Putting an end to the myth that SkyTrain is proprietary

In the name of ensuring that citizens and stakeholders are receiving the most accurate information, we have decided to debunk the rest of the myths on the Rail for the Valley article [LINK]:

MYTH: SkyTrain is a “proprietary light-metro system owned by Bombardier Inc.” and “only SkyTrain vehicles can operate on the guideway”.

Disproved on page 75 of the Honolulu document:

SkyTrain is a trademark of BC Transit.

We have mentioned time and time again that SkyTrain is not the name for anything released by Bombardier.

MYTH: It would be cheaper to operate coupled pairs of trams than a four car Skytrain train-set.

Disproved on page 71 of the Honolulu document — which finds that SkyTrain was significantly cheaper to both operate and maintain than other heavy-rail and light rail operations in America:

MYTH: TransLink would need only 14 LRVs to do the same work as 28 SkyTrain cars.

TransLink would also require millions of dollars in additional annual operations costs, offsetting the savings and therefore disproving that comment.

MYTH: “The SkyTrain cars are not articulated”

The definition for an articulated rail set appears to have been taken directly from the Wikipedia article [LINK] on articulated rail cars. This article is marked for its lack of citations and sources, which has remained unchanged since a December of 3 years ago (2009). It is likely that there is no merit or accuracy in this definition – because under this definition, it would also be incorrect to consider an articulated bus to be articulated at all.

We would prefer to go by the Merriam-Webster dictionary definition, which the 4-car gangwayed Mk. III SkyTrain car will fit:

Definition of ARTICULATED

of a vehicle: having a hinge or pivot connection especially to allow negotiation of sharp turns <articulated lorry> <articulated bus>

MYTH: Bombardier markets ART as heavy metro because the light metro market has all but collapsed.

It is false to think that the Light metro market is collapsing as several are being planned in places around the world such as Asia and at least a few North American cities such as Honolulu. The reason that Bombardier is able to market its ART system (now INNOVIA METRO) as a heavy-rail metro is because it has historically always been capable of doing the work of a heavy rail metro.

The segment of SkyTrain between Columbia Station and Waterfront Station has a higher theoretical capacity than the most capacious segment of the Toronto subway:

• Vancouver SkyTrain (Expo/Millennium Lines between Waterfront & Columbia Stations) – maximum theoretical capacity with 5-car trains carrying 1187 each [1] at frequencies of 75 seconds [2]: 56976 pphpd
• Toronto Subway – maximum theoretical capacity with 7-car “Rocket” trains carrying approximately 1645 each [3][5] at frequencies of 105 seconds [4]: 56400 pphpd

Based on:

1. Capacity of 4-car Kuala Lumpur Kelana Jaya Line train, with side-facing seating: [LINK]
2. Expo Line Upgrade Strategy – maximum defined frequency [PDF] – [LINK]
3. Current Toronto Rocket trains have 6-car length and carry 1416 passengers [LINK] at crush load 6 people per square metre frequencies
4. Yonge Subway Extension – Recommended Concept/Project Issues – [LINK]
5. 7-car rocket trains have been studied and are possible – see [see LINK above]

MYTH: To absorb the development costs for SkyTrain compatible cars, companies like Alstom and Siemens need to build a minimum of 100 cars.

This information appears to have been conjured as a response to the quoted media release on the article that mentions that the reason that other companies declined to respond to the request for expression of interest was because the order was for less than 100 cars. The release is allegedly ours (as the article title indicates that this was a direct response to us), but it does not match anything in the information we released on our website regarding the new SkyTrain vehicle order (see: Bombardier signs INNOVIA Metro launch order – new vehicles to debut on Vancouver SkyTrain)

We looked further into this, and found by a quick Google search of the internet using quotation marks to define that precise quote [LINK HERE] that there is no release on the internet that contains these words – and that the only website that has published them and is showing up on Google’s regularly updated results is Rail for the Valley.

This means that – for whatever reason or motive that would seem unusual and we cannot identify – this information was completely falsified.

There is no proof in any media release on the internet that indicates why there was no interest from other companies, or if that there was no interest from other companies is true at all. There is no indication in any news release or internet article that Bombardier was the only responder to the request for expressions of interest, except for on this article on the Rail for the Valley website.

Conclusion: Anti-SkyTrain is nothing more than a misleading mentality – and if there’s anyone who doesn’t have a clue about SkyTrain, it’s Rail for the Valley’s Zweisystem himself – the most ill-informed SkyTrain oppositionist in Metro Vancouver.