So… Think back to your Political Science class, Government Policy class, Various planning classes. The accepted teaching is that ‘Government services correct for market failure and are not expected to make a profit or break even.’ The next assumption is that most advocacy positions are not profitable, or they probably would not need an advocate.
So… Planning for traffic, traffic impact studies, toll roads, are very profitable. (in fact some engineering firms that perform these studies are in a better position to get awarded a design contract to design the road they forecasted the traffic for.) Therefore, planners are in direct completion with engineers for this work. To bad because engineers have a better ‘union’ (P.E.) and official licensing.
So… What is a planner to do? Well, Bike and ped planning, traffic reduction planning, mode shift planning, transit planning (until recently), do not produce the revenues that planning for roads does. Traditionally these have not enjoyed the funding programs like gas taxes. Transit is a good example of this. Until the New Starts (program which provides more funding for transit), engineers weren’t that interested. But now, all engineering firms have beefed up their transit sections and gone on hiring sprees.
So…Planners need licensing (and solid education, planning education is a joke) to compete with engineers so that when something does get a good level of funding (due to advocacy work by planners?) planners can compete. Until then, look for those areas that are in need of planning advocacy. But don’t expect to see compensation at the level of an engineer doing transportation planning.
Quote
Originally posted by Tranplanner
) I would recommend sticking to the engineering side. Take as many planning courses as your interests run but for the most flexibility later at least get the base in an accredited engineering degree.
