Opinions matter: Contrasting perceptions of major public transit projects in Montréal, Canada

IF 6.3 2区 工程技术 Q1 ECONOMICS Transport Policy Pub Date : 2024-08-14 DOI:10.1016/j.tranpol.2024.08.006
Lancelot Rodrigue , Aryana Soliz , Kevin Manaugh , Yan Kestens , Ahmed El-Geneidy
{"title":"Opinions matter: Contrasting perceptions of major public transit projects in Montréal, Canada","authors":"Lancelot Rodrigue ,&nbsp;Aryana Soliz ,&nbsp;Kevin Manaugh ,&nbsp;Yan Kestens ,&nbsp;Ahmed El-Geneidy","doi":"10.1016/j.tranpol.2024.08.006","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><p>Public opinion has been identified as one of the main drivers of political action in support of sustainable-transport transitions, making it essential to understand when aiming for effective transport policy. Drawing from both quantitative and qualitative data from the 2021 Montréal Mobility Survey, this paper analyzes public perceptions towards two transport projects—a light-rail transit (LRT) and a bus-rapid transit (BRT). Quantitative statements pertaining to five project impacts were compared between the two projects. Both projects had high levels of agreement (between 67% and 80%) regarding expected regional and environmental impacts, but agreement levels were lower for expected neighborhood, cultural, and residential displacement impacts (between 49% and 30%). To contextualize the quantitative findings, qualitative data were pulled from open-ended questions for both projects and analyzed using an applied-thematic-analysis approach. The qualitative responses focused primarily on negative perceptions, providing insight into potential factors contributing to the erosion of social acceptability. Our analysis of open-ended questions underscored contrasting perceptions between the two projects in terms of improvements in accessibility to destinations (minimal for the BRT vs noticeable for the LRT), governance (transparent for the BRT vs opaque for the LRT), consultation processes (adequate for the BRT vs insufficient for the LRT), and construction impacts (lengthy and disruptive for the BRT vs rapid for the LRT). These contrasting quantitative and qualitative results highlight the need for mixed methods when assessing public perceptions. Findings from this paper can be of benefit to practitioners and policy makers as they aim to ramp up efforts to expand public-transit systems.</p></div>","PeriodicalId":48378,"journal":{"name":"Transport Policy","volume":"157 ","pages":"Pages 34-45"},"PeriodicalIF":6.3000,"publicationDate":"2024-08-14","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0967070X24002294/pdfft?md5=7a9cdfb78b96deb2218fcbb0936e85e6&pid=1-s2.0-S0967070X24002294-main.pdf","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Transport Policy","FirstCategoryId":"5","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0967070X24002294","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"工程技术","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"ECONOMICS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Public opinion has been identified as one of the main drivers of political action in support of sustainable-transport transitions, making it essential to understand when aiming for effective transport policy. Drawing from both quantitative and qualitative data from the 2021 Montréal Mobility Survey, this paper analyzes public perceptions towards two transport projects—a light-rail transit (LRT) and a bus-rapid transit (BRT). Quantitative statements pertaining to five project impacts were compared between the two projects. Both projects had high levels of agreement (between 67% and 80%) regarding expected regional and environmental impacts, but agreement levels were lower for expected neighborhood, cultural, and residential displacement impacts (between 49% and 30%). To contextualize the quantitative findings, qualitative data were pulled from open-ended questions for both projects and analyzed using an applied-thematic-analysis approach. The qualitative responses focused primarily on negative perceptions, providing insight into potential factors contributing to the erosion of social acceptability. Our analysis of open-ended questions underscored contrasting perceptions between the two projects in terms of improvements in accessibility to destinations (minimal for the BRT vs noticeable for the LRT), governance (transparent for the BRT vs opaque for the LRT), consultation processes (adequate for the BRT vs insufficient for the LRT), and construction impacts (lengthy and disruptive for the BRT vs rapid for the LRT). These contrasting quantitative and qualitative results highlight the need for mixed methods when assessing public perceptions. Findings from this paper can be of benefit to practitioners and policy makers as they aim to ramp up efforts to expand public-transit systems.

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
意见很重要:对加拿大蒙特利尔大型公共交通项目的不同看法
公众舆论被认为是支持可持续交通转型的政治行动的主要驱动力之一,因此在制定有效的交通政策时必须了解公众舆论。本文利用 2021 年蒙特利尔交通调查的定量和定性数据,分析了公众对两个交通项目--轻轨交通(LRT)和快速公交(BRT)的看法。比较了两个项目对五个项目影响的定量陈述。两个项目在预期的区域和环境影响方面的一致程度都很高(在 67% 到 80% 之间),但在预期的邻里、文化和居住迁移影响方面的一致程度较低(在 49% 到 30% 之间)。为了将定量研究结果与实际情况相结合,我们从这两个项目的开放式问题中提取了定性数据,并采用应用主题分析方法对其进行了分析。定性回答主要集中在负面看法上,提供了对导致社会可接受性下降的潜在因素的深入了解。我们对开放式问题的分析强调了两个项目在以下方面的不同看法:通往目的地的可达性的改善(快速公交的改善程度最小,而轻轨的改善程度明显)、管理(快速公交的透明,而轻轨的不透明)、咨询过程(快速公交的充分,而轻轨的不足)以及施工影响(快速公交的漫长和破坏性,而轻轨的快速)。这些定量和定性结果的对比突出了在评估公众看法时采用混合方法的必要性。本文的研究结果可为从业人员和政策制定者提供借鉴,帮助他们加大力度扩建公共交通系统。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
Transport Policy
Transport Policy Multiple-
CiteScore
12.10
自引率
10.30%
发文量
282
期刊介绍: Transport Policy is an international journal aimed at bridging the gap between theory and practice in transport. Its subject areas reflect the concerns of policymakers in government, industry, voluntary organisations and the public at large, providing independent, original and rigorous analysis to understand how policy decisions have been taken, monitor their effects, and suggest how they may be improved. The journal treats the transport sector comprehensively, and in the context of other sectors including energy, housing, industry and planning. All modes are covered: land, sea and air; road and rail; public and private; motorised and non-motorised; passenger and freight.
期刊最新文献
A model for speed and fuel refueling strategy of methanol dual-fuel liners with emission control areas Editorial Board Flight, aircraft, and crew integrated recovery policies for airlines - A deep reinforcement learning approach Impacts of negative congestion experiences on acceptance of tradable credits schemes: Integration of NAM and TPB Hub port location and routing for a single-hub feeder network: Effect of liner shipping network connectivity
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1