Idea: Aerial (above ground) street lanes for flying vehicles | Hacker News Reader

Idea: Aerial (above ground) street lanes for flying vehicles

3 pointsvelovoy12 comments

It looks like aerial personal vehicles are taking off both literally and figuratively (https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=28982993). Has there been any work done on creating aerial street lanes above the ground (but lower than small aircraft altitudes)? I was imagining something like an invisible layered grid that a person can see on their flying vehicle's computer screen, Google Glasses, or on their helmet's shield with AR. This could solve traffic gridlock if personal flying vehicles could use up layers of airspace above street level but below small aircraft levels (1000 ft). You just ascend to a higher altitude and fly along the aerial street route to buy groceries or send a package at the post office. We would be able to travel in not just 2D (x- and y-planes) but in 3D as well (z-plane). Maybe a high-rise building can have landing docks and stores at certain altitudes? This would eliminate annoying urban sprawl, like Los Angeles where it takes like 5 hours (gridlock) to drive from the east side to west.

Urban sprawl is caused by bad city planning, not the inability to fly your car. If you add flying cars without fixing the planning, the city will just spread out even more, and you’ll end up with the same commute times. Exactly the same thing happened when automobiles became widespread.

That's the thing--personal aerial vehicles eliminate urban sprawl because destinations can be reached vertically with landing docks on a building's roof or side. It's easier to add a new layer of aerial streets than fix bad city planning, which LA has been trying to fruitlessly do for years.

This would also free up more roads for trucks hauling container shipments. It's frustrating and dangerous to have to constantly change lanes because some tractor trailer cut in front you on the road.

> This would also free up more roads for trucks hauling container shipments. It's frustrating and dangerous to have to constantly change lanes because some tractor trailer cut in front you on the road.

Maybe we need a rush hour slowpoke tax. Something like this: If a vehicle can't do 0-60 in 12.5 seconds or less (which in practice, all passenger cars can but no semis can), then it owes a special tax of $100 per hour that it's on the road between 6am-10am or 3pm-7pm on weekdays.

If there's suddenly way more places to live that are the same commute distance from the city, isn't that a big win?

If you've ever seen the movie The Fifth Element (1997), there is a flying car chase scene. In the scene there are many levels of aerial streets, very tall buildings, and the ability to fly into a building many stories above ground.

Why do you think small aircraft don't use that space right now?

The Federal Aviation Regulation (FAR) Part 91.119 indicates that, except when necessary for departure or landing, the minimum altitude over urban areas is 1,000 feet above ground level (AGL) and 500 feet AGL over rural areas. But small aircraft often violate this; new laws would need to enforce this minimum height in order for personal flying vehicles to be safe.

Presumably that rule was made for safety reasons. Why would it be safe for flying cars to fly that low over urban areas when it isn't safe for regular airplanes to do so?

Because of the aerial street grid that can be viewed on the vehicle's computer or a helmet's shield using AR? Basically replicate a street 30 feet above ground with enough clearance to avoid large vehicles. It doesn't need to be some massive flying vehicle. It can start with the little Jetson One vehicle. Stop signs and traffic lights in the AR grid can be used too. However, a flying vehicle would need to be able to hover in order to yield to another vehicle.

That sounds like helicopters now, which are also not allowed to fly that low over busy city streets. The problem isn't just knowing where you are in space; it's also that if there's a catastrophic loss of power, you don't want to land on someone's head.

There could be mutiple safety redundancies built into the vehicle, like emergency deployment of large balloons in case of mechanical failure and a smaller propeller that lets the driver navigate to a safe landing spot in a parking lot. Also, emergency batteries, emergency propellers, airbag deployed below the vehicle so it softens the landing (and any injuries for the people smooshed).

Take a look at the Jetson One https://www.jetsonaero.com/ It is definitely not a helicopter and incapable of the huge damage that helicopters do. The flight speed is up to only 63 mph. It's more like a small, flying scooter.

Well, actually, I might want to if it cushions the landing, but the person below wouldn't be too happy about it.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com