Long before getting involved in all this transport advocacy business I wasted the golden years of my youth studying for an arts degree. Useless as it has proven to be, I learned many fascinating tidbits of knowledge along the way. One of the most captivating -but unavailing- tidbits was the study of semantics and semiotics. As a quick introduction, semantics is the study of the meaningful information included in words and images, while semiotics is about the meaning we derive from symbols.(bear with me here, there is a transport related point to this).
The distinction between the two is tricky to grasp but actually quite important. Semantics convey new information inherent in the thing itself, while semiotics is about symbols that recall some information we already new. This is best illustrated with an example, let’s take McDonalds. I bet there is hardly a soul on earth that doesn’t know about McDonalds, or wouldn’t immediately recognise those Golden Arches. But the word “McDonalds” itself doesn’t actually mean “fast food restaurant”, it’s just a Scottish surname. And looking at the Golden Arches logo, there is no picture there of hamburgers or fries, just an M shaped abstraction in yellow and red. It’s purely semiotic, purely symbolic. In both cases the word and the image are just symbols that unlock knowledge we already know, knowledge that those symbols mean nasty but ubiquitous junk food.
McDonalds in a train carriage, Barstow USA.
On the other hand, a sign saying “Char Grilled Burgers” is the opposite, purely semantic. We can read the words and know that the place sells burgers done on the grill, even if we have never seen the sign before. In fact, we could take in that information even if we’d never seen those words in that combination before.
So what does this have to do with transport I hear you ask? Well, what I’m getting at is the word transport itself, or more specifically the words “public transport”. While it’s a pair of words I must utter dozens of times a day, I hate them. Useless. They’re too damned semiotic, and for all the wrong reasons.
Let’s look at those words independently. Public…Transport. What does that really mean, and is it actually an appropriate turn of phrase?
Public is an ancient Latin word meaning “of or concerning the people”. What exactly is public transport. Transport of the people? Transport that is accessible by people? Perhaps it is transport paid for by the people, for the benefit of the people? There really isn’t much actual information in the word public except some vague concept of ‘peopleness’.
So what’s the problem there? Well it’s just not very useful. I suppose all these meanings are true for public transport, but they are also true of most other kind of transport too. Arguably the footpath is the most public form of transport, but we wouldn’t call it public transport. Our roads and motorways are ‘of the people’ and ‘for the people’ not to mention paid for out of the public purse, but we don’t call them public transport. Our taxis exist solely for public hire, but are they public transport? I wouldn’t say so.
So the public bit tells us almost nothing, and I think the transport bit is even less informative. The word transport really is synonymous with movement; any kind, shape or form. The word covers everything from crawling on your belly, to cruise ships, to rockets to Mars. Not much information there either.
If we get down to the nitty gritty of it, the phrase public transport is semiotic. It is a set of words which only have a symbolic association with the concept they represent. It is only through a sort of mutual consensus that those words mean buses and trains and ferries and all those things that get us so excited on this blog.
It is only by prior understanding that the words have any meaning at all, and therein lies the rub. To many people, too many people, the words public transport have the wrong connotation. They carry meanings like ‘slow’, ‘awkward’, ‘difficult’, ‘uncomfortable’, ‘subisdised’, ‘socialist’, ‘failure’ and ‘last resort’. Here in Auckland we are on the verge of a public transport revolution that will change the face of our city for the better, but those symbolic words are tarnished by decades of neglect. We need to change the symbol as we change the meaning.
To that end I propose a new set of words for the concept. Instead of public transport, I think we should use passenger transit. Why passenger transit? Well for a start it’s not public transport, so we do away with all the negative connotations that term carries, but I think it is also a better term on its own.
The word passenger is semantic, it conveys meaning, it tells us quite clearly that you are a passenger. You’re not a driver who has to worry about driving, but a passive actor who is being driven, a guest or customer. The word passenger tells you immediately that you’re not required to do anything except sit there. That is perhaps the most valuable aspect of catching PT. Instead of having to focus on the road ahead and not kill yourself or someone else, you can simply sit back, read the paper or listen to your iPod . You can pull out your laptop to write inane blog posts, or even do some work while travelling to work (tell that to the boffins calculating value of time in the Ministry of Transport). On public transport the old connotation is you are cattle, part of the rabble. On passenger transit you are a valuable human being, one who has better things to do with their time than operate the conveyance that moves them about the place.
So why transit then? Well at the semantic level the words transit and transport are the same, they both just mean moving things. But at a semiotic level I think the word transit carries a lot more value. In our part of the world transit means ‘mass transit’, it means ‘metro transit’, it means all those amazing useful systems that we try overseas but could never have here… until now that is. Using the word transit to describe our system immediately associates our buses and trains with the great metros of the world. In the context of a new connective network with high frequency services running all-day every-day, I think that association is perfectly appropriate.
I imagine there might be some resistance to using the word transit because it is an Americanism, but quite frankly I don’t care. While most of our language harks back to British roots, I have no problem doing away with a failed old term and borrowing a better one from across the pond.
So what do people think, am I barking up the wrong tree? Or shall we leave public transport in the 20th century and take passenger transit instead?
I did quietly think when AT changed from MAXX to “AT Public Transport”, it did seen a bit retrograde but there’s no way I could explain it as well as you just did.
And a question also worth asking, especially with the new network, is should we be saying “transfers” or “connections”?
People seem to associate transfer with inconvenience, waiting and the possibility of getting lost or stranded in the process.
But if you tell someone their local bus connects with other buses/trains/ferries going to various places, it sounds less uncertain and more automatic (your bus connects with, rather than you must transfer to), and the word connection fits in nicely with the word network.
I agree, a ‘transfer point’ is arduous and inconvenient, while a ‘connection point’ opens up options and possibilities. Perhaps the distinction is that a transfer must happen at the end of a line, while a connection can happen at points along the way.
The only caveat to that is some people consider ‘connection’ to mean a very direct timed connection, which they may not always be.
Connection also has positive social and even sexual semiotics…. two things more likely to have a beginning on transit than when everyone is isolated in their own little vehicles
That reminds me of one of my favourite prints from the New Yorker, it’s called “Missed Connection”:
So Nick your arts degree did get you a burger flipping job?
See it wasn’t useless.
Actually it was delivering pizzas… but come to think of it that is probably where my fascination with maps really kicked off, putting that geography 101 to good use!
Checking tickets in Britomart this morning. Counted on the escalator out thirty one representatives from Veolia, AT, Maxx and security guards.
I stopped at 20.
I suspect it’s to get people used to ticket checks once on-board checks are finished. Still a huge waste of everyone’s time and money. The last time they had them, they seemed to think my ticket hadn’t been clicked (it had been) and let me through anyway.
I saw about 15-20 people waiting at Glen Innes station around 4pm today too.
Went on the train, overheard the train manager talking to another passenger – “hold on to your ticket, they will do a check at Britomart”
Went to ask him about it, he said that they are doing Britomart and GI today, think it was Newmarket tomorrow.
Walked out of the train at Britomart and…nobody was checking tickets :S
Well put Nick, and Passenger Transit gets shortened to Transit, as the Americans do, or abbreviated, like Public Transport, to PT.
Transport has a lumpen quality, workaday, Transit implies more movement, after all it is what celestial bodies do! I also like Andrews distinction between Transfer and Connection. Again the former feel more onerous than the more exciting possibilities of Connection. Transferring is where your luggage gets lost.
Arts degrees may not have the explicit job training of other disciplines but they do expand your life and enrich your performance when you do find a job. Even if it’s bugger flipping.
An arts degree was sufficient for me to end up getting my dream job.
same for me. Arts degree has quite a bad connotation at the moment, but I think Leonardo wouldn’t agree.
Mass Transit, familiar to me, Americans and Sim City Fans. Simple and describes moving mass amounts of people.
And no mocking B.As either
The semiotics of ‘Mass’ are wholly negative. There is no individual in Mass, just faceless drones from some dystopian past. It also implies the need for millions and millions of workers for any system to work. Pretty much the worst possible word. Mass= Lump or Weight; hopeless. The opposite of movement too, it has a history of being used to by those who oppose investment in transit for these very reasons.
I agree, mass is horrible. It means cramped, crowded, faceless humanity. It’s hardline socialist, untermench. It also suggests that passengers aren’t passengers, but just some massive bulk commodity to be shifted.
Agreed Nick. I believe there is a lot to be said for getting our words right and portraying PT in the most positive light. Passenger Transit rings true and just because it might be considerd a North American thing, why does that make it wrong. We’ve certainly started to introduce that terminology at NZ Bus
We can do all the marketing we like, but that won’t change perceptions of PT unless we get our networks right, our frequency right and our reliability right. Perhaps if we all approach PT as Passenger Transit rather than Public Transport, we will have the right focus to deliver the right messages and outcomes.
I really like Connections as opposed to Transfers
Scott Thorne GM Strategy, NZ Bus
Thanks for dropping by Scott and good to hear. Yes we must get the service pattern and delivery right, and that includes a higher level of customer focus from NZTA, AC, AT, and right through the delivery chain is needed too….
“It is only through a sort of mutual consensus that those words mean buses and trains and ferries and all those things that get us so excited on this blog.”
What about air travel via airlines? I’d argue that it is both public transport and passenger transit.
Yes! And this is an issue I’ve raised before. Airtravel is just PT but just with much sexier kit and much much more customer focus. No reason trains can’t be sexy as planes if we invest properly, and frankly the experience can be a whole lot better. But as for customer focus….? That should be even easier to fix but for some reason……?
Buses too can be more comfortable, will be more frequent, can be run better, but until we give them better street priority and where needed grade separation they will still struggle to offer a top quality service. And as Matt’s post comparing Paris to Auckland that’s what we’re going to try to do in the medium term at least, and all we can while we are still choosing to only fund motorways.
A culture of customer focus like Air NZ’s needs to happen whatever we build and run.
Case in point, why are Veolia staff always the first off the train at Britomart, rather than ensuring the passengers alight safely and nothing is left behind?
I heard that Aeroflot used to do that. The passengers would be kept seated until the pilots left the aircraft.
I guess because they have a limited time to use the toilet, have a break and get back on board their next service. Workers have rights, even with a National Government.
It may be so, but say ‘public transport’ and who thinks of airliners? Pretty few. You certainly wouldn’t expect AT Public Transport to be responsible for air travel. That’s the power of the semiotics.
“Pretty few”
I do. I think it is a useful inclusion BECAUSE an Auckland council agency doesn’t organise it. Not all public transport has to be centrally planned. I think there are benefits in allowing providers to respond to the demands of the market rather than the demands of public servants.
Years ago, my partner worked in the grim British seaside town of Great Yarmouth. I was working in London, stayed with a mate during the week, and took the train “home” on a Friday evening. The train was a high speed affair to Norwich, then I transferred to a local service that shuttled between Norwich and Great Yarmouth. Or that was the theory. About half the time the London service would be delayed and the shuttle would take off, mostly empty, before we arrived in Norwich. An operator that was focused on the customer would have held the shuttle for the transferees. They didn’t because the regulator was measuring the percentage of departures that were on time and would fine them if it dropped below a certain figure. It didn’t really bother me… I used to ring my partner for a (car) pickup and we’d go out for a meal in Norwich. But the degree of central planning and regulation was dumb, and I think it would have been better if the government butted out. Oh, and let a really customer-focused business run the trains. Like Tesco, perhaps.
“Passenger” is misleading because it includes passengers in taxis and taxis are worse than private cars in clogging the roads. Better to use the word “mass” such as mass transit. It’s the mass that is good for the city not the “passenger.”
I wouldn’t say taxis are worse than private cars. They are another enabler to not owning a car for odd shopping trips, don’t use much parking, safer than driving especially after drinking, safety net if you miss last train, more likely to be fuel efficient hybrid, etc. Why the dislike?
Taxis certainly have an important role to play, and should be planned for too.
For me to drive in a taxi from my place A to B the taxi must drive from C to A. So a 4km car trip may entail 8km of car driving. VERY inefficient
Sure, but very important for the disabled and elderly… and of course well planed taxi ranks do cut down on some of that inefficiency you describe and at some extremely popular places like the airport or ferry terminals there can be a great deal of efficiency; A is dropped off and B is picked up, etc….
Taxis have their place is all I’m saying. Part of the mix. And the one part of the car fleet where I think electrification stacks up [one day will post on this].
I can’t think of an example where taxis produce less congestion than cars – at best they can only ever equal cars (people sharing taxis is the same as people sharing cars). But I can think of plenty of examples where taxis are better for the environment than cars – a taxi doing 200,000km per year MUST be better in some way than than a car doing 6000km. So I agree with you that there definitely is a place for taxis.
Oh yes taxi aren’t an anti-congestion device! But they fit their niche well, that’s all.
Passenger on it’s own covers everything from private cars to doubling a mate on your bike. But that’s only have the name, Passenger Transit doesn’t suggest taxis in my mind.
‘Passenger transit’ has a good feel to it.
Business Analysts do some fine work.
aargh. Fecking misplaced comment again – can someone check out Jetpack settings. Meant to be underneath this one: http://transportblog.co.nz/2012/09/18/public-transport-or-passenger-transit/#comment-47642
I fully support the reasoning behind ‘Passenger Transit”. Let’s just start using it.
Next, the Core Rail Link..
Will there be a follow up post discussing the semiotics associated with the HOP brand..?
Let’s not go there…
“Well for a start it’s not public transport, so we do away with all the negative connotations that term carries”
I don’t think it will be. For that, we need to change the perception of public transport itself, not try to stick a new name on it. There’s been many examples in culture where people have tried new terms for words that were seen as derogatory. Just watch the whole “retarded -> mentally challanged -> differently abled” saga, or the fact that nowadays, some call disabled parking spaces “mobility spaces”. if you don’t change the perception, your new term soon carries all the old perceptions.
I am quite fine with the word public transport, and don’t really think it conveys much more or much less meaning than passenger transit. For me, the “public” always stood for a transport mode where you weren’t travelling alone, like in a car or on a bike, and that is a “public service” (not necessarily publically operated, but a part of society’s “commons”). That works well for me, logically.
But consider the context this will happen in. Shortly we’ll have brand new electric trains, an amamzing frequent all day bus network, and integrated smart card ticketing. Not to mention flash new double decker buses and ongoing corridor and bus lane improvements.
So really it’s more like putting on a new brand to underline the step change of a new network, rather than trying to disguise the same old crusty network with a flash label.
On the public issue, I would argue that roads and footpaths are just as much of a public service and part of the common/public realm.
But on roads and footpaths you travel “alone” – independent of other’s decisions or set routes (well, within the frame of congestion and road reserve, of course).
I was meaning from the public service angle, the provision of roads and footpaths is as much a public good as transit services.
However, you should try walking to work with me along K Rd and Queen St, then see how alone I am on the footpath!
I certainly have to accommodate others decisions (to avoid smacking into people or being run over) and I am limited by set routes where it is possible to walk. The most direct route I could take is impossible due to a missing staircase and a truncated cul de sac, plus there tends to be a lot of buildings in the way.
At first, I thought your idea of a name change was a bit pedantic. But that comment on the context – part of wider, revolutionary (for Auckland) changes – that puts it in perspective.
Even “AT” could stand for “Auckland Transit”.
Lisa Simpson: “…clean reliable public transportation, the chariot of the people, the ride of choice for the poor and very poor alike”
and of course if she’d said “public transit” the joke would have been lost.
So Nick are you expecting Stu (yr boss) to change the title of the previous post?
Funny – I just thought the same thing right now and find that you’ve already beaten me to the punch. Dam you Patrick and your quick-witted architect mind.
I just remember listening to Shane Jones on Morning Report calling it “public sector transport” and cringing. Anything which reduces the chance of that happening again.
It’s reasonably possible to influence the naming of projects, though the naming of an entire mode might be something of a challenge – if a worthy one.
We had some relative success in leading to the City Rail Link being called such:
http://transportblog.co.nz/2011/02/05/what-to-call-the-britomart-mt-eden-rail-connection/
http://transportblog.co.nz/2011/02/07/an-example-of-the-benefits-of-the-city-rail-link/
And the name of this site? Auckland Transit Blog has a nice ring also….
Sco9tt Thorne
GM Strategy, NZ Bus
Ah but this blog is about more than just passenger transit, we gripe about walking, cycling, streets and of course highways too.
… and urban form, and land use, and landscape, and culture, and streetlife, and architecture….and helmets [noooooooooo]……
Names have power, yes. Media outlets like TV3 news still saying ‘loop’ shows there’s a way to go. I’ve expressed my reservations before about the word ‘City’ not expressing the whole network or the key part this project has in it. Am therefore calling it the *Core* Rail Link myself.
Sigh. That was a reply to this: http://transportblog.co.nz/2012/09/18/public-transport-or-passenger-transit/#comment-47700
Finding this recent problem with comments really annoying. Please fix it.