Introduction

In many developed countries there is a debate, usually ‘won’ by the implementation of light rail transit (LRT), on the potential role of bus rapid transit (BRT) in comparison with LRT and heavy rail. Despite the arguments promoting the advantages of BRT, there exists a lot of resistance to BRT as an alternative to rail options. Part of the problem may be the perception that any public transport (PT) option associated with the word ‘bus’ conjures up images of noisy, polluting buses in mixed traffic congestion. Yet BRT can, if designed appropriately, deliver a service that is equivalent to or better than LRT and/or heavy rail with built in growth prospects, which competes very favourably with the equivalent cost outlays of rail options.

Although the predominant focus of traveller behaviour research has been on studying the choice of mode for specific trips, a growing challenge is to understand why stakeholders (that is, the community at large) in specific geographical jurisdictions, prefer one PT mode over another. When asked, stakeholders frequently and overwhelmingly support LRT, regardless of whether they themselves use a specific mode, and irrespective of cost considerations. There may be a strong sense of imagery conditioning modal preferences for LRT without a full appreciation of the equivalent or better benefits than can flow from the less favoured BRT. Hensher (1999) has referred to the debate as one of ‘choice vs. blind commitment’.

The purpose of understanding community perceptions is to assist in the development of a strategy to promote BRT and to break through the barriers that have created the modal misperceptions so common in many geographical jurisdictions. In this chapter a survey of residents of six capital cities in Australia provides the empirical context, but ongoing research is extending the study to other locations (cultures and languages) throughout the world. Overall this chapter suggests that there are often good rational reasons to implement BRT over LRT; however, this often does not happen, so there must be some other factors (emotional/ideological) that impact on the decision making. This study is designed to identify those factors and how one might overcome them.