3 transport methods were blocked. 2 busy corridors were blocked.

Trams were blocked on Flinders St. And Swanston St, both ways.

Cars were blocked at the busy 2 corridor intersection, or at least impeded.

Taxis were not running from the main Train Station.

The cause – 1 broken down tram. Frequently a single tram breakdown (frequent event) will cause total grid-lock in the city, and flow-on effects.

The photos below show the problem. If you look closely you can see a common sight, pensioners walking 2 or more blocks because trams don’t run.

Melbourne’s Transport Collapse.

As today’s article in The Age reported, Trains fare no better in Melbourne. Trains do not allow the workforce to get to the CBD, let alone complete complex journeys.

Taxis are broadly unsafe, with drivers refusing fares, refusing to give change of $20 or $50 in many instances, not turning up, or pressuring passengers & taking long routes.

Trams are unmaintained, unclean and never running on schedule. Trams that supposedly run every 12 minutes, may not show for 24 or 36 minutes. Do these get reported in statistics?

Cars are the best option in terms of mobility, yet have traffic jams, toll-roads require parking and are not available to sectors of citizens and visitors.

Paying lip service to the environment whilst failing to build public transport solutions, or even deliver basic services, are a constant drain on the public purse. There is NO LOGIC in Victorian Government transport actions or policy.

Mismanagement, lack of maintenance, ineptitude and total abject policy failure in transport in Melbourne.

This can Change.

2thinknow are currently ranking Innovation Cities Index 2009.

Melbourne will rank well on many initiatives, notably excellence in food, retailing, arts & culture. However, mobility of citizens will rank poorly, as will related environmental factors.

This is actually low-hanging fruit, but the State Government have dropped the ball. Here’s some simple, non-policy reasons.

Maintain rolling stock. Not done.

Clean rolling stock. Not done.

Decentralise the department to people who actually run trains, trams & buses, not report on them. Not done.

We need proper training a proper system and a proper framework. Training, not done.

Logical Decision Making frameworks, not just economics. Not Done.

Bring back conductors. Not done.

Scratch Myki, a system that will slow down transport. Not done. Any MBA will explain Sunk Costs. And the State Government needs to recognize that this is a debacle.

There are solutions. But they require a declaration of failure.

A declaration of let’s start again in Victoria.

Transport Re-Boot.

The Government of Victoria has epically failed in the delivery of Transport. Admit it.

Then stop all wasteful spending and re-boot. It can be done. Let’s start.

Manufacturing skills, infrastructure & cars are important.

Rudd’s $6 Billion on the Amex.

The Rudd plan is broadly positive, however it has a large cost. $6 billion to be precise.

One of the problems with Government intervention in the economy is that Governments see costs, and not opportunities. Costs not revenue increase.

It’s unimaginative.

But when I’ve worked for Government that’s what I normally find. Lack of imagination.

Most farsighted ideas will be killed. Or implemented in a ham-fisted all-thumbs way.

An Alternate View.

Governments can instead create the systems for innovation & implementation of business ideas. The tools for entrepreneurs.

Government supplies the infrastructure, sets the rules of the game and umpires.

2thinknow would call that close to the California model. (see some slides here on these concepts). It works.

Our neighbours.

The 2thinknow view is that a healthy manufacturing industry is important to Australia places in Asia, and the world. Cars are a part of this. But only part.

Countries like China use barriers to trade, and protect their industry with subsidised inputs. Tariffs are currently unfashionable. But tariffs are another tool, whereas some countries use dumping or sheer size to enforce their strategic interest.

Cutting the tariff further smacks of naivety.

Opportunity for manufacturing.

The most pressing issue is with Brumby-Bracks Victoria, and Carr-Iemma-Rees NSW.
As 2thinknow pointed out earlier today, these Governments refuse to support local manufacturing of trains & trams despite problems with imported rolling stock.

The Australian Industry Group are making similar calls, according to The Age, where 2thinknow is also quoted.

It seems typical Kosky-Brumby out-of-date dogma to source further infrastructure from overseas, when companies like Bombardier need local purchasing.

Most importantly, China does this. Germany & the EU do this.

Opportunity & profit is often ‘low-hanging fruit’. Manufacturing your own infrastructure has many economic & skilling benefits. In addition, the skill base makes it easier to repair, rather than relying on overseas suppliers.

Most of the top 10 economies do this. Despite the rhetoric.

Local innovation.

And best of all, local firms can profit in local regional towns in regional Victoria, NSW & South Australia.

The 2thinknow view is that there are opportunities to profit from local innovation, not just subsidise it.

And create winners.

Local innovation, in a broader framework of global idea exchange, is the superior strategy based on trends. We make the case for Local Innovation here.

Innovation can create revenue. Not costs.

But tell that to politicians.

OK it’s an advert, and they’re not saving the world, but it’s worth a look from a design viewpoint.

And corporations like BMW should be encouraged to improve automobiles and other products by engaging with designers.

Besides, BMW are one of the world’s best crawling, no … driving, machines…. Watch. You’ll see what I mean.

“WE’RE on our way home for Dad’s funeral, his grandson and I. It’s good that we’re going by train; Dad worked 35 years for the railways, back in the days when human beings sold tickets, and machines that accepted only correct change were a dream for the future.”

He goes onto say…

“Whoever wins the next tender to run the state’s public transport would do well to acknowledge that there is another way. It involves people, and a little bit of effort. And it works.”

Background to the Melbourne problem:

Recently state leader John Brumby announced the Government would continue to outsource public transport.

It matters not the political reason he did so.

What matters is the implicit message:

The Victorian public service cannot be trusted to manage the transport, but a private company with higher costs from France, UK or the USA can manage transport.

As we will see, this makes no economic or any other kind of sense for railways.

Outsourcing and privatizing has its uses

Outsourcing is based on efficiencies delivered by economies of scale or at least expertise.

We outsource everyday.

It makes sense for us to outsource the production of soap, a messy, difficult and time-consuming job. If everyone produced their own soap we would likely use more energy than a single company mass-producing soap.

Similarly much of the fruit & vegetables we eat is best produced by farmers, not each of us in a small patch. If everyone had their own orchard or chickens efficient homes like apartments would not work.

It also makes sense for governments to outsource functions where there is an advantage in knowledge or efficiency overseas or interstate.

But rail systems are different.

The Bottom line of Rail Outsourcing

What efficiency gains can any company have if the infrastructure they are using is local?

Local staff, local railways, local rolling stock, local engineers.

In other words the same infrastructure a public institution would use.

Presumably multi-national companies get a volume discount in buying rolling stock.

But it is hard to believe this discount would be much different to that received by an astute government negotiator. Having negotiated many times with Government, I can assure you there are more astute negotiators in Government in many cases than private sector firms.

Especially when we consider that Government debt for purchasing capital items is also cheaper than private debt (more so after the recent Sub-Prime crisis).

And most government tenders are about stripping all profit out, so the consumers ends up receiving the results of the big company corner-cutting service to make a profit.

So there seems to be no logical reason, except politics.

What is the Implicit Message?

If there is no logical reason, except that the private company through the wonders of fairy-dust is somehow more efficient than a public department.

Then the implicit message is that the Victorian public service delivering services at cost using the same infrastructure is so wasteful that it cannot deliver a better service than a private profit-making company.

I’ll repeat that. Read it out aloud.

Victorian public service delivering services at cost using the same infrastructure is so wasteful that it cannot deliver a better service than a private profit-making company.

IS that what Brumby is saying here?

Because there is no economic argument, and the terms of the Audit Report quoted as justification appeared rather limited to find what they wanted to find.

Have Victorian Citizens got the Worst of All Worlds?

A private company propped up by government subsidies and controlled by government fines, employing the same infrastructure as a public department, and already bailed out by the taxpayers repeatedly.

The Government like citizens to hate Connex & Yarra Trams, because when citizens hate the operator we don’t question the system.

But fact is the system can never work the way it has been designed. It is set up to fail.

So why are we paying for the public service and a private company?

And more alarmingly why do we have rooms full of public servants if the new State Leader has so little faith in their performance?

Why have a public service then if they merely report on services delivered by others?

There is only one possible viewpoint. The reason is political.

The Brumby State Government merely seeks to avoid political responsibility, a strategy perfected by former NSW-leader Bob Carr. When the public is unclear who is responsible they are less likely to punish anyone.

Let us not make a rod for our own back, rather keep it as stick to hit the Opposition.

Former leader Kennett turned Victoria around, but do-nothing Bracks got the political benefit.

It appears the current State Government is choosing the least efficient solution for what can only be political reasons.

Most of us don’t care what the solution is, as long as the trains and trams work.

Having lived on a great public transport route I can tell of the immeasurable decline, which is especially noticeable this year. Unclean trams, broken trams more often than daily, slow response times to broken-down trams.

Woe betide living more than 5km outside the city, from the horror stories published daily.

It is not under-staffing that destroys transport. It is merely inefficiency in planning and delivery of services.

Which is the point of outsourcing in the first place. Greater efficiency. Supposedly.

If the State Leader does not believe the Public Service operating at cost-price can do a better job than a profit-making company from the other side of the world using the same people and resources, well… I want a refund on my taxes.

Perhaps they just want us to drive even 1-5 km distances.

Whatever they want, the Government clearly do not care enough to fix the woeful state of trains and trams that has reduced Victoria to a state almost the level of the NSW.

Where does Melbourne public transport rate?

Unlike a lot of writers I have been to German, French, US and European cities.

Frankfurt, Zurich, Munich, Paris, Strasbourg, Vienna, Boston, and many other cities have better transport than Melbourne. Even London’s tube is far more complex and delivers better standards.

This Government seems to think it’s public servants are not able to run the railways.

Having met public servants and private corporations in the State of Victoria I can assure you there is very little difference in the people. The system and the political incentives are the issue. There is no ‘will’ to make the transport work.

The reality is that many Government’s don’t want to make a ‘rod for their own back’.

So once again Victoria’s potential declines because of political cynicism.

Take care,

Christopher

This means, governments, business, people and their communities need to act. And to varying degrees each of them are.

The Big Innovation Guerrilla/Gorilla in the Room – Our Environment

Your beliefs on Climate Change don’t matter, nor mine. Our environment is the issue.

A reasonable person would agree beyond reasonable doubt that there is evidence of harm to human and animal life attributable to environmental damage.

That is the standard of proof in a court of law, in broad terms.

Further, we could agree that pollution outcomes such as consuming chemical toxins, increased rates of asthma, insect plagues, and dead wild animals are not positive… Examples: Chernobyl, Exxon Valdez, European rivers and Chinese coal plants; as well as vast tracts of marine areas surrounding North America.

The effects of major pollution on lives are numerous and independently documented.

An Environmental innovation: cut pollution

Therefore, it would be a positive social change, an innovation, to drastically slash pollution. Whether that be coal-fired, chemical, industrial, metals, nuclear waste, carbon or other forms.

Is there any debate on this point? If so, don’t read any further. Go polish some chrome.

To not say pollution is a bad thing, is a lie. It’s that simple. End story.

Cut pollution means cut consumption of useless goods

The solution is also simple: cut-back on pointless consumption and activity.

This doesn’t mean living like a hippie, it means consuming that which is important to us and leaving that which is not. It means reducing our consumption of cheap goods. We need to stop thinking ‘disposable’ and ‘cheap’.

In the coming age, where after the Industrial then the Information Age, we are entering the Creativity Age, a new way of consuming is possible, even practical.

In broad public policy innovation terms It could mean factoring in what economists call externalities into price of goods, so the environmental cost is included in the sale price.

Carbon markets/trading are one innovation there. There are more economic pricing signal innovations as well.

But let’s start with the people: and their innovation on pollution.

One response has been from popular blog, GreenAsaThistle, where Vanessa ( a journalist from Canada newspaper) writes a blog, as she tries to ‘make one green change a day’

It’s the big things that count in her personal quest, and Vanessa gave up her car. That’s an innovation, as a positive social change. It takes a lot in today’s car culture, as many people obsess with their car, and belittle those who don’t drive.

Go and read Vanessa’s blog. There are others. Start with Vanessa’s Blogroll or search technorati.com (blogs) or digg.com (news) or good old google.com.

Consumer Icons

A car is the ultimate consumerist icon, all gleaming metal and flash. It’s a very hard thing to give up. And getting a hybrid may not be better, given the extra effort that goes into making them (recent RACV ‘RoyalAuto’ article on CNW study in 2005).

Personally, I haven’t driven for years. We live near the city and use public transport, which inconveniences my wife no end. I ran a business this way, which inconvenienced me no end. But it’s not something I normally share. Why? People with 4WDS / SUVs or even just old deathtrap cars will make fun of you for it. I hire a car & driver rarely when I really need to get around for work.

For me I just never saw a car as that important.

But to give up a car is to give up a status symbol. For many youth, it’s freedom from parental control. For many young men, it’s the best hope of getting married or even a date! For many executives it is a sign of the size of the pay-packet. For night-clubbers it’s a sign of how ‘cool’ you are. It’s a symbol, an avatar if you will.

Why innovation in changing our personal life is hard

Most real innovation requires social change. Vanessa made that change. How long will it take us to adjust? I still see idiots charging along in a V8 sports car pleased about how ‘important’ they are. That’s their symbol, their avatar.

Finally on a personal level many of us have noticed increased rates of eczema, asthma and other responses to an environment of pollution. There are large up-trends in asthma, rashes and the like in babies in countries including Australia, and the USA.

When I was a child I got sick from fumes, constant headaches and respiratory problems. I can’t be sure but I lived near 4 coal burning power-plants, and in a largely industrial town of coal & steel. When I moved to Tasmania I got better.

But whenever I breathe car exhausts and highway fumes I get a headache. You may be the same. Maybe that’s why I dislike petrol and oil-based cars.

But I am a fortunate westerner; now look at the documented proof of birth deformities as a result of chemical accidents, nuclear accidents and illegal dumping or skirting safety in the developing world. Look at the UN reports on developing countries.

There’s enough in Google to fill a few encyclopedias, and that is just from BBC, CNN, Reuters, think-tanks, researchers and reputable sites. Or alternately go to the physical library and read. This either, is not in dispute. Here’s a start at BBC

People as Environmental Innovators, where to from here

So all of this change is cultural (mind-set)not technological. And humans are basically good people, and we are very well-educated these days with vast information at our finger-tips.

Bottom line: Once we adjust to the ideas and changes, people will start to change. It’s about adjusting to the idea, and human beings always take awhile to do that.

Start with Vanessa’s blog & links for ideas:

http://greenasathistle.com/

Or start with the easy lists on Al Gores’ website for ‘An Inconvenient Truth’:

http://www.climatecrisis.net/takeaction/

I think the real change is limiting consumption of mass-produced disposable goods, as these have a compound effect. Resources, capital, manufacturing, labour, shipping, more freight, warehousing, delivery, stock, purchase, delivery, use. All for a $1.00 plastic container largely made out of petroleum plastics. Then throw away.

There is often contradictory advice on the safest environmental option (eg disposable cups, dishwasher, wash by hand) – but I basically put stock in reducing consumption of throwaway goods as the only sure-fire method.

One simple idea for innovation: Start with the food:

The point is, start giving up the easy stuff. The throwaway plastic rubbish. Buy loose fruit & vegetables not pre-packed meals. Look into organics. Buy local where you can and ask shops so they know it is important to customers.

Start going to a market, not a supermarket. Go in small trips on the way home then use public transport, or go once a week and get it delivered.

Support local small stores like butchers, fruit shops and small grocers. Don’t go to supermarkets. Don’t buy disposable plastic rubbish.

Buy a water filter. Drink tap water where you can (it’s not really drinkable in all cities I have found, possibly because consumers are signalling to government it is less of a priority by buiying bottled water enmasse.)
The Government Response – limited innovation on pollution

Governments lag people. There are good ideas, but government in countries who are developed like Australia should be leaders. Whether they are or not, is open to debate.

Australia’s PM is a climate change skeptic now ‘convert’. Our environment minister is a former Investment banker.

However, one of the leaders in climate change thinking is an Australian, Professor Warwick McKibbin, working at Lowy Institute (Sydney) & Brooking Institute (Washington DC). His two-tiered pricing system has a solid theoretical basis.

In Canada I am less aware of government action, http://www.ec.gc.ca is the official site.

However, I can say, that the complaints of Australian’s over high petrol prices indicates where our priorities lie. And it will take some time for the discord between idea (let’s consume less) and reality (that means less driving, more expensive electricity/water) is a reality.

And as a people, the government govern for us. That is democracy. And we are sending mixed signals. Yes we care about climate change, but we’d like cheap petrol and cheap plastic goods from China please.

The key failing of State Government in driving innovation

When governments make a decision to reduce journey times and make public transport safe, then a car becomes less important, except as a ’status’ symbol.

In Australia public transport is reasonable inside cities, but one reason leading Europeans countries are better environmentally than Australians is that they have public transport that is clean & safe, by & large has more extensive routes.

In Australia the various State governments all moan on about how difficult it is, whilst govt people get paid for no outcomes. They basically shirk and announce enquiries until the heat dies down. They say it is ‘private company X’s fault.

Our study of globally innovative cities, the Global Innovation Review 2007, as well as all the other studies we looked at public transport as a key factor in implementing innovation in a city (the ability to move easily around the city) and inspiration (ie. the annoyance and time factor of cities where transport does not work).

Business leaders on Environmental Innovation

Michael Hawker, leader of IAG, has regular interviews on climate change. In his professional capacity as boss of an insurance company (reducing environmental risk) he has been at the forefront of speaking on the topic.

There are many business ventures being started with green at the centre of their development, and many businesses are moving into green headquarters.

Even BMW is looking at hydrogen cars to ‘go green’. Chevron has made overtures. BP has been expanding it’s profile.

But hard real change is up to citizens voting with their wallet. And that once again is up to people.

Before you decry this, having worked in hundreds of organizations: corporates, government and not-for-profits, there is one thing I know for sure.

Businesses are made up of people. Governments are made up of people. people like you and me. US.

Too often we talk about ‘them’, when in reality they are us. But a large business or a government is like a huge ship, it does not turn on a dime. It takes time.

So for environmental innovation to occur: we need to clearly signal business leaders that we mean business and there is a market for this new environmentally friendly outcome.

And we need to signal government that as voters environment is priority number one. When we complain about petrol prices, and global warming that is mixed signals to any democratic government.

‘We wan’t a clean environment, but please give us cheap petrol and cheap goods.‘

So it looks like it is down to people after all. All of US, not them.

Take care,

Christopher