3 ms·
Cars move in a 2-dimensional space (surface), aircraft move in a 3-dimesional space (without costly highways), so you can utilize space way more efficiently and
by dgudkov 7y ago
Cars move in a 2-dimensional space (surface), aircraft move in a 3-dimesional space (without costly highways), so you can utilize space way more efficiently and move more people per square mile.
The safety distances will probably reduce due to automated collision-avoidance systems which may become mandatory in dense flight areas.
Although, I don't know how planes compare to cars in terms of energy utilization efficiency. A car only needs energy to move. A plane needs energy to move and stay above the ground.
- rumanator 7y ago> Cars move in a 2-dimensional space (surface), aircraft move in a 3-dimesional space (without costly highways), so you can utilize space way more efficiently and move more people per square mile. You still need to land planes 1 at a time, and that involves a clearing period between landings.
- adrianN 7y agoNothing can move more people than a subway, certainly not single person planes that need to land and still consume space when not in use, just like cars.
- fastball 7y agoNobody is saying that small aircraft will move more people than subways. There is no one-size-fits-all solution to modern transportation needs. Compact electric planes are one piece of the puzzle.
- meheleventyone 7y agoAircraft require significantly more space between them in order to operate safely so I doubt the efficiency is there even taking into account stacking in an extra dimension. They're also pretty weather dependent in comparison to other options so capacity can vary a lot. If we actually cared about efficiency in urban transport we wouldn't have personal vehicles beyond bikes and small electric vehicles. We'd rather rely on public infrastructure like subways, trams, trains and buses.