One Track, Many Cities: How Bangalore, Kuala Lumpur, and San Diego Share a Surprisingly Similar Transit DNA

I’m a big believer in public transit systems. They don’t get nearly enough credit. Too often dismissed as burdens on taxpayers, these systems are in fact, reflections of their cities: products of geography, economy, politics, global technology, and environmental commitments. Far from being simple infrastructure projects, they are living responses to how people move, how governments plan, and how societies imagine their future.

Yet hop onto the metro in Bangalore, ride the LRT in Kuala Lumpur, or catch the trolley in San Diego, and you might feel a sense of déjà vu. Despite being continents apart, these systems bear a striking resemblance in infrastructure, train types, and ridership experience. This is no accident. Public transit rarely comes to mind in cities built around cars, and all three, Bangalore, Kuala Lumpur and San Diego, have long been shaped by car-dependent growth. However the universal experience of stepping onto a train reveals a different kind of freedom: no dependence on traffic, fairly reliable schedules, and direct access to key city centers.

So how did three cities in India, Malaysia, and the U.S. end up with transit systems that look and feel so alike? The most apparent link lies in the technology that powers them. All three have adopted light metro or light rail systems, a strategic choice that strikes a balance between the high costs of subways and the limitations of bus networks. Bangalore’s Namma Metro is an expanding elevated network, now incorporating automation and advanced signaling. Kuala Lumpur’s Kelana Jaya Line stands out as a fully automated, driverless pioneer in Southeast Asia. Meanwhile, the San Diego Trolley is one of the most successful light rail systems in the U.S., serving its sprawling metro area through a mix of street-level and elevated tracks.

A deeper connection among these systems lies in their shared manufacturers. Bombardier (now Alstom) supplies trains to both Kuala Lumpur and San Diego, while Alstom is also a key provider of rolling stock and signaling for Bangalore. Common features such as automated ticketing, similar platform heights, and air-conditioned coaches further highlight a global convergence in transit design, shaped as much by multinational engineering firms as by local planning.

Despite differences in size, geography, and economic standing, Bangalore, Kuala Lumpur, and San Diego grapple with remarkably similar urban challenges: rapid population growth, sprawling car-centric development, worsening congestion, and increasing air pollution. Full-scale subway systems are too costly to justify, so city planners have turned to light metro and light rail as practical alternatives. Elevated or street-level rail is not only faster and more affordable to build than underground metros but also easier to scale as cities expand. Within this context, the move toward standardized, modular transit solutions, borrowed from proven global models, emerges as a logical, cost-efficient strategy for addressing 21st-century urban mobility.

What may come as a surprise is the extent to which global engineering firms shape the look and function of transit systems worldwide. Companies like AECOM, Siemens Mobility, WSP, and Alstom design everything from signaling to station layouts, often carrying similar blueprints across continents. Their influence is reinforced by major international funding agencies such as the Asian Development Bank (ADB), the World Bank, and the Japan International Cooperation Agency (JICA) whose investments frequently favor tested, systematized models. The result is a transit ecosystem that reflects globalization in motion, where steel, concrete, and circuits are deployed in remarkably similar ways across diverse cities.

The benefits of this convergence are obvious. Standardized solutions cut costs through economies of scale, faster implementation, and make maintenance easier thanks to interoperable technologies. For commuters, this translates to smoother rides, modern stations, and reliable timetables. The real power of these systems lies beyond efficiency, they have the capacity to reshape urban culture.

As ridership grows, so does the case for faster trains, broader networks, and better service. Each new line reinforces a virtuous cycle: transit attracts investment, investment drives expansion, and expansion makes public transit indispensable to daily life.