A hovercraft does not cut through the water like a conventional watercraft means it is far less susceptible to waves and water hazards like floating trees or shallow shoals. This much is fairly obvious: if you travel over an obstacle you can not be affected by the obstacle.

Hovercraft also have a substantially wider beam than most all boats and ships. The wider beam means that the vehicle is less likely to wobble from side to side. A narrow table is easier to turn on its side than a wide one.

Hovercraft have a lower center of gravity than most other vehicles. A low and wide ride is much harder to upset than something tall and skinny.

Not only do hovercraft ride on a relatively speaking soft cushion of air, but they also have a big inflated rubberized skirt around the bottom. Hitting something solid like a wall would result in bouncing rather than crumpling.

A “disaster” with a hovercraft such as engine failure would mean that the craft would stop and settle on its rubberized skirt before the skirt deflated. This would mean stopping and landing on water or land in a rather soft and padded way.

Because of all of these reasons and many more, hovercraft just do not have real accidents. They do not cause the loss of life or limb.

Ferries sink and capsize often. Trains derail and crush things and themselves. Airplanes fall out of the sky and explode. Automobiles are 3000 pound bullets that have “crumple zones” built into them so the crush properly and absorb kinetic energy.

Hovercraft have a logical shape and ride on something called a “cushion” of air with a big rubber bumper around them.

Is it really any wonder accidents with them seemingly never happen?

As previously pointed out, hovercraft accidents are amazingly difficult to find reports of. Doing searches on hovercraft and accidents invariably yields results on how hovercraft are used as rescue vehicles after other type of craft have an accident.

Since a couple of rail options are proposed as alternatives to using hovercraft in the Washington D.C. area, let us quickly compare the safety record of trains.

According to the US Federal Railroad Administration, there were 973 total train related accidents in 2006. 2007 showed a marked improvement though with only 840 accidents.

Yes, these numbers do include all forms of train related accidents. However, this is in stark contrast to the lack of news articles about hovercraft accidents. It should be noted that this is only statistical data for the United States, not the whole world.

It is also highly doubtful that one can find any news articles on trains being used as rescue vehicles.

Trains are easily demonstratable to be more dangerous than hovercraft.

Trains are also obviously less flexible than hovercraft. Trains (and monorails) can only travel where track has been laid.

Speaking of that track and other infrastructure, the cost of any rail system is almost 50 times as much as setting up hovercraft.

This does not take into account the cost of maintenance of the track.

As for environmental impact, running any sort of rail through the areas that WaterLine Metro advocates using would be beyond environmentally devastating. It also should be noted that no cost estimate has been generated for running rail through these areas due to the total impracticality of the concept.

While hovercraft can not be called silent means of travel, they are many magnitudes quieter than trains.

The end result is that a train is just not any form of competition for hovercraft.

Since hovercraft are obviously such great solutions to many pressing problems in urban development, why are they such a hard sell politically?

A lot of the reasons that hovercraft are not deployed in more areas are the very facts that make them such a great solution.

Conventional watercraft require a lot of the conventional methods that political entities bleed an area of wealth. Docks, piers and seaports, for instance, are firmly in the grasp of unions. Unions in the United States are a major political force to be reckoned with. Unions do a great job generally of protecting their interests and keeping their workers employed. Unions do not like watercraft that can move people and cargo outside the realm of their control. Thus, they spend a great deal of lobbying money to make sure that if something moves over water they get their cut.

Most roadways are built by large private companies and as previous entries have pointed out, there is a lot of money in paving. They too have a large lobby to make sure that their business continues to get paid.

These are actually valid interests, but they are taken to an extreme against hovercraft. For instance, hovercraft certainly will not replace the need for roads in the foreseeable future. Also with the ever growing environmental concern that is taking over political thinking, we certainly wont see major bridge networks being built through the areas that Waterline Metro is advocating using.

The same pretty well applies to the shipping unions objections to hovercraft. There just will not be any major channels dredged in these wetland areas and the periodic freezing of the waterways only adds to the improbability of using conventional watercraft in these areas.

Sadly, another one of the benefits to hovercraft that works against it in the political arena is that it is too efficient. American budget systems work on the premise that if an area of government gets more efficient and saves money and does not use their whole budget allowance, the next budget they get is cut. While on the surface this sounds good, in practice it leads to waste and deliberate inefficiency.

Hovercraft by nature will only get cheaper to operate as the craft are paid off. They do require maintenance, but they have no real infrastructure to spend budget dollars on like roads do.

Finally, politicians as a rule are not very brave sorts. They like to do things as they have always done because there is less risk in that.

The reality is that our previous ways of doing things are making our planet less and less comfortable to live on.

We need to stop doing things just because that is how we have always done them.

We need to stop blindly allowing lobby groups to buy and bully their way of doing things.

We need to do things that are the right thing to do, even if they mean changing how we think and act politically.

There is no good reason not to use hovercraft in the DC metro area.

A video montage of hovercraft in action and basically showing off.

It is especially telling when the hovercraft just blows right past the sleek and modern looking commercial cruiser as if it was nothing.

Take a look at how fast and effortlessly the hovercraft can travel over sand or water.

So why aren’t we using hovercraft?

It might be easier to answer: what aren’t hovercraft used for?

Some of the uses for hovercraft around the world are:

• As search and rescue vehicles.
• As daily transportation in Europe, the American continents and Asia.
• As ‘floating’ platforms for combines during wheat harvests in Russia.
• As charter services in the Caribbean and elsewhere.
• As transportation where high speed ferry services are restricted due to beach erosion from wakes.
• As lawn mowers. (Yes, that really is a product that has been on the market for 30 some years.)
• As cargo transportation over ice, snow, water, and mud for oil research and exploration.
• As shuttles between cities which do not have deep harbors, bridges or long piers.
• As “go anywhere” rugged craft in the Australian wild.
• As tourist ‘buses’ for water/land tours in Canada, South East Asia and other areas.
• As personal yachts for cruising shorelines, harbors, rivers, and lakes
• As military and police vehicles.
• As fun hobby and racing craft.
• As many things as can be thought up for a craft that can go over most kinds of terrain with minimal impact on an area.

So, what can’t hovercraft be used for?

• Hovercraft are not suited for trans-oceanic travel. Yes, a hovercraft could be made really large and be able to go across the Atlantic, but at this time they are not built to take on full waves.
• Hovercraft can’t “drive” on roads. The pitch to a roadway to allow for proper water runoff would make hovercraft slide off the tarmac. However, a hovercraft can “crab” along a roadway and use them. It is just easier to travel along the roadside with them.
• Hovercraft do not climb hills well. They need more or less flat surfaces to traverse. However, bumps and waves and such prove to be no obstacle for them. In fact, a hovercraft can travel relatively smoothly across water rough enough to make the average person seasick.
• Hovercraft can not fly. They are not built with lift in mind. However, if you look at VTOL aircraft, you will see a very similar principle.
• Hovercraft can’t do windows.

What should hovercraft be used for?

Easing the commuter burden on the Washington D.C. Metro area!

This video was dug up while trying to find some bad things to say about hovercraft to provide an objective argument for them.

The title of this video is: Being Blown away by Hovercraft.

As you can see when you watch the video, the people with the camera wind up standing directly behind the massive main propellers.

It becomes rabidly obvious that the title is dramatic purely for the sake of getting views.

Yet again, filmed evidence that hovercraft do not move as much air as one would think.

Alaska is obviously a very environmentally sensitive area. Alaska is also a very big area. People must be able to traverse the distances. Obviously there have been countless studies done on what the best way to move people from point A to point B through various delicate areas.

You can read about one such study by The Wilderness Society and see that they think that most of the conventional alternatives to hovercraft are (emphasis theirs) “A BAD IDEA, WORSE BECAUSE IT IS UNNECESSARY”.

Think about that for a second. People who are incredibly environmentally concerned think hovercraft are one of the logical solutions.

What is the outcome of this study and various others?

Hovercraft are being used in Alaska.

Florida is also seriously giving a look at using hovercraft to move people across various waterways because they too have an environmentally sensitive area.

Florida has a major concern with manatees being mauled and killed by boats as well as other damage caused by boat wake and pollution.

Obviously, since a hovercraft is so environmentally sound and does not have any parts that actually go through the water, they are giving this a serious looking into.

The Philippines are begging for hovercraft to service Leyte and their less popular areas.

South Africa is also wanting to use hovercraft.

One of the more noticeable areas in the news lately is Scotland trying to bring hovercraft in to improve their economy. The major hurdle there is political wrangling.

In fact, the number one reason for hovercraft to not be so widely used is due to politics.

Hovercraft cut out a lot of powerful middlemen in the shipping and people moving business around the world.

Middlemen need to work and earn a living, but not at the expense of our living.

Take a look at this video and watch how this massive vehicle moves easily from water to land.

Pay special attention to how close the people are standing to the hovercraft and please notice they are not getting blasted by sand and air.

A lot of people’s objections to hovercraft is obviously based on pure myth.

As the articles on this site have pointed out time and time again, hovercraft are really the only logical choice for increasing mass transit in the D.C. Metro area.

Hovercraft are far less expensive than any of the currently available alternatives. The least expensive of the alternatives is 3 times as costly and the most expensive of the alternatives is almost 50 times as expensive.

All things being equal, it would seem that would be reason enough to use hovercraft.

However, to steal a line from Ron Popeil: But wait, there’s MORE!

• Hovercraft are the least expensive of the alternatives.
• Hovercraft have the least environmental impact, both long and short term.
• Hovercraft are the fastest method for traveling of the alternatives.
• Hovercraft are without a doubt the safest of the available methods of transportation.
• Hovercraft are the fastest to put into service.
• Hovercraft do not cause disruption while being deployed. (Unlike adding lanes to I-95.)
• Hovercraft can move the most commuters per day of the other alternatives.
• Hovercraft do not lead to adverse by products and future growth issues. (Unlike adding lanes to I-95.)
• Hovercraft are not phased by inclement weather.
• Hovercraft are the coolest alternative.
• And much, much more!

There is really just one question: why not use hovercraft?

A video about the Stagecoach Hovercraft plan for Scotland.

As you can see, this is a good solution to their needs.

It is a shame that politics is getting in the way of this.