Jason Barnes, Editor of ITS International
I'll take a punt that a few months ago not many outside those with some form of business or economics qualification had even heard of John Maynard Keynes and his ideas on governments' interventionist role in stimulating growth and stability. Now, I'll hazard that anyone who passes even the most cursory eye over the serious media couldn't fail to know who he was.
Serious and depressing as it is to have watched the world's financial institutions unravel, and do it so very quickly, it's also been very interesting to see how swiftly Keynesian Theory, which had become so deeply unpopular over the last few decades, has come thundering back into fashion.
In some ways, I don't care what it takes to get the world's economies back on track. If it takes a good dose of state intervention and public spending on major projects, then fine. What does concern me is not so much the theory as the practice, because in many respects the short-term need to get some liquidity and confidence back into the markets is at odds with the longer-term health of nations as a whole; what creates the maximum number of jobs today, and thus satisfies the various stimulus criteria being bandied about at the moment, might not give the most appropriate results tomorrow.
We're in this hole because people have been profligate. The irony is that the knee-jerk solution seems to be to throw even more money around.
Embarking upon completely new infrastructure projects now is a non-starter and I can see why there's an emphasis on 'shovel-ready' schemes. But in many cases there is damn good reason why those schemes aren't already underway: if they were truly up to the mark, they'd have been in train by now.
Prudence, in the intellectual sense, should be the driver here. That's the message we need to be getting across.
Several authors in this issue make many of the same points: that ITS is very much more realisable in the near term; that it can do more than simply laying down tarmac to make our transportation networks fit for purpose both now and hereafter; and that it opens opportunities in other sectors. That much seems to be understood by those around the industry whom I speak to. What strikes me, though, is how often, when asked just who should be responsible for enlightening the unknowing, the answer is 'the industry'.
Like 'the suburbs', 'the industry' is taking on the form of something mythical - something that goes on elsewhere. It isn't and it doesn't. It's real and it's happening right in front of all of us.
We don't have the luxury of time on this as the form of many of these so-called stimulus packages is already being decided. There needs to be a concerted effort on all sides to put aside often long-held differences and take a united stance. Two old sayings spring into my mind: 'Politicians make for strange bedfellows' and 'Necessity is the mother of invention'. Both should perhaps be borne in mind more wholly in and around this industry of ours at the moment. Because the responsibility for doing something doesn't belong to 'someone else'.
Serious and depressing as it is to have watched the world's financial institutions unravel, and do it so very quickly, it's also been very interesting to see how swiftly Keynesian Theory, which had become so deeply unpopular over the last few decades, has come thundering back into fashion.
In some ways, I don't care what it takes to get the world's economies back on track. If it takes a good dose of state intervention and public spending on major projects, then fine. What does concern me is not so much the theory as the practice, because in many respects the short-term need to get some liquidity and confidence back into the markets is at odds with the longer-term health of nations as a whole; what creates the maximum number of jobs today, and thus satisfies the various stimulus criteria being bandied about at the moment, might not give the most appropriate results tomorrow.
We're in this hole because people have been profligate. The irony is that the knee-jerk solution seems to be to throw even more money around.
Embarking upon completely new infrastructure projects now is a non-starter and I can see why there's an emphasis on 'shovel-ready' schemes. But in many cases there is damn good reason why those schemes aren't already underway: if they were truly up to the mark, they'd have been in train by now.
Prudence, in the intellectual sense, should be the driver here. That's the message we need to be getting across.
Several authors in this issue make many of the same points: that ITS is very much more realisable in the near term; that it can do more than simply laying down tarmac to make our transportation networks fit for purpose both now and hereafter; and that it opens opportunities in other sectors. That much seems to be understood by those around the industry whom I speak to. What strikes me, though, is how often, when asked just who should be responsible for enlightening the unknowing, the answer is 'the industry'.
Like 'the suburbs', 'the industry' is taking on the form of something mythical - something that goes on elsewhere. It isn't and it doesn't. It's real and it's happening right in front of all of us.
We don't have the luxury of time on this as the form of many of these so-called stimulus packages is already being decided. There needs to be a concerted effort on all sides to put aside often long-held differences and take a united stance. Two old sayings spring into my mind: 'Politicians make for strange bedfellows' and 'Necessity is the mother of invention'. Both should perhaps be borne in mind more wholly in and around this industry of ours at the moment. Because the responsibility for doing something doesn't belong to 'someone else'.
