Reflections on the TESi Conference #1 The traffic engineering profession has the knowledge. Does it have enough influence?

What did we take away from the TESi conference? / Four stories to spark discussion at CEPLAS

THE TRAFFIC ENGINEERING PROFESSION HAS THE KNOWLEDGE. DOES IT HAVE ENOUGH INFLUENCE?

STORY 1/4

The recently held TESi Conference provided an opportunity to come together once again, exchange professional experiences, and discuss the issues shaping the future of transport and mobility in Serbia. Alongside the presentations, panel discussions and papers, the conversations with colleagues were particularly valuable — both during the official programme and in the breaks, when topics for which there is often insufficient time in formal discussions frequently come to the fore.

These conversations prompted reflection on several questions that extend beyond the individual topics addressed at the conference. What is the role of transport engineers in Serbia today? To what extent are we involved in making decisions that shape our cities and everyday mobility? And, perhaps most importantly, what can we do ourselves to strengthen the position and influence of our profession?

Professional expertise is not enough if we are not involved in decision-making.

Today, traffic engineers have access to advanced methods for researching, analysing, and modelling transport systems. We have the knowledge and tools needed to understand complex problems, explore alternative solutions, and assess their consequences.

Nevertheless, the question remains: to what extent is this knowledge actually used in decision-making processes?

In practice, we encounter situations in which important decisions concerning urban development, land use, street networks, public transport, and pedestrian and cycling infrastructure are made without sufficiently early and comprehensive transport analysis. Transport engineers are often brought in only after key planning assumptions have already been established, leaving them to technically develop or assess solutions that have effectively been selected in advance.

The position of the transport engineering profession within local governments presents a particular challenge. In some municipalities, there are not enough employees with appropriate transport engineering qualifications. Where such professionals are employed, their work is often focused on operational and administrative tasks, with limited involvement in strategic planning.

This is not merely a question of the professional standing of transport engineers. Decisions made without an adequate professional foundation can have long-term consequences for safety, accessibility, the quality of public spaces, infrastructure costs, and citizens’ quality of life.

The issue, therefore, is not simply how many transport engineers are involved, but when they become involved, which decisions they help shape, and how much their professional arguments actually influence the final outcomes.

A discussion about the position of transport engineers would be incomplete without recognising our own responsibility.

Professional authority cannot be taken for granted simply because someone holds a degree or is familiar with particular methods and tools. It is built through continuous professional development, the quality of one’s work, the ability to communicate technical arguments clearly, and a willingness to collaborate with other professions.
However, we must not overlook the question of motivation and our colleagues’ willingness to become more actively involved in planning and decision-making processes. There may be various reasons for their reluctance or withdrawal — from existing professional commitments to discouragement resulting from experiences in which their expertise was not sufficiently valued. It is important to understand these reasons rather than automatically interpreting them as a lack of interest or professional responsibility.

Those involved in the education, professional training, and development of future engineers have a particular responsibility. The privilege of sharing knowledge also carries an obligation to prepare future and early-career transport engineers for the real challenges of professional practice. Alongside technical and analytical competencies, we must help them develop the ability to collaborate across disciplines, communicate and substantiate their arguments, understand institutional processes, and act with professional responsibility.

We must teach them not only how to develop a technically sound solution, but also how to explain its significance, recognise its limitations, and advocate for it in the public interest.

We must also continue learning ourselves. The development of digital technologies and artificial intelligence is rapidly changing the way we work. We recognise that technical tools, analytical methods, the processing of large volumes of data, and even access to relevant databases will become increasingly available, easier to use, and more affordable. Tasks that until recently required substantial investment in software, equipment, and specialised resources will increasingly be possible at significantly lower cost.

Of course, high-quality data collection and interpretation, as well as the reliable application of analytical methods, will continue to require knowledge, time, and responsibility. However, access to technology does not, in itself, guarantee the ability to identify the right problems, ask the right questions, critically interpret results, and make sound decisions.

This is precisely where the expertise of traffic engineers must become even more important — not only in identifying technically feasible solutions, but also in understanding their consequences and making a well-founded case for those that best serve the public interest.

However, it would be a mistake to conclude that improving our competencies alone will ensure that our profession has an appropriate role in decision-making.

There are circumstances in which neither the best education, nor high-quality analysis, nor clearly presented arguments are sufficient. If decisions are made before professional debate takes place, if experts are expected merely to endorse solutions that have already been selected, or if professional criteria do not carry decisive weight in the decision-making process, the scope for a meaningful professional contribution remains limited.

Responsibility must therefore be shared. The profession must continue to develop its knowledge, integrity, collaborative skills, and ability to propose high-quality solutions. Institutions, in turn, must create conditions in which such solutions can be considered in a timely manner and evaluated responsibly.

Expertise is the responsibility of those who possess it, but creating the conditions for that expertise to be recognised is the responsibility of institutions.

It is particularly encouraging that CEPLAS was mentioned in several conversations at the conference as a potential platform for bringing colleagues together and initiating joint professional initiatives. Such expectations are encouraging, but they also represent a call to action for the Association’s representatives.

In the next story: How do these issues play out in the context of POUM, transport studies, and transport research in urban planning?