Changing the nation's focus

[theclefe]

Because of the bridge collapse, the media around the country are buzzing about local transportation infrastructure. Not only with the cost of repairing and maintaining the current roads, but also creating new ones and dealing with the deficit many states have in regards to funding. It seems that the current model of public funding is failing for many reasons. Now, if we associate the time and research capital being spent on higher-mileage cars, hybrid vehicles or ethanol and alternative fuels, we are just creating a larger problem. Most states tax gas sales to fund highway improvements. Less fuel means less funding means more people driving longer on crappier roads... and the price of corn goes up, but that's not my point.

My point is... doesn't it make sense aggressively develop flying cars?

[The Artful Dodger]

Then, shouldn't we all be flying Cessnas? Is that what you're getting at?

[brewcrew4you]

Or tubes, we could all travel in tubes! (I feel some Tenacious D coming on )

[theclefe]

Or tubes, we could all travel in tubes! (I feel some Tenacious D coming on )

The public would still have to fund tubes. No Dice.

I am half serious with this. I heard yesterday that the state of Massachusetts will have a 17 billion dollar transportation deficit in 20 years. That is only one state, but it is pretty congested and has a lot of tax payers. I would imagine larger states with more roadways would be in worse shape.

With flying cars, it is a personal investment. Little infrastructure is needed aside from traffic regulation. If all the money going into building new bridges, tunnels and roadways to ease congestion was diverted to research, we could reasonably assume that we could have a commercial product within 20 years. And if fuel taxes continue going to maintain smaller road networks, land based vehicles and trucking could still operate.

[Lofunzo]

My point is... doesn't it make sense aggressively develop flying cars?

No. Can you imagine grandma flying around??

[theclefe]

My point is... doesn't it make sense aggressively develop flying cars?

No. Can you imagine grandma flying around??

Fine. We'll also build a limited tube network from the nursing home to the supermarket, and to the Price is Right. Everyone else will be flying!

[brewcrew4you]

Here's a flying car for you.

http://travel.howstuffworks.com/flying-car2.htm

Here's the article.


I had a big interest in the above flying car a fews years back, but after a lot of research, I concluded that it wasn't really a feasible idea, until autopilot becomes something that can take care of collision avoidance, etc. If you are in a car and it breaks down, you (usually) can pull over to the side of the road. In a plane, you crash. And without being on a highway, maybe you crash on someone's house. You would also have the uncontrolled sky issues, there is no way we could have an air traffic control system capable of handling that much aerial traffic in the next 20 years.

[roninmedia]

Another point in why other nations can catch up quickly to the United States in economic prowess. They can not only copy the technology advantages but they have an advantage of instantly building state of the art infrastructure without incurring the costs of tearing down the old. I thought about when I was at an engineering firm interning and we were discussing alternative fuels and we talked about the horrendous cost we would have to undertake to convert our gasoline infrastructure to say hydrogen fuel or electricity.

[davidmarver]

If you are in a car and it breaks down, you (usually) can pull over to the side of the road. In a plane, you crash.

I'm guessing that if flying cars became commercialized, there'd be numerous backup systems that would not allow the vehicle to crash. However, the main thing that would need to be worked out, in my opinion, is auto-pilot and some sort of airway 'freeway' sort of thing.

[Old_Style]

Screw flying cars. Time traveling DeLorean's are where it's at.