Trucks, like those vehicles would have to stay underneath or no more than one lane to the side of the overhead wires.

(The Quito buses/trolleys also have fuel motors and are able to operate away from the overhead wires.)

Stationary wireless charging has been shown to be efficient, but the space between sender and receiver is quite small. This might be a bit hard to maintain at highway speeds.

An interesting article, but I am curious why they would choose to pursue overhead lines when they are considered unsightly, and require substantial infrastructure added to roadways. Perhaps it is to get past the limited overhead that is being considered for buses (frequent stops) in cities. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hME6du52q6M

Overhead lines have also traditionally been used with rail systems that help to keep the pantograph on the lines. They are contrasted with trolley poles used on trolley buses. It is unclear from the article how this is accomplished by the trucks. see: http://cleantechnica.com/2011/10/14/a-desire-named-streetcars/

Also curious that you characterize wireless energy transfer as “some wacky unproven technology” when the very same company has also been pursuing that technology for over a year: http://www.electric-vehiclenews.com/2011/04/siemens-and-bmv-unveil-wireless-ev.html The efficiency can be as high as 97% energy transfer, no towers are required and the equipment is safe from vandals, accidents and weather.

And don’t you just hate it when you have a good idea and then you read about it in the news?