Do Engineering Instructors Teach Induced Travel? If Not, Why Not?

Abstract

As travel costs fall with new capacity, the quantity of travel increases. This concept—induced travel—has profound implications but remains unevenly embraced in practice. Do instructors teach it in transportation engineering classrooms? What explains their pedagogical decisions? Interviews with university instructors revealed remarkable variation. Whereas some featured induced travel as a key takeaway, others omitted the idea entirely. Instructors also varied in their willingness to critique standard engineering practices; some were largely uncritical while others sought to “counteract conventional wisdom.” In justifying their choices, instructors offered a range of overlapping concerns. Those who “believed” in induced travel but did not teach it often lacked expertise in the area and were uneasy teaching “soft” concepts. Because teaching was seen as a lower priority than conducting research, instructors had little motivation to overcome those challenges. Instructors also advanced pragmatic concerns about the need to prepare students for the Fundamentals of Engineering exam and their careers. Instructors who were more skeptical of induced travel wondered whether seemingly new travel was instead shifted or previously suppressed. Some of these instructors argued that even if new travel was indeed induced, engineers still had a responsibility to accommodate it. Finally, the contested language of induced travel can lead parties to talk past each other. “Believers” and “skeptics” sometimes have more in common than initially thought. However, there are still profound disagreements—about induced travel, standard engineering practices, and indeed the very purpose of engineering. In these debates it will be essential to operate from a shared vocabulary.