Should be the rule.

From the picture, the Metronit resembles the articulated double-length buses the DC Metro authorities experimented with more than 20 years ago. They proved too unwieldy for dense urban use and were quickly abandoned. Indeed, more than 40 years ago I sketched out a very different approach I called BUTS - Basic Urban Transport System. Rather than a double-length bus like Metronit, it was closer to a half-bus. Far more maneuverable in a dense city environment, it included an open access platform, like the London buses of the day. And after my experience with Israel's dirty diesel buses back then, I proposed running them on natural gas.

The Metronit has separate, mostly straight lanes so maneuverability is not a problem. The largest expense of running buses (in Western countries) is the driver's salary, so if you run one double-bus rather than four half-buses, you save tons of money, and increase the number of passengers you can carry. Natural gas would be nice, electric would be even nicer, but such buses are expensive, hopefully in a few years they will be cheaper and more widespread.

You are correct that Metronit runs on "separate, mostly straight lines" - something more clearly shown in a different report on this new system. That's a luxury not always available, and not possible in DC where double-length buses were earlier tested. And it does mean the traveler must walk or take another system to reach destinations off that defined track. That's the down-side when maneuverability is not a requirement. Second, I'm well aware of the labor cost issues associated with smaller buses - a mitigating factor even long ago when labor costs were far lower. Keep in mind the relationship between carrying capacity and driver requirements is not linear. Finally, my mention of natural gas was only to note that few were discussing that option back in 1972. Yes, electric might be nicer, but not if it involves dragging heavy and expensive but discharged batteries along the route. A new system being tested (in Switzerland, I think) relies on smaller battery assemblies with mini charges to "top-up" at bus stops along the way. The bus simply drives under the "awning" and the juice flows while passengers are boarding or disembarking. It's yet another attempt to get around every battery's Achilles heel: low energy density.

"The Tel Aviv Metropolitan Area is far behind with regards to public transportation," Transportation Minister, Yisrael Katz said. Has Transport Minister Katz walked around Tel-Aviv and seen how few even reasonably straight main thoroughfares there are that could support the use of these "bendy-buses", as the Brits call them? Tel-Aviv had a dozen of these bendy-buses on trial from MAN more than 20 years ago-- I even rode on one to my mother's several times. It was considered incompatible to most of the bus lines in the Tel-Aviv-Gush Dan area back in the 1990s. What kind of short-memoried cretins do we have as government ministers?

Metronit is totally coordinated with existing bus routes, with marked transport points. Every household was sent well prepared route information. Metronit is intended to handle a high density area of lower Haifa, up into the Hadar shopping and low income residential area. It runs by my flat, and covers 4 or 5 major commercial areas, the port, German Kolony, and banking, government, police and courts centres. It is NOT a replacement for all the windy neighbourhood bus routes in mountainous Karmel. The 4 km underground is also well integrated with Metronit.

Mr Davison, cannot you disagree without calling government ministers "cretins" and "retards"? It is very rude to the special needs citizens of Israel, with whom I have worked extensively. The point about T"A doesn't require that the answer specifically be these large double-buses. Most of Haifa is much more winding AND mountainous. The point is that a metro area need a comprehensive transportation plan. Haifa's plan is these large double buses on the flat lower Haifa area, regular buses weaving through the smaller streets, AND mini-buses within some narrow-street neighbourhood. Then there is the Karmelit subway which serves a critical commercial line from the port to the Karmel center area on top of the hill, and the trans-Haifa Karmel Tunnel toll road. Maybe T"A needs another combination of solutions altogether. Gee, any "retard" could see that! Be nice...

Just to make it plain: Haifa is crowded, has many winding streets, includes a 700 meter hill, is full of traffic choke-points. There was not all kinds of spare room for extra lanes. Private cars lost space in many instances. I live in Haifa, and know T"A well, and I'd say that T"A has a much easier topographia for mass transit.

We had them too decades ago. This Metronit has its own separate line in the streets and is mostly straight. It's like a lite train.

My comment was specifically directed at the Minister's comment that, "The Tel Aviv Metropolitan Area is far behind with regards to public transportation," When a Transportation Minister is incapable of understanding that different cities have different needs, then yes, he IS a cretin and certainly unqualified for the job. Haifa sits on mountainous terrain while Tel Aviv is as flat as an ironing board with a water table not far below the surface. Soil content is different, demanding different solutions in Haifa than those practical in Tel Aviv. What was done in Haifa suits Haifa's geography and geology, totally different from Tel Aviv's. If you don't understand this, maybe you should join the Minister in his special education class.

maybe it will be better after a while. But a reasonable person shouldn't demolish an ALREADY WORKING system until a new one is working fine. E.g. there's no more bus from Sd. Hagana to Merkazit Hof ha-Carmel. I.e. it was supposed to be metronit #1, instead of Egged 103 and 113, they've stopped 103 and 113 but forgot to run metronit #1