a flying, electric, quiet, self-flying drone taxi will mean no traffic issues
At certain levels of demand there are air traffic control and collision avoidance issues that need to be dealt with. Birds, other air taxis, consumer drones, aircraft small and large.
Also, departure and landing sequencing - what happens when a few hundred air taxis need to depart a large apartment complex for their commute, or a thousand or so air taxis descend for a large sports or entertainment event.
> I think the chances “flying taxis” become a thing before fully autonomous cars is actually pretty high.
Not sure. They will become profitable only at a point where you can sell many flying taxis, at which point the airspace becomes crowded and the problem becomes harder than autonomous cars.
As much as I wish for flying cars in the future, Elon said they would be too loud and dangerous to be feasible. You can watch what exactly he said on the ted interview, would be interested in an counter argument to his position.
Being quiet is probably the hardest challenge. A lot of the noise from helicopters is from the rotor, a collection of smaller propellers with the same lifting power is worse, and small and fast is worst. There are few, if any, options for improving this that have not already been exploited.
More pragmatically, it will be a way to leapfrog gridlock. The traffic in Indonesia, the Philippines, China, India, Vietnam make the American traffic look like a joke.
I agree with most of your post, but I can't agree with this:
> the regulatory issues are probably about the same
The issue is, flying cars are by far more dangerous than road vehicles.
Sadly, transportation advances come at a cost of human lives.
Today we take road fatalities for granted. Think of the dangers of crossing the road 150 years ago vs now.
But even today getting injured or killed by a motor vehicle requires being near a road or a thoroughfare where it can pass. Imagine taking it to a whole new level: even if you're standing on your balcony or even inside your apartment, you can get killed by an idiot flying his mini-plane on ecstasy. Tiny drones with toy functions and limited traffic are already dangerous. Imagine super-powered flying machines that can lift a ton.
> possibly solving a lot of housing issues in metropolitan areas
Sprawl does not solve housing issues. Let’s say the metropolitan range is expanded by 100 miles, all that’s happened is now the 100 mile area will soon get filled up with low density housing full of new NIMBY homeowners. It’s much better to approve new housing near existing transportation infrastructure than spend billions building out a speculative technology to fix a problem with an easily understood solution.
Hmm, you might be right about the problem being easier, or at least parts of it. Though, besides what others said about loudness and danger, I think the main point is cost. Even if they can be deployed earlier than fully autonomous cars, if they are too expensive (compared to alternatives) the adoption will be quite limited (and hence, not really working as "taxis" as I see it). Still cool though.
Interestingly, the iRobot founder and brilliant robot scientist Rodney Brooks puts flying cars and robot taxis in similar buckets as to wide availability: http://rodneybrooks.com/my-dated-predictions/
The reasoning for that is kinda thin. "I am pretty sure that practical flying cars will need to be largely self driving while flying, so they sort of fit the category." Essentially, because self driving technology is a necessary precondition for flying cars, flying cars are at least as difficult as self driving vehicles. There really isn't any argument for why flying cars aren't much more difficult than self driving vehicles.
Flying cars/taxis will never be a widespread thing for the public (IMHO).
The weight of a car is an excellent kinetic energy weapon. Fly over soft target, detonate something on-board to disable safety features and you have the poor-man(terrorist?)'s remote-kill drone.
Makes driving trucks into crowded streets look positively medieval.
The danger of this far outweighs any possible benefits.
Flying cars will become a thing, but stay heavily regulated and a rich-person's toy.
You're suggesting someone would fly in one of these, and exactly at the right moment detonate a bomb to cause it to fall from the sky onto someone? How in the world would they aim the falling vehicle? It's not like they're gonna have control of the thing. And even in this case, why not just use the bomb to blow someone up instead of taking it onto a plane to possibly drop it on someone? This just feels...so unlikely.
Isn't it sad that we can't have an exciting new technology because the threat that some outsider will blow themselves up? Is there really nothing we can do about this, either now, or in the future?
Eh, if you change this to the fear of this far outweighs any possible benefits, I'd agree; I mean, flying using current technology is far safer than driving, but we've by law severely limited the usefulness of air travel because people are somehow more scared of crazies in airplanes than crazies (or incompetents; it's difficult to tell) in cars, even though the latter clearly injures and kills far more people.
Our current 'arrive two hours early' security screening has cost many lives simply because it tilts the drive/fly equation towards driving, which is dramatically more dangerous.
That said, you are probably right about the net effect.
Right now all ATC clearances (routing, takeoff, landing) are done by AM radio. So how would a pilotless taxi do this? Drones don't, as currently UAS are physically separated into their own airspace, they also can't fly in instrument/zero visibility conditions.
To share the same space requires either really agile and smart flying taxis that will always avoid legacy aircraft, regardless of conditions, a kind of "smart separation" of aircraft, or we need a new air traffic control system.
Setting aside ATC's automation, even autonomous aircraft has all sorts of unsolved technical problems. The reality today is that the vast majority of flights are not automated at all when it comes to taxi, takeoff, and landings. Most flights use Visual Flight Rules. The landing capacity of airports when using Instrument Flight Rules is substantially less, and there are various technical reasons why not least of which is that there is only one kind of precision approach to landing system, and it requires ground systems, airborne system, and pilot competency and certification. So we need a separate system invented for autonomous systems to do this at scale, while also integrating into the existing VFR and IFR systems for legacy aircraft.
Or someone comes up with a cheap enough retrofit of existing airplane cockpits that this can happen really fast, and just ban all the legacy aircraft from operating in autonmous only space (make it Class A, B and C space). That's sort of a joke because this would be very expensive. But maybe a hybrid pilot with augmented non-human secondary pilot could make this vaguely plausible.
Add in both FAA and ICAO regulations (global regulations apply for obvious reasons), economics, politics, and it's just really complicated. So I have to laugh every time I read "technical problems all solved" and "this could happen in 5 to 10 years". That's something I've heard for 30 years...
Most likely they will have to set up special flight rules for unmanned taxis.
It also helps that rotor-driven vehicles don't need the runways the way the airplanes do - any large parking lot next to the airport could be designated as UAS landing space.
I think there is an interesting problem to solve here is one of mass production. To be cost competitive these vehicles need to be produced as scale. This is nothing that the traditional aircraft business has experience with, but car manufacturars have plenty.
This reflects in the savety architecture of airplanes vs cars: Airplanes rely on redundancy, which makes manuacturing more expensive but. Cars on the other hand try not to break in the first place, which is ensured through exhaustive testing and monitoring of the production chain. I think the winner will be the one who brings these two worlds together.
>Airplanes rely on redundancy, which makes manuacturing more expensive but. Cars on the other hand try not to break in the first place, which is ensured through exhaustive testing and monitoring of the production chain.
I don't agree with this. You're missing a variable: safety factor. Cars try to minimize safety factor to save money and weight, airplanes often have more regulations to prevent this. Cars definitely break more often then airplanes. Also, keep in mind that aircraft can rely on preventative maintenance by trained professionals. Cars really can't, meaning they have to simplify their components and assembly a lot.
I used to joke around that we passed the Minority Report point, which was the latest movie where computer UI felt something unatainable (and new gesture, recognition etc is mainstream). This would be the 5th element point.
In the US Flying Taxis/cars would require require a massive change in FAA regulations. In 2015, there were 6,876 air carrier aircraft.[1] Roughly 1/50,000 people. Air carrier aircraft are the only aircraft authorized to carry passengers for hire.
There are so few because getting an aircraft certified is hard. Not just for commercial use. Even private use. Most private planes in the US were built in the 20th century. And there were only 210,000 of them in 2015. Roughly 1/1500 people. Even among the commercial fleet, many air carrier aircraft are more than thirty years old because FAA certification is so difficult. To put it in automotive terms, much of what is flying in the US is analogous to a 1973 Dodge Dart or a 1985 F600. Aircraft in the US are like old cars in Cuba.
The number of aircraft in the sky is limited by long standing policies against general ownership. The FAA licensing of drone pilots is part of a general stance of limiting access to private aviation that began long long before 9/11. Just compare the number of private aircraft to recreational boats.
The purpose of certification and operating limitations is not to limit access. It's to establish competency and safety of people and equipment, because they all share one system and a lot of physical space. The overwhelming majority of these regulations are based on prior failures.
>long standing policies against general ownership
This is derogatory language, and it's simply not true. FARs were written over many decades based on prior failures. They weren't dug out of some bureaucrat's asshole to prevent ownership. Tort law is substantially more applicable to the rising cost of aircraft than regulations. But you're welcome to provide citations of regulations you think are not necessary, and and argument why.
I hope they won't become mainstream until they can be fully battery-powered. You don't want something like that to fly above you when it has only slightly better Q&A than a regular car (and probably far less than a plane).
Next time you drive past a car accident, picture the cars not along the side of the road but in someone's house. That's where they will go when something goes wrong and they fall from the sky.
They are not years away, they are only a few innovations away, mostly related to battery performance and more compact powerful engines. Then of course, regulation.
[+] [-] strong_silent_t|8 years ago|reply
- a short trip allows battery needs to not be excessive
- bypass traffic, you don't have to go all that fast to get a huge speedup, and remove the extra buffer time on traffic uncertainty
- radically less infrastructure than roads or rails, reduces the cost of adding more pickup zones
In cites with poor airport to downtown infrastructure you could probably start off as a high-end service and charge i.e. 5x than an airport limo.
[+] [-] echevil|8 years ago|reply
If regular subway is not fast enough, maglev train like the one connecting PVG airport to Longyang Rd subway station can complete its 19 miles trip in 8 minutes, with a fare less than 10 US dollars, and it has been running for almost two decades.
[+] [-] zhoujianfu|8 years ago|reply
[+] [-] zhoujianfu|8 years ago|reply
It’s an easier technical problem I’d think, and the regulatory issues are probably about the same.
But a flying, electric, quiet, self-flying drone taxi will mean no traffic issues, as-the-crow-flies travel, and higher top speeds. It may eventually mean the death of roads and the ability for people to live 100 miles from where they work, possibly solving a lot of housing issues in metropolitan areas.
Also it’d be a better way to get around watery/mountainous areas, not to mention just a few helipads to clean off after snowstorms.
It would also be super cool, jetsons-style!
[+] [-] sharpercoder|8 years ago|reply
- they are inherently fuel inefficient compared to devices with wheels
- they are noisy, a problem which can probably never be solved unless breakthroughs are made in science-fiction fields like anti-gravity
- airspace is very limited. In my country, we have already serious planning problems with the current amount of air traffic
- it's not sustainable from nature-perspective. Current air traffic accounts for quite some insect & bird loss. Imagine a multitude of current airtraffic; it would be disastrous for the already dwindling quantity of airborne creatures
- flying is inherently weather-bound. Especially for relatively small aircrafts this is true. Taxis fit this property. This means service is limited to a subset of all weather conditions; YMMV depending on the area of flight.
- flying is heavily regulated, which poses barriers. Obviously, startups can overcome these barriers, but they don't help in solving the overall problem
- social opposition will always be a thing unless 100% security is neared and near-100% noiseness is reached. Until that time, there will be fierce opposition to add any type of aircraft for mass-use to the airspace
This being said, I really, really, really do like the idea of hopping in an airborne transportation device and go straight to any place in a +-(a few hundreds of KM) range.
[+] [-] prostoalex|8 years ago|reply
At certain levels of demand there are air traffic control and collision avoidance issues that need to be dealt with. Birds, other air taxis, consumer drones, aircraft small and large.
Also, departure and landing sequencing - what happens when a few hundred air taxis need to depart a large apartment complex for their commute, or a thousand or so air taxis descend for a large sports or entertainment event.
[+] [-] amelius|8 years ago|reply
Not sure. They will become profitable only at a point where you can sell many flying taxis, at which point the airspace becomes crowded and the problem becomes harder than autonomous cars.
[+] [-] Treegarden|8 years ago|reply
Edit: here is the exact video (1 min long): https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2Nz69M6khCs
[+] [-] mannykannot|8 years ago|reply
[+] [-] vadimberman|8 years ago|reply
I agree with most of your post, but I can't agree with this:
> the regulatory issues are probably about the same
The issue is, flying cars are by far more dangerous than road vehicles.
Sadly, transportation advances come at a cost of human lives.
Today we take road fatalities for granted. Think of the dangers of crossing the road 150 years ago vs now.
But even today getting injured or killed by a motor vehicle requires being near a road or a thoroughfare where it can pass. Imagine taking it to a whole new level: even if you're standing on your balcony or even inside your apartment, you can get killed by an idiot flying his mini-plane on ecstasy. Tiny drones with toy functions and limited traffic are already dangerous. Imagine super-powered flying machines that can lift a ton.
[+] [-] jdavis703|8 years ago|reply
Sprawl does not solve housing issues. Let’s say the metropolitan range is expanded by 100 miles, all that’s happened is now the 100 mile area will soon get filled up with low density housing full of new NIMBY homeowners. It’s much better to approve new housing near existing transportation infrastructure than spend billions building out a speculative technology to fix a problem with an easily understood solution.
[+] [-] slx26|8 years ago|reply
[+] [-] DaTruthHurts|8 years ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] wpietri|8 years ago|reply
[+] [-] nsnick|8 years ago|reply
[+] [-] jra_samba|8 years ago|reply
The weight of a car is an excellent kinetic energy weapon. Fly over soft target, detonate something on-board to disable safety features and you have the poor-man(terrorist?)'s remote-kill drone.
Makes driving trucks into crowded streets look positively medieval.
The danger of this far outweighs any possible benefits.
Flying cars will become a thing, but stay heavily regulated and a rich-person's toy.
[+] [-] ShorsHammer|8 years ago|reply
Loss of multiple rotors is perfectly manageable.
Add variable pitch blades and you get autorotation ability to handle total power loss.
Worrying about the threats posed is silly. A truck driven by a maniac still can do far more damage. No one is proposing a truck ban.
[+] [-] nharada|8 years ago|reply
[+] [-] redspectre|8 years ago|reply
[+] [-] stctgion|8 years ago|reply
[+] [-] zhoujianfu|8 years ago|reply
[+] [-] lsc|8 years ago|reply
Our current 'arrive two hours early' security screening has cost many lives simply because it tilts the drive/fly equation towards driving, which is dramatically more dangerous.
That said, you are probably right about the net effect.
[+] [-] cmurf|8 years ago|reply
To share the same space requires either really agile and smart flying taxis that will always avoid legacy aircraft, regardless of conditions, a kind of "smart separation" of aircraft, or we need a new air traffic control system.
Setting aside ATC's automation, even autonomous aircraft has all sorts of unsolved technical problems. The reality today is that the vast majority of flights are not automated at all when it comes to taxi, takeoff, and landings. Most flights use Visual Flight Rules. The landing capacity of airports when using Instrument Flight Rules is substantially less, and there are various technical reasons why not least of which is that there is only one kind of precision approach to landing system, and it requires ground systems, airborne system, and pilot competency and certification. So we need a separate system invented for autonomous systems to do this at scale, while also integrating into the existing VFR and IFR systems for legacy aircraft.
Or someone comes up with a cheap enough retrofit of existing airplane cockpits that this can happen really fast, and just ban all the legacy aircraft from operating in autonmous only space (make it Class A, B and C space). That's sort of a joke because this would be very expensive. But maybe a hybrid pilot with augmented non-human secondary pilot could make this vaguely plausible.
Add in both FAA and ICAO regulations (global regulations apply for obvious reasons), economics, politics, and it's just really complicated. So I have to laugh every time I read "technical problems all solved" and "this could happen in 5 to 10 years". That's something I've heard for 30 years...
[+] [-] prostoalex|8 years ago|reply
That is the status quo, but FAA has been trying to move to an automated system forever (they were testing ATD-1 in KMWH as of last year) https://www.aviationsystemsdivision.arc.nasa.gov/research/ta...
Most likely they will have to set up special flight rules for unmanned taxis.
It also helps that rotor-driven vehicles don't need the runways the way the airplanes do - any large parking lot next to the airport could be designated as UAS landing space.
[+] [-] ph0rque|8 years ago|reply
[+] [-] sonium|8 years ago|reply
[+] [-] hexane360|8 years ago|reply
I don't agree with this. You're missing a variable: safety factor. Cars try to minimize safety factor to save money and weight, airplanes often have more regulations to prevent this. Cars definitely break more often then airplanes. Also, keep in mind that aircraft can rely on preventative maintenance by trained professionals. Cars really can't, meaning they have to simplify their components and assembly a lot.
[+] [-] agumonkey|8 years ago|reply
[+] [-] brudgers|8 years ago|reply
There are so few because getting an aircraft certified is hard. Not just for commercial use. Even private use. Most private planes in the US were built in the 20th century. And there were only 210,000 of them in 2015. Roughly 1/1500 people. Even among the commercial fleet, many air carrier aircraft are more than thirty years old because FAA certification is so difficult. To put it in automotive terms, much of what is flying in the US is analogous to a 1973 Dodge Dart or a 1985 F600. Aircraft in the US are like old cars in Cuba.
The number of aircraft in the sky is limited by long standing policies against general ownership. The FAA licensing of drone pilots is part of a general stance of limiting access to private aviation that began long long before 9/11. Just compare the number of private aircraft to recreational boats.
[1]: https://www.rita.dot.gov/bts/sites/rita.dot.gov.bts/files/pu...
[+] [-] oldcynic|8 years ago|reply
[+] [-] cmurf|8 years ago|reply
>long standing policies against general ownership
This is derogatory language, and it's simply not true. FARs were written over many decades based on prior failures. They weren't dug out of some bureaucrat's asshole to prevent ownership. Tort law is substantially more applicable to the rising cost of aircraft than regulations. But you're welcome to provide citations of regulations you think are not necessary, and and argument why.
[+] [-] mtgx|8 years ago|reply
[+] [-] bobthepanda|8 years ago|reply
[+] [-] maxxxxx|8 years ago|reply
[+] [-] barronlroth|8 years ago|reply
[+] [-] flogic|8 years ago|reply
[+] [-] ppbutt|8 years ago|reply
[+] [-] mbid|8 years ago|reply
[+] [-] nitwit005|8 years ago|reply
[+] [-] Panino|8 years ago|reply
[+] [-] matte_black|8 years ago|reply
[+] [-] loceng|8 years ago|reply