REVIEW: My Kind of Transit: Rethinking Public Transportation in America
Far from a boring treatise on the need for public transit, My Kind of Transit is an appeal on behalf of the emotional factors that make most transit repulsive and a select few forms enjoyable and uplifting.
It is always gratifying as a reader to see your own obsessions justified. That’s why I was so pleased to see Darrin Nordahl give loving recognition to Disneyland’s transportation systems in the very first chapter of his new book, My Kind of Transit: Rethinking Public Transportation in America.
Far from a boring treatise on the need for public transit, My Kind of Transit is an appeal on behalf of the emotional factors that make most transit repulsive and a select few forms enjoyable and uplifting. Nordahl gives detailed analysis of how Disneyland's antique transit forms (the omnibus, the horse-pulled streetcar) give riders a sense of "buoyancy" and "giddiness." On both vehicles, he observes that it is the transparency of the vehicle, allowing passengers to see out and be a part of the environment as they pass through it, which makes them so enjoyable. He writes,
The open-air cabin [of the streetcar] offers passengers the sights, sounds and smells of Main St. without obstruction. And these passengers, gliding slowly by, seem to engage pedestrians as well. There is a strong sense of connectedness between passenger and pedestrian, presumably because of the lack of physical barriers.

The Disneyland Omnibus.
Nordahl's observations are sometimes so simple they elicit a 'duh!' moment. For example, New Orleans' famous St. Charles streetcars feature a seat that can be switched to face forwards or backwards, so that a group of four could face each other. That kind of flexibility, he argues, gives riders control over their environment, the same type of control that William H. Whyte observed people seeking in public spaces.
Indeed, Nordahl makes a convincing case in the beginning of the book that the lessons of urban design learned since Whyte’s time are much in need when creating transit systems. Transit design, like street design, has long been shaped by the automobile, to the detriment of both. The more transit has attempted to mimic the streamlined form of cars, the more it fails, because public transit will never be a car, with complete freedom of movement and a quiet, personal experience:
If transit is to become an attractive alternative to the automobile, the ride itself must offer an experience to passengers that they cannot get within the solitude of their cars. Perhaps the greatest asset that transit possesses, one that many do not recognize, is its potential as a setting for public life. […] The design approach, therefore, should not be markedly different for transit than for any public space. Like the successful public settings that have lured people from the privacy of their suburban homes and back onto central city sidewalks, so, too, must transit court people from the privacy of their cars with a similarly rewarding public setting.
Possibly the most compelling argument Nordahl makes with this book is that the most beloved transit in the U.S. are the systems that are unique and tailor-made for their location. Cable cars in San Francisco and funiculars in Pittsburgh still operate not because they are the fastest or most efficient way to get from place to place, but because they offer an experience that is pleasurable and worth the trip.
As cities around the country invest in streetcar systems, we may be seeing that idea spreading. But I'd like to think that Nordahl's book could be a clarion call for transit providers to get more creative when providing transit options. What limits us to light rail? Bring on the funiculars, omnibuses, and aerial trams!
- Login or register to post comments
- Email this page
- Streetcar Suburbs Without Streetcars? - Dec 29, 2008
- New U.S. Streetcars A Boon to European Makers - Nov 11, 2008
- Buffett and Beyond - Nov 18, 2009
- Fed Seeks More Control Over Transit Safety - Nov 16, 2009
- Cities With the Shortest Commutes - Nov 16, 2009


















Don't let creativity trump usefulness!
According to Tim Halbur "Possibly the most compelling argument Nordahl makes with this book is that the most beloved transit in the U.S. are the systems that are unique and tailor-made for their location. Cable cars in San Francisco and funiculars in Pittsburgh still operate not because they are the fastest or most efficient way to get from place to place, but because they offer an experience that is pleasurable and worth the trip."
It is painfully obvious that neither Halbur nor Nordahl are involved in the planning, design or operations of public transportation systems. While the "belovedness" of a transit system might be of vital importance to a city's tourism economy, transit serves the vital role of getting large numbers of people around from place to place. That is not to say that public transit doesn't also play a big role in city development and place-making, but its primary role is mass transportation. Neither the SF cable card or the Pittsburgh funicular are the types of systems that are used by large numbers of locals on a daily basis. They may be wonderful things to have, and they may provide great benefits to the immediate community, but in a very real sense they do not play the role of getting people from point A to point B quickly, comfortably and on time.
If we start thinking more about creating a "beloved" system than one that is user-friendly, convenient and efficient, then we're starting to get into same territory that has brought us large buildings designed by starchitects - beloved perhaps, but not exactly useful to your average citizen.
Never lose sight of the fact that transportation is a derived demand, and that transportation systems are there to help people do all the other fun, exciting and enriching things that make up their day-to-day lives. Design and appeal are vital aspects of a transit system, but don't let creativity trump usefulness!
Transparency of the vehicle--YES.
Good pickup by Nordahl (and good pickup by Halbur of Nordahl's pickup)--that transparency of the vehicle makes a transit system/vehichle more pleasant.
Check out these pictures of Dublin's LUAS tram in Ireland and see how nice it looks:
http://www.flickr.com/photos/10798592@N08/3677757516/
and
http://www.flickr.com/photos/10798592@N08/3676942477/
and
http://www.flickr.com/photos/10798592@N08/3676941567/
Also, I rode the NY-NJ PATH train recently and was struck by how it felt a noticeable small bit nicer than the NYC subway, and I guessed that PATH's much bigger windows helped.
For a review of this book
For a review of this book from the perspective of an actual transit planning specialist, see here:
http://www.humantransit.org/2009/04/the-disneyland-theory-of-transit.htm...
Jarrett Walker
www.HumanTransit.org
unique transit
i agree, uniqueness is key. just about any transit operation other than a standard diesel bus is very unique, and directly tied to the local place, history, culture. they use unique equipment and travel only a certain route (or network).
open air cuts both ways
Great in good weather, not so good in rainy, snowy Toronto!
Environment key in transit design
I think that the topic of the environment/atmosphere of mass transit is very important. This includes design and upkeep of both the bus/train/trolley and the transit station.
Features such as strong fluorescent overhead lighting and vinyl and plastic interior in trains and buses can be turnoffs. The dingy atmosphere at train, subway and bus stations can be wearisome.
Also, there is one train station where each time a train whizzes by, a plume of smoke comes off the overhead electric wire. People waiting at the train platform have to breathe this in.
I think that the open air feature of some trolleys is indeed a reason for their success. You can connect with what is going on outside, as opposed to with people on your cell phone while you ride. This open feeling and opportunity for connection is why I often choose to ride a bicycle.
I've also heard (and seen in movies) that in some European countries, trains feature leather and wood interior and good food etc. A warm atmosphere created by natural interior materials and natural lighting would be preferable.
Emotion may not be the best criterion
Emotion may not be the best criterion on which to base transit design. Sure, it sounds appealing, but none of the examples quoted will do anything significant to reduce the prime concerns we have about transportation - accidents, congestion, climate change and the high cost of transit.
I challenge that "...public transit will never be a car, with complete freedom of movement and a quiet, personal experience..." Certainly conventional public transit will never be, but have you not heard of personal rapid transit (PRT)? It has characteristics more similar to a car than to conventional transit. The only way transit can significantly compete with the car is to attempt do what the car does. There are many good reasons why we love our cars and refuse to give them up. Whimsical modes of transit will never make a significant dent in automobile miles traveled.
There are now three PRT projects under way worldwide with the first scheduled for service later this year.
Peter Muller
User experience and transit
As a transportation planner who spent 10+ years designing software for usability, I am keenly interested in the user experience of transit. Once you have met the basics such as safety, convenience, and reliability, designing for delight is what will win riders away from cars. Living here in SF, I see the value and attraction of unique transit options every day - the cable car, the PCC streetcars, and the ferries, all well used by locals and tourists alike.
Key to this discussion is identifying the features most valued by travelers (safety, convenience, comfort, and aesthetic treatments). This does *not* necessarily include privacy. It is this element that PRT advocates cling to and put above other considerations such as safety and cost. PRT gives us the worst aspects of public transit (inflexible routes) with the worst aspects of the auto (space consumed per passenger). PRT hallucinations look like those 50's animations of how our highways were going to be: the one lonely car moving smoothly down the perfect road, maybe one more in sight. Imagine our packed highways, only ALL of them elevated on stanchions, packed with little 2-person pods. Nevermind the mom and two kids - I guess she left one behind; or the person in the wheelchair, or the person whose pod stopped moving, and is now 20' up in the air with no way to get down.
PRT is a pipe-dream projected by those who can't envision getting out of their cars, and are desperate to never rub shoulders with their fellow travelers. After 40 years of bloviating about this insanely expensive and impractical system, there are now three tiny pilot projects scheduled to come on line. Congratulations. In the world of real public transit, PRT is a non-starter.