3 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 p
by 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.