Completely laughable response.
So you jump up and down telling me I should think first, but you didn't watch the video. Or even look closely enough at the first picture to see what you were saying was already completely wrong. You thought the concept was fraught with "peril and logistical nightmares", but only bothered to tell us about 1 concern, 2+ meter vehicles. And that was obviously completely unfounded, just from a quick glance at the first picture. High vehicles could still use the other lanes (just as you were told), and enter and exit from them. When called out on your own lack of thought, you doubled down and tried to explain why your version of reality was more important than what was already shown in the picture or video.
Now you have added cost as a factor, but have obviously not thought at all about this either. A subway or monorail would have at least the same cost for stations (likely much higher) and you still have to build a monorail track (more expensive) or a subway system (vastly more expensive). Even the summary mentions the bus would be only 20% the cost of an underground train. (You did read the summary at least I hope).
You don't need to convince me this system is a joke, I already mentioned I thought it was "silly" and "impractical". I've been to China and seen first hand how they drive. Seems like what you are really trying to do, is convince yourself that you had thought about it as much as you were telling other people to do. Is it working?
If you had put even a fraction of as much effort into your initial assessment as you have in your attempt to squirm out of admitting you were wrong, you may have even realised all this for yourself.
This is proposed as a replacement to a subway, I'm sure they can afford a few pedestrian bridges etc. and still be cheaper.
PS. I think this is a silly concept and totally impractical. Think if you can come up with some actual reasons why this time.
PPS. Spoiler alert since you didn't watch the video, but the passengers get on and off via the top anyway