During the past two weeks, we have mainly been focusing on developing a research question for our project with the Social Planning Council. Our community partner has kindly supported us with meeting notes from the Williams Lake Transit Service Key Stakeholders Workshop. It came to a conclusion that some main issues with current local transit are:

1. People not feeling safe where certain bus stops are currently located
2. The bus service ends too early. People that work later shifts where are unable to take the bus home after work. Also students that attend night classes at the local University are unable to take the bus after night classes end.
3. No service on Sundays.
4. Bus passes are not easily accessible. Only one location to access bus passes.
5. No service to surrounding areas outside city limits. Limits the ability for people to get into town.
6. Bus service frequency is limited to once an hour.

With the information above, we were able to determine our focus. Although our question is still covering a wide scope, we have found a general direction to continue our research.

Research Question:

• How can we improve the local transportation system to better serve the surrounding rural communities and the minority groups in Williams Lake?

Methodologies:

Having identified the main issues facing transit in Williams Lake, our strategic plan involves five stages of inquiry:

1. WHO are transit-dependent communities in Williams Lake? (low income, large family size, elderly)
   • GIS and Statistical Analysis
2. WHAT are the specific obstacles to making service more regular and reliable?
   • Expert interviews with Williams Lake Transit Representatives
3. WHERE are people having the most trouble accessing transportation?
   • Rider survey/transportation diaries
     • Kamruzzaman and Hine (2011) propose a Participation Index to rank the number, variety, frequency, quality, and difficulty with which rural individuals access activities and opportunities, or alternatively are socially isolated
     • Shoveller et al (2007) examine how men and boys in rural communities–who are materially wealthy–are able to exercise power over non-automobile women.
     • Gray et al (2006) suggests that social capital also has a role to play in conferring mobility on those without access to a car.
     • Comber et al (2011) found a correlation between car ownership and health outcomes was stronger than the correlation between proximity to healthcare and health outcomes. This suggests that there is some dimension of personal mobility (reliability? privacy?) that can be addressed through informal transportation or paratransit services, and should be considered in our recommendations.
     • Arcury et al (2005) also addresses the health care access issue using different methodologies.
4. WHEN is service most needed, and least available?
   • Spatial analysis using census data and rider responses
   • We must also keep in mind the limitations of quantitative methods, and seek answers to the key gaps missing in such an analysis, such as time and context (Ferreira and Batey 2007).
5. HOW can we learn from case studies elsewhere to develop creative solutions for these problems?
   • Case studies from other cities
     • Informal transportation systems can fill gaps in a service hierarchy that is unmet by formal transportation (minibus) systems (Venter et al 2014).
     • Stommes and Brown (2002) discuss funding models and challenges in US rural transport systems.
     • Ripplinger (2007) addresses the challenges of school bus routing in rural areas, where multiple students are picked up from remote locations, without a hierarchical system of interconnected systems.
   • Focus groups to assess the feasibility of proposed programs
   • Surveys
     • Transit users (ensure representative group of complete demographic is represented)
     • Car users
   • QGIS

Census data:

Source: Statistics Canada Census 2010

City Hall Economic situation

data source from city hall

• 2015 council agreed budget is $39.8m
  • goal of 0% tax increase
  • $537,869 allotted to paratransit
  • debt charges $2.2m (9% of general budget)
• balance sheet
  • end of 2013
    • assets $124.7m (+0.76% from last year)
    • liabilities $29.9m (-2.15% from last year
    • equities $94.7m
• expenses 2014
  • total $49.6m
  • paratransit $423732
• revenue 2014
  • total $25.0m.

Ethics

Some of the aspects of our research that may need additional ethical consideration include:

• Surveys
  • Those disseminated to transit users (by p
  • Those accessible online
  • Possibly a PPGIS
• Focus Groups
• Expert Interviews

General Conclusions from data

Our initial

• Ecumene
• First Nations Reserves
• Income
• Ethnicity
  • Software used will include Free and Open Source Software (FOSS) which is free to use, redistribute and easy to share with community partners
    • http://www.qgis.org/en/site/forusers/download.html
    • http://www.gnu.org/software/pspp/
  • Initial product maps
    • Census based maps? Looking at where individuals with low mobility (young and old) may be located along with the social groups distribution
    • Regional map indicating the locations of schools, community centers etc
      • Just to help us get an understanding of the area