Examining SkyTrain History: the Canada Line and why it uses a different technology
- Reality Check
-
- December 6, 2012
Over the years, many superfluous claims have circulated about why the Canada Line—known in planning as the Richmond–Airport–Vancouver Line or RAV Line—was not built with the same linear‑induction technology used on the Expo and Millennium Lines.
Public discussion often starts from the wrong premise: that the line’s technology was chosen simply because it was “cheaper”, or because SkyTrain’s linear‑induction system was somehow unsuitable. However, neither claim holds up to scrutiny.
In reality, the Canada Line’s design and technology were shaped by a competitive P3 procurement that evaluated complete system proposals, not isolated components. Much larger considerations were at play, and the winning bid was the one that best met the project’s actual priorities: risk transfer, schedule certainty, construction feasibility, and lifecycle value—all under tight funding caps and the immovable deadline of the 2010 Winter Olympics. To understand why the line looks the way it does, we need to look at the process that shaped it.
Summarizing the Canada Line Planning/Competitive Selection Process
The Canada Line was procured as a Public–Private Partnership (P3) that evaluated whole-package bids—design, construction, financing, operations, and maintenance—rather than mandating a single vehicle technology.
This means that bidders—whether individually or in teams—would take part in the design process as well as the eventual construction, including the selection of vehicles and vehicle technology. They would also be responsible for providing their own expertise in setting up the ongoing operations and maintenance upon the completion of line construction.
The original Canada Line design processes started with a request for proposals document that was sent out to four earlier selected and short-listed proponents, who had responded to an earlier “Request for Expressions of Interest”[1]. These proponents were teams that may include some familiar names that supply design and/or rolling stock for rapid transit systems. They are:
- RAVLink Transportation — Fluor Canada, Siemens Canada, Aecon Infrastructure, and First Transit
- RAVRail — Alstom, SA, Ledcor Projects
- RAVxpress — Bombardier, AMEC, Bouyges Travaux Publics SA.
- SNC-Lavalin/Serco (later InTransit BC)
These proponents had to meet several pre-determined specifications and rules set in the request for proposals. For example, the RFP backgrounder highlights that planners wanted the target cost (in the dollars of the time and according to the funding provisions of the time) to land between $1.5 and $1.7 billion.
Among the specifics was a deadline date, which would be later constrained by the cancellation[2] and revival[3] of the Canada Line project.
Narrowing down to two finalists
Evaluators tested operational simulations, cost models, and construction sequencing.
From multiple proposals, the process shortlisted two consortiums that offered contrasting but credible solutions: one aligned with the existing linear-induction SkyTrain technology, and one offering conventional electric multiple units (EMUs) with automated signalling.
Each proponent team then submitted two final base proposals: one fully grade-separated, and one with a surface LRT segment.
As the RAVxpress consortium included Bombardier, its recommendation involved continuing the use of the Expo and Millennium Lines’ linear induction motor technology—even though the line and its depot would not be connected to existing SkyTrain at all.
Meanwhile, the SNC-Lavalin/Serco consortium proposal just specified either a light metro vehicle or a high-floor light rail vehicle.
Canada Line Co. chooses SNC-Lavalin/Serco to build the line
In the end, the CLCO (Canada Line Co., a subsidiary of TransLink) board selected SNC-Lavalin/Serco as the winning bidder, which would later form the InTransitBC partnership. Planners then later selected the fully grade-separated system over the proposed at-grade options[4], and the consortium then subsequently awarded a vehicle contract to Korea’s Hyundai Rotem after a bidding process.
Here is a summary of what factors likely influenced the decision:
- Assumption of risks — SNC‑Lavalin agreed to assume major risks the public would otherwise bear: construction cost overruns, tunnelling risk, on‑time delivery, and early operating performance. That contractual risk transfer materially reduced public exposure.
- Schedule — CLCO believed that the SNC‑Lavalin schedule was more detailed and flexible, explicitly accommodating potential delays, whereas RAVxpress’s scheduling framework was apparently inferior. The hard deadline of the 2010 Olympics had made schedule resilience decisive.
- Construction method — The primary cost difference came from the selected tunneling method, specifically SNC‑Lavalin’s majority use of cut‑and‑cover (including stacked cut‑and‑cover south of 49th), as opposed to RAVxpress’s majority bored tunnel.
- Proportion of public funding — Although the total cost of both bids was reportedly comparable, SNC‑Lavalin’s bid required a smaller public funding share and stayed closer to stakeholder caps, making it more acceptable to provincial and federal funders.
- Trench impact on Cambie — RAVxpress’s proposal for a trench south of West 49th Avenue would have required removing trees and altering Cambie’s heritage median; SNC‑Lavalin, feeling that it would apparently be cheaper, avoided that impact by keeping the line underground through sensitive sections.
- Operating Experience — SNC‑Lavalin proposed light‑metro vehicles under a separate OMC and P3 operations model. The SNC-Lavalin/Serco proposal wanted Light Metro vehicles (using any form of standard propulsion) to be used on their proposal for the Canada Line. Because the private partner would operate the line independently of Bombardier (which was on the opposing team) and BCRTC, the bid emphasized proven delivery and integrated operations while eschewing fleet commonality.
A push for grade separation instead of at-grade rail
Up to this point, the project criteria did not actually required grade separation, which is why both proponents provided both a fully grade-separated option and a second, partially at-grade option.
In the end, local input became instrumental in planners’ decision to make the Canada Line fully grade-separated, with no at-grade intersections. Richmond residents strongly preferred grade separation, and with the community not being receptive to having urban rail tracks run at-grade on No. 3 Road, the LRT option was eventually completely eliminated from further consideration.
It’s worth noting that proposals for at-grade systems were actually more expensive, as an at-grade system would have required more expensive trains capable of manual operation along No. 3 Road, whereas the grade-separated system could be fully automated like existing SkyTrain—reducing staffing requirements. Tunnels would have also needed to be taller to accommodate use of overhead wiring instead of third rail.
SNC-Lavalin/Serco estimated that the grade-separated option would save approximately $90 million over their hybrid at-grade proposal.
The Canada Line Today
Canada Line opens ahead of schedule
Vancouver’s newest addition to the SkyTrain system, the Canada Line, will officially begin service on Monday, Aug. 17, more than three months earlier than originally scheduled and with a special treat for transit riders… (CBC News)
Canada Line exceeds ridership and revenue projections
Figures released by TransLink today show average weekday ridership exceeded 104,000 for three months in a row. In May, an average 104,682 people rode the Canada Line every Monday through Friday. In June, it hit 106,320 per day and July’s total was 107,198. Daily averages (for all seven days a week) were 94,223, 97,969 and 99,210 for the same three months. Original ridership projections forecast that the line would reach an average 100,000 passengers every day, including weekends, by 2013… (TransLink)
TransLink had originally expected to reach an average 100,000 passengers per day, including weekends, by 2013. But in the past three months, the average weekday ridership has exceeded 104,000. TransLink said ridership is also up during weekends. If the ridership keeps up this trend, TransLink expects the Canada Line will reach the break-even point — with passenger revenue covering its operating costs — three years earlier than planned, just as the Expo and Millennium lines did. (Vancouver Sun)
SNC-Lavalin wins technical innovation award for Vancouver’s Canada Line
Vancouver’s Canada Line rapid transit project has netted SNC-Lavalin Inc. top marks for technical innovation – the Schreyer Award – in the 2010 Canadian Consulting Engineering Awards program. (Journal of Commerce)
Canada Line transforming Richmond City Centre: $4+ billion in development
The current wave of development includes up to $4 billion in new development that is now under construction, being marketed or going through the planning approval process. It includes the largest single development project ever proposed for Richmond, as well as a significant number of proposed new hotel developments. (City of Richmond)
Footnotes
- “Request for Proposals Backgrounder” — TransLink, 2003[↩]
- See: City of Richmond Council minutes — 2004[↩]
- RAV wins TransLink approval — CBC, June 30, 2004[↩]
- Canada Line – Final Project Report[↩]
Pictured in header: A Canada Line train approaching
Reality Check
Reality Check is the online blog run by the founder of SkyTrain for Surrey, a BC-based community organization that has advocated for the expansion of the Vancouer SkyTrain system, including our successful advocacy for the under-construction Surrey Langley SkyTrain extension.
Media Contact: Daryl Dela Cruz – Founder, SkyTrain for Surrey ・ Phone: +1 604 329 3529, [email protected]
