Bring em back: the campaign to return tram conductors

Last night I went to a screening of Bring ‘Em Back, a documentary about Melbourne’s tram conductors screened by the Victorian Greens MPs, who are now actively supporting the campaign. In the Q & A, filmmaker Phillip Donnellon commented that, based on an experience with an aggressive tram conductor in Amsterdam, he felt that our society had changed. I think he was implying that we’d need to work hard to restore the conductors’ culture of playfulness, friendliness, and perhaps slight naivety.

But you can’t really make assumptions about how much our culture has changed based on one incident with an arsehole. I reckon there would have always been arsehole conductors. The film didn’t show the arseholes though: it totally sentimentalised conductors, interviewing the most colourful, emotionally intelligent, and articulate, many of whom were actually at the screening, and you just felt like giving them a hug.

Maybe they were all really like that? I don’t know; I wasn’t there. I guess it was a campaign film, so wanted to stay on message, didn’t want to explore all the shades of grey. It was a surprisingly well-made film though, despite its $10 000 budget.  To be honest, it really moved me, but I am soft, sentimental about Melbourne, and nerdy about public transport – an easy target.

These guys are amazingly determined – they’ve been campaigning for the return of conductors ever since they were removed from trams in 1998. They rock up to Gay Pride marches and other public events dressed in their uniforms, talking to people about their role with a panache and playfulness and sense of humour, which contrasts sharply with the horrifically earnest way most campaigns are run. And from what the movie says, this flair and approachability is pretty typical of the way conductors behaved. They used to do little party tricks, swinging from the bars and stuff.

Even though I’ve just said you can’t make assumptions about culture based on anecdote, it does seem pretty obvious that our public transport culture has changed; you only have to look at the thuggish behaviour of ticket inspectors and the fact that they feel the need to put security guards with semi-automatics at stations. It’s a more fear-based, compliance-based approach, rather than a human, social feel. Although, another thing Donnellon said was that a policeman had said to him that the presence of someone in a uniform on a tram is enough to deter misbehaviour.

I’m all in favour of restoring tram conductors, and adding a little colour and life to the drab commute. Maybe we can wipe those ‘I’m dead inside’ expressions off people’s faces and replace it with an ‘I heart PT’ attitude.  There does seem to be an appetite for restoring a friendlier face to public transport, and one that reinforces Melbourne’s unique culture. Particularly with trams, because people love trams, and even though they’re slow and so often overcrowded, you’ll notice they don’t get as many complaints as trains do.

As the government rips myki machines off trams, and fare evasion rates go through the roof (they are 20% in trams), reintroducing tram conductors seems like a legitimate economic proposition. And while tram conductors never had the power to impose penalties, the embarrassment of being asked for a ticket and not having one would be enough to get most people to buy one.  Aside from checking tickets, they could help tourists and disabled and elderly passengers. The film showed this amazing footage of people in wheelchairs cutting sick during the tram conductor protests: they didn’t want the connies to go either!

It’s going to be an uphill battle though: Labor and Liberal governments have opposed the return of conductors, and politicians are usually shit scared of changing their mind, which is probably justified because they’ll be castigated by the vapid media. I really hate that: a more intelligent way to proceed would be to accept that you might change your opinion based on new circumstances (aka Julia Gillard having to negotiate with the Greens on the carbon tax) or new information (aka no WMDs in Iraq). Not to say that you shouldn’t have firm principles or strive to keep your promises, just that you should be intellectually responsive.

The campaign’s quaint, fun, nostalgic flavour may work against it . It’s going to be fighting hard against the ‘times have changed, move on, get real’ attitude. And over the years of public transport mismanagement, people’s pride of, and expectations in, public transport have dissipated so much that they may probably struggle to muster up energy for the campaign, especially people who’ve never known tram conductors. But I guess if the economic argument is there, you may only need a small group of pretty dedicated people: a small push may be enough.

This is not the film, by the way, but a 10th anniversary tribute to the conductors. It’s not as good as the film, obviously. If you want the film, I can get it for you.

Sure, not buying a ticket is a shitty thing to do, but…

Here’s an example of an ineffective tactic for tackling fare evasion.

A marketing campaign run by a despised company, trying to get fare evaders to feel guilty about not paying for a crappy service? A service which they actually pay for, through their taxes, apparently without getting value-for-money?

The Age this week reported a Metlink study showing that one in five people on Melbourne trams didn’t have a valid ticket, with trains at 9.8% and buses at 9.2%. (As is typical, the original report wasn’t made available online by The Age, Metlink or the government, which is annoying for nerdy people like me).

The Victorian government responded by criticising the previous government for its soft approach to enforcement. ‘We need to get tough with fare evaders because we need every cent available to go into improvements across the network for the benefit of all passengers,’ they said turgidly. The Age seems to advocate a similarly punitive approach. In an editorial called ’Fare dodgers owe us all, big time‘, they blamed fare evaders for their abdication of social responsibility, and suggested the government should increase fines as London did.

Sure, it’s a shitty thing to do, not buying a ticket. But with a recently released study showing that ticket inspectors are particularly loathed (again, study not easily available), a hardline approach will compound negative perceptions of public transport, perhaps even encouraging disgruntled passengers to take on the system. And don’t we want people to feel proud of the city and its assets, not fearful and resentful?

Unsurprisingly, it’s difficult to find figures on the rates of ticket inspectors letting passengers off fines, but I’ve heard that it’s hard to talk yourself out of the fine. Most of the apparently ‘softness’ of enforcement seems to be inspectors not having time to check everyone’s tickets So the government’s suggestion of inspectors finally ‘cracking down’ on fare evasion seems a bit lame.

Metlink’s 2009 Revenue Protection Plan outlines the main reasons for fare evasion: inadvertent fare evasion, opportunism, ‘game theory’ (a simple calculation that savings of fare evasion will outweigh the costs of a possible fine) and service dissatisfaction. So while, increase in fines might have some impact on the game theorists, given that fines are already quite high, any benefit would be outweighed by its negative impact on attitudes to using public transport.

The best way to tackle fare evasion is to make it easier for people to buy a ticket, and more difficult for them not to. It’s likely that a significant portion of the reported fare evaders do so inadvertently: passengers may have bought a ticket but not validated, or been thwarted by overcrowding,  faulty cards, broken ticketing machines that don’t accept notes, a confusing fare system, or the lack of note accepters on trams. Inadvertent fare evasion would be reduced by making the ticketing system more reliable and comprehensible, as well as reducing overcrowding.

As for deliberate fare evasion, opportunism is obviously a basic prerequisite—if you knew you’d be checked you’d buy a ticket. This is why the rate of fare evasion for trams is lowest—you have to pass the driver to get on. Having more staff on trams, trains, and train stations would practically eliminate opportunistic fare evasion. But not more ticket inspectors. If public transport is to be a relaxing and enjoyable experience, we need staff on trams, train stations, and trains to help out not just by checking tickets but by giving us information, as well as looking after public safety and helping the less-abled where necessary.

Service dissatisfaction also contributes to the decision to fare evade. Given the often appalling service people receive on trains (late, overcrowded, don’t arrive at all), or trams (packed in like sardines), they’re less likely to feel guilty about fare evading. Why should they, when their pride and trust in the public transport system is at rock bottom? So another way of reducing fare evasion would be to actually get serious about improving the system. Similarly, some people taking short trips feel that their tickets are overpriced;  a way to tackle this would be to reintroduce short trip fares (the previous state government got rid of the city saver), or create a more incremental pricing system.

The government’s statement that they need to get tough on fare evaders so they can throw the money back into the system for our benefit is laughable. The way the system is set up now is far from efficient and mainly serves the interest of private operators. Their monthly fines for poor performance are capped and consistently less than their profits; therefore there is little incentive for improvement.

The operators also know that once they’ve won the franchise, they’ve pretty much got the government under their thumb, because no matter how bad they are, there are severe political costs attached to terminating the contract and risking disruption of an essential public service.

What’s more, under privatisation, separate operators have little stake in coordinating the system so it works better over all. The result is a limited span of hours, and transport ‘black holes’ in outer suburban areas, which also tend also to be less well-off, creating a self-perpetuating circle of transport disadvantage. When a public authority, on the other hand, manages public transport, less profitable routes are able to be subsidised by profits from the popular routes, so the overall system is better networked with more equitable coverage.

The state government’s promised central public transport authority is a start, and may improve planning and coordination. However, without getting rid of privatisation, it’s difficult to imagine a future in which people can go anywhere they want, easily, without using a car.