The bottleneck seems to be energy. Electronics don't really require that much power compared to transportation and living space, and have been able to make "futuristic" advancements even with our reliance on primitive power sources (i.e. fossil fuels).

Not that this has necessarily been a bad thing; perhaps better for human evolution to have the free worldwide communication system that boosts our intelligence before we get boundless energy potential.

As far as medical advancements go, well, it's hard to hack yourself. I'll expect the flying cars well before the intelligence pills.

It is possible today to create airplanes that use less energy per mile than a good car, traveling at higher speeds. I think PG's comment about government involvement is very relevant here - the reason such airplanes aren't the norm is bureaucracy, politics and law. Intellectual inertia.

The problem regarding personal air travel is almost purely political. The only real technical hurdle I can see is the problem of getting them into and out of the air: we haven't yet created airplanes that both are energy-efficient in the air and land or take off vertically. Tilt-rotor designs are the most promising candidate I can see for this (you need wings to travel cheaply), but they would have to be under computer control unless we want reckless pilots to die in droves while landing. The efficient planes I am talking about here don't need a mile of runway - 500 meters is plenty.

In case my first sentence draws criticism off the bat, please consider that there are four-seater, canard airplane designs that cruise at 170 mph at 5 gallons/hour = 34 MPG. And this is with today's airplane engine technology, which hasn't changed since the 1960s. The problems which then remain are infrastructure, training and inertia, which are purely political. I have confidence that we will eventually have personal flying vehicles ("flying cars"), but this shows that the problems faced are anything but technological in nature. People ridiculing the old notion of a near-term "flying car" are bashing the wrong people. Why do the scientists always get the blame when it's just cultural inertia that is the problem?

I'm still holding out hope for autonomous cars within a decade. Technology-wise we're pretty much there. The hard part will be convincing the public and government regulators to accept them.

I'd give it 25 years. The tech is mostly there, agreed.

Too much social upheaval to happen very soon. My guess is that you will see incremental robot cars. First we'll have "smart cruise control" that will pace with the cars in front of you. Then we'll have "smart obstacle detection" to prevent you from backing over stuff you can't see. Then "auto parallel parking", then something like "interstate cruise" where the vehicle stays on an interstate from the on-ramp to the off-ramp (no pedestrians and little distractions. Then something like "last mile cruise" where the car learns how you get that last mile home, including working the garage opener and stopping for the mail.

We've already got the first few of these, albeit in different vehicles. What car makers need to do is not deploy robot trucking, but deploy incremental features that people will go "Wow! Gotta have one of those!" without doing so much that it sounds threatening. I know I'd snap up something like interstate cruise in a heartbeat.

Also don't count out the impact of the military: if DoD has auto vehicles (and that cool 4-legged robot) as part of it's daily operations, people are going to want the same at home.

not gonna happen. People Just wont trust it. Just like mass trasport with "flying cars" are not going to happen this century. High speed rail (200+ mph), and smaller cars for city transport will prevail. Wait until gas hits 6$/gallon, and then you will see the change on american attitudes to transport.

I remind you that the population density of USA is about 31/km², while europe's is about 112/km², and appart NYC, there are no really very dense areas in this country. Even SF has about half of the density of the average European city.

So even if the population doubles in the next 50 years, current technology (or the model of life you see in Europe), will be enough. Anything else too drastic, will probably be too expensive to develop.

A coworker of mine who's been in the GIS industry for about as long as said industry has existed gave that very same assessment. The real obstacles at this point are social: people will freak out at the thought of robot trucks driving on the same highways as they do (or stealing their trucking jobs).

I give the example of trucks on highways because that would probably come first, as it's simpler to safely implement than passenger vehicles or city driving.

"(or stealing their trucking jobs)"

This was covered in a Simpsons episode. Turns out that all the trucks already drive themselves, but the truckers' union has prevented that information getting out to the general public.

(Couldn't find it on youtube.)

I think rather than government involvement, things that are largely physical are bound by stronger constraints. Also when it comes to things like intracity transportation we tend to underestimate old solutions like walking and riding.

France, some of western Europe, and Japan have already 220+ mph transportation, but in a train, and with heavy goverment subsidies, but still it is much safer, faster, and reliable then get stuck in a car in trafic. So, a goverment can actually achieve something good. The thinking back then was so car centric, that even in intercity traveling you had to had a car. Since cars would not be allowed into cities anyways (according to the prediction), wouldn't it made sense for trains?

The car szstem also enjoys huge government financing. Or who builds the streets in your country?

His description of credit cards and electronic "money" was spot on too. Once again - was mostly a technical problem.