They run paired units so, by definition, it is a train.

@@colormedubious4747 I didn't say that they weren't, I said that it seems funny to hear. Which it does considering that the whole thing is shorter than many typical buses. 😄

@@Nouvellecosse I get what you're saying. The reason for my seemingly literal-minded reply is that there is a widespread misunderstanding of transit terminology among the voting public and, surprisingly, in the comment sections of most transit-related KZfaq channels. The MSM is legendary for getting these things wrong, with rare exception. It tends to hinder, if not harm, advocacy efforts. For example, when Austin put billions of dollars of bonds to fund Project Connect on the ballot, lots of people said "we already have light rail here." In fact, we do not. We have a regional rail (commuter rail, if you prefer) starter line. The tech is different. Capacities are different. Frequency and station spacing are different. The goals are different. The costs are very, VERY different. Therefore, some advocates get a bit twitchy where terminology is concerned. Guilty as charged.

Looks like walking time...

@@timosha21 it's walking time. Round trip on Skylink is 12 minutes.

Look more closely. The train is narrower than its guideway structure, not wider. The running wheels ride atop TWO "tracks" (not one) which are clearly visible in these excellent clips. The rail in the center is for power (and probably guidance) and bears no weight. Neither SkyLink nor SFO's AirTrain look even a little bit like monorails. Look up the Newark AirTrain - THAT looks like a monorail (mainly because it's a monorail).