The Shape of the Future

E M Risse

The Skycar Myth

Small airplanes have their uses, but the idea of subsidizing their development as personal mobility vehicles is unsound. There is no substitute for functional human settlement patterns.

Jim Bacon is an enthusiastic advocate of ideas that might improve prosperity and competitiveness, such as telework and small airplanes. Prosperity and competitiveness are good. However, in advocating good ideas, one must be sure that readers understand the parameters of functional human settlement which is the ultimate determinant of prosperity and competitiveness.  Mobility and access to life’s essentials are two of these parameters. The following notes were prompted by Jim’s “The Small Aircraft Revolution” column (October 18, 2004) featuring NASA’s Sid Siddiqi and the future of small aircraft in the Commonwealth.

First, let me make it clear, I love small planes. I have never been interested in piloting them, just using them to do appropriate and enjoyable things. I was paid to get in a small airplane when I was 17, and it has been hard to keep me out of them ever since. For most flights, we choose small airplanes over big airplanes unless “small” means small seats. I have flown in and out of many of the smallest airstrips in the Caribbean and from small fields in Montana, New York, Maryland, Louisiana, Texas and Virginia to spot fires, drop supplies, locate lost climbers, get to remote places and to photograph human settlement patterns.

That said:  

Small planes –- no matter how high-tech or how much federal gravy is poured on –- will not make a major impact on mobility for the vast majority of citizens in the 21^st century. 

Flying, especially flying fast or flying safely in adverse conditions, is expensive in economic, social and physical terms. The faster and/or more safe, the more expensive the flight. This is a matter of physics, not politics or policy.

Technology can do little more than prolong the inevitable triumph of physics over boosterism in a democracy with a market economy. Darth Vader could divert resources to create new flight-based paradigms, but that does not work in a democracy over the long term.

Do not misunderstand: There is an upside to improving small airplane access for places like Roanoke, Charlottesville, Lynchburg, Winchester and, perhaps, Danville. However, the Virginia Airport Map has runway diagrams for over 70 airports in the Commonwealth. There are many more small airfields that are not on most maps. This brings into focus the two fundamental problems with a sugar-coated view of small aircraft mobility:  

• Lack of a comprehensive Commonwealth-wide plan upon which to base strategies for mobility and access including the optimum use of small airplanes.

• The need to apply appropriate technology to achieve mobility and access.

Where Is the Plan?

What comprehensive, Commonwealth-wide plan for human settlement pattern is NASA using to determine the parameters for which urban agglomerations should have public investment to improve air service? Without a plan, the prime criteria may be the home of the longest-serving congressperson or the landing field closest to the home of the Speaker of the House of Delegates' girlfriend. Upgrading more than a few of the 70 plus current airports would be pure pork, just as “telework centers” for a few telecommuters have become. Even if each upgrade is not very expensive, this public expenditure provides another incentive for urban scatteration and thus higher total government costs and less mobility. Scattered airport upgrades also dilute the critical mass necessary to achieve functionality of settlement patterns or mobility systems in any specific location.  

How does the Danville Beta Community qualify for special treatment? Perhaps if Greater Danville comes up with a truly comprehensive plan for the entire Danville community -- an area including at the very least Pittsylvania County, VA and Caswell County, NC.  This plan would have to include a binding commitment not to scatter the housing and other urban land uses attracted by great air service and telecommunications across the Countryside. You can see where this is going: The need for a comprehensive Commonwealth-wide plan and a commitment by Greater Danville to create a Balanced Community. 

Just "giving" parts of “lesser Danville” better air service and telework without creating a functional context will only make things worse. It is like providing road money without obtaining a commitment to create transportable human settlement patterns.  

All public action should lead to more functional human settlement patterns, not scatteration.  That axiom of governance was identified by The Friends of Virginia’s Future in 1991.

The objective of creating Balanced Communities is alluded to at the end of Jim’s column on Danville ("Saving the Mill Town," November 1, 2004), but it needs to be on the front hook so no one misses or misunderstands the importance of this criteria. See "The Shape of Richmond's Future," February 15, 2004, for an outline of the process to which the Commonwealth and the citizens of the entire Danville/Pittsylvania/Caswell area must commit to the creation of a Balanced Community if they are to be given federal or state funds.

Are small planes and telecommunications the answer? No! They may be part of an answer if, but only if a community comes forward with a plan and that plan is compatible with a Commonwealth-wide plan. Creating a Balanced Community has to be something beyond just a new college, new technology at the airport and new fiber-optic connections to an industrial park in the former tobacco fields. The Commonwealth and Greater Danville need to leverage tobacco money or other funds to evolve functional human settlement patterns, not just line some pockets with more green. The same issues must be addressed in any discussion of new universities, new fiber-optic links or airport upgrades everywhere in the Commonwealth. Otherwise, it is just more Business As Usual.

It is not only the large New Urban Regions where there are problems with dysfunctional human settlement patterns. Large-scale urban agglomerations run out of options sooner. Small-scale agglomerations can continue to make things worse for a long time before running out of land to misuse. It will not improve competitive advantage, prosperity or competitiveness just to talk about attractive “solutions.” This masks the need for Fundamental Change.

Appropriate Technology  

It is very easy to mix up the role and importance of shared vehicles with the role of private vehicles in creating mobility and access on the ground and in the air.

Start with the basics. As documented in The Shape of the Future, most contemporary travel is a waste. It gets citizens from where they are to where they want or need to be. More intelligent human settlement patterns results in more people being where (or much closer to where) they want or need to be a larger percentage of the time.

Transport consumes limited resources. The amount of time available in a day is absolutely limited. Time consumed in needless travel is a waste. The cost of energy and the impact of excess travel grow every year. (See “Spinning Data, Spinning Wheels,” September 20, 2004.) In this context, doing more of what we have been doing (driving or flying) is not a solution.  Fundamental Change in human settlement patterns opens a wide range of individual and collective solutions.

We examined the Private-Vehicle Mobility Myth as it relates to ground transportation in “The Myths That Blind Us,” October 20, 2003. Most recently, we explored this myth in “Clueless,” January 19, 2004, in “Self Delusion and Fraud,” June 7, 2004, and in “Dying Young in Traffic,” November 1, 2004.

There is an airborne myth that is equally flawed. We might call this the “Skycar Myth” named after the “invention” of Paul Moller. Moller is a master of promoting his shiny red prototype which has graced the pages of Futurist, Wired, and Inc. in recent years.  Robert E. Fulton Jr. (1909-2004) built a low-tech prototype (the Airphibian) in the late '40s, and there are helicopter/paraglider/motorcycle hybrids in the garages and shops of many handypersons and inventors.

The idea of a flying car has attracted a plethora of fiction writers, cartoonists and some great minds including Buckminster Fuller and Frank Lloyd Wright. As noted in Chapter 18 of The Shape of the Future, when Frank Lloyd Wright's idea of Broadacre City would not work because of automobile congestion, he turned to individual helicopters.  

All the flying cars are failures for the same reason that Automobility is a failure –- the physics of human settlement pattern. If applied in large numbers, the vehicle plus the space it occupies -- parking space, road space/air space needed to make it operable -- disaggregates human activity to the point of dysfunction. For a look at the historic perspective on the use of horses and automobiles to achieve mobility and access (the same analogy applies to aircraft), see End Note One in "Out of Chaos," July 26, 2004.  

The cumulative impact of disaggregation is also the core problem with the idea of extensive use of small airplanes.  They result in three-dimensional gridlock.

Is “flying” a solution to citizen mobility? In Sao Paulo, Brazil, and elsewhere, those at the very top of the economic food chain already have airborne mobility.  The less-fortunate 99.9 percent of the population does not. What is the value of decreasing the number of those without special privilege to 99.5 percent or even 98 percent? As noted above, in the long run focusing on mobility for the very rich is a nonstarter in a democracy with a market economy.

The role of appropriate technology focuses attention on the importance of a comprehensive set of transport strategies to provide mobility and access for citizens. There is no legitimate reason to create another special benefit for a few. Does making a lot of little places safe for Gulfstream Liberals square with the goal of  “Reconnecting Virginia”?

This initiative and others are based on the strategy of using lower cost and well-connected rail systems for much more of the traffic between urban agglomerations -- especially those trips under 500 miles.

The Commonwealth needs to look to the least expensive ways to increase mobility within transportable settlement patterns. Simple physics demands that be ground transport for many access needs. Aircraft have a role, but a limited one.

The First World is on the cusp of reevaluating the role of all airplanes in mobility due to total cost per seat mile, noise and atmospheric impact. The demise of the Concord was the turning point. There are not enough passengers who value very fast travel to pay for it out of their individual pockets. Corporate and government aircraft use is still expanding, but when the total costs are accounted for and allocated to the individual passenger, the real ticket price will be overwhelming. 

The Scramjet, the Rocket Plane and pipe dreams of going back to, much less beyond, the Moon may have military and joy-ride-for-the-rich applications but they are not the future of human mobility. With the population growing, the disparity between rich and poor widening and a realistic allocation of the cost of flying which is inevitable in a democracy, the percentage of citizens with access to air travel is in decline.

In the European Union, economists, as well as transport and environmental professionals, are zeroing in on the total cost of all aircraft operations. Aircraft have been getting a free ride because of a failure to calculate the impact of aircraft on the atmosphere. NASA’s Langley Research Center recently released data confirming what environmentalists in Europe have been saying for years: “Airplanes have significant direct and indirect negative impact on the Planet.”  

If users of airplanes pay the price of impacts, the cost per seat mile in large planes will be enormous.  It will not be that much less for small planes if they are high-performance (i.e., high speed).  If they do not get you there fast, why not use a less costly alternative?

Many Europeans also know of the role that the current administration is playing to support a consortium of big U.S.A. carriers seeking to block any attempt to allocate the real cost of air travel. Not one citizen in 100,000 in the United States even knows this is an issue. The lack of knowledge about issues like this causes many on this side of the Atlantic to wonder why Europeans dislike “Americans.” What they really dislike is the actions of the federal government in support of some U.S. corporations.

Yes, new technology and small planes will change the dynamics of big airlines that fly big airplanes between big airport hubs. Airline economics since WW II have been propped up by government subsidy. The hub-and- spoke system exacerbates the distortion of the subsidy- skewed market even more because of labor costs. It has flourished at the expense of wasted passenger time for which airlines do not have to pay.

The Devil in the Details

A number of “details” regarding small-plane promotion deserve careful attention:

What about security checks and safety at small airports? Safety is important on the ground and in the air. Fast security operations on the ground at small airports will be very expensive or very unsafe. Minimal security screening sounds like an invitation to terrorism.

It is cheaper to train pilots to crash small planes into high image targets than it is to train them to fly big planes. There is less damage upon impact, but if they can bring on a suitcase of the plastic explosives which are now widely available via Iraq, Iran and parts of the former Soviet Union, watch out. Safe? I do not think so.

Three weeks ago 13 people died in the crash of a "commuter plane" flying from St. Louis to Kirksville, MO. Do we need Uncle Sugar to subsidize an airport in Kirksville? How about Macon, Hannibal, Chillicothe, Trenton, Moberly or other similar places in Northeastern Missouri?   

Would new safety technology at Danville have made a difference in the 24 October Martinsville crash of the Hendrick Motorsports aircraft? According to published reports least 20 of the other private planes flying passengers to the Martinsville Speedway did not try to land at Martinsville/Blue Ridge Airport that day. They diverted to Danville and landed safely with the existing equipment. 

Going to The Homestead for dinner?  The scenario of going to a late afternoon soccer game and then flying to the Homestead for dinner highlights the need to keep one’s perspective. What Sissy needs after the game is a hot shower, a bowl of homemade soup and time to do her homework. Families for whom flying to The Homestead at 7:00 PM after a teen’s soccer game is an attractive idea already have that option. If they want to make it safer, they can afford to pay for that too.

An alternative way to get to a meeting in a large New Urban Region? Where are the offices of  enterprises, institutions and agencies to which one would go for a meeting? The vast majority are in the core. (See “Where the Jobs Are,” May 24, 2004.) There are perhaps a dozen small airports outside the Clear Edge around the National Capital Subregion that now handle corporate jets. They include Leesburg “Regional,” Manassas “Regional,” Warrenton-Fauquier “Regional,” Stafford “Regional” and Culpeper “Regional” in Virginia.  They are all in places that take at least an hour and a half to drive to the centroid at the times someone would want to start a meeting. One of the few small airports located at a transit station is Greater Manassas, which has early AM and late PM VRE trains only.

Do we need another excuse to scatter jobs? The market says there is not much interest. We recall reading of air-park subdivisions in Popular Science in the 50s. There are not many more now than there were then. Executive airports have attracted some businesses to Westchester, Bucks, Hunt Valley and Leesburg. Concerning Leesburg, Arthur Godfrey’s heir could fly his DC-3 into Leesburg “Regional.” As it turns out, Arthur’s heirs sold his Beacon Hill retreat and it is being developed into horse-farmettes. The vast majority of the new owners both drive to jobs inside the 20-mile radius from the center of the Subregion.

Noise. There are eight mapped airports within 10 miles of Warrenton, 12 within 20 miles. There are many more small, unmapped airfields. The same is true for a lot of small urban enclaves in the Countryside. On nice days the sky is full of small planes -- some new and high tech, some hand-built, and some old that cast engine oil all over the landscape. Does the community need a federal subsidy to have more noise to compete with the helicopters coming to the hospital and the military choppers coming to the Army facilities?

Strategy for the Discussion of Innovations that Impact Mobility

So, how should one deal with good ideas without obstructing the larger picture? There is a simple way to deal with the complexities of mobility and settlement pattern such as those raised by small planes or telework, etc. One must always note the core issues:  

• There must be a comprehensive strategy to achieve mobility that is based on a long term plan for functional human settlement patterns. 

• It is absolutely necessity to apply appropriate technology.

• Where the settlement pattern will support it, the implementation of an effective shared-vehicle mobility systems on the ground or in the air is imperative.

• Society must establish a fair allocation of all travel-related costs and then let the private market sort out the best allocation of resources.  

With respect to small planes, like other mobility options, every public action should create more functional settlement patterns at the community and the regional scales. If support for small airplanes meets this criteria, then a subsidy may be justified. If not let the market control. The public needs to conserve its resources for those actions that create profound beneficial economic, social and physical impact for the community, not just a few private pilots and fat cats at the top of the economic food chain.

-- November 15, 2004

Ed Risse, and his wife Linda live inside the "Clear Edge" of the "urban enclave" known as Warrenton, a municipality in the Countryside near the edge of the Washington-Baltimore "New Urban Region."

Mr. Risse, the principal of

SYNERGY/Planning, Inc., can be contacted at spirisse@aol.com.

See profile.