5 ms·
This doesn't solve the parking problem. Sure, you get to work a bit faster but now you need to put that thing down. In a downtown area where there's a major pri
by drzaiusapelord 10y ago
This doesn't solve the parking problem. Sure, you get to work a bit faster but now you need to put that thing down. In a downtown area where there's a major price premium for parking. Getting to work in 10 minutes instead of 30 is going to be attractive and that'll raise parking demand, but there's only going to be so much parking available. Tearing down profitable office buildings to make flying car parking lots will be cost prohibitive and I doubt Joe Officeworker is interested in a $500+ a month flying car space.
Its also worth mentioning that none of these proposed designs are vtol, so you'll need a real runway to land or take off.
Worse, how do you leave the massive underground parking lot? Drive to the street then somewhere you can safely lift off? Now you have to wait to taxi to the proper runway or lift off zone or whatever these things will ultimately be allowed to use. Double worse, now we're less invested in solutions that actually work and don't require massive parking spaces like public trans via light rail, e-bikes, traditional bikes, etc.
There's a reason why the personal plane never took off. I'm pretty bearish about the flying car concept, even if all the technical and regulatory issues are easily solved (hint: they wont be) there's still pricing and safety issues on top of the parking problem. Oh and 9/11 is fresh in everyone's minds. Can you imagine anyone approving these things flying near the skyscrapers we work in? I suspect that if that these things catch on, they'll be like the Concorde. A toy for rich people in a hurry but with so many strict regulations and limitations that it'll ultimately be infeasible in the long run.
If Page and Google have shown anything, they're poor futurists outside of the information realm. When it comes to hardware, they're batting very poorly. They let Valve and Oculus take the VR crown, they let Musk take space tourism and electric cars, they let Jobs take the first mass market smartphone, let Amazon take the e-book crown, etc.
- uptown 10y ago"Tearing down profitable office buildings to make flying car parking lots will be cost prohibitive and I doubt Joe Officeworker is interested in a $500 a month flying car space." Rooftops have been used for ages as landing pads for helicopters. I don't see why you couldn't do the same for these. And the article mentions adoption of the uber-model of non-ownership, so it's not like you'd need a parking lot of these sitting idly at the workplace for end-of-day. They'd come and go on-demand.
- drzaiusapelord 10y agoMy rooftop is full of HVAC equipment and my building is 28 stories high. Even if it was engineered to hold that much weight and redone to make it safe for landing a vtol plane, we're looking at what? 3 or 4 spaces at most in a building that holds over 2,000 people.
- joosters 10y agoA helicopter pad on a rooftop can generally only hold one helicopter. Where would the other people in the office park? Besides, hardly any of these flying car designs take off & land vertically.
- _audakel 10y agoYou could have the tesla self park / pick up feature. It drops you off and then Flys off some here where there is much space. Then you just call it back when you ready to leave.
- rileyteige 10y agoSounds like a lot of wasted energy if that thing has to fly any reasonable distance.
- Nav_Panel 10y ago> This doesn't solve the parking problem. Sure, you get to work a bit faster but now you need to put that thing down. In a downtown area where there's a major price premium for parking. What I envision instead is an extension of the office park concept, but suddenly there's no traffic congestion. You could have massive suburban/exurban growth and still have incredibly short commutes -- employees fly to their offices and park on the grounds. Folks who work downtown should probably live in the city/commuter suburbs and would be better served by other types of transit such as rail. I doubt this type of vehicle would even be allowed in a dense urban area. Flying cars in Manhattan sounds like a disaster waiting to happen.
- drzaiusapelord 10y agoExcept its the dense urban areas with the serious traffic and the kinds of people with the disposable income to consider a $300,000 vehicle who are probably going to be the main buyers here. I think suburban people probably aren't as motivated and if this stuff can't handle skyscrapers then the concept is pretty much dead outside of recreational usage.
- marssaxman 10y agoWait, now - you want to exacerbate sprawl and worsen suburban inefficiency, and this is supposed to be a benefit? I think you have just convinced me that personal flying vehicles are a terrible idea to be opposed at all costs.
- Nav_Panel 10y agoI'm not saying this view is a positive thing, it's merely what I imagine will happen if personal flying vehicles become affordable, based on past trends and our political environment. I would personally prefer more investment in public transit and dense urbanity, which isn't even really possible due to overly restrictive zoning laws.
- marssaxman 10y agoAh, sounds like we are much in agreement then.