Think about the following: - SAV´s will have to operate safely in ANY kind of weather, day or night. Zero visibility, high wind, any kind of precipitation, icing conditions; today´s aviation still has many problems coping with adverse weather. - Urban trunk roads carry many more vehicles per hour than one every 30 seconds. That would be rush hour in the country. - Howmany cars are added to traffic every day week or year? To avoid gridlock on the ground we´d have to risk gridlock in the air it seems. The article mentions ´a system´to control the SAV´s, but does such a system exist and is it dependable? Remember that aviation is a conservative world, because falling from the sky, parachute or not, is far worse than pulling over to change a flat tire. Falling means avoiding powerlines, busy roads, houses, and all other sensitive objects on the ground. A pretty tough order in any urban environment.
Autonomous cars will win this match hands down. Simply because existing infrastructure can be used and taking the human out of the circuit will improve safety to the point that driving will become the safest way to travel, by far. Apart from that, pedestrians and cyclists will benefit from the safety factor inherent to computer controlled vehicles. Thirdly capacity of existing infrastructure will increase enormously. And last but not least, the real reason autonomous cars will win is that they, like now will park in front of your door or very close. No need to get out, and you can read, work, or just sleep on the way to work.
A pity, I love to fly..

Not necessarily, if an air taxi service is the only authorized party using the airport they could just not run air taxis during inclement weather.
What would be very interesting would be if it would be possible to launch these from the tops of buildings downtown out to satellite airports for easier travel in that direction. Maybe the roofs of some larger buildings or parking structures could be airports as well for landing into the city.

What Bas Klein Bog said.

Why use planes when helicopters seem to be much better for this purpose?
Secondly, make them personal devices so that everyone can have their own. Not many people want to ride in a bus or fly in an airplane, and the same amount of people will want to do it in these SAVs. No one likes being crammed into anything like cattle.

Great! TSA pornovision and groping coming to a neighborhood airport near you.

By the way, my reason for TSA griping is not just their illegal violagion of civil rights protected by the Constitution, but the fact that the REAL TERRORISTS are within our government, who were complicit in the placement of demolition charges in the three WTC buildings, enabling them to come down at freefall, or near-freefall speed, into their own footprint, turning the concrete to powder as it fell, with molten metal showing up from the continue thermitic reactions for a month after the buildings fell; and building 7 wasn\'t even hit by a plane.

We should be putting scanners on all congressmen and other politicians, and getting rid (i.e. Guantanamo groping [just kidding, let\'s not stoop to their low level]) of any who are involved in that continued conspiracy to establish a world police state.

Another concept worth considering is the TTWIG, Track Tethered Wing In Ground effect. The TTWIG is an AC powered high lift device that is forced to remain in Ground Effect Mode by a rolling tether connected to an above ground \"track\".
The track provides both power and guidance and therefore can be automated to provide the services envisioned by those pocket airports in the article.
Since it \"flies\" approx 40 ft in the air, it would not interfere with existing ground transport systems.
Phil Poulos
Northrop-Grumman

I think the concept CAFE is trying to get across is a return to the promise of helicopters and personal aircraft from decades ago. The very conservative nature of aviation, especially as fostered by the FAA, tends to supress novel approaches to multiuse aircraft (both roadable and flyable, for example), although several examples are finally emerging.
The infrastructure for air traffic control, as currently deployed, does not scale to SAVs in the volume hypothesized. However, a scalable approach could be found in a combination of automation in the aircraft and in control systems, and in the introduction of novel inflight management tools such as the \"Highway in the Sky\" guidance system. Synthetic vision and enhanced vision systems would be of great benefit both to current and future aviation endeavors.
In the long run, it\'s going to take some combination of surface transportation enhancement and aviation enhancement to get us out of the gridlock we currently \"emjoy\". If SAVs can be made that meet the fuel efficiency and noise limitations proposed, at a cost that\'s even marginally affordable, I see some degree of broad adoption. I can also envision light aircraft evolution toward the SAV design goals, but probably starting with the Experimental Aircraft Association. Come on Oshkosh, show us your stuff!

Sounds like a NASA nocturnal emission. Bas Klein Bog, above, got it right!

PS Will Sterling Allan please put cork in it. That war is over.

Call it a sky-bus, but tethered lighter than air (TLTA) is likely the closest we will get to this capability in the near future. Tether/tractor technology needs to mature, but this system would allow LTA craft to move in higher winds than free flight permits. It would essentially be a low cost monorail system on which a tether/tractor system controls the progress and direction of the LTA craft. The system could be enhanced with solar power capability on the LTA craft where and when feasible. Careful balancing of lift vs load would reduce friction on the monorail tractor and increase overall efficiency.