While this is the first time I have encountered *modal suppression*, the concept is certainly a part of the transportation discussion. This suggests to me an opportunity for introductions and collaborations. While not a safety organization, AARP employs a modal suppression strategy. *Liveable Communities* is a program to promote land use for senior living as a means of being less car dependent. Much of this policy aims at the safety problem posed by aging drivers. I suggest looking up the closest AARP office and reaching out to them. If nothing else, they would be able to provide contacts in the DC office. Transportation For America is also friendly to modal suppression. Any non-profit promoting active transportation uses this angle. This is an opportunity for collaboration.
As a parent of a small child, who has also spent a lot of time in recent years helping care for elderly relatives, it strikes me that being less car dependent isn't just important for the elderly, it also leads to greater safety for children. Maybe there's more than one avenue of collaboration.
I use AARP's Livable Communities info all the time! They do good work. Their parking reform and model ADU legislation have been especially helpful. I did reach out to them once and never heard back.
I think the suppression idea is that natural demand for modes like bike/foot/bus has been suppressed, and we want to stop suppressing it and meet that demand through better design. So "modal suppression" is a bad thing and refers to the suppression of car alternatives - that is my understanding. See for example this abstract (from a Ferenchak paper): https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S2214367X18300164
Thanks for the correction and the link. I have always used *modal shift*, but these are usually political decisions through the power of the purse. DOTs have less control over this than legislative bodies.
While this is the first time I have encountered *modal suppression*, the concept is certainly a part of the transportation discussion. This suggests to me an opportunity for introductions and collaborations. While not a safety organization, AARP employs a modal suppression strategy. *Liveable Communities* is a program to promote land use for senior living as a means of being less car dependent. Much of this policy aims at the safety problem posed by aging drivers. I suggest looking up the closest AARP office and reaching out to them. If nothing else, they would be able to provide contacts in the DC office. Transportation For America is also friendly to modal suppression. Any non-profit promoting active transportation uses this angle. This is an opportunity for collaboration.
As a parent of a small child, who has also spent a lot of time in recent years helping care for elderly relatives, it strikes me that being less car dependent isn't just important for the elderly, it also leads to greater safety for children. Maybe there's more than one avenue of collaboration.
I would think so.
https://www.aarp.org/livable-communities/
I use AARP's Livable Communities info all the time! They do good work. Their parking reform and model ADU legislation have been especially helpful. I did reach out to them once and never heard back.
No promises, but I will try to find a contact for you.
I think the suppression idea is that natural demand for modes like bike/foot/bus has been suppressed, and we want to stop suppressing it and meet that demand through better design. So "modal suppression" is a bad thing and refers to the suppression of car alternatives - that is my understanding. See for example this abstract (from a Ferenchak paper): https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S2214367X18300164
Thanks for the correction and the link. I have always used *modal shift*, but these are usually political decisions through the power of the purse. DOTs have less control over this than legislative bodies.
Correct—that's why Ferenchak said what he did about engineers and political leadership.