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

by prostoalex • 11 years ago

23 55 11 years ago

peteretep2• 11 years ago

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.

Retric3• 11 years ago

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.

toomuchtodo2• 11 years ago

Anything over ~80-90mph is going to be extremely inefficient due to drag coefficient.

cmsmith• 11 years ago

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)

baldfat• 11 years ago

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.

Chris2048• 11 years ago

underground evacuated chamber?

alkonaut2• 11 years ago

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.

Shivetya• 11 years ago

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

sloppycee• 11 years ago

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...

speedthrowafff• 11 years ago

At 200+ mph it becomes hard to stay on the ground. :)

lumberjack2• 11 years ago

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.

clock_tower• 11 years ago

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...

adam_klein• 11 years ago

http://www.aeromobil.com/

Animats2• 11 years ago

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

dceddia• 11 years ago

Interestingly, the video referenced in [4] has been taken down due to "a copyright claim made by News Media"...

usrusr• 11 years ago

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.

Animats2• 11 years ago

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

d0m• 11 years ago

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.

mikehollinger• 11 years ago

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.

fapjacks• 11 years ago

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.

CM30• 11 years ago

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.

laotzu• 11 years ago

And those places could theoretically be programmed into the VR system which would allow for visiting places you can only imagine.

lumberjack2• 11 years ago

even better

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.

shostack2• 11 years ago

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.

zanny2• 11 years ago

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.

aninhumer2• 11 years ago

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.

pmichaud2• 11 years ago

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.

clort• 11 years ago

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!

kashkhan3• 11 years ago

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).

titanomachy• 11 years ago

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.

7952• 11 years ago

> 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.

Natsu• 11 years ago

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.

digi_owl• 11 years ago

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.

kashkhan3• 11 years ago

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.

ilaksh• 11 years ago

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

Still no flying cars? The future of transit promises something even better

Related Stories