We took two tram lines as benchmarks to compare with our alternative. The data was taken from Wikipedia, both for Manchester and Edinburgh. The Manchester tram can transport 212 people every 12 minutes and that in Edinburgh 250 people every 10 minutes. The downside is that they complete their journeys even if they aren’t filled at capacity, and in off-peak hours they are often nearly empty wasting energy and public money. Their infrastructure is designed to support ~40,000 kg, hence the high infrastructure cost.
The much lighter Nymbel PODs can transport one person every two seconds. Actually, the interval can be reduced to one second, being controlled by devices that react 90 times faster than people, but for this case study I will stick to the 2-seconds safety gap. The infrastructure only needs to withstand 400 kg, which is 100 times less than that of a tram, and far less expensive. Despite the lower cost, the capacity is bigger and users are happier because they waste less of their time in traffic.
Given its time, energy, resource, and space efficiency Nymbel is profitable. It can cover its costs from its revenues and carbon/environmental credits, and instead of receiving subsidies it pays taxes. Profitability also allows for obtaining financing from traditional or green lenders, so it is not limited by local budgets’ scarcity for expansion.
We strongly believe that local authorities would be better off to have positive values where the red figures are in the tables above. In turn, citizens would also be happier knowing that their taxes get a better use than subsidies.
Judging by the rush-hour road traffic speed in the two cities, trams’ presence doesn’t have a substantially positive impact on mitigating traffic congestion.
