The cuts in other expenses give room for investing in comfort. This beambus, illustrated above, need not be broader than a regular city bus (3 meters versus about 3.2 m) although slightly longer (14.7 meters versus 12 m). Yet, it takes only 36 seated passengers, which is about 75 % of what the streetbus would take. The "comfy" seats would require a beambus of about 4 meters width, but this would probably make it unstable; not a good idea.

The beambus could thus provide larger seats, better leg room and better access, having wide doors on both sides of the cabin. The beambus could conceivably be made broader than the streetbus, since it does not have to consider other traffic in parallell traffic lanes. It remains to be seen if the stability for really wide beam vehicles would be a problem.

2.1 The road buses have expenses for drivers, which the beam buses are not saddled with. Salaries for busdrivers constitute 50 - 60 % of the price of the ticket in most industrial countries. In addition, there is a bigger overhead for ticket sellers, control personnel and maintenance staff for maintaining motorbus traffic, than it is to maintain beambus traffic. 2.2 City buses in the developed countries are increasingly allocated reserved bus lanes and separate streets, which are not paid for by the commuters, but by the taxpayers. For a proper comparison of costs to the community, both types of traffic should pay for their respective conduits to the community purse. If the travel costs for the road traffic is redistributed for social reasons is another matter. 2.3 It is an easy observation that bus lanes as a rule are not used as efficiently as the lanes used by private cars. Let us assume, for instance, that the buses during peak traffivc times carry 40 times as many passengers as the cars (i.e. 48 persons versus 1.2), and that the cars passes a certain point at the rate of one car every second. Then the buses would have to pass the same point at the rate of one every 40 seconds in order to provide for the same passenger flow. One rarely sees buses coming that close behind one another! The degree of utilization of the occupied ground is thus even lower than for the cars.

2.4 Further costs for land for bus garages comes on top of this. The car owners take care of this themselves (in the inner suburbs the cars are parked in the streets).The beam vehicles need no garages. 2.5 The energy consumption per person and kilometer is much larger for motor buses than for beam buses. 2.6 In the outer suburbs and during low traffic hours the bus companies have to accept unavoidable inefficiency because of empty seats in the buses. This inefficiency is considerably reduced for the beam-carried buses. 2.7 The road buses are vulnerable to snowstorms that block the roads. The traffic could also be hampered by strikes by the drivers. These situations contributes to production losses for the whole community. They are not an issue with the beam traffic system.

The conclusion from all this ought to be that also the road bus, together with streetcars, in 10 years time (i.e. the year 2011) will lose out when making a socio-economical comparison with a complete beam traffic network.