Can personal aircraft beat gridlock?

[Jack May]

Initial step to eliminate mass transit (airlines) in the sky along with
reducing congestion.



http://news.com.com/Can+personal+aircraft+beat+gridlock/2100-11397_3-6200787.html

The Cafe Foundation, a nonprofit group of flight test engineers, on Saturday
will kick off its first NASA-sponsored contest of personal aircraft
vehicles, or PAVs, which is being held at the Charles Schultz Sonoma County
Airport in California.

The goal of the challenge will be to test the fuel efficiency and speed of
PAVs--high-tech two-seater planes--so they could one day serve as a more
economical, environmentally friendly way for people to get around and
circumvent auto gridlock.

It has staked a total of $2 million for the five annual PAV challenges

The idea is that these small planes, with built-in GPS and terrain mapping,
could take people within a few miles of their doorstep (landing on short
airstrips) at a faster clip, expelling less fuel.

People would be able to get a license to fly PAVs as easily as a driver's
license, and they could fly them with the help of a computerized control
system and "synthetic vision," or technology that supplies a moving 3D view
of the world even when flying in total fog.

"The PAV Efficiency Prize will be awarded to the aircraft with the lowest
trip cost," according to the foundation, which will factor in trip speed and
fuel cost over a 400-mile closed course

In this competition, contestants will run their PAVs on aviation fuel. But
Seeley said some contestants for next year's competition are already working
on PAVs that run on alternative energy sources such as batteries or fuels
like biodiesel, made from vegetable oil. (A biodiesel PAV could go 900 miles
on 25 gallons, for example.)

[David Nebenzahl]

Post by Jack May
Initial step to eliminate mass transit (airlines) in the sky along with
reducing congestion.
http://news.com.com/Can+personal+aircraft+beat+gridlock/2100-11397_3-6200787.html
The Cafe Foundation, a nonprofit group of flight test engineers, on Saturday
will kick off its first NASA-sponsored contest of personal aircraft
vehicles, or PAVs, which is being held at the Charles Schultz Sonoma County
Airport in California.

[snippola]

You know, I used to jokingly compare you to George Jetson. Now I see
it's no joke.


(Alternative subject of this post: Jack May discovers how crossposting
is like shooting fish in a barrel.)

[Peter Lawrence]

I'm still holding out for my personal jet pack.

;-)

- Peter

Post by Jack May
Initial step to eliminate mass transit (airlines) in the sky along with
reducing congestion.
http://news.com.com/Can+personal+aircraft+beat+gridlock/2100-11397_3-6200787.html
The Cafe Foundation, a nonprofit group of flight test engineers, on Saturday
will kick off its first NASA-sponsored contest of personal aircraft
vehicles, or PAVs, which is being held at the Charles Schultz Sonoma County
Airport in California.
The goal of the challenge will be to test the fuel efficiency and speed of
PAVs--high-tech two-seater planes--so they could one day serve as a more
economical, environmentally friendly way for people to get around and
circumvent auto gridlock.
It has staked a total of $2 million for the five annual PAV challenges
The idea is that these small planes, with built-in GPS and terrain mapping,
could take people within a few miles of their doorstep (landing on short
airstrips) at a faster clip, expelling less fuel.
People would be able to get a license to fly PAVs as easily as a driver's
license, and they could fly them with the help of a computerized control
system and "synthetic vision," or technology that supplies a moving 3D view
of the world even when flying in total fog.
"The PAV Efficiency Prize will be awarded to the aircraft with the lowest
trip cost," according to the foundation, which will factor in trip speed and
fuel cost over a 400-mile closed course
In this competition, contestants will run their PAVs on aviation fuel. But
Seeley said some contestants for next year's competition are already working
on PAVs that run on alternative energy sources such as batteries or fuels
like biodiesel, made from vegetable oil. (A biodiesel PAV could go 900 miles
on 25 gallons, for example.)

[Jack May]

Post by Peter Lawrence
I'm still holding out for my personal jet pack.
;-)

Me too, but nobody knows how to make one that will fly fast for a long
distance. A couple of years ago NASA was funding a company in Sunnyvale, Ca
that had two large propellers pointing up. It didn't get additional funding
from NASA to continue. I don't know what the problem was.

NASA has decided that you can't design a good flying car. Designs are
either a good plane or a good car but never a good flying car.

So the strategy now is that you drive, bike, or walk a short distance to a
small airport and take off from there.

The goal is to make the planes about the same price as a luxury car with
mass production and enough electronics so that anybody can fly anywhere
safely, cheaply, with almost no training. Just select which airport you
want to go to and it will get you there without crashing.

Not a jet pack but sounds really good to me.

[george conklin]

Post by Jack May

Post by Peter Lawrence
I'm still holding out for my personal jet pack.
;-)

Me too, but nobody knows how to make one that will fly fast for a long
distance. A couple of years ago NASA was funding a company in Sunnyvale,
Ca that had two large propellers pointing up. It didn't get additional
funding from NASA to continue. I don't know what the problem was.
NASA has decided that you can't design a good flying car. Designs are
either a good plane or a good car but never a good flying car.
So the strategy now is that you drive, bike, or walk a short distance to a
small airport and take off from there.
The goal is to make the planes about the same price as a luxury car with
mass production and enough electronics so that anybody can fly anywhere
safely, cheaply, with almost no training. Just select which airport you
want to go to and it will get you there without crashing.
Not a jet pack but sounds really good to me.

Already there are certain classes of light planes you can buy and fly with a
driver's license and a few hours additional training, but they most weigh
something less than 1,200 pounds and you cannot fly them but in essentially
rural locations. They are not ultralights, and even look like real
airplanes.

[Jack May]

Post by george conklin
Already there are certain classes of light planes you can buy and fly with
a driver's license and a few hours additional training, but they most
weigh something less than 1,200 pounds and you cannot fly them but in
essentially rural locations. They are not ultralights, and even look like
real airplanes.

For all this to work, there has to be an electronic infrastructure and
sophisticated electronics in a strong airplane that will be very safe for
everybody to use in most weather.

The goal is to mass produce the airplanes to get cost down to luxury car
prices or less. Obviously the lawyers must largely cut off for this to
happen.

[george conklin]

Post by Jack May

Post by george conklin
Already there are certain classes of light planes you can buy and fly
with a driver's license and a few hours additional training, but they
most weigh something less than 1,200 pounds and you cannot fly them but
in essentially rural locations. They are not ultralights, and even look
like real airplanes.

For all this to work, there has to be an electronic infrastructure and
sophisticated electronics in a strong airplane that will be very safe for
everybody to use in most weather.
The goal is to mass produce the airplanes to get cost down to luxury car
prices or less. Obviously the lawyers must largely cut off for this to
happen.

For aircraft, continued liability is a horrid cost addition to each small
plane.

[rotten]

On Aug 6, 1:13 pm, "Jack May" <***@comcast.net> wrote:

People don't like to hear this but... the future of mass
transportation of any importance is in the sky. The reason? There's
nearly unlimited space in the sky, while there's only limited space on
the ground.

[Hatunen]

Post by rotten
People don't like to hear this but... the future of mass
transportation of any importance is in the sky. The reason? There's
nearly unlimited space in the sky, while there's only limited space on
the ground.

I'm imagining all that morning traffic from the freeway up in the
air above the freeway, and it makes me cringe.

[e***@no.spam]

Post by Hatunen
I'm imagining all that morning traffic from the freeway up in the
air above the freeway, and it makes me cringe.

Imagine having to go through TSA just to use your own car ;)

[Keith Keller]

["Followup-To:" header set to ba.transportation.]

Post by Hatunen

Post by rotten
People don't like to hear this but... the future of mass
transportation of any importance is in the sky. The reason? There's
nearly unlimited space in the sky, while there's only limited space on
the ground.

I'm imagining all that morning traffic from the freeway up in the
air above the freeway, and it makes me cringe.

It would certainly make the commute more Darwinian. The only real
problem is making sure you can get out of your home quickly enough to
avoid being killed by falling planes.

--keith

[rotten]

Post by Hatunen

Post by rotten
People don't like to hear this but... the future of mass
transportation of any importance is in the sky. The reason? There's
nearly unlimited space in the sky, while there's only limited space on
the ground.

I'm imagining all that morning traffic from the freeway up in the
air above the freeway, and it makes me cringe.
--
* Tucson Arizona, out where the cacti grow *
* My typos & mispellings are intentional copyright traps *

It wouldn't "all" be up in the air. I said mass transportation, not
personal.

[Hatunen]

Post by rotten

Post by Hatunen

Post by rotten
People don't like to hear this but... the future of mass
transportation of any importance is in the sky. The reason? There's
nearly unlimited space in the sky, while there's only limited space on
the ground.

I'm imagining all that morning traffic from the freeway up in the
air above the freeway, and it makes me cringe.

It wouldn't "all" be up in the air. I said mass transportation, not
personal.

OK. I'm imaginng all those flying buses landing evey mile or so
to take on or let off passengers.

[Joe the Aroma]

Post by Hatunen
OK. I'm imaginng all those flying buses landing evey mile or so
to take on or let off passengers.

Well, I'd call that more urban transportation more than mass transportation.

[Amy Blankenship]

Post by Joe the Aroma

Post by Hatunen
OK. I'm imaginng all those flying buses landing evey mile or so
to take on or let off passengers.

Well, I'd call that more urban transportation more than mass
transportation.

What if you added a Catholic priest?

[george conklin]

Post by Joe the Aroma

Post by Hatunen
OK. I'm imaginng all those flying buses landing evey mile or so
to take on or let off passengers.

Well, I'd call that more urban transportation more than mass
transportation.

But if smaller planes used underutilized airports, then the problems at the
large ones would be solved.

[[e-mail]]

Post by george conklin

Post by Joe the Aroma

Post by Hatunen
OK. I'm imaginng all those flying buses landing evey mile or so
to take on or let off passengers.

Well, I'd call that more urban transportation more than mass
transportation.

But if smaller planes used underutilized airports, then the problems at the
large ones would be solved.

Georgie Boy, where exactly are those underused aiports, huh Georgie
Boy???

And why are they underused, huh Georgie Boy. Maybe becasue they are
not near anything, huh Georgie Boy.

Georgie Boy again you are making an idiot out of your self.


Randy

[Orval Fairbairn]

Post by ***@yahoo.com

Post by george conklin

Post by Joe the Aroma

Post by Hatunen
OK. I'm imaginng all those flying buses landing evey mile or so
to take on or let off passengers.

Well, I'd call that more urban transportation more than mass transportation.

But if smaller planes used underutilized airports, then the problems at the
large ones would be solved.

Georgie Boy, where exactly are those underused aiports, huh Georgie
Boy???
And why are they underused, huh Georgie Boy. Maybe becasue they are
not near anything, huh Georgie Boy.
Georgie Boy again you are making an idiot out of your self.
Randy

Moffett Field, the old Alameda NAS, the old Hamilton AFB, for starters.

Those places have been frozen due to developer-controlled politics.

[David Nebenzahl]

Post by Orval Fairbairn

Post by ***@yahoo.com

Post by george conklin

Post by Joe the Aroma

Post by Hatunen
OK. I'm imaginng all those flying buses landing evey mile or so
to take on or let off passengers.

Well, I'd call that more urban transportation more than mass transportation.

But if smaller planes used underutilized airports, then the problems at the
large ones would be solved.

Georgie Boy, where exactly are those underused aiports, huh Georgie
Boy???
And why are they underused, huh Georgie Boy. Maybe becasue they are
not near anything, huh Georgie Boy.
Georgie Boy again you are making an idiot out of your self.

Moffett Field, the old Alameda NAS, the old Hamilton AFB, for starters.
Those places have been frozen due to developer-controlled politics.

"Airports"? Those are former military installations. Not the same thing
by a long shot.

[John Clear]

Post by David Nebenzahl

Post by Orval Fairbairn

Post by ***@yahoo.com
And why are they underused, huh Georgie Boy. Maybe becasue they are
not near anything, huh Georgie Boy.

Moffett Field, the old Alameda NAS, the old Hamilton AFB, for starters.
Those places have been frozen due to developer-controlled politics.

"Airports"? Those are former military installations. Not the same thing
by a long shot.

Yup, not the same thing at all. General aviation planes are much
quieter then anything the military flies, and can be nearly to
cruise altitude before crossing the far end of those huge runways.
When I've flown into Moffett in a general aviation plane, I can
fly the entire traffic pattern without ever leaving the perimeter
of the base. You could open up the former military installations
to civilian traffic, and no one but the nutjobs would notice.

John

[Jack May]

Post by John Clear

Post by David Nebenzahl

Post by Orval Fairbairn

Post by ***@yahoo.com
And why are they underused, huh Georgie Boy. Maybe becasue they are
not near anything, huh Georgie Boy.

Moffett Field, the old Alameda NAS, the old Hamilton AFB, for starters.
Those places have been frozen due to developer-controlled politics.

"Airports"? Those are former military installations. Not the same thing
by a long shot.

Yup, not the same thing at all. General aviation planes are much
quieter then anything the military flies, and can be nearly to
cruise altitude before crossing the far end of those huge runways.
When I've flown into Moffett in a general aviation plane, I can
fly the entire traffic pattern without ever leaving the perimeter
of the base. You could open up the former military installations
to civilian traffic, and no one but the nutjobs would notice.

If the technology takes off where anybody can fly when they want, the
political pressure to have a lot more small airports will be intense.
Housing development will include airplane strips to attract buyers.

[Jack May]

Post by rotten
It wouldn't "all" be up in the air. I said mass transportation, not
personal.

All the development is for personal aircraft. Mass transportation is what
we have now with large aircraft, which will mainly go away.

The way things are going with pilot salaries, nobody will be able to live on
a pilots salary anyway.

[kkt]

Post by rotten
People don't like to hear this but... the future of mass
transportation of any importance is in the sky. The reason? There's
nearly unlimited space in the sky, while there's only limited space on
the ground.

Unlikely. Energy use is likely to be more and more of a limiting
factor in the future. Flying takes more energy than rolling. So
flying is not going to increase its roll.

One of the virtues of trains is that they take much less real-estate
to move the same number of people as cars do.

-- Patrick

[Joe the Aroma]

Post by kkt
Unlikely. Energy use is likely to be more and more of a limiting
factor in the future. Flying takes more energy than rolling. So
flying is not going to increase its roll.

Likely. Energy use will become a factor, but not as much as people think.
There is unlimited energy out there if we just harness it.

Post by kkt
One of the virtues of trains is that they take much less real-estate
to move the same number of people as cars do.

But freight takes up much more real-estate than cars do. This is why freight
rail is so healthy in the US.

[kkt]

Post by Joe the Aroma

Post by kkt
Unlikely. Energy use is likely to be more and more of a limiting
factor in the future. Flying takes more energy than rolling. So
flying is not going to increase its roll.

Likely. Energy use will become a factor, but not as much as people think.
There is unlimited energy out there if we just harness it.

Wind, geothermal, etc., might help with electricity generation.
There's still no substitute for fossil fuels for moving vehicles,
though.

Post by Joe the Aroma

Post by kkt
One of the virtues of trains is that they take much less real-estate
to move the same number of people as cars do.

But freight takes up much more real-estate than cars do. This is why freight
rail is so healthy in the US.

What do you mean? For the same amount of freight, a freight train
takes up less real-estate than trucking it would require.

-- Patrick

[Jack May]

is unlimited energy out there if we just harness it.

Post by kkt
Wind, geothermal, etc., might help with electricity generation.
There's still no substitute for fossil fuels for moving vehicles,
though.

Alcohol and hydrogen are usable liquid fuels for moving vehicles and we
should be able to produce these fuels with sunlight, water, plant waste
using genetically engineered microbes.

Post by kkt
What do you mean? For the same amount of freight, a freight train
takes up less real-estate than trucking it would require.

The market does not really care about your statement, but trains are most
valued for carrying freight containers that also require trucks for getting
the containers to their destinations

[rotten]

Post by kkt

Post by Joe the Aroma

Post by kkt
Unlikely. Energy use is likely to be more and more of a limiting
factor in the future. Flying takes more energy than rolling. So
flying is not going to increase its roll.

Likely. Energy use will become a factor, but not as much as people think.
There is unlimited energy out there if we just harness it.

Wind, geothermal, etc., might help with electricity generation.
There's still no substitute for fossil fuels for moving vehicles,
though.

Post by Joe the Aroma

Post by kkt
One of the virtues of trains is that they take much less real-estate
to move the same number of people as cars do.

But freight takes up much more real-estate than cars do. This is why freight
rail is so healthy in the US.

What do you mean? For the same amount of freight, a freight train
takes up less real-estate than trucking it would require.
-- Patrick

Moving people and freight by train takes up less real estate than
moving both by automobile. However, the savings involved in moving
freight by rail is generally more than the saving involved in moving
people by rail, no? It's sort of a "comparative advantage" type
scenario.

[kkt]

Post by rotten

Post by kkt

Post by Joe the Aroma

Post by kkt
Unlikely. Energy use is likely to be more and more of a limiting
factor in the future. Flying takes more energy than rolling. So
flying is not going to increase its roll.

Likely. Energy use will become a factor, but not as much as people think.
There is unlimited energy out there if we just harness it.

Wind, geothermal, etc., might help with electricity generation.
There's still no substitute for fossil fuels for moving vehicles,
though.

Post by Joe the Aroma

Post by kkt
One of the virtues of trains is that they take much less real-estate
to move the same number of people as cars do.

But freight takes up much more real-estate than cars do. This is why freight
rail is so healthy in the US.

What do you mean? For the same amount of freight, a freight train
takes up less real-estate than trucking it would require.
-- Patrick

Moving people and freight by train takes up less real estate than
moving both by automobile. However, the savings involved in moving
freight by rail is generally more than the saving involved in moving
people by rail, no? It's sort of a "comparative advantage" type
scenario.

Thanks for clarifying. Yes, though I don't think they're mutually
exclusive.

-- Patrick

[Jack May]

Post by kkt

Post by rotten
People don't like to hear this but... the future of mass
transportation of any importance is in the sky. The reason? There's
nearly unlimited space in the sky, while there's only limited space on
the ground.

Unlikely. Energy use is likely to be more and more of a limiting
factor in the future. Flying takes more energy than rolling. So
flying is not going to increase its roll.

The world will have a glut of alternative energy sources with genetically
engineered microbes constantly converting sun, water, and plant life to
hydrogen or alcohol. Of course insurgent microbes will be trying to take
over the world to free the slave microbes and eliminate people :-)

Post by kkt
One of the virtues of trains is that they take much less real-estate
to move the same number of people as cars do.

[Orval Fairbairn]

Post by kkt

Post by rotten
People don't like to hear this but... the future of mass
transportation of any importance is in the sky. The reason? There's
nearly unlimited space in the sky, while there's only limited space on
the ground.

Unlikely. Energy use is likely to be more and more of a limiting
factor in the future. Flying takes more energy than rolling. So
flying is not going to increase its roll.
One of the virtues of trains is that they take much less real-estate
to move the same number of people as cars do.
-- Patrick

Aircraft take up far less real estate than rail or roads, by far!
A mile of road or rail will take you exactly one mile.
A mile of runway will take you to the whole world!

The big problem with planes is weather. I do not believe in the
electronic solution, but see electronics as a huge assist.

[Jack May]

Post by Orval Fairbairn

Post by kkt

Post by rotten
People don't like to hear this but... the future of mass
transportation of any importance is in the sky. The reason? There's
nearly unlimited space in the sky, while there's only limited space on
the ground.

Unlikely. Energy use is likely to be more and more of a limiting
factor in the future. Flying takes more energy than rolling. So
flying is not going to increase its roll.
One of the virtues of trains is that they take much less real-estate
to move the same number of people as cars do.
-- Patrick

Aircraft take up far less real estate than rail or roads, by far!
A mile of road or rail will take you exactly one mile.
A mile of runway will take you to the whole world!

Absolutely true !

We also found that light rail for two tracks takes up the same amount of
real estate as 3.5 lanes of road. Some take as much 5.5 road lanes. We
did this by measuring actual light rail using Google Earth in multiple
cities.

As usual the rail advocates typically just fabricate the "virtues" of rail
without ever checking anything that they say. Making up "facts" seems to
be the most common approach of lying used by transit advocates. Of course
they then call anyone a liar that disagrees with their "facts".

Sorry, just a pet peeve.

Post by Orval Fairbairn
The big problem with planes is weather. I do not believe in the
electronic solution, but see electronics as a huge assist.

I bet you that electronics in these no skill required aircraft will not let
the planes fly in areas with dangerous weather or do anything else that is
dangerous. Like a Honda, it will get you there but won't give you any
thrills like a Porsche.

[Bill Z.]

Post by Jack May

Post by Orval Fairbairn

Post by kkt

Post by rotten
People don't like to hear this but... the future of mass
transportation of any importance is in the sky. The reason? There's
nearly unlimited space in the sky, while there's only limited space on
the ground.

Unlikely. Energy use is likely to be more and more of a limiting
factor in the future. Flying takes more energy than rolling. So
flying is not going to increase its roll.
One of the virtues of trains is that they take much less real-estate
to move the same number of people as cars do.
-- Patrick

Aircraft take up far less real estate than rail or roads, by far!
A mile of road or rail will take you exactly one mile.
A mile of runway will take you to the whole world!

Absolutely true !

Every bit as misleading as Jack May claims rail advocates are! First,
a "mile of runway" will simply get you into the air. You need lots
of "miles of runways" all over the place to get to the "whole world",
unless you plan to use a parachute to reach the ground. Second, this
"mile of runway" ignores the taxiway, the width of the runways (about
freeway width for a commercial airport), the terminals, the large
unused area when multiple runways cross, the roads, railroads,
pipelines, etc. needed to supply the airport (which have to be able
to refuel and otherwise service planes), etc.

Post by Jack May
We also found that light rail for two tracks takes up the same amount of
real estate as 3.5 lanes of road. Some take as much 5.5 road lanes. We
did this by measuring actual light rail using Google Earth in multiple
cities.

How many people per hour does light rail carry versus a highway? Also,
if they are taking up 5.5 road lanes, how much of that is for future
expansion (i.e., to add a second set of tracks)? The roadways that
make up some freeways are sometimes separated with a grassy area
in between. Do you count that as part of the freeway?

Post by Jack May
As usual the rail advocates typically just fabricate the "virtues" of rail
without ever checking anything that they say. Making up "facts" seems to
be the most common approach of lying used by transit advocates. Of course
they then call anyone a liar that disagrees with their "facts".
Sorry, just a pet peeve.

Ever hear "pot, kettle, ... "? :-)

Post by Jack May

Post by Orval Fairbairn
The big problem with planes is weather. I do not believe in the
electronic solution, but see electronics as a huge assist.

I bet you that electronics in these no skill required aircraft will not let
the planes fly in areas with dangerous weather or do anything else that is
dangerous. Like a Honda, it will get you there but won't give you any
thrills like a Porsche.

What happens when the engine dies? A fair bit of aviation training is
for handling such emergencies.

[Joe the Aroma]

Post by Bill Z.
Every bit as misleading as Jack May claims rail advocates are! First,
a "mile of runway" will simply get you into the air. You need lots
of "miles of runways" all over the place to get to the "whole world",
unless you plan to use a parachute to reach the ground. Second, this
"mile of runway" ignores the taxiway, the width of the runways (about
freeway width for a commercial airport), the terminals, the large
unused area when multiple runways cross, the roads, railroads,
pipelines, etc. needed to supply the airport (which have to be able
to refuel and otherwise service planes), etc.

Oh c'mon. You and I know that the ground real estate required for air travel
is a fraction of that required for road or rail travel. Don't give me that
bullshit.

Post by Bill Z.
How many people per hour does light rail carry versus a highway? Also,
if they are taking up 5.5 road lanes, how much of that is for future
expansion (i.e., to add a second set of tracks)? The roadways that
make up some freeways are sometimes separated with a grassy area
in between. Do you count that as part of the freeway?

Light rail doesn't carry much of anyone from the stats I've seen.

Post by Bill Z.

Post by Jack May
As usual the rail advocates typically just fabricate the "virtues" of rail
without ever checking anything that they say. Making up "facts" seems to
be the most common approach of lying used by transit advocates. Of course
they then call anyone a liar that disagrees with their "facts".
Sorry, just a pet peeve.

Ever hear "pot, kettle, ... "? :-)

He's got a point.

Post by Bill Z.

Post by Jack May

Post by Orval Fairbairn
The big problem with planes is weather. I do not believe in the
electronic solution, but see electronics as a huge assist.

I bet you that electronics in these no skill required aircraft will not let
the planes fly in areas with dangerous weather or do anything else that is
dangerous. Like a Honda, it will get you there but won't give you any
thrills like a Porsche.

What happens when the engine dies? A fair bit of aviation training is
for handling such emergencies.

Right, which is why I think that George Jetson type scenarios will never
play out.

[Bill Z.]

Post by Joe the Aroma

Post by Bill Z.
Every bit as misleading as Jack May claims rail advocates are! First,
a "mile of runway" will simply get you into the air. You need lots
of "miles of runways" all over the place to get to the "whole world",
unless you plan to use a parachute to reach the ground. Second, this
"mile of runway" ignores the taxiway, the width of the runways (about
freeway width for a commercial airport), the terminals, the large
unused area when multiple runways cross, the roads, railroads,
pipelines, etc. needed to supply the airport (which have to be able
to refuel and otherwise service planes), etc.

Oh c'mon. You and I know that the ground real estate required for air travel
is a fraction of that required for road or rail travel. Don't give me that
bullshit.

It's not "bullshit". I merely pointed out that the guy touting airports
was as guilty of distorting the facts as Jack claimed transit advocates
are.

Post by Joe the Aroma

Post by Bill Z.
How many people per hour does light rail carry versus a highway? Also,
if they are taking up 5.5 road lanes, how much of that is for future
expansion (i.e., to add a second set of tracks)? The roadways that
make up some freeways are sometimes separated with a grassy area
in between. Do you count that as part of the freeway?

Light rail doesn't carry much of anyone from the stats I've seen.

(but he won't quantify that claim)

Post by Joe the Aroma

Post by Bill Z.

Post by Jack May
Sorry, just a pet peeve.

Ever hear "pot, kettle, ... "? :-)

He's got a point.

Actually, he's applying his "point" to one side but not the other. It
is a double standard.

[Joe the Aroma]

Post by Bill Z.
It's not "bullshit". I merely pointed out that the guy touting airports
was as guilty of distorting the facts as Jack claimed transit advocates
are.

C'mon, two airports hundreds of miles apart vs. two train stations hundreds
of miles apart. Which one has more ground infrastructure?

Post by Bill Z.

Post by Joe the Aroma
Light rail doesn't carry much of anyone from the stats I've seen.

(but he won't quantify that claim)

No... I woulda' figured common sense might apply in this case. Doesn't light
rail carry like 1% of commuters nationwide?

[David Nebenzahl]

Post by Joe the Aroma

Post by Bill Z.
It's not "bullshit". I merely pointed out that the guy touting airports
was as guilty of distorting the facts as Jack claimed transit advocates
are.

C'mon, two airports hundreds of miles apart vs. two train stations hundreds
of miles apart. Which one has more ground infrastructure?

Yes, good question: which one, indeed?

Don't forget hangars, fueling facilities, terminals, acres of parking
lots, concourses, roadway ingress and egress connectors,
baggage-handling facilities, etc., etc. Which one has more ground
infrastructure?

[Orval Fairbairn]

Post by David Nebenzahl

Post by Joe the Aroma

Post by Bill Z.
It's not "bullshit". I merely pointed out that the guy touting airports
was as guilty of distorting the facts as Jack claimed transit advocates
are.

C'mon, two airports hundreds of miles apart vs. two train stations hundreds
of miles apart. Which one has more ground infrastructure?

Yes, good question: which one, indeed?
Don't forget hangars, fueling facilities, terminals, acres of parking
lots, concourses, roadway ingress and egress connectors,
baggage-handling facilities, etc., etc. Which one has more ground
infrastructure?

Don't forget: rail maintenance shops, storage yards, marshalling yards,
grade crossings, tunnels, viaducts, etc.

Rail uses more land, by FAR! And -- it is inflexible!

[Joe the Aroma]

Post by Orval Fairbairn
Don't forget: rail maintenance shops, storage yards, marshalling yards,
grade crossings, tunnels, viaducts, etc.
Rail uses more land, by FAR! And -- it is inflexible!

Apparently these rail LOONIES are too stupid to realize this.

[Stephen Sprunk]

Post by Orval Fairbairn

Post by David Nebenzahl

Post by Joe the Aroma

Post by Bill Z.
It's not "bullshit". I merely pointed out that the guy touting airports
was as guilty of distorting the facts as Jack claimed transit advocates
are.

C'mon, two airports hundreds of miles apart vs. two train stations hundreds
of miles apart. Which one has more ground infrastructure?

Yes, good question: which one, indeed?
Don't forget hangars, fueling facilities, terminals, acres of parking
lots, concourses, roadway ingress and egress connectors,
baggage-handling facilities, etc., etc. Which one has more ground
infrastructure?

Don't forget: rail maintenance shops, storage yards, marshalling yards,
grade crossings, tunnels, viaducts, etc.
Rail uses more land, by FAR! And -- it is inflexible!

Denver's airport takes up 54 square miles of land. D/FW takes up 30. Those
two airports _alone_ burn more land than 29,000 track-miles of rail ROW.
You're going to lose trying that type of argument because, ironically,
airports use more land than rail. Heck, even freeways are more
land-efficient.

S

[Jack May]

Post by Stephen Sprunk
Denver's airport takes up 54 square miles of land. D/FW takes up 30.
Those two airports _alone_ burn more land than 29,000 track-miles of rail
ROW. You're going to lose trying that type of argument because,
ironically, airports use more land than rail. Heck, even freeways are
more land-efficient.

Usual trick of using the most extreme spreadout airports to cherry pick

[rotten]

Post by Stephen Sprunk

Post by Orval Fairbairn

Post by David Nebenzahl

Post by Joe the Aroma

Post by Bill Z.
It's not "bullshit". I merely pointed out that the guy touting airports
was as guilty of distorting the facts as Jack claimed transit advocates
are.

C'mon, two airports hundreds of miles apart vs. two train stations hundreds
of miles apart. Which one has more ground infrastructure?

Yes, good question: which one, indeed?
Don't forget hangars, fueling facilities, terminals, acres of parking
lots, concourses, roadway ingress and egress connectors,
baggage-handling facilities, etc., etc. Which one has more ground
infrastructure?

Don't forget: rail maintenance shops, storage yards, marshalling yards,
grade crossings, tunnels, viaducts, etc.
Rail uses more land, by FAR! And -- it is inflexible!

Denver's airport takes up 54 square miles of land. D/FW takes up 30. Those
two airports _alone_ burn more land than 29,000 track-miles of rail ROW.
You're going to lose trying that type of argument because, ironically,
airports use more land than rail. Heck, even freeways are more
land-efficient.

Well, it'd be an interesting calculation. You'd have to calculate the
girth of all track miles times the length, and add in all the other
stuff require for rail. And anyway, it's not necessarily square miles
we're considering. Yes, I did say that but I misspoke. The thing is
that a long stretch of track is more awkward to build and maintain
than a small airport. You will probably have to cut into more eminent
domain property. A new airport can be a giant plot of land on a farm
somewhere.

Plus with a plane you have flexibility as others have said. Plus, you
essentially have access to unlimited real estate in the sky on a point
to point basis. The only limit is how high and low planes can fly
(clearly there's a limit for the latter, but is there one for the
former?).

[kkt]

Post by rotten

Post by Stephen Sprunk

Post by Orval Fairbairn

Post by David Nebenzahl

Post by Joe the Aroma

Post by Bill Z.
It's not "bullshit". I merely pointed out that the guy touting airports
was as guilty of distorting the facts as Jack claimed transit advocates
are.

C'mon, two airports hundreds of miles apart vs. two train stations hundreds
of miles apart. Which one has more ground infrastructure?

Yes, good question: which one, indeed?
Don't forget hangars, fueling facilities, terminals, acres of parking
lots, concourses, roadway ingress and egress connectors,
baggage-handling facilities, etc., etc. Which one has more ground
infrastructure?

Don't forget: rail maintenance shops, storage yards, marshalling yards,
grade crossings, tunnels, viaducts, etc.
Rail uses more land, by FAR! And -- it is inflexible!

Denver's airport takes up 54 square miles of land. D/FW takes up 30. Those
two airports _alone_ burn more land than 29,000 track-miles of rail ROW.
You're going to lose trying that type of argument because, ironically,
airports use more land than rail. Heck, even freeways are more
land-efficient.

Well, it'd be an interesting calculation. You'd have to calculate the
girth of all track miles times the length, and add in all the other
stuff require for rail. And anyway, it's not necessarily square miles
we're considering. Yes, I did say that but I misspoke. The thing is
that a long stretch of track is more awkward to build and maintain
than a small airport. You will probably have to cut into more eminent
domain property. A new airport can be a giant plot of land on a farm
somewhere.

In most cases, there's enough rail capacity already. In a lot of
places parallel lines have been made redundant by mergers. A good
strategy would be to pick one for renovation as a higher speed
passenger line while leaving the other for freight. Of course, if you
want to build HSR, you need an all-new right of way.

As you're comparing costs of land, also keep in mind that much of the
rail right of way is in rural areas where it's cheap. Even rail yards
can be near smaller towns rather than the big cities. The airports
have to be somewhere near cities to be effective.

Post by rotten
Plus with a plane you have flexibility as others have said. Plus, you
essentially have access to unlimited real estate in the sky on a point
to point basis. The only limit is how high and low planes can fly
(clearly there's a limit for the latter, but is there one for the
former?).

Aircraft with pressurized cabins are a lot more expensive than those
without. I'm not sure exactly what elevation that requirement starts
-- maybe 8,000 feet or so. Also planes with IFR are more expensive
than those without, and the higher elevations are reserved for IFR.

-- Patrick

[Stephen Sprunk]

Post by kkt

Post by rotten
Well, it'd be an interesting calculation. You'd have to calculate the
girth of all track miles times the length, and add in all the other
stuff require for rail. And anyway, it's not necessarily square miles
we're considering. Yes, I did say that but I misspoke. The thing is
that a long stretch of track is more awkward to build and maintain
than a small airport. You will probably have to cut into more eminent
domain property. A new airport can be a giant plot of land on a farm
somewhere.

In most cases, there's enough rail capacity already. In a lot of
places parallel lines have been made redundant by mergers. A good
strategy would be to pick one for renovation as a higher speed
passenger line while leaving the other for freight. Of course, if you
want to build HSR, you need an all-new right of way.

Not really, at least for most of the US. On the surface, HSR seems like it
needs entirely new lines, but that's only in mountainous or heavily
populated (before the freight line was put in) areas. Most of the country,
track-mile-wise, is flat and was settled _after_ the railroads built their
lines and could be upgraded to HSR standards. It's only the coasts and
mountain states that would see high per-mile expenses. Average speeds (vs.
Amtrak today) could be doubled or more over most tracks with relatively
minor alignment changes, double-tracking, and signal upgrades. Completely
new ROW is unnecessary in most cases. That's how Germany does it. Their
trains aren't quite as fast as France's, but the difference isn't all that
great, and France's model has significant disadvantages unless one is
traveling to/from Paris.

Post by kkt
As you're comparing costs of land, also keep in mind that much of the
rail right of way is in rural areas where it's cheap. Even rail yards
can be near smaller towns rather than the big cities. The airports
have to be somewhere near cities to be effective.

Good point. Rail can also serve any areas along the route at negligible
additional cost, whereas air requires an entire airport wherever service is
wanted. A lot of smaller towns that can't afford an airport, much less
convince an airline to serve them, can easily afford a rail station with
frequent service.

Post by kkt

Post by rotten
Plus with a plane you have flexibility as others have said. Plus, you
essentially have access to unlimited real estate in the sky on a point
to point basis. The only limit is how high and low planes can fly
(clearly there's a limit for the latter, but is there one for the
former?).

Aircraft with pressurized cabins are a lot more expensive than those
without. I'm not sure exactly what elevation that requirement starts
-- maybe 8,000 feet or so.

There's no requirement for pressurization that I know of, but if you want to
go above 12,000ft for more than a few minutes and aren't pressurized, you
need oxygen canula.

Post by kkt
Also planes with IFR are more expensive than those without, and the higher
elevations are reserved for IFR.

That's only above 18,000ft.

S

[Marty Shapiro]

Post by Stephen Sprunk

Post by kkt

Post by rotten
Well, it'd be an interesting calculation. You'd have to calculate
the girth of all track miles times the length, and add in all the
other stuff require for rail. And anyway, it's not necessarily
square miles we're considering. Yes, I did say that but I misspoke.
The thing is that a long stretch of track is more awkward to build
and maintain than a small airport. You will probably have to cut
into more eminent domain property. A new airport can be a giant plot
of land on a farm somewhere.

In most cases, there's enough rail capacity already. In a lot of
places parallel lines have been made redundant by mergers. A good
strategy would be to pick one for renovation as a higher speed
passenger line while leaving the other for freight. Of course, if
you want to build HSR, you need an all-new right of way.

Not really, at least for most of the US. On the surface, HSR seems
like it needs entirely new lines, but that's only in mountainous or
heavily populated (before the freight line was put in) areas. Most of
the country, track-mile-wise, is flat and was settled _after_ the
railroads built their lines and could be upgraded to HSR standards.
It's only the coasts and mountain states that would see high per-mile
expenses. Average speeds (vs. Amtrak today) could be doubled or more
over most tracks with relatively minor alignment changes,
double-tracking, and signal upgrades. Completely new ROW is
unnecessary in most cases. That's how Germany does it. Their trains
aren't quite as fast as France's, but the difference isn't all that
great, and France's model has significant disadvantages unless one is
traveling to/from Paris.

Post by kkt
As you're comparing costs of land, also keep in mind that much of the
rail right of way is in rural areas where it's cheap. Even rail
yards can be near smaller towns rather than the big cities. The
airports have to be somewhere near cities to be effective.

Good point. Rail can also serve any areas along the route at
negligible additional cost, whereas air requires an entire airport
wherever service is wanted. A lot of smaller towns that can't afford
an airport, much less convince an airline to serve them, can easily
afford a rail station with frequent service.

Post by kkt

Post by rotten
Plus with a plane you have flexibility as others have said. Plus,
you essentially have access to unlimited real estate in the sky on a
point to point basis. The only limit is how high and low planes can
fly (clearly there's a limit for the latter, but is there one for
the former?).

Aircraft with pressurized cabins are a lot more expensive than those
without. I'm not sure exactly what elevation that requirement starts
-- maybe 8,000 feet or so.

There's no requirement for pressurization that I know of, but if you
want to go above 12,000ft for more than a few minutes and aren't
pressurized, you need oxygen canula.

12,500' for the pilot(s), 15,000' for the passengers. From 12,500' to
14,000', pilots need O2 after 30 minutes.

Post by Stephen Sprunk

Post by kkt
Also planes with IFR are more expensive than those without, and the
higher elevations are reserved for IFR.

That's only above 18,000ft.

That's only the U.S. regulation and only applies to CONUS with some
minor exclusions. Some countries bring the class A right down to the deck
in the vicinity of major airports.

Post by Stephen Sprunk
S

[kkt]

Post by Stephen Sprunk

Post by kkt

Post by rotten
Well, it'd be an interesting calculation. You'd have to calculate the
girth of all track miles times the length, and add in all the other
stuff require for rail. And anyway, it's not necessarily square miles
we're considering. Yes, I did say that but I misspoke. The thing is
that a long stretch of track is more awkward to build and maintain
than a small airport. You will probably have to cut into more eminent
domain property. A new airport can be a giant plot of land on a farm
somewhere.

In most cases, there's enough rail capacity already. In a lot of
places parallel lines have been made redundant by mergers. A good
strategy would be to pick one for renovation as a higher speed
passenger line while leaving the other for freight. Of course, if you
want to build HSR, you need an all-new right of way.

Not really, at least for most of the US. On the surface, HSR seems like it
needs entirely new lines, but that's only in mountainous or heavily
populated (before the freight line was put in) areas. Most of the country,
track-mile-wise, is flat and was settled _after_ the railroads built their
lines and could be upgraded to HSR standards. It's only the coasts and
mountain states that would see high per-mile expenses. Average speeds (vs.
Amtrak today) could be doubled or more over most tracks with relatively
minor alignment changes, double-tracking, and signal upgrades. Completely
new ROW is unnecessary in most cases. That's how Germany does it. Their
trains aren't quite as fast as France's, but the difference isn't all that
great, and France's model has significant disadvantages unless one is
traveling to/from Paris.

I agree except for the terminology. I'd consider HSR starting at
about 180 mph. Outside the Northeast Corridor, even doubling Amtrak's
current speed wouldn't qualify.

Post by Stephen Sprunk

Post by kkt
As you're comparing costs of land, also keep in mind that much of the
rail right of way is in rural areas where it's cheap. Even rail yards
can be near smaller towns rather than the big cities. The airports
have to be somewhere near cities to be effective.

Good point. Rail can also serve any areas along the route at negligible
additional cost, whereas air requires an entire airport wherever service is
wanted. A lot of smaller towns that can't afford an airport, much less
convince an airline to serve them, can easily afford a rail station with
frequent service.

Post by kkt

Post by rotten
Plus with a plane you have flexibility as others have said. Plus, you
essentially have access to unlimited real estate in the sky on a point
to point basis. The only limit is how high and low planes can fly
(clearly there's a limit for the latter, but is there one for the
former?).

Aircraft with pressurized cabins are a lot more expensive than those
without. I'm not sure exactly what elevation that requirement starts
-- maybe 8,000 feet or so.

There's no requirement for pressurization that I know of, but if you want to
go above 12,000ft for more than a few minutes and aren't pressurized, you
need oxygen canula.

Thanks for the numbers. I don't think pilots of their own planes that
are as common as cars are now are going to be interested in using
supplemental oxygen.

Post by Stephen Sprunk

Post by kkt
Also planes with IFR are more expensive than those without, and the higher
elevations are reserved for IFR.

That's only above 18,000ft.

Thanks,

-- Patrick

[Stephen Sprunk]

Post by Stephen Sprunk

Post by kkt
In most cases, there's enough rail capacity already. In a lot of
places parallel lines have been made redundant by mergers. A good
strategy would be to pick one for renovation as a higher speed
passenger line while leaving the other for freight. Of course, if you
want to build HSR, you need an all-new right of way.

Not really, at least for most of the US. On the surface, HSR seems like it
needs entirely new lines, but that's only in mountainous or heavily
populated (before the freight line was put in) areas. Most of the country,
track-mile-wise, is flat and was settled _after_ the railroads built their
lines and could be upgraded to HSR standards. It's only the coasts and
mountain states that would see high per-mile expenses. Average speeds (vs.
Amtrak today) could be doubled or more over most tracks with relatively
minor alignment changes, double-tracking, and signal upgrades.
Completely
new ROW is unnecessary in most cases. That's how Germany does it. Their
trains aren't quite as fast as France's, but the difference isn't all that
great, and France's model has significant disadvantages unless one is
traveling to/from Paris.

I agree except for the terminology. I'd consider HSR starting at about
180 mph. Outside the Northeast Corridor, even doubling Amtrak's
current speed wouldn't qualify.

The FRA says HSR is any train that has a top speed of at least 90mph.
Doubling Amtrak LD's speed would get the _average_ above that. If the FRA
adopted saner regulations, and a modest investment was made in the existing
freight ROW, we could easily have passenger service at such speeds _with no
new ROW or trains_.

More work would be needed to get to an average speed of 150mph (a common
definition of HSR outside the US), but again the Germans do that just fine
with century-and-a-half-old ROW. We'd need new trains and electrification
to do that, something Europeans have even on low-speed lines; I'd rather see
us do the track work, top out diesel equipment, and show there's a demand
for more speed (based on studies showing speed vs ridership on newly
upgraded lines) before investing in electrification.

S

[kkt]

Post by Stephen Sprunk

Post by Stephen Sprunk

Post by kkt
In most cases, there's enough rail capacity already. In a lot of
places parallel lines have been made redundant by mergers. A good
strategy would be to pick one for renovation as a higher speed
passenger line while leaving the other for freight. Of course, if you
want to build HSR, you need an all-new right of way.

Not really, at least for most of the US. On the surface, HSR seems like it
needs entirely new lines, but that's only in mountainous or heavily
populated (before the freight line was put in) areas. Most of the country,
track-mile-wise, is flat and was settled _after_ the railroads built their
lines and could be upgraded to HSR standards. It's only the coasts and
mountain states that would see high per-mile expenses. Average speeds (vs.
Amtrak today) could be doubled or more over most tracks with relatively
minor alignment changes, double-tracking, and signal upgrades.
Completely
new ROW is unnecessary in most cases. That's how Germany does it. Their
trains aren't quite as fast as France's, but the difference isn't all that
great, and France's model has significant disadvantages unless one is
traveling to/from Paris.

I agree except for the terminology. I'd consider HSR starting at about
180 mph. Outside the Northeast Corridor, even doubling Amtrak's
current speed wouldn't qualify.

The FRA says HSR is any train that has a top speed of at least 90mph.

The FRA has no idea. Prestige passenger trains were operating at
those speeds since the late 19th century.

Post by Stephen Sprunk
Doubling Amtrak LD's speed would get the _average_ above that. If the FRA
adopted saner regulations, and a modest investment was made in the existing
freight ROW, we could easily have passenger service at such speeds _with no
new ROW or trains_.

Yes... and in some areas even a little new right of way for
particularly tight curves would help the whole line a lot.

Post by Stephen Sprunk
More work would be needed to get to an average speed of 150mph (a common
definition of HSR outside the US), but again the Germans do that just fine
with century-and-a-half-old ROW. We'd need new trains and electrification
to do that, something Europeans have even on low-speed lines; I'd rather see
us do the track work, top out diesel equipment, and show there's a demand
for more speed (based on studies showing speed vs ridership on newly
upgraded lines) before investing in electrification.

Top electrified speeds are much higher than top diesel speeds. A
diesel system could be attempted and fail and that would still not
prove anything about whether higher speeds would attract more riders
by being more competitive with air or road. California could try the
shorter distances first -- SF bay area to Sacramento and San
Diego-LA-Santa Barbara and see how they went before building the whole
central valley route.

-- Patrick

[Joe the Aroma]

Post by kkt

Post by rotten

Post by Stephen Sprunk

Post by Orval Fairbairn

Post by David Nebenzahl

Post by Joe the Aroma

Post by Bill Z.
It's not "bullshit". I merely pointed out that the guy touting airports
was as guilty of distorting the facts as Jack claimed transit advocates
are.

C'mon, two airports hundreds of miles apart vs. two train stations hundreds
of miles apart. Which one has more ground infrastructure?

Yes, good question: which one, indeed?
Don't forget hangars, fueling facilities, terminals, acres of parking
lots, concourses, roadway ingress and egress connectors,
baggage-handling facilities, etc., etc. Which one has more ground
infrastructure?

Don't forget: rail maintenance shops, storage yards, marshalling yards,
grade crossings, tunnels, viaducts, etc.
Rail uses more land, by FAR! And -- it is inflexible!

Denver's airport takes up 54 square miles of land. D/FW takes up 30.
Those
two airports _alone_ burn more land than 29,000 track-miles of rail ROW.
You're going to lose trying that type of argument because, ironically,
airports use more land than rail. Heck, even freeways are more
land-efficient.

Well, it'd be an interesting calculation. You'd have to calculate the
girth of all track miles times the length, and add in all the other
stuff require for rail. And anyway, it's not necessarily square miles
we're considering. Yes, I did say that but I misspoke. The thing is
that a long stretch of track is more awkward to build and maintain
than a small airport. You will probably have to cut into more eminent
domain property. A new airport can be a giant plot of land on a farm
somewhere.

In most cases, there's enough rail capacity already. In a lot of
places parallel lines have been made redundant by mergers. A good
strategy would be to pick one for renovation as a higher speed
passenger line while leaving the other for freight. Of course, if you
want to build HSR, you need an all-new right of way.

Yahtzee. This is what makes HSR... not a great option right now.

Post by kkt
As you're comparing costs of land, also keep in mind that much of the
rail right of way is in rural areas where it's cheap. Even rail yards
can be near smaller towns rather than the big cities. The airports
have to be somewhere near cities to be effective.

It seems to me that the further out that rails are built from population
areas, the more expensive it will be. Trucking all that materiel out there
as opposed to an airport which is relatively close to a city.

Post by kkt

Post by rotten
Plus with a plane you have flexibility as others have said. Plus, you
essentially have access to unlimited real estate in the sky on a point
to point basis. The only limit is how high and low planes can fly
(clearly there's a limit for the latter, but is there one for the
former?).

Aircraft with pressurized cabins are a lot more expensive than those
without. I'm not sure exactly what elevation that requirement starts
-- maybe 8,000 feet or so. Also planes with IFR are more expensive
than those without, and the higher elevations are reserved for IFR.

Of course. I wasn't saying that planes don't have a ceiling, just that there
is more opportunity for that ceiling as air traffic lanes become more
crowded.

[Stephen Sprunk]

Post by Joe the Aroma

Post by kkt
In most cases, there's enough rail capacity already. In a lot of
places parallel lines have been made redundant by mergers. A good
strategy would be to pick one for renovation as a higher speed
passenger line while leaving the other for freight. Of course, if you
want to build HSR, you need an all-new right of way.

Yahtzee. This is what makes HSR... not a great option right now.

See my response to kkt's message.

Post by Joe the Aroma

Post by kkt
As you're comparing costs of land, also keep in mind that much of the
rail right of way is in rural areas where it's cheap. Even rail yards
can be near smaller towns rather than the big cities. The airports
have to be somewhere near cities to be effective.

It seems to me that the further out that rails are built from population
areas, the more expensive it will be. Trucking all that materiel out there
as opposed to an airport which is relatively close to a city.

First of all, it's not like all that materiel is made in the nearest city;
it's likely shipped in from another state or even another country.
Secondly, the material _isn't_ trucked to the site in most cases. RRs are
extremely efficient at moving bulk items like steel (rail), concrete (ties),
and rock (ballast) long distances. If you're upgrading an existing line,
perhaps with minor alignment changes, trains run on the old line and
distribute rail and ties along the route. If you're building a completely
new line, you have earthmoving equipment prepare the subgrade and use
special trains that lay panel track ahead of them so that the materiel can
be delivered. Once the permanent rail and ties are laid, standard
reballasting/geometry trains make multiple passes to get the track up to the
appropriate standards Road access is only helpful for bridge & tunnel work,
and even then a crew can do without it if there isn't anything convenient
already there.

Post by Joe the Aroma
Of course. I wasn't saying that planes don't have a ceiling, just that
there is more opportunity for that ceiling as air traffic lanes become
more crowded.

You still have to get up to that ceiling and back down, and it often doesn't
make sense financially or time-wise to do that. The vast majority of
air-miles flown are within 3kft of the ground for either or both of those
reasons. Even airliners need a trip to be several hundred miles to bother
getting up past 20-30kft. The real benefit is getting above 10kft, because
the speed limits go away at that level -- and that's because there's so
little traffic up that high. Most planes can't go faster than the
low-altitude speed limits anyways, so they stay under 10kft to avoid getting
whacked by faster aircraft.

S

[Stephen Sprunk]

Post by rotten

Post by Stephen Sprunk

Post by Orval Fairbairn
Rail uses more land, by FAR! And -- it is inflexible!

Denver's airport takes up 54 square miles of land. D/FW takes
up 30. Those two airports _alone_ burn more land than 29,000
track-miles of rail ROW. You're going to lose trying that type of
argument because, ironically, airports use more land than rail.
Heck, even freeways are more land-efficient.

Well, it'd be an interesting calculation. You'd have to calculate the
girth of all track miles times the length,

You need 15ft per track; that's how I got the above number.

Post by rotten
and add in all the other stuff require for rail.

That's negligible compared to the total length of long-haul lines.

Post by rotten
And anyway, it's not necessarily square miles we're considering.
Yes, I did say that but I misspoke. The thing is that a long stretch
of track is more awkward to build and maintain than a small
airport. You will probably have to cut into more eminent domain
property. A new airport can be a giant plot of land on a farm
somewhere.

The vast majority of rail lines we'd ever need _already exist_, just not in
suitable condition. The exceptions are on the coasts, where we need
relatively little land for rail ROW but it's already in use and thus very
expensive (even with eminent domain). Airports have the same problems. The
rest of the country, though, doesn't really need much additional ROW, just a
bit of straightening and upgrading of the track bed, rails, signals, and
elimination of grade crossings.

Post by rotten
Plus with a plane you have flexibility as others have said.

That flexibility comes with a lot of costs, and is subject to conditions
like weather and congestion.

Post by rotten
Plus, you essentially have access to unlimited real estate in the
sky on a point to point basis. The only limit ...

There's a limit to how close planes can get to each other, and any pilot or
ATC person will tell you how incredibly congested the airspace above major
metro areas is. It's really crowded up there; planes need a lot more space
than you're used to thinking about. Virtually all of the "empty" space
above you is assigned to some plane to keep them all from running into each
other at a few hundred knots.

Post by rotten
... is how high and low planes can fly (clearly there's a limit for the
latter, but is there one for the former?).

Every plane has a service ceiling; they vary from ~10kft for non-turbochared
single-engine models to ~45kft for typical commercial jets. Above that,
there's not much need except for supersonic planes, and the cost of getting
up that high (both in climb energy and air pressure available to hold a
plane up) usually outweighs the speed and congestion benefits.

S

[Joe the Aroma]

Post by Stephen Sprunk

Post by rotten

Post by Stephen Sprunk

Post by Orval Fairbairn
Rail uses more land, by FAR! And -- it is inflexible!

Denver's airport takes up 54 square miles of land. D/FW takes
up 30. Those two airports _alone_ burn more land than 29,000
track-miles of rail ROW. You're going to lose trying that type of
argument because, ironically, airports use more land than rail.
Heck, even freeways are more land-efficient.

Well, it'd be an interesting calculation. You'd have to calculate the
girth of all track miles times the length,

You need 15ft per track; that's how I got the above number.

Post by rotten
and add in all the other stuff require for rail.

That's negligible compared to the total length of long-haul lines.

Including the stations and railyards? Beacon yard here in Boston is right
next to me and it's a massive facility.

Loading Image...

(an old Conrail picture)

Post by Stephen Sprunk

Post by rotten
And anyway, it's not necessarily square miles we're considering.
Yes, I did say that but I misspoke. The thing is that a long stretch
of track is more awkward to build and maintain than a small
airport. You will probably have to cut into more eminent domain
property. A new airport can be a giant plot of land on a farm
somewhere.

The vast majority of rail lines we'd ever need _already exist_, just not
in suitable condition. The exceptions are on the coasts, where we need
relatively little land for rail ROW but it's already in use and thus very
expensive (even with eminent domain). Airports have the same problems.
The rest of the country, though, doesn't really need much additional ROW,
just a bit of straightening and upgrading of the track bed, rails,
signals, and elimination of grade crossings.

Post by rotten
Plus with a plane you have flexibility as others have said.

That flexibility comes with a lot of costs, and is subject to conditions
like weather and congestion.

The question is does the flexibility outweight the costs.

Post by Stephen Sprunk

Post by rotten
Plus, you essentially have access to unlimited real estate in the
sky on a point to point basis. The only limit ...

There's a limit to how close planes can get to each other, and any pilot
or ATC person will tell you how incredibly congested the airspace above
major metro areas is. It's really crowded up there; planes need a lot
more space than you're used to thinking about. Virtually all of the
"empty" space above you is assigned to some plane to keep them all from
running into each other at a few hundred knots.

Didn't London Heathrow come up with a novel way of "stacking" flights? It
sounded interested when I read about it on BBC.

Post by Stephen Sprunk

Post by rotten
... is how high and low planes can fly (clearly there's a limit for the
latter, but is there one for the former?).

Every plane has a service ceiling; they vary from ~10kft for
non-turbochared single-engine models to ~45kft for typical commercial
jets. Above that, there's not much need except for supersonic planes, and
the cost of getting up that high (both in climb energy and air pressure
available to hold a plane up) usually outweighs the speed and congestion
benefits.

I must admit I was rather excited when I heard Boeing was going to build
that supersonic plane a few years back. Supposedly it directed the sonic
boom into the sky so it was less loud. Sonic booms will really hold back
both air and HSR travel in the future.

But anyway, I'm talking growth for the future. There is essentially
unlimited space in the sky, this is why I believed that most growth would
take place there.

[Bill Z.]

Post by Joe the Aroma

Post by Bill Z.
It's not "bullshit". I merely pointed out that the guy touting airports
was as guilty of distorting the facts as Jack claimed transit advocates
are.

C'mon, two airports hundreds of miles apart vs. two train stations hundreds
of miles apart. Which one has more ground infrastructure?

As I said, the guy touting airports was as guilty of distorting the
facts, and that is *all* I said about it. That is independent of
which facility uses the less infrastructure (although the portions of
the freeway grid connecting population centers is a small fraction of
the total road area, so I'm not sure what the point is supposed to
be.

[Jack May]

.

Post by Joe the Aroma
Right, which is why I think that George Jetson type scenarios will never
play out.

Since airplane parachutes are on private planes now, maybe they will be on
automated planes as well with computer controlled automated emergency
landing.

If the technology takes off, there will be a lot of safety development being
done.

[Bill Z.]

Post by Jack May
.

Post by Joe the Aroma
Right, which is why I think that George Jetson type scenarios will never
play out.

Since airplane parachutes are on private planes now, maybe they will be on
automated planes as well with computer controlled automated emergency
landing.
If the technology takes off, there will be a lot of safety development being
done.

Automatic parachutes are going not going to be very comforting if a plane
comes down on your roof.

[Jack May]

Post by Bill Z.
Automatic parachutes are going not going to be very comforting if a plane
comes down on your roof.

A computer controlled parachute with GPS and terrain data will have a goal
of landing on a roof? Yea sure.

[Bill Z.]

Post by Jack May

Post by Bill Z.
Automatic parachutes are going not going to be very comforting if a plane
comes down on your roof.

A computer controlled parachute with GPS and terrain data will have a goal
of landing on a roof? Yea sure.

If it was your roof, would you want to depend on the terrain data knowing
about its precise location?

[Tadej Brezina]

Post by Jack May
We also found that light rail for two tracks takes up the same amount of
real estate as 3.5 lanes of road. Some take as much 5.5 road lanes. We
did this by measuring actual light rail using Google Earth in multiple
cities.

Oh my goodness, where and especially how mannered did you measure to get
such figures. Probably you should check your measuring tool for an
implanted bias. Re-purporting bullshit doesn't make it true.

Btw, who is we? Are there a few Jacks out there? :-)

Tadej

[Jack May]

Post by Tadej Brezina

Post by Jack May
We also found that light rail for two tracks takes up the same amount of
real estate as 3.5 lanes of road. Some take as much 5.5 road lanes.
We did this by measuring actual light rail using Google Earth in multiple
cities.

Oh my goodness, where and especially how mannered did you measure to get
such figures. Probably you should check your measuring tool for an
implanted bias. Re-purporting bullshit doesn't make it true.

So now Google Earth is part of an anti train conspiracy? Every time I
think train fetish people have reached bottom in their nonsense, even bigger
fools pop up.

[Tadej Brezina]

Post by Jack May

Post by Tadej Brezina

Post by Jack May
We also found that light rail for two tracks takes up the same amount of
real estate as 3.5 lanes of road. Some take as much 5.5 road lanes.
We did this by measuring actual light rail using Google Earth in multiple
cities.

Oh my goodness, where and especially how mannered did you measure to get
such figures. Probably you should check your measuring tool for an
implanted bias. Re-purporting bullshit doesn't make it true.

So now Google Earth is part of an anti train conspiracy?

I do not know what you measured as width of LRT right of way and as road
right of way. Did you compare a multitrack-storage facility or a
marshalling yard with a simple rural 2 lane roadway?
Take any random plan of a regular LRT and a road stretch (Google Earth
might be a probable solution, where no detailed depictions are
available) under comparable topographic conditions - it doesn't make
sense to compare some steep incline for one transport means with
flatlands for the other.
And even if you counted the additional area of stops for LRT and left
out any side areas for roads like increased intersection space, never
would you have come to a ratio of 2:5,5, not even 2:3,5!
2:1,5-2,5 would be closer to reality.

Post by Jack May
Every time I
think train fetish people have reached bottom in their nonsense, even bigger
fools pop up.

Guess who's the bigger fool... measuring like that ... any first grade
engineering student would lough about.

Tadej

[Jack May]

And even if you counted the additional area of stops for LRT and left out
any side areas for roads like increased intersection space, never would
you have come to a ratio of 2:5,5, not even 2:3,5!
2:1,5-2,5 would be closer to reality.

Stupid bullshit. It is easy to see the ROW and nobody had problems seeing
what it was. The 3.5 lane width for a dual track was so common that it is
probably a design requirement

[Stephen Sprunk]

Post by Jack May
We also found that light rail for two tracks takes up the same amount of
real estate as 3.5 lanes of road. Some take as much 5.5 road lanes.
We did this by measuring actual light rail using Google Earth in multiple
cities.
As usual the rail advocates typically just fabricate the "virtues" of rail
without ever checking anything that they say. Making up "facts" seems to
be the most common approach of lying used by transit advocates. Of course
they then call anyone a liar that disagrees with their "facts".

Use Google Earth all you want. I've gone out and actually measured our LRT
ROW on the ground, and the minimum width is exactly what is claimed: 30ft
for two tracks. That's enough for three lanes of roadway, maximum, with no
shoulders. At interstate construction standards, you only get one lane.

Sure, there are places where the ROW is wider, but that's just because
that's what shape the parcels were, not because there's any need for more
width. DART would happily give up the excess land if anyone wanted it.

S

[kkt]

Post by Orval Fairbairn

Post by kkt

Post by rotten
People don't like to hear this but... the future of mass
transportation of any importance is in the sky. The reason? There's
nearly unlimited space in the sky, while there's only limited space on
the ground.

Unlikely. Energy use is likely to be more and more of a limiting
factor in the future. Flying takes more energy than rolling. So
flying is not going to increase its roll.
One of the virtues of trains is that they take much less real-estate
to move the same number of people as cars do.
-- Patrick

Aircraft take up far less real estate than rail or roads, by far!
A mile of road or rail will take you exactly one mile.
A mile of runway will take you to the whole world!

But it's not just a mile of runway. It's many square miles of
runways, taxiways, aprons, hangars, and terminal. Denver
International occupies 54 square miles. That's as much land as a
100-foot-wide right of way from coast to coast.

-- Patrick

[Orval Fairbairn]

Post by kkt

Post by Orval Fairbairn

Post by kkt

Post by rotten
People don't like to hear this but... the future of mass
transportation of any importance is in the sky. The reason? There's
nearly unlimited space in the sky, while there's only limited space on
the ground.

Unlikely. Energy use is likely to be more and more of a limiting
factor in the future. Flying takes more energy than rolling. So
flying is not going to increase its roll.
One of the virtues of trains is that they take much less real-estate
to move the same number of people as cars do.
-- Patrick

Aircraft take up far less real estate than rail or roads, by far!
A mile of road or rail will take you exactly one mile.
A mile of runway will take you to the whole world!

But it's not just a mile of runway. It's many square miles of
runways, taxiways, aprons, hangars, and terminal. Denver
International occupies 54 square miles. That's as much land as a
100-foot-wide right of way from coast to coast.
-- Patrick

It doesn't take that much for personal aircraft! Look at Palo Alto,
Reid-Hillview, San Carlos, Santa Monica, Torrance, Montgomery for
reality.

[Keith Keller]

Post by Orval Fairbairn

Post by kkt
But it's not just a mile of runway. It's many square miles of
runways, taxiways, aprons, hangars, and terminal. Denver
International occupies 54 square miles. That's as much land as a
100-foot-wide right of way from coast to coast.

It doesn't take that much for personal aircraft! Look at Palo Alto,
Reid-Hillview, San Carlos, Santa Monica, Torrance, Montgomery for
reality.

Do you believe those airports could remain the sizes they are if they had
to service, say, ten times their current number of takeoffs and landings?
Seems unlikely to me, but perhaps you and Jack have some special version
of reality where tiny little airports have infinite capacity, freeways
have infinite space to grow larger to accomodate volume, and everyone
has the time and money to drive four hours a day to get to their
workplaces.

--keith

[Jack May]

.

Post by Keith Keller
Do you believe those airports could remain the sizes they are if they had
to service, say, ten times their current number of takeoffs and landings?
Seems unlikely to me, but perhaps you and Jack have some special version
of reality where tiny little airports have infinite capacity, freeways
have infinite space to grow larger to accomodate volume, and everyone
has the time and money to drive four hours a day to get to their
workplaces.

NASA thinks it will be a lot more very small airports so that they will be
near to where people live as is done now in a few places.

[[e-mail]]

Post by Jack May
.

Post by Keith Keller
Do you believe those airports could remain the sizes they are if they had
to service, say, ten times their current number of takeoffs and landings?
Seems unlikely to me, but perhaps you and Jack have some special version
of reality where tiny little airports have infinite capacity, freeways
have infinite space to grow larger to accomodate volume, and everyone
has the time and money to drive four hours a day to get to their
workplaces.

NASA thinks it will be a lot more very small airports so that they will be
near to where people live as is done now in a few places.

Jackie Baby, the only idiot around here is YOU, you stupid...
I can't say it as Ms Blankenship doesn't like that sort of talk, and I
have a lot of respect for her.

PAV'S, what kind of idiot are you Jackie Baby. In 50 years they will
NOT be around. I can guarantee it. NASA funding, NASA can't fund the
space shuttle, how are they going to fund this, you damn idiot???

Yeah everyone will have a PAV they can just jump in and just fly
anywhere they want. Millions and millions of aircraft in the sky
piloted by people that most likely should not be there. I can only
imagine the crashes. And what about the air traffic control system,
that we cannot operate now with professional pilots???

Jackie Baby, you talk and talk and talk somemore, but you know
absolutley nothing.

Randy

[e***@no.spam]

Post by ***@yahoo.com
Jackie Baby, the only idiot around here is YOU, you stupid...

That's not true. There's always George.

[Orval Fairbairn]

Post by Keith Keller

Post by Orval Fairbairn

Post by kkt
But it's not just a mile of runway. It's many square miles of
runways, taxiways, aprons, hangars, and terminal. Denver
International occupies 54 square miles. That's as much land as a
100-foot-wide right of way from coast to coast.

It doesn't take that much for personal aircraft! Look at Palo Alto,
Reid-Hillview, San Carlos, Santa Monica, Torrance, Montgomery for
reality.

Do you believe those airports could remain the sizes they are if they had
to service, say, ten times their current number of takeoffs and landings?
Seems unlikely to me, but perhaps you and Jack have some special version
of reality where tiny little airports have infinite capacity, freeways
have infinite space to grow larger to accomodate volume, and everyone
has the time and money to drive four hours a day to get to their
workplaces.

That's why the ex-military bases are so important -- they already exist
and are far superior to the 2500-3000 ft strips mentioned above.

BTW -- the aviation-ignorant here quote some poor numbers,

1. The sky above the metro areas is not crowded! All you have to do is
look up to verify.

2. Light aircraft regularly operate in the 10,000 - 12,000 ft range --
without pressurization or turbochargers.

3. They are far more useful than rail for personal transportation, since
they can go direct, at much higher speed.

[Keith Keller]

Post by Orval Fairbairn
That's why the ex-military bases are so important -- they already exist
and are far superior to the 2500-3000 ft strips mentioned above.

Where are these alleged bases in either San Francisco or San Mateo
counties? None of the former bases in San Francisco can support
aviation, and I don't know of any in San Mateo which can do so.

--keith

[Hatunen]

On Wed, 8 Aug 2007 21:31:20 -0700, Keith Keller

Post by Keith Keller

Post by Orval Fairbairn
That's why the ex-military bases are so important -- they already exist
and are far superior to the 2500-3000 ft strips mentioned above.

Where are these alleged bases in either San Francisco or San Mateo
counties? None of the former bases in San Francisco can support
aviation, and I don't know of any in San Mateo which can do so.

Since it's been clipped I don't know how SF and SM counties got
singled out, but certainly Alameda, San Jose and Marin County
have old military airfields of some use.

I suppose Chrissie Field could be rebuilt...

[Marty Shapiro]

Post by Hatunen
On Wed, 8 Aug 2007 21:31:20 -0700, Keith Keller

Post by Keith Keller

Post by Orval Fairbairn
That's why the ex-military bases are so important -- they already
exist and are far superior to the 2500-3000 ft strips mentioned
above.

Where are these alleged bases in either San Francisco or San Mateo
counties? None of the former bases in San Francisco can support
aviation, and I don't know of any in San Mateo which can do so.

Since it's been clipped I don't know how SF and SM counties got
singled out, but certainly Alameda, San Jose and Marin County
have old military airfields of some use.
I suppose Chrissie Field could be rebuilt...

Look up the old Army Air Corps base, Mills Field. Today is it called
San Francisco International Airport.

[Stephen Sprunk]

Post by Orval Fairbairn
BTW -- the aviation-ignorant here quote some poor numbers,
1. The sky above the metro areas is not crowded! All you have to do is
look up to verify.

You are obviously ignorant of aviation issues yourself. I'm a pilot, and I
can tell you the sky above metro areas _is_ crowded. Due to the speed and
lack of ability to hover, planes need a _lot_ of separation for safety
reasons. That distance is measured in miles in front of a plane and
hundreds to thousands of feet to the sides and vertically. During most of
the day, every single bit of the sky above your head is allocated to some
plane. There is _no room_ to even double the number of planes up there,
much less increase it by several orders of magnitude to accomodate "personal
aircraft". That is a fantasy of people stuck in a car-centric mode of
thought.

Post by Orval Fairbairn
2. Light aircraft regularly operate in the 10,000 - 12,000 ft range --
without pressurization or turbochargers.
3. They are far more useful than rail for personal transportation, since
they can go direct, at much higher speed.

Direct is an advantage, but it requires an airport anywhere you want to go,
and then you have to get from that airport to wherever you're actually
going. Personal aircraft will _not_ go faster than HSR; that's
jet/turboprop territory and it takes a typical pilot _years_ of training to
get rated on something like that, if ever (most don't because they can't
afford either the training or the plane). A typical GA plane that costs
_more than a typical house_ can cruise at 100-120kts, easily beaten by HSR,
particularly when one considers the high time investment required to get a
plane up and back down and deal with local transportation on both ends.
You'll burn an hour on that, easily, dragging down your door-to-door average
speed.

S

[Marty Shapiro]

Post by Stephen Sprunk

Post by Orval Fairbairn
BTW -- the aviation-ignorant here quote some poor numbers,
1. The sky above the metro areas is not crowded! All you have to do
is look up to verify.

You are obviously ignorant of aviation issues yourself. I'm a pilot,
and I can tell you the sky above metro areas _is_ crowded. Due to the
speed and lack of ability to hover, planes need a _lot_ of separation
for safety reasons. That distance is measured in miles in front of a
plane and hundreds to thousands of feet to the sides and vertically.
During most of the day, every single bit of the sky above your head is
allocated to some plane. There is _no room_ to even double the number
of planes up there, much less increase it by several orders of
magnitude to accomodate "personal aircraft". That is a fantasy of
people stuck in a car-centric mode of thought.

Post by Orval Fairbairn
2. Light aircraft regularly operate in the 10,000 - 12,000 ft range
-- without pressurization or turbochargers.
3. They are far more useful than rail for personal transportation,
since they can go direct, at much higher speed.

Direct is an advantage, but it requires an airport anywhere you want
to go, and then you have to get from that airport to wherever you're
actually going. Personal aircraft will _not_ go faster than HSR;
that's jet/turboprop territory and it takes a typical pilot _years_ of
training to get rated on something like that, if ever (most don't
because they can't afford either the training or the plane). A
typical GA plane that costs _more than a typical house_ can cruise at
100-120kts, easily beaten by HSR, particularly when one considers the
high time investment required to get a plane up and back down and deal
with local transportation on both ends. You'll burn an hour on that,
easily, dragging down your door-to-door average speed.
S

Absolutely not true. Either the airlines have switched to stealth
aircraft or they don't occupy every bit of airspace over San Francisco,
Oakland, or San Jose. Sure, if you stand under the final approach path to
the active runway(s) you'll see an almost continuous flow of traffic into
about 30 airports world wide, but go 1 mile to either side and you'll see
almost no air traffic. Been there, done that.

Flying out of a reliever airport, it is maybe 15 minutes from when I
park my car until I finish loading any baggage I might have into my
airplane and complete my preflight inspection. At my destination, again a
reliever airport, the rental car, if I request it in advance, will be
waiting right by transient tie down. I can tie down my aircraft, unload my
baggage, and be gone in less than 10 minutes.

From my home in Palo Alto to check in at a hotel near the southern end
of the strip in Las Vegas is about 3 1/2 hours in a small airplane. That
beats any other mode I've tried, including airlines.

As for cost, even brand new a typical GA airplane is far less than an
average house in the San Francisco Bay area. A new Cirrus SR22 is less
than half the median home price in many communities on the SF Peninsula.
Buy an older aircraft (25-30 years old) and your talking just a fraction of
a home in this area.

There is a problem with crowded skies near about 30 airports world
wide. And that's the airline idiotic hub-and-spoke design with far more
flights scheduled to leave or arrive at the same time than airports even
twice the current size could handle. I remember watching the hotel's
closed circuit monitor at DFW one morning showing over 60 flights scheduled
for departure between 7 AM and 7:30 AM. With the four runways they had
back then, that required a dispatch rate of 30 flights per hour per runway,
or one flight every 2 minutes per runway. And, of course, no allowance for
any landing traffic.

The crowding in the air is for landing slots and the aircraft are
strung out for many, many miles. Again, this is more a problem of the
scheduling required for hub-and-spoke than it would be with smaller
aircraft flying direct to/from medium and small size airports rather than
requiring passengers to go to airports they really don't want to go to.
What's the data on ATL? Something over 90% of the passengers landing at
ATL are there only to catch a connecting flight to somewhere else. As a
pilot you should know the old saying in the southeast about ATL. When you
die, whether you're going to heaven or hell, you will need to connect at
ATL.

The airlines, with the connivance of Blakely, are trying to scare the
public with cries of crowded skies. They are scared to death of the air
taxi services planning to employ VLJs. The ability to go direct to/from
medium/small airports at a fare which is competitive with the airlines
business/first class air fares will siphon off their bread and butter
customers. The airlines will do anything, including deceiving passengers
with the outright lies, such as currently in United's, and Delta's onboard
magazines, to prevent this.

[e***@no.spam]

Post by Marty Shapiro
Absolutely not true. Either the airlines have switched to stealth
aircraft or they don't occupy every bit of airspace over San Francisco,

Are you really that stupid? Obviously you aren't a licensed pilot.

[John Clear]

Post by Stephen Sprunk

Post by Orval Fairbairn
BTW -- the aviation-ignorant here quote some poor numbers,
1. The sky above the metro areas is not crowded! All you have to do is
look up to verify.

You are obviously ignorant of aviation issues yourself. I'm a pilot, and I
can tell you the sky above metro areas _is_ crowded. Due to the speed and
lack of ability to hover, planes need a _lot_ of separation for safety
reasons. That distance is measured in miles in front of a plane and
hundreds to thousands of feet to the sides and vertically. During most of
the day, every single bit of the sky above your head is allocated to some
plane. There is _no room_ to even double the number of planes up there,
much less increase it by several orders of magnitude to accomodate "personal
aircraft". That is a fantasy of people stuck in a car-centric mode of
thought.

I fly by/over SFO all the time, and it is rare to have conflicting
traffic. The seperation standards you mention are wildly exagerated.
I routinely have traffic out of SFO pass 500ft directly below me
(747 500ft below me: http://www.clear-prop.org/fly-02-20-06/target2.html).
On the approach corridor to SFO, it is somewhat crowded, but that
is more a factor of available runways, not available sky.

The sky is not crowded, the ground is.

John

[Orval Fairbairn]

Post by Stephen Sprunk

Post by Orval Fairbairn
BTW -- the aviation-ignorant here quote some poor numbers,
1. The sky above the metro areas is not crowded! All you have to do is
look up to verify.

You are obviously ignorant of aviation issues yourself. I'm a pilot, and I
can tell you the sky above metro areas _is_ crowded. Due to the speed and
lack of ability to hover, planes need a _lot_ of separation for safety
reasons. That distance is measured in miles in front of a plane and
hundreds to thousands of feet to the sides and vertically. During most of
the day, every single bit of the sky above your head is allocated to some
plane. There is _no room_ to even double the number of planes up there,
much less increase it by several orders of magnitude to accomodate "personal
aircraft". That is a fantasy of people stuck in a car-centric mode of
thought.

IFR only -- VFR has no such restrictions. You are the ignorant one here.

Steve, old boy,

Sorry to burst your bubble, but I have been flying for the past 48 years
-- a lot of it in the Bay Area and can verify that the sky is pretty
clear of planes. You sound like an ex-military pilot who has no
experience in general aviation and who thinks that everybody should
operate via ATC.

Post by Stephen Sprunk

Post by Orval Fairbairn
2. Light aircraft regularly operate in the 10,000 - 12,000 ft range --
without pressurization or turbochargers.
3. They are far more useful than rail for personal transportation, since
they can go direct, at much higher speed.

Direct is an advantage, but it requires an airport anywhere you want to go,
and then you have to get from that airport to wherever you're actually
going. Personal aircraft will _not_ go faster than HSR; that's
jet/turboprop territory and it takes a typical pilot _years_ of training to
get rated on something like that, if ever (most don't because they can't
afford either the training or the plane). A typical GA plane that costs
_more than a typical house_ can cruise at 100-120kts, easily beaten by HSR,
particularly when one considers the high time investment required to get a
plane up and back down and deal with local transportation on both ends.
You'll burn an hour on that, easily, dragging down your door-to-door average
speed.
S

With 150 kt cruise, you can beat the airlines door-to-door from the Bay
Area to Los Angeles or San Diego. HSR has to slow down and stop at
intermediate points to embark/disembark passengers -- there goes the
speed!

You need to burn the same amount of time, plus waiting for schedules,
with HSR, which serves only a few destinations. The plane serves all
destinations. It is a one-trick pony!

[Merritt Mullen]

Post by Orval Fairbairn
With 150 kt cruise, you can beat the airlines door-to-door from the Bay
Area to Los Angeles or San Diego. HSR has to slow down and stop at
intermediate points to embark/disembark passengers -- there goes the
speed!

Except the 2:45 time for SF to LA for HSR is for a non-stop express. The
plan envisions all sorts of trains on the line from non-stop expresses to
commuter services.

Post by Orval Fairbairn
You need to burn the same amount of time, plus waiting for schedules,
with HSR, which serves only a few destinations. The plane serves all
destinations. It is a one-trick pony!

It helps if your destination has an airfield. The HSR system will have at
least as many stations in the LA metro area than there are GA airfields
there. And many more conventional rail stations.

Merritt

[Stephen Sprunk]

Post by Orval Fairbairn

Post by Stephen Sprunk

Post by Orval Fairbairn
BTW -- the aviation-ignorant here quote some poor numbers,
1. The sky above the metro areas is not crowded! All you have to do is
look up to verify.

You are obviously ignorant of aviation issues yourself. I'm a pilot, and I
can tell you the sky above metro areas _is_ crowded. Due to the speed and
lack of ability to hover, planes need a _lot_ of separation for safety
reasons. That distance is measured in miles in front of a plane and
hundreds to thousands of feet to the sides and vertically. During most of
the day, every single bit of the sky above your head is allocated to some
plane. There is _no room_ to even double the number of planes up there,
much less increase it by several orders of magnitude to accomodate "personal
aircraft". That is a fantasy of people stuck in a car-centric mode of
thought.

IFR only -- VFR has no such restrictions. You are the ignorant one here.

Once you're in class B, C, or D airspace, a VFR aircraft has nearly all the
same problems that IFR ones do -- plus they can be excluded if things get
too busy, which happens all the time here (very frequently in B, but even in
D airspace at times). And, of course, nearly everywhere interesting enough
to fly _is_ in that type of airspace.

Post by Orval Fairbairn
Steve, old boy,
Sorry to burst your bubble, but I have been flying for the past 48 years
-- a lot of it in the Bay Area and can verify that the sky is pretty
clear of planes. You sound like an ex-military pilot who has no
experience in general aviation and who thinks that everybody should
operate via ATC.

I've never been in the military. I fly C172's (and a few other models
friends own) out of a few GA fields, and that's all I've ever done. My home
field, ADS, is so busy at times that it can take 30-45 minutes of circling
before approach will even hand you off to the tower -- and that's at a
measly class D reliever field. I've also flown around the Bay Area (out of
RHV) and it can be just as busy up there. Have you ever seen the
complicated flow diagrams TRACON uses to route traffic to/from the airports
there? Every section of airspace is allocated to someone for some purpose,
and multiplying the number of airports would make it completely unmanageable
for ATC.

Lest anyone claim that "Free Flight" is going to solve any of that, all that
does is provide better information about where planes are to ATC as well as
to other planes. There'll still be human controllers handling everything
just as they do today in terminal areas, simply with better information.
The goal is to get everyone on direct GPS routes in the flyover areas so
that the FAA can decommission all but a skeleten network of VORs and NDBs
and focus their efforts on the crowded areas where ATC is actually needed --
the precise areas where "personal aircraft" advocates want to introduce
_millions_ of new planes each.

It so happens that I do always use ATC for long flights, but merely flight
following so that I'll have someone to talk to if I have problems (or
someone to warn me if I miss a turn, which happened once) instead of praying
I'll get the right people on 121.5 and be able to tell them where I am
before I crash. Since I learned to fly at an airport that has clearance
delivery, tower, approach, etc. it's second nature for me to use ATC.
Outside the terminal area, though, it's unnecessary and merely for my safety
and reassurance.

S

[Marty Shapiro]

Post by Stephen Sprunk

Post by Orval Fairbairn

Post by Stephen Sprunk

Post by Orval Fairbairn
BTW -- the aviation-ignorant here quote some poor numbers,
1. The sky above the metro areas is not crowded! All you have to
do is look up to verify.

You are obviously ignorant of aviation issues yourself. I'm a pilot, and I
can tell you the sky above metro areas _is_ crowded. Due to the speed and
lack of ability to hover, planes need a _lot_ of separation for
safety reasons. That distance is measured in miles in front of a
plane and hundreds to thousands of feet to the sides and vertically.
During most of
the day, every single bit of the sky above your head is allocated to
some plane. There is _no room_ to even double the number of planes
up there, much less increase it by several orders of magnitude to
accomodate "personal
aircraft". That is a fantasy of people stuck in a car-centric mode
of thought.

IFR only -- VFR has no such restrictions. You are the ignorant one here.

Once you're in class B, C, or D airspace, a VFR aircraft has nearly
all the same problems that IFR ones do -- plus they can be excluded if
things get too busy, which happens all the time here (very frequently
in B, but even in D airspace at times). And, of course, nearly
everywhere interesting enough to fly _is_ in that type of airspace.

Post by Orval Fairbairn
Steve, old boy,
Sorry to burst your bubble, but I have been flying for the past 48
years -- a lot of it in the Bay Area and can verify that the sky is
pretty clear of planes. You sound like an ex-military pilot who has
no experience in general aviation and who thinks that everybody
should operate via ATC.

I've never been in the military. I fly C172's (and a few other models
friends own) out of a few GA fields, and that's all I've ever done.
My home field, ADS, is so busy at times that it can take 30-45 minutes
of circling before approach will even hand you off to the tower -- and
that's at a measly class D reliever field. I've also flown around the
Bay Area (out of RHV) and it can be just as busy up there. Have you
ever seen the complicated flow diagrams TRACON uses to route traffic
to/from the airports there? Every section of airspace is allocated to
someone for some purpose, and multiplying the number of airports would
make it completely unmanageable for ATC.
Lest anyone claim that "Free Flight" is going to solve any of that,
all that does is provide better information about where planes are to
ATC as well as to other planes. There'll still be human controllers
handling everything just as they do today in terminal areas, simply
with better information. The goal is to get everyone on direct GPS
routes in the flyover areas so that the FAA can decommission all but a
skeleten network of VORs and NDBs and focus their efforts on the
crowded areas where ATC is actually needed -- the precise areas where
"personal aircraft" advocates want to introduce _millions_ of new
planes each.
It so happens that I do always use ATC for long flights, but merely
flight following so that I'll have someone to talk to if I have
problems (or someone to warn me if I miss a turn, which happened once)
instead of praying I'll get the right people on 121.5 and be able to
tell them where I am before I crash. Since I learned to fly at an
airport that has clearance delivery, tower, approach, etc. it's second
nature for me to use ATC. Outside the terminal area, though, it's
unnecessary and merely for my safety and reassurance.
S

The "complicated" airspace around the SF Bay area is to coordinate
arrivals and departures at SFO, SJC, and OAK (south field). There is
plenty of airspace for the rest of us. In almost 20 years of flying in
this area, I've never had a problem with ATC letting me into the B, C, or D
airspace or their predecessors, the TCA (SFO), ARSA (SJC, OAK), TRSA (MRY)
and ATA (RHV, PAO, SQL, HWD, LVK, CCR, APC, SUU). Only once have I been
denied entry into Class B, and that was when the weather, although VFR, was
down to less than 5 miles visibility and scattered clouds at 1,500, broken
at 3,000. It is far easier and much more direct to fly from the South Bay
and peninsula through the Class B while VFR to say Napa, Petaluma, or Santa
Rosa than it is to go IFR.

[e***@no.spam]

Post by Marty Shapiro
The "complicated" airspace around the SF Bay area is to
coordinate arrivals and departures at SFO, SJC, and OAK (south
field).

The complicated airpsace around LAX resulted in a passenger
jet and a Cessna trying to violate the Pauli exclusion rule of
physics. The Cessna started climbing too early and the jet didn't
see him. (Of course it didn't help that ATC routinely deletes any
aircraft that are squawking 1200 from their screens.) People get
really upset when aircraft parts fall on their homes.

[Hatunen]

On Thu, 9 Aug 2007 00:43:37 -0500, "Stephen Sprunk"

Post by Stephen Sprunk

Post by Orval Fairbairn
3. They are far more useful than rail for personal transportation, since
they can go direct, at much higher speed.

Direct is an advantage, but it requires an airport anywhere you want to go,
and then you have to get from that airport to wherever you're actually
going. Personal aircraft will _not_ go faster than HSR; that's
jet/turboprop territory and it takes a typical pilot _years_ of training to
get rated on something like that, if ever (most don't because they can't
afford either the training or the plane). A typical GA plane that costs
_more than a typical house_ can cruise at 100-120kts, easily beaten by HSR,
particularly when one considers the high time investment required to get a
plane up and back down and deal with local transportation on both ends.
You'll burn an hour on that, easily, dragging down your door-to-door average
speed.

Don't forget to add check out time at both ends, and tie-down
time at the destination dealing with the FBO. Not to mention
checking the en router weather and any appropriate NOTAMs

For non-pilots, "check out" means assuring yourself your plane is
ready to fly and there's gas in the tanks and stuff like that.

While living here in Tucson in the mid-1960s I got a temp
engineering job in Chandler, about 105 miles door-to-door. My
flying club was based at a small airport on the northwest fringe
of Tucson, and there was a private strip just a couple of miles
from my work site. So I drove my junker VW up to Chandler and
left it at the airport there.

Here's the routine: Drive a couple of miles at 6am across Tucson
to the airport. Check out the Cessna 150 I would use and fill it
up if necessary. Taxi out and take-off.

The better part of an hour in the air, basically following I-10.
Land in Chandler, tie down, check in at the FBO, get in my Bug
and drive to work. total elapse time, roughly 90 minutes.

Then one day when the weather looked bad I went ahead and drove
instead of flying. Time, including quick stop at Dunkin Donuts,
about 90 minutes. And my newer VW didn't cost anywhere near as
much as that plane did: $12.50/hour wet, or about $73/hour today,
adjusted for inflation.

Two important things about flying in Arizona;

1. The air can be really bumpy, and if you dont have an automatic
pilot, very tiring to fly in;

2. One evening coming home I reached the then-small town of
Marana, about thirty miles northwest of Tucson's downtown. There
was a thunderstorm moving toward my airport from the southeast. I
figured it would only take me about fifteen minutes to reach my
airport and I rally wanted to get home, so I did, and the rain
and wind reached me about ten minutes after that.

Afterwards as I thought about it I realized how stupid I'd been.
I should have set down at the airstrip at Marana and waited it
out. Realizing that I would make dumb decisions is one of the
reasons I quit flying.

I seriously doubt that anyone who has actually flown thinks a
whole bunch of people up there is a very good idea, especially
those who haven't earned a pilot license.

[e***@no.spam]

Post by Orval Fairbairn
1. The sky above the metro areas is not crowded! All you have to do is
look up to verify.

Oh? There are plenty of planes in the sky here.

Post by Orval Fairbairn
2. Light aircraft regularly operate in the 10,000 - 12,000 ft range --
without pressurization or turbochargers.

Bullshit. I'd never climb that high without a good reason. In a small
plane it simply takes too long.

Post by Orval Fairbairn
3. They are far more useful than rail for personal transportation, since
they can go direct, at much higher speed.

Yeah, right.

[Stephen Sprunk]

Post by Orval Fairbairn

Post by kkt

Post by Orval Fairbairn
Aircraft take up far less real estate than rail or roads, by far!
A mile of road or rail will take you exactly one mile.
A mile of runway will take you to the whole world!

But it's not just a mile of runway. It's many square miles of
runways, taxiways, aprons, hangars, and terminal. Denver
International occupies 54 square miles. That's as much land as a
100-foot-wide right of way from coast to coast.

It doesn't take that much for personal aircraft! Look at Palo Alto,
Reid-Hillview, San Carlos, Santa Monica, Torrance, Montgomery for
reality.

Those airports can only handle a relatively small number of operations, and
most only in good weather. For instance, RHV does 630 ops/day, and that
means maybe 1000 people in "personal" aircraft. DEN does 1600 ops/day, and
about 130,000 people. Not surprisingly, the number of people handled is
directly related to the amount of land used. You'd need _hundreds_ of such
airports to handle people commuting into the Bay Area, and the airspace
there is already clogged just handling airliners (which are far more
efficient ATC- and airspace-wise) and the occasional GA plane. The noise
around those airports, even if you could find/afford space to put them in,
would be horrific and NIMBYs would never let it happen. They're trying to
shut down all the existing GA airports as it is...

(And I say this as someone who has friends that _do_ commute to SJ via RHV
daily. It's not as wonderful as it seems; the gridlock in the air is
already nearly as bad as it is on the ground, and it's a lot more expensive
than driving. They do it because they love flying, not because it makes any
kind of rational sense.)

S

[kkt]

Post by Orval Fairbairn

Post by kkt

Post by Orval Fairbairn

Post by kkt

Post by rotten
People don't like to hear this but... the future of mass
transportation of any importance is in the sky. The reason? There's
nearly unlimited space in the sky, while there's only limited space on
the ground.

Unlikely. Energy use is likely to be more and more of a limiting
factor in the future. Flying takes more energy than rolling. So
flying is not going to increase its roll.
One of the virtues of trains is that they take much less real-estate
to move the same number of people as cars do.
-- Patrick

Aircraft take up far less real estate than rail or roads, by far!
A mile of road or rail will take you exactly one mile.
A mile of runway will take you to the whole world!

But it's not just a mile of runway. It's many square miles of
runways, taxiways, aprons, hangars, and terminal. Denver
International occupies 54 square miles. That's as much land as a
100-foot-wide right of way from coast to coast.
-- Patrick

It doesn't take that much for personal aircraft! Look at Palo Alto,
Reid-Hillview, San Carlos, Santa Monica, Torrance, Montgomery for
reality.

But personal aircraft are way too expensive for any but the very
rich. They also have too short range to give you that "whole world"
you talked about above.

-- Patrick

[Orval Fairbairn]

Post by kkt

Post by Orval Fairbairn

Post by kkt

Post by Orval Fairbairn

Post by kkt

Post by rotten
People don't like to hear this but... the future of mass
transportation of any importance is in the sky. The reason? There's
nearly unlimited space in the sky, while there's only limited space on
the ground.

Unlikely. Energy use is likely to be more and more of a limiting
factor in the future. Flying takes more energy than rolling. So
flying is not going to increase its roll.
One of the virtues of trains is that they take much less real-estate
to move the same number of people as cars do.
-- Patrick

Aircraft take up far less real estate than rail or roads, by far!
A mile of road or rail will take you exactly one mile.
A mile of runway will take you to the whole world!

But it's not just a mile of runway. It's many square miles of
runways, taxiways, aprons, hangars, and terminal. Denver
International occupies 54 square miles. That's as much land as a
100-foot-wide right of way from coast to coast.
-- Patrick

It doesn't take that much for personal aircraft! Look at Palo Alto,
Reid-Hillview, San Carlos, Santa Monica, Torrance, Montgomery for
reality.

But personal aircraft are way too expensive for any but the very
rich. They also have too short range to give you that "whole world"
you talked about above.
-- Patrick

NONSENSE! Just pick up a copy of Trade-A_Plane and look at the prices on
used aircraft. Some are a lot less expensive than a lot of new cars.

[kkt]

Post by Orval Fairbairn

Post by kkt

Post by Orval Fairbairn

Post by kkt

Post by Orval Fairbairn

Post by kkt

Post by rotten
People don't like to hear this but... the future of mass
transportation of any importance is in the sky. The reason? There's
nearly unlimited space in the sky, while there's only limited space
on
the ground.

Unlikely. Energy use is likely to be more and more of a limiting
factor in the future. Flying takes more energy than rolling. So
flying is not going to increase its roll.
One of the virtues of trains is that they take much less real-estate
to move the same number of people as cars do.
-- Patrick

Aircraft take up far less real estate than rail or roads, by far!
A mile of road or rail will take you exactly one mile.
A mile of runway will take you to the whole world!

But it's not just a mile of runway. It's many square miles of
runways, taxiways, aprons, hangars, and terminal. Denver
International occupies 54 square miles. That's as much land as a
100-foot-wide right of way from coast to coast.
-- Patrick

It doesn't take that much for personal aircraft! Look at Palo Alto,
Reid-Hillview, San Carlos, Santa Monica, Torrance, Montgomery for
reality.

But personal aircraft are way too expensive for any but the very
rich. They also have too short range to give you that "whole world"
you talked about above.
-- Patrick

NONSENSE! Just pick up a copy of Trade-A_Plane and look at the prices on
used aircraft. Some are a lot less expensive than a lot of new cars.

So the cheapest used airplanes are less than the more expensive new
cars... that still doesn't make them affordable to any but the rich.

-- Patrick

[Orval Fairbairn]

Post by kkt

Post by Orval Fairbairn

Post by kkt

Post by Orval Fairbairn

Post by kkt

Post by Orval Fairbairn

Post by kkt

Post by rotten
People don't like to hear this but... the future of mass
transportation of any importance is in the sky. The reason?
There's
nearly unlimited space in the sky, while there's only limited
space
on
the ground.

Unlikely. Energy use is likely to be more and more of a limiting
factor in the future. Flying takes more energy than rolling. So
flying is not going to increase its roll.
One of the virtues of trains is that they take much less
real-estate
to move the same number of people as cars do.
-- Patrick

Aircraft take up far less real estate than rail or roads, by far!
A mile of road or rail will take you exactly one mile.
A mile of runway will take you to the whole world!

But it's not just a mile of runway. It's many square miles of
runways, taxiways, aprons, hangars, and terminal. Denver
International occupies 54 square miles. That's as much land as a
100-foot-wide right of way from coast to coast.
-- Patrick

It doesn't take that much for personal aircraft! Look at Palo Alto,
Reid-Hillview, San Carlos, Santa Monica, Torrance, Montgomery for
reality.

But personal aircraft are way too expensive for any but the very
rich. They also have too short range to give you that "whole world"
you talked about above.
-- Patrick

NONSENSE! Just pick up a copy of Trade-A_Plane and look at the prices on
used aircraft. Some are a lot less expensive than a lot of new cars.

So the cheapest used airplanes are less than the more expensive new
cars... that still doesn't make them affordable to any but the rich.
-- Patrick

It makes them available to a LOT of people! We are not talking Rolls
Royces here -- just Lexuses and Cadillacs.

[[e-mail]]

Post by rotten
People don't like to hear this but... the future of mass
transportation of any importance is in the sky. The reason? There's
nearly unlimited space in the sky, while there's only limited space on
the ground.

Umm, unlimited space????

Are yuo sure about that???

I don't think you are thinking.

There is no congestion over major cities in the air???

You better re-think this, you are not making a heck of a lot of sense.

Randy

[rotten]

Post by ***@yahoo.com

Post by rotten
People don't like to hear this but... the future of mass
transportation of any importance is in the sky. The reason? There's
nearly unlimited space in the sky, while there's only limited space on
the ground.

Umm, unlimited space????
Are yuo sure about that???
I don't think you are thinking.
There is no congestion over major cities in the air???
You better re-think this, you are not making a heck of a lot of sense.
Randy

Well, on a point to point basis, there is essentially unlimited space.
You are right about congested airspace over cities. London Heathrow
has a really unique way of "stacking" incoming flights, it could help
a lot.

[Amy Blankenship]

Post by Jack May

Post by Peter Lawrence
I'm still holding out for my personal jet pack.
;-)

Me too, but nobody knows how to make one that will fly fast for a long
distance. A couple of years ago NASA was funding a company in Sunnyvale,
Ca that had two large propellers pointing up. It didn't get additional
funding from NASA to continue. I don't know what the problem was.
NASA has decided that you can't design a good flying car. Designs are
either a good plane or a good car but never a good flying car.
So the strategy now is that you drive, bike, or walk a short distance to a
small airport and take off from there.
The goal is to make the planes about the same price as a luxury car with
mass production and enough electronics so that anybody can fly anywhere
safely, cheaply, with almost no training. Just select which airport you
want to go to and it will get you there without crashing.
Not a jet pack but sounds really good to me.

This actually sounds like it would make ground mass transit really
practical. If you've got one destination you know everyone has to go to,
then that becomes one stop. If developers know that once people arrive they
won't have cars, that motivates them to make things more pedestrian and bike
friendly. They might even go so far as to cluster the businesses at the
airport. Interesting idea.

-Amy

[Jack May]

Post by Amy Blankenship
This actually sounds like it would make ground mass transit really
practical. If you've got one destination you know everyone has to go to,
then that becomes one stop. If developers know that once people arrive
they won't have cars, that motivates them to make things more pedestrian
and bike friendly. They might even go so far as to cluster the businesses
at the airport. Interesting idea.

Possibly but you still have the same old problem of transit taking far too
long to get to a destination, works poorly in a hierarchical 2D road system,
and goes to few places. When you rent your airplane from Hertz for the
trip, you will probably rent your car at Hertz at the same time.

Trying to bring back the past technology, such as transit, never works and
is a waste of money. That is the clear lesson of technology evolution. No
return to the past in technology evolution, just full speed ahead to the
future. Give up, you are pursuing an illusion that history says can never
happen.

A possible model being used in descriptions is a lot more small airports.
Speculating, with advanced electronics it is possible that even neighborhood
streets could be used as landing places.

What actually happens will depend on how many people fly. If most people
fly like almost everybody drives, the neighborhoods will change over time to
make flying much like driving.

There is plenty of room in the sky for everybody to fly when collision
avoidance and other advanced electronics is used. If all present traffic
was in the sky, airplanes would still be about a mile apart.

[rotten]

Post by Jack May

Post by Amy Blankenship
This actually sounds like it would make ground mass transit really
practical. If you've got one destination you know everyone has to go to,
then that becomes one stop. If developers know that once people arrive
they won't have cars, that motivates them to make things more pedestrian
and bike friendly. They might even go so far as to cluster the businesses
at the airport. Interesting idea.

Possibly but you still have the same old problem of transit taking far too
long to get to a destination, works poorly in a hierarchical 2D road system,
and goes to few places. When you rent your airplane from Hertz for the
trip, you will probably rent your car at Hertz at the same time.
Trying to bring back the past technology, such as transit, never works and
is a waste of money. That is the clear lesson of technology evolution. No
return to the past in technology evolution, just full speed ahead to the
future. Give up, you are pursuing an illusion that history says can never
happen.
A possible model being used in descriptions is a lot more small airports.
Speculating, with advanced electronics it is possible that even neighborhood
streets could be used as landing places.

I've often said that we should encourage the use of smaller and more
local flights. Let's say commuter rail type lengths.

[Jack May]

Post by rotten
I've often said that we should encourage the use of smaller and more
local flights. Let's say commuter rail type lengths.

It will mean that a commute of 150 miles each way in 30 minutes will become
the standard with everybody spread out thinly over all land.

[Joe the Aroma]

Post by Jack May
It will mean that a commute of 150 miles each way in 30 minutes will
become the standard with everybody spread out thinly over all land.

I don't know. I don't think cities will disappear, quite the opposite, they
will densify.

[Jack May]

Post by Joe the Aroma

Post by Jack May
It will mean that a commute of 150 miles each way in 30 minutes will
become the standard with everybody spread out thinly over all land.

I don't know. I don't think cities will disappear, quite the opposite,
they will densify.

People are already moving out of the bay area with long commutes to get a
cheaper house. If it gets faster to move a longer distance away with a
flying commute, maybe the trend might accelerate. But in general a lot of
people do want to live closer to work, so that might counter the present
moves.

[george conklin]

Post by Jack May

Post by Joe the Aroma

Post by Jack May
It will mean that a commute of 150 miles each way in 30 minutes will
become the standard with everybody spread out thinly over all land.

I don't know. I don't think cities will disappear, quite the opposite,
they will densify.

People are already moving out of the bay area with long commutes to get a
cheaper house. If it gets faster to move a longer distance away with a
flying commute, maybe the trend might accelerate. But in general a lot of
people do want to live closer to work, so that might counter the present
moves.

. Comments like yours have been around for 100 years. Guess what has
happened? History has shown otherwise. You can't have cities remain one
size and have most of the human population move into something which never
grows.

[Joe the Aroma]

Post by george conklin

Post by Jack May

Post by Joe the Aroma

Post by Jack May
It will mean that a commute of 150 miles each way in 30 minutes will
become the standard with everybody spread out thinly over all land.

I don't know. I don't think cities will disappear, quite the opposite,
they will densify.

People are already moving out of the bay area with long commutes to get a
cheaper house. If it gets faster to move a longer distance away with a
flying commute, maybe the trend might accelerate. But in general a lot
of people do want to live closer to work, so that might counter the
present moves.

. Comments like yours have been around for 100 years. Guess what has
happened? History has shown otherwise. You can't have cities remain one
size and have most of the human population move into something which never
grows.

I think that all factors remaining normal (crime, education, economy), the
market will keep cities alive and vital. As people move out of the cities
into the suburbs, the prices should go down on property in the cities,
encouraging more growth in the cities.

[e***@no.spam]

Post by Peter Lawrence
I'm still holding out for my personal jet pack.

They suck in the rain though. ;)

[d***@hotmail.com]

Post by Jack May
The idea is that these small planes, with built-in GPS and terrain mapping,
could take people within a few miles of their doorstep (landing on short
airstrips) at a faster clip, expelling less fuel.

This would just add to the already bad noise problem we have in the
Bay Area, with the planes already up there.

[Orval Fairbairn]

Post by d***@hotmail.com

Post by Jack May
The idea is that these small planes, with built-in GPS and terrain mapping,
could take people within a few miles of their doorstep (landing on short
airstrips) at a faster clip, expelling less fuel.

This would just add to the already bad noise problem we have in the
Bay Area, with the planes already up there.

So spake the person who is easily irritated!