Three lessons for Auckland from Transport for London

This is a guest post by Charlotte Billing. Charlotte is a strategist and Co-Director of Place Creative, and is currently researching how public consultation and narrative impact decision-making in New Zealand.

The header image is an art collaboration between Andrew Hudson and Transport for London, via the artist’s Instagram.

Transport for London is an agency and a brand with international recognition. Up there with the MTA’s subway system in NYC, or even the gondolas of Venetian canals, TfL provides a world-class service of keeping a city running.

However, what makes TfL a relatively trusted public transport entity is more than just the iconic branding and the service it provides, to connect people with places and each other. It’s the opportunities it enables for the city as a whole to grow, both culturally and economically.

We can learn from this example. Particularly now, amidst the beginnings of an increasingly severe climate catastrophe, uncertainty around our livelihoods, and with the cost of driving everywhere becoming incredibly draining, both financially and time-wise, New Zealanders really need new and better ways to get around that are not only cheaper, but also better for our time, and the environment.

So here are three key elements, as seen from an outsider’s perspective, that I think make TfL so successful – and make it a fine case study for investing in a great public transport system here in Auckland

1. Innovative design

The famous Underground symbol is immediately recognisable – and, because of this level of recognition, TfL allows the use of the brand in innovative design and consistently fresh campaigns.

This includes a recent safety campaign with London illustrator Andrew Hudson. The images deploy an eye-catching print-like graphic style right out of the 1950s, and reference the visual language of Film Noir – for example, emphasising the steepness of the escalators to set a tone of caution.

The design choice is clever, in that it leans on a style that is potentially almost too familiar to be truly sinister or shocking, while playing to the strength of the TfL brand. They know that you know what it is they’re trying to do, because they’re always making new campaigns to refresh an old message.

Recent stories about Instagram fan accounts for people’s favourite Auckland bus routes showcase some really great (and free) publicity that boosts and lightens up AT’s public image. But is it enough alone, and can AT learn anything from – and do something great with – this opportunity falling into their hands?

2. TfL publicises operating stats everywhere

That might sound obvious and simple, but this makes it clear that TfL’s objective is to continually improve the services they deliver. Big boards up at tube stations reporting the efficiency of the lines is pretty reassuring.

For comparison, Auckland Transport advertises on its buses that: “At peak times, this bus carries the same amount of people as 50 cars”. However, this is undercut when people see those buses driving around empty – which is a bit cringe, to have your biggest messaging opportunity miss its mark.

At the bus stop (or train station), AT often gets hyper-specific in its messaging, for example promoting the fact that “We’ve restored 32 services back to normal levels at this stop in the last year.”

That’s great – but without wider context, this kind of messaging around services feel meaningless. Increasing frequency alone isn’t going to deliver mode-shift without being supported by clearer indicators of service delivery and improvement, as experienced by those who actually ride the bus.

This crystallises a key difference, to my mind, in customer experience between Auckland Transport and TfL. It just doesn’t come across as a priority for AT to improve itself for the sake of its customers (even though one of AT’s own values, Auahatanga, means ‘better, bolder, together’). As in this example, AT prefers to promote the restoration of services at a single stop, rather than talk about how, as a result, the whole system is working better overall for the actual people who use it.

3. TfL is not the one who manages complaints about TfL

When TfL breaks the rules, an independent public transport watchdog investigates. London TravelWatch (“London’s independent travel watchdog”) was formed in 2000 – appointed by the council, rather than the transport provider, to oversee the passenger experience of all public transit services.

The benefit of being an independent statutory authority is that they can be directly critical of the business of the provider, rather than being tied to its revenue-driven objectives.

London Travel Watch doesn’t just respond to complaints either; they also analyse the bigger picture of how the public transport system could be working better for its users, with the mandate to hold TfL accountable to make appropriate changes to enable this.

This slideshow requires JavaScript.

To be fair, I’ve never gone through the complaints process with LTW. However, on a recent trip to Germany, another country with a significant public transport system, a delay on the tracks meant I was entitled to a 50% refund for my ticket. This information was readily available on Deutsche Bahn’s website. The form had to be sent via post, from Auckland – but within six weeks of doing so, the refunded fare was in my account.

Searching my own emails for complaints I’ve made through Auckland Transport’s online process shows that it takes up to six weeks to get a reply, and none had any action taken after that time. Given the recent organisational restructures that have minimised public engagement staff at AT, as an AT customer I’ve long assumed this reply rate is down to the sheer volume of complaints, the rigorous process it must take to answer complex cases, and not enough staff being supported to comprehensively consider each case. In any case, it results in dissatisfied customers.

There’s something wrong if it takes less time to mail a refund request to Germany (and successfully receive that refund) than to receive an email reply from AT. While Deutsche Bahn follows a process that seems old-fashioned, it makes very clear what action can be taken and what the customer can expect, whereas Auckland Transport’s processes and responses seem ad-hoc.

There are, at least in theory, a few other channels that New Zealanders could utilise to get satisfaction from Auckland Transport, beyond complaining directly to Auckland Transport about Auckland Transport. The two main ones are:

• The Local Government Official Information and Meetings Act. This states that all information regarding local authorities’ decisions are automatically public, and can be requested by members of the public. Because a public agency has to respond to LGOIMAs, it means that anyone who has not gotten answers via complaints, or through previous contact with officers, can demand some accountability – if they have enough time to pursue the case.
• The Office of the Ombudsman. This office investigates all public service entities, so its mandate is much wider than transport- but it can help advise around initiating judicial reviews.

However, LGOIMAs often target people within the organisation who are involved in decision-making. As those officers are aware that being in their position renders all their emails and written communications potentially open to public view, this can create fear around decision-making, particularly for things that are deemed contentious (think: parking removal, and inevitably, cycleways).

And, as for appeals to the Ombudsman and judicial reviews, these are really for addressing high-level and egregious actions, not necessarily the fact that, say, a given bus or train service is consistently a bit shit.

In my experience, complaints about system failure can actually be very constructive. They show us what needs improving – an opportunity we lose if we don’t design a better system for learning and adapting from them. There’s clearly a gap for a responsive and independent body to investigate complaints about Auckland Transport’s services. And, as a former customer-service worker myself, I’m sure AT’s own staff in charge of managing complaints already have plenty of good ideas for innovation.

One other big thing Auckland (Transport) could learn from (Transport for) London

The polar-opposite experiences offered by these two cities is glaring. Both cities are big and hectic and expensive to live in. One is internationally renowned, and one is not. One has great public transport, and one does not.

But I will address one factor that always seems to cancel out everything else whenever New Zealanders hear about the opportunity to build a better PT system – cost.

Tube lines in London were originally developed privately, some sending those developers into bankruptcy. And this was over 100 years ago, to put the recent costs and tribulations of the City Rail Link (and Auckland Light Rail) into perspective.

However, it’s fair to say the ongoing gains to the whole city of London – and the value of those tube lines for many generations past and present, as well as those yet to come – are incalculable.

I’ve always thought London is a great city with a great public transport network. But recently, it occurred to me that it might actually be a great city because of its great public transport network. If we apply that same framing to Auckland, our lack of a great public transport system might be what’s holding us back from being a great city – and perhaps why so many of us leave for greener, tubier pastures.

Share this