Opinions matter: Contrasting perceptions of major public transit projects in Montréal, Canada
Bibliographic record
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. • Adequate public consultation can contribute to positive public perceptions. • Suburbanites' opposition to change may hinder LRT effectiveness. • Perceived equity of public transit projects can influence social adhesion. • Better communication is warranted on benefits and impacts of transport projects.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".