The Chinese

Referring to comments in the Oahu And Beyond blog:

"Stick to dancing, Pepe. You're not so good on buses. The Bus already owns 90

articulated buses out of 577. Current purchases of normal-sized buses are to

replace older vehicles of the same sort. The Chinese just opened Guangjou-Beijing

highspeed rail recently. They will use what they think right."

Next the commenter admits the Chinese will use what they think right. I agree. The rail is for long distances, and the Chinese are no dummies. They are well aware of the difference in short (commute) and long distances in regards to transportation.  Not in Honolulu Ivory Towers. The distance from Guangjou to Beijing is over 1400 miles. Dumb Dodos. The distance from Honolulu to Kure Atoll out in the North Pacific is 1380 miles. Is there anybody out there picking up on this action?

300 of these very carefully placed and each one having 70 cars missing from the

road right in front of them because the drivers are "sitting" in the bus. Much less

traffic on all the streets and highways. So who needs the rail? Yeah, right.

In Latin America and Europe buses are taking over and rail is out. This seems to be a lot of what's happening in the current promotion of "Bus Rapid Transit" – "BRT" on the mainland. Spearheaded by the US Federal Transit Administration (FTA), whose "BRT" marketing website has carried the resounding slogan "Think Rail, Use Buses". "That's the quickest way to describe Bus Rapid Transit" says the FTA. "BRT combines the quality of rail transit and the flexibility of buses."

 

Eventually you are going to need the Bi-Articulated bus (two tandem) proving very successful in China, Latin America and Europe. In the Pacific the "wheels" may be somewhat deficient in their knowledge of world wide transportation. How about the Tri-Articulated bus, Ha!
 

But some promoters have been going even further – transforming buses into railcars in their promotional and marketing hype, much like ancient alchemists transformed lead into gold ... In their imaginations. Some bus vendors have really pushed the envelope. The transit products vendor MATRA, for example, promotes its optically-guided CIVIS bus as "the rubber-tired tramway" and claims, "CIVIS combines comfort and regularity of a street car and the operating simplicity of a bus."

No, not for Oahu, Chinese tests for the "Quad" are for destinations of 500 miles.
Many in Hawaii know that distance makes the difference, but not in the Ivory Towers.
In China, it is proving five times more effective than rail at one tenth the cost.
"The Chinese will use what they think is right." Yeah, man!

Some journalists also have gotten on the "bus is rail" bandwagon – claiming that, in "BRT" systems, "buses operate like trains on rubber tires." Similarly, syndicated columnist Neal Peirce has started promoting "BRT" services as "surface subways". But, while Peirce supports transit and undoubtedly means well, his effort at terminology obfuscation is rather reminiscent of some Road Warriors who like to anoint the private automobile as "personal rapid transit".

Pub's Side Note: Now the Commenter may see it pretty clear that I know a little more about buses than he thought. You want more? I got it.