No formal, conclusive, comparative analysis comparing life-cycle-costs between Aerobus and other systems has been made. Here are the reasons:

A) The capital cost advantages of Aerobus are both self-evident and overwhelming vis a vis elevated LRT, AGT or Monorail as follows:vehicle costs, to be able to carry a given number of passengers, are generally of the same order of magnitude among this class of systems. (Although Aerobus vehicles tend to be lighter and therefore less costly).

Station costs are similar.

Energy consumption; and, therefore power installations, communications, and control are also within the same order of magnitude among the various technologies.

It is the elevated guideway and the supporting structures: columns, beams, frames, etc., which represent usually 50% to 70% of the total system costs of a transit system.

It is in this guideway area where Aerobus represents up to an estimated 80% to 90% cost savings depending on site and route consideration. (Consider the number of pylons vs. number of columns per mile and the mass, material, and weight and therefore the cost differential between Aerobus cable-supported rail and all other elevated guideways).

B) A more detailed cost comparison without a specific site, a specific capacity requirement and performance specifications, is fallacious and futile. (It is especially difficult to compare systems from different experiences and histories.)

C) Clearly, there is very little operating and maintenance (O & M) history behind Aerobus, although the UMTA Assessment reports highly favorably on energy consumption (3.4 kilowatt-hour per vehicle mile, and 0.05 kilowatt-hour per vehicle mile, very low due to the light weight vehicles); operating availability 99.6% in five of the six months of operations; and on O & M cost of DM 33 per vehicle mile which is less than or comparable to mature US LRT experience of $15 to $25 per vehicle mile today. Thus, all "conventional parts" (excluding the cable suspension system) are at least competitive or less costly than competing elevated systems.

D) Similarly, Aerobus vehicle lifetime is 30 years with proper maintenance as with most fixed guideway vehicles. For stations and other facilities, lifetime is fifty years in general with all transit systems. The Aerobus cable suspension system, as well as the cables in the cable-supported rail portions, have a 30-year life as a result of the 3rd generation design change which eliminated the wear produced by the vehicle riding directly on the naked cable. (friction and cable movement over tight radii are the factors limiting cable life, both of these are eliminated in Aerobus when compared to cable-cars.) The only maintenance envisioned with the cable system is a magnetometer safety inspection every five years, periodic inspection and selective replacement of the aluminum extrusion rails due to unusual wear, which is analogous to all other rail systems. All of these functions can be conveniently performed directly by technicians riding in the specially designed maintenance vehicle.