KNOWLEDGE SYNTHESIS: MOBILITY AND PUBLIC TRANSIT

Navigating Rural: Place Based
Transit Solutions for Rural Canada

The project team would like to thank all the individuals from across the country who took the time to respond to requests for
information – your assistance was much appreciated. We would also like to thank Wayne Kelly, Brennan Lowery, Bojan Furst, and
Laurel Halleran for their contributions to the project.
As this report is national, it is important that we acknowledge not only the traditional territories where we live, but to
acknowledge the lives and lands of Indigenous peoples across Canada. We acknowledge historical and ongoing injustices that
Indigenous Peoples (First Nations, Métis and Inuit) endure in Canada and encourage readers to recognize and reflect on the
important task of reconciliation.
Navigating Rural is co-funded by the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council and Infrastructure Canada.
Naviguer en milieu rural est cofinancé par le Conseil de recherches en sciences humaines et Infrastructure Canada.
Project Team: Sarah-Patricia Breen, Selkirk College; Courtney Sutherland, University of Guelph; Mark Trueman, Selkirk College;
Ryan Gibson, University of Guelph; Sean Markey, Simon Fraser University
Contributors: Canadian Rural Revitalization Foundation, Rural Policy Learning Commons, Rural Routes Podcast (Leslie Harris
Centre of Regional Policy and Development)
Publication Date: December 15, 2021

TABLE OF CONTENTS
Executive Summary ....................................................................................................................................... 4
1.

Background ........................................................................................................................................... 6

2.

Objectives.............................................................................................................................................. 7

3.

Methods ................................................................................................................................................ 8

4.

Results ................................................................................................................................................. 10
4.1.

Literature Review ........................................................................................................................ 10

4.2.

Analysis Results: Rural Barrier Typology ..................................................................................... 14

4.3.

Analysis Results: Existing Transit Support Programs .................................................................. 20

4.4.

Analysis Results: Existing Rural Transit Innovations ................................................................... 23

4.5.

Analysis: Place‐Based Differences ............................................................................................... 31

5.

Implications ......................................................................................................................................... 36

6.

Conclusion ........................................................................................................................................... 39

7.

6.1.

Summary ..................................................................................................................................... 39

6.2.

Future Research .......................................................................................................................... 41

Knowledge Mobilization Activities ...................................................................................................... 42

Bibliography ................................................................................................................................................ 44
Additional Literature ................................................................................................................................... 49

Navigating Rural – Final Report 3

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Background
Transit and mobility are fundamental to rural community resilience. However, despite the importance of transit and
the increase in available options, rural communities can struggle to initiate and maintain sustainable transit services.
While there is some understanding of rural barriers, the utility of this information is hampered by the lack of
understanding of how barriers are influenced by place‐based differences across rural communities. The lack of
understanding of place‐based influences on rural transit systems is a critical challenge to informed decision making.
This in turn impacts the development, implementation, and sharing of effective strategies, solutions, and supports,
resulting in potentially inappropriate actions, unintended consequences, and inefficient use of limited resources.
Without understanding the influence of place‐based factors, it is challenging to understand what is missing from the
existing literature, and to understand which promising policies and practices are applicable to which rural communities.

Objectives
The goal of the Navigating Rural project was to use place as a lens to identify, synthesize, and assess existing rural
transit literature in order to identify rural barriers and understand how barriers vary by place. The objectives were:
1) Compile a database of existing rural transit and mobility literature, identifying gaps within our knowledge;
2) Create a typology of barriers impacting rural communities;
3) Explore existing transit support programs to understand gaps and challenges;
4) Identify and explore innovative rural solutions;
5) Clearly identify the gaps within our knowledge base, data, and existing support programs; and
6) Conduct a place‐based analysis to understanding how barriers are influenced by place.

Summary of Results
Rural Transit Literature
 Overarching themes: treating rural as a singular or uniform concept; uneven regional knowledge and
understanding; understanding who is (and is not) served; challenges of rural transit; feasibility and rationale
of rural transit; growing transit opportunities; and identified transit solutions.
 Gaps: little peer reviewed research – particularly on development of rural transit systems; little understanding
or differentiation between places; dominance of examples from certain regions (British Columbia, Ontario)
and community types (large, urban adjacent); minimal representation of remote communities.
Barriers to Rural Transit
 There are seven categories of barriers to sustainable rural transit systems, each with multiple specific barriers:
 Demographic factors and ridership
 Local governance
 Socio‐cultural aspects of transit
 Local economic structure
 Natural and built environment
 External funding programs
 Local costs of operation and potential sources of revenue
 Barriers differ by place, but the extent of this is unknown due to gaps in the literature.
Existing Support Programs
 There are six categories of gaps and challenges related to rural access to existing transit support programs:
• Challenges with access to information
 Expenses that are deemed to be eligible
surrounding programs
under the funding framework
• Extent to which programs account for unique
 Consideration for the human resource
capacity of the funding recipient
rural considerations
• Exclusionary criteria
 Consideration for the financial resource
capacity of the funding recipient
Innovative Rural Examples
 A publicly accessible web map of existing innovative rural examples was created and can be found at:
https://selkirk.maps.arcgis.com/apps/webappviewer/index.html?id=17c858b73a014fbfa55d712141847a73.

Navigating Rural – Final Report 4



The majority of examples identified are from urban‐adjacent communities, and are often larger communities.
There are very few examples identified from remote communities.
 The most common type of innovation was changes and improvements within organizational methods.
 Most of the examples can be found in southern Ontario or British Columbia, demonstrating the influence of
larger population centres (e.g., Toronto, Vancouver), as well as the impact of collaboration between multiple
communities (inter‐community regional systems) to achieve economies of scale.
 The examples demonstrate a contrast between smaller, volunteer run systems that are innovative, but also
highly precarious; and larger, government run systems that are more stable, but less innovative.
Influence of Place
The influence of place can be seen on three distinct but overlapping levels:
1) Macro Rural Trends apply to all rural areas, limited influence of place beyond separating rural
characteristics from urban ones. For example, low population density and long distances.
2) Meso Rural Trends apply over large areas based on a common place‐based characteristic. For example,
commuter patterns in urban adjacent communities or the characteristics of specific demographic groups.
3) Micro Rural Trends apply to specific places based on unique or near unique place‐based characteristics. For
example, specific economic structure – single industry, seasonality, unique demographic conditions,
remoteness.

Key Messages
For Rural Communities and Regions
 Recognize what unique place‐based barriers exist locally.
 Recognize and leverage existing assets and resources.
 Recognize unique local characteristics and needs.
 Establish a transit service that makes the most sense based on the above. For many rural communities this
means something other than a traditional fixed‐route system.
For Policies and Programs
 Recognize that policies and programs based on the existing knowledge base are limited and unable to account
for the diversity of rural contexts.
 Recognize that the dominance of specific regions, community types, and transit system types leaves out
experiences, considerations, and opportunities relevant to other types of rural communities.
 Applying a rural lens (rural considerations) can help in development of program and policy, but should
recognize the impact of data and information gaps.
 Flexibility is required in rural transportation policies and program to ensure diverse rural transit types are
supported, both within a community and between communities.
Across the Board
 Change perceptions of existing or potential users, making transit a viable and socially desirable option.
 Recognize the full benefits of transit, going beyond the simple cost to operate and return on investment to
the inclusion of the impact to measures of wellbeing and social, economic, and environmental co‐benefits.
 Enabling sustainable rural transit requires changes to support and increase factors of success. This includes
the perspectives of users and decision makers, but also in supporting programs and policy. To do so requires
a better understanding of the diversity of rural and the influence of place.

Methodology
A multi‐staged, qualitative research approach was taken. The project team compiled a database of existing rural transit
and mobility literature based on four parameters: inclusion of peer‐reviewed or grey literature; publication within the
last 10 years; Canadian focus, or that of a similar jurisdiction; and having an explicit rural component. Documents were
screened for relevance related to barriers, existing support programs, and innovative examples. A separate
qualitative content analysis was developed and conducted for each. The project team then applied place as a lens to
explore the results of the completed content analyses. Barriers and existing examples were explored based on these
factors in order to identify if/how the results varied by place.

Navigating Rural – Final Report 5

1. BACKGROUND
Transit and mobility are fundamental to rural community resilience. However, despite the importance of transit and
the increase in available options, rural communities can struggle to maintain viable transit services.
The Importance of Transit
From an individual perspective, mobility is a key factor impacting determinants of health. Mobility is key to access to
basic services, including health care, education, and social supports (BC Transit 2020; Canadian Rural Revitalization
Foundation 2019; Kar et al. 2014). Mobility also influences access to recreation and the ability of individuals to actively
participate within the community (BC Transit 2020; Canadian Rural Revitalization Foundation 2019; Kar et al. 2014).
Transit options, or the lack thereof, directly impact personal security and safety, both in day‐to‐day mobility and in the
case of emergencies (BC Transit 2018; Gris Orange Consultant 2012). Access to transit also directly impacts economic
participation, including access to businesses for shopping and accessibility of employment opportunities (Majkut 2011).
The lack of rural transit systems, or gaps in existing systems, disproportionately impact vulnerable individuals and
groups, including low‐income individuals, Indigenous peoples, youth, immigrants, and seniors (Marr 2015; McCue,
Tolentino, and MacDonald 2014).
From a community perspective, transit and mobility are equally important (Majkut 2011; McCue, Tolentino, and
MacDonald 2014). In terms of economic development, transit systems have direct, indirect, and induced economic
benefits (Godavarthy, Mattson, and Ndembe 2014). The availability and functionality of transit systems can create jobs,
influence resident attraction and retention, increase the available workforce, and improve accessibility to markets and
customers for residents and tourists (Canadian Rural Revitalization Foundation 2019; Economic Development Research
Group 2020; Mahali and Ray‐Yol 2020; Majkut 2011). Having viable transit options is also an opportunity to decrease
greenhouse gas emissions and reduce environmental impacts (Foord and Henry 2009; McCue, Tolentino, and
MacDonald 2014).
New Transit Opportunities
Opportunities related to transit and mobility are on the rise and these increased options present opportunities for
development of new systems. Opportunities include blending traditional fixed‐route and on‐demand systems with
innovations like flexible routes, ride sharing, car shares, fleet electrification, ride hailing, and active transportation (see
Section 4.1, Table 1) (BC Transit 2020; Majkut 2011; Northern Alberta Development Council 2013). Additionally, there
is the idea of multimodal transit – the consideration of, and connection between, multiple modes of transit (Litman
2020).
There are more strategies and alternatives for transit today than at any other point in history, and there is also more
demand. The need for viable and sustainable rural transit systems continues to grow, driven by the increased economic
and environmental cost of owning and operating a personal vehicle, but also in relation to other challenges, like
affordable housing and available employment – as the two are not always available in the same community.
The Uncertain Role of Place
Within the existing transit literature, rural is approached as a cohesive concept, with generalized findings. However,
rural communities are far from homogenous. While there are common rural characteristics, such as a low population
density and distance from high density urban settings, how these characteristics manifest across Canada ranges
dramatically (Brinklow and Gibson 2017; Vodden, Baldacchino, and Gibson 2015). As the range of multi‐modal
strategies available to tailor solutions to local needs increases, so does the need for alignment with place‐based assets,
as well as coordination between services and providers (Burkhardt et al. 2004; Fleming 2020; Markey, Ryser, and
Halseth 2020; Noxon Associates Limited 2009).
Conditions of place ‐ the unique combinations of economic, socio‐cultural, and environmental factors ‐ play a critical
role in influencing and impacting community conditions (Markey, Breen, et al. 2019). When it comes to rural transit
systems, place‐based development literature suggests that there are fundamental differences in the barriers faced by
rural communities. However, within the existing transit literature, it is unclear what role place‐based factors like size,
location, physical landscape, economy, demographics, and culture play in influencing the critical barriers that rural
Navigating Rural – Final Report 6

communities must overcome in order to establish and maintain a sustainable transit system. It is also unclear what
types of communities may not be represented, and therefore are neither understood nor supported. As a result, both
local and upper‐level governments are challenged to implement or support place appropriate transit solutions that are
able to work within unique community or regional contexts.
The Rural Challenge
Despite the need, potential benefits, and increase in options, rural places can struggle to initiate and maintain
sustainable public transit services. On average rural communities lack transit options (Transport Canada 2006). The
existing rural transit literature is limited, dominated by grey literature ‐ reports from consultants and governments.
There is an understanding of key variables and data needs, but there is limited available data (Canadian Rural
Revitalization Foundation 2019). While the existing literature identifies a range of rural barriers, the utility of the
information is hampered by the lack of articulation of how differences across rural communities influence these
barriers. This is problematic given the considerable contextual diversity across rural Canada (Lowery, Dagevos, and
Vodden 2020). There is also a high likelihood of gaps in our understanding of rural transit, as the majority of prominent
case studies reference larger communities (up to 100,000 people), often in urban‐adjacent settings (e.g., McCue et al.,
2014; Northern Alberta Development Council, 2013; Transport Canada, 2006). Although place‐based factors like
geography and demographics are noted as having the potential to influence the type of transit service that is best suited
to communities, the existing knowledge base does not typically provide any nuanced understanding of how barriers
and challenges differ across rural contexts (Beck and Mis 2010; Mattson 2013; Noxon Associates Limited 2009). The
transit literature reviewed fails to take conditions of place into account, despite the wealth of literature observing the
influence of the economic, socio‐cultural, and environmental conditions of place (Markey et al. 2015; Markey, Halseth,
et al. 2019; Markey, Halseth, and Manson 2012).
Responsibility for transit systems is multi‐jurisdictional and comprised of multiple stakeholders, including ‐ not‐for
profits, private companies, and all levels of government. The current lack of understanding of place‐based influences
on sustainable rural transit systems is a critical challenge to informed decision making. This in turn impacts the
development, implementation, and sharing of effective strategies, solutions, and supports, and results in potentially
inappropriate or inefficient actions, and the inefficient use of limited resources. In the absence of understanding the
influence of place, it is challenging to understand what is missing from the existing literature, as well as to understand
which promising policies and practices are applicable to which rural communities.

2. OBJECTIVES
The goal of the Navigating Rural project was to use place as a lens to identify, synthesize, and assess existing rural
transit literature in order to identify rural barriers and how these barriers vary by place. The intention of developing a
rural specific, place‐based understanding is to serve as a key resource to inform the design and implementation of local
solutions, the development of supports from upper‐level governments, and to guide future research.
To achieve the project goal the following five objectives were identified:
1) Compile a database of existing rural transit and mobility literature;
2) Create a typology of barriers impacting rural communities;
3) Explore existing transit support programs to understand gaps and challenges;
4) Identify and explore innovative rural solutions;
5) Conduct a place‐based analysis to understanding how barriers are influenced by the economic, socio‐cultural,
and environmental dimensions of place; and
6) Clearly identify the gaps within our knowledge base, data, and existing support programs.
This report provides an overview of the project’s background and objectives, as well as methods. This is followed by a
presentation of results, discussion and implications, and conclusions. Also included is an overview of knowledge
mobilization activities, as well as identified research gaps and future research opportunities.

Navigating Rural – Final Report 7

3. METHODS
In order to respond to the project goal and objectives, the project team took multi‐staged, qualitative research
approach, described below.
Literature Review: the project team compiled a database of existing rural transit and mobility literature to serve as the
basis for the content analyses. In order to be included in the database, certain parameters had to be met. The four
parameters were:
1) Inclusion of peer‐reviewed or grey literature;
2) Focus on literature published within the last 10 years (between 2010 and 2020)i;
3) A Canadian focus, or that of a similar jurisdiction, such as New Zealand or the United States of America; and
4) Having an explicit rural component, whether rural generally or specific to a particular community(ies) or
regions.
The database consisted of articles, studies, reports, and presentations that were found through several avenues,
including Google Scholar, Research Gate, library searches of researcher‐affiliated schools, and reference lists within
identified documents. In total, 97 pieces of literature were included in the database. The project team also took note
of additional web‐based resources.
These 97 documents were screened to create an annotated bibliography, which included a short summary of the
resource, as well as an indication of its relevance for the subsequent analyses described below: barriers to establishing,
operating, and maintaining rural transit systems; rural access and use of existing transit support programs; and
innovative rural transit solutions. Related results can be found in Section 4.1. Literature referenced within this report
can be found in the Bibliography Section and additional literature can be found in the Additional Literature section.
Content Analysis ‐ Barriers: of the 97 identified documents, 84 were initially identified as being relevant to the barrier
analysis during the creation of the annotated bibliography. After further document review, this number was reduced
to 43 documents that were identified as having a Canadian focus with respect to barriers in establishing rural transit
systems. These documents were uploaded to the qualitative analysis software NVivo for manual coding. The project
team developed a code book to establish parameters and guidelines for the coding process. Coding began with an initial
list of codes (deductive), identified during the creation of the annotated bibliography. However, beyond this initial list,
coding was done in an inductive manner, identifying and exploring barriers as they were identified from within the
literature. The process was iterative, with new codes added and codes refined throughout the process, with each
document reviewed multiple times. The coding process progressed until a final coding structure with themes and
various levels of sub‐themes was created. Coding results were presented to, and discussed with the project team to
verify the results. Related results can be found in Section 4.2.
Content Analysis – Existing Support Programs: a total of 54 of the 97 documents discussed barriers to rural community
use or access of transit support programs and/or identified existing transit support programs. This documentation,
combined with internet searches, were used to guide the creation of an initial list of existing transit support programs.
This initial long list was reviewed with the project team and refined to a shorter list for detailed analysis based on
available information. In order for a program to be included in the analysis the program had to satisfy the following
parameters: 1) it must be Canadian; 2) it could be national, provincial/territorial, or local (regional or municipal) in
nature; 3) it could include funding programs or significant cost sharing agencies; 4) it must currently be active, or be
within five years of being active; 5) it must include a funding component and therefore could not be an exclusively
knowledge‐based resource or program. Each of the identified of programs had accompanying documentation, such as
a program guide or website. This documentation was uploaded to the qualitative analysis software NVivo for manual
coding, where they were coded to analyze rural barriers in the context of rural use of the transit support programs.
Coding occurred in a primarily deductive manner, employing a pre‐imposed coding structure, looking for the explicit
presence or absence of the following factors:
i

Documents outside this time range were included, including seminal documents (e.g., those widely referenced) or
those recommended by experts. However, the systematic literature search was focused within the time frame.
Navigating Rural – Final Report 8








Rural Considerations: indication of rural specific aspects within the program (e.g., targeted rural funding)
Human Capacity Requirements: requirement for a specific level of existing skill, plan, or similar
Financial Capacity: requirement for a specific level of financial contribution or long‐term financial burden
Eligible Expenses: flexibility in eligible expenses
Exclusion: exclusion from funding based on geography or target audience that would impact rural
Other: inductive coding was allowed to support the addition of any emergent themes related to existing
funding programs.

Related results can be found in Section 4.3. The level (federal, provincial/territorial, local) of funding, as well as area of
focus (e.g., climate, COVID‐19) were also noted in the coding.
Content Analysis – Existing Rural Transit Innovations: of the 97 documents, 74 discussed innovative rural transit
examples that have faced and/or overcame a barrier. Additional input from project partners and other external input
identified additional examples. Based on these, a database was created to document the attributes of 117 unique
examples from rural Canada, with these attributes including: 1) solution description; 2) transit type (e.g., fixed, on‐
demand); 3) service geography (e.g., within a single community, between communities); 4) innovation description; 5)
ownership (e.g., public, private); 6) funding details (e.g., source); and 7) target user group.
All examples were then visually mapped using ArcGIS software. The resulting web map allows viewers to use different
attributes to view the examples, including: 1) service geography; 2) proximity to urban centres; 3) transit type; 4)
ownership; 5) population; 6) population density. Of the total examples, 28 were selected (roughly 2 – 3 from each
province and territory) to be further explore to better understand the types of innovations being applied. Related
results can be found in Section 4.4.
Place‐Based Analysis: the project team applied place as a lens to explore and better understand the results of the
completed content analyses. Building on existing place‐based literature, the project team identified a range of
indicators of place to guide the analysis. These indicators included economic (e.g., diversification), social (e.g.,
demographic), and physical/environmental (e.g., proximity to urban centres) factors. Identified barriers and existing
examples were explored based on these factors in order to identify if/how the results varied by place.
The attributes of the innovative examples were explored looking for trends, and were compared to the identified
barriers to determine how innovative rural transit solutions are influenced by place. The identified barriers were
analyzed from a place‐based lens to determine if barriers were influenced by key aspects of place. This analysis involved
manually assessing the content coded to each thematic barrier and taking note of where the barriers presented
themselves, and whether or not the barriers were consistent across Canadian rural areas or if they were unique to a
certain place. The analysis was presented to the project team for discussion and refinement. Related results can be
found in Section 4.5.
Limitations: we acknowledge that there are limitations that have influenced the results of this project. Primarily, the
project is limited by the lack of primary research that has been conducted in the field of rural transportation, meaning
that the results are primarily based on grey literature. Conversations with informed individuals indicate that, particularly
related to innovative case studies, there may be a mis‐match between the information that is publicly available and
what exists in reality. However, primary data collection was outside the scope of this project. Parameters related to
budget and time meant that both the literature review and innovative example identification, while systematic in their
design and execution, should not be considered comprehensive. The majority of the literature included has a Western
lens and perspective. Lastly, we also acknowledge that our individual experiences and geographic positioning impacts
our research through bias and heuristics.

Navigating Rural – Final Report 9

4. RESULTS
4.1. Literature Review
In response to objective #1 (compile a database of existing rural transit and mobility literature), we identified 97
documents that discussed rural transit and mobility and met the parameters discussed in Section 3. The majority (67)
of documents are grey literature, consisting of items like reports and documents from all levels of government,
transportation plans, consultancy reports, and non‐peer reviewed books. Of the remaining 30 documents, 26 are
peer‐reviewed scholarly articles, two are theses, one is a peer‐reviewed book, and one is a conference paper. The
academic literature primarily focused on modes of transit, the role of changing technology, the transit disadvantaged,
and factors influencing rural transit.
The following section provides a summary of the overarching themes found in the literature. The identified gaps and
implications are discussed in Section 5.
The (Predominantly) Homogenous Treatment of Rural
Within the reviewed rural transit and mobility literature, rural appears in different ways – as rural specific section
within a broader document (e.g., Ontario Ministry of Transportation 2012), as a rural specific document (e.g.,
Transportation Association of Canada 2016), or as a rural community case study, plan, or evaluation (e.g., BC Transit
2018).
How rural is defined ranges widely within and outside the review literature. Outside the reviewed literature how
“rural” is defined often focuses on characteristics of demographics and location, such as distance to an urban centre,
population size, and population density. Statistics Canada typically defines rural and small town as those areas outside
of Census Metropolitan Areas and Census Agglomerations (Statistics Canada 2021). Even within this limited definition,
there is variation across rural contexts. Outside the Statistics Canada definition, the concept of rural and how it is
defined varies considerably (Rich, Hall, and Nelson 2021).
Within the reviewed literature there is variation in how rural is defined, if it is defined at all. Some reports include
populations of up to 50,000 or 100,000 (Transportation Association of Canada 2016). Some recognize the
aforementioned characteristics of demographics and location (Kidder 2006; Noxon Associates Limited 2009). Others
do not provide any definition (Burkhardt et al. 2004; Kar et al. 2014).
What is largely consistent across the literature is that the majority conceptualize and discuss rural as a homogeneous
(single or uniform) concept. Reports often discuss general rural challenges in establishing or sustaining transit service,
and provide similarly generalized best practices (e.g., Noxon Assoicates Limited 2009; Transportation Association of
Canada 2016). This generalized rural understanding and guidance is useful as a foundation. However, it is important
to consider that one rural area may vary greatly in its assets and challenges in comparison to a neighbouring one.
That is not to say that there is no recognition of variation across rural contexts. The literature often acknowledges
differing types of rural, either by size of community, or by location, including urban adjacent and remote. However,
while there is acknowledgement that contextual factors will influence barriers and solutions, the presented results
and findings are most often generalized to a single, homogenous rural. There are community specific documents (e.g.,
strategies or plans) aimed at local audiences that reflect a range of rural communities. However, where there are
community case studies of existing transit systems aimed at broader audiences they often (but not always) focus on
communities with larger populations, as well as those that are within proximity of urban centres (McCue, Tolentino,
and MacDonald 2014). Remote communities, such as those accessed by plane or boat or at great distances, are
particularly poorly represented in the literature.
Uneven Regional Knowledge and Understanding
Building on the above observations regarding the homogeneous representation of rural within the literature is the
theme of geographic representation. Much of the generalized literature is primarily placeless – not specific to a
province/territory or region. Where place is specified, within the Canadian context where the documents are specific
Navigating Rural – Final Report 10

to geography the literature is skewed heavily toward rural areas within southern Ontario (e.g., Mahali and Ray‐Yol
2020; Marr 2015; McCue, Tolentino, and MacDonald 2014) and rural areas in British Columbia (BC) (e.g., BC Transit
2020; Matte 2014; Ministry of Transportation and Infrastructure 2020), with modest (but noticeably less)
representation in the Atlantic provinces (e.g., Beck and Mis 2010; Levesque 2020; Lysenko 2012; Majkut 2011). There
is little available literature specific to the prairie provinces – Manitoba, Saskatchewan, and Alberta.
Although the innovative rural examples (see Section 4.4) include representation from every province and territory
except Nunavut, the scale of the available literature is not proportional to that of southern Ontario and BC. Taken
together, the above suggests that the existing understanding surrounding rural transit is likely dominated by the
experiences of Ontario and BC, leaving out potentially critical experiences and considerations relevant to other areas
across Canada. Further research is needed to generalize this knowledge to other areas. For example, where the
literature includes successful examples of rural transit systems, such as in southern Ontario where there is a large
cluster of case studies, general context is given for these cases; however, for a more in‐depth analysis and
understanding, one would have to conduct more primary research in order to understand the dynamics of success or
failure and its transferability to other places.
Where literature from comparable jurisdictions was reviewed, this included literature from the United States, parts
of the European Union, Australia, the United Kingdom. The literature also included a small number of examples from
jurisdictions less comparable to the Canadian context, exploring rural transit in Korea, Japan, Indonesia, and Iran. No
literature from the Global South was included. Although our focus was on the Canadian context, the limited
international literature that was included suggest valuable and potentially transferable knowledge. Such literature
may be helpful in adding additional observations and ideas for addressing user needs. Flexibility and a responsiveness
to user needs is especially important in rural areas due to the unique challenges they face in establishing transit
systems (Markey, Ryser, and Halseth 2020). Future research could further explore the international literature.
Understanding Who is (and is not) Served
Both peer reviewed and grey literature include discussion of those impacted by a lack of rural transit services, with
one author referring to them as the transit disadvantaged (Marr 2015). Those individuals considered vulnerable to a
lack of rural transit services include: seniors, youth, women, those with physical and cognitive impairments, low‐
income individuals, Indigenous peoples, and recent immigrants (Levesque 2020; Mahali and Ray‐Yol 2020; Marr 2015;
McCue, Tolentino, and MacDonald 2014).
It is important to realize that there may be intersectionality between one or more of these subsets of rural
populations, rendering the experience of vulnerable groups as existing on a continuum (Marr 2015). When recognizing
specific populations, the literature reviewed was dominated by a focus on seniors, with many case study examples
gearing their service toward the needs of seniors or those with mobility issues (Kar et al. 2014). This is not unexpected,
as rural areas tend to have aging populations (Kidder 2006). However, rural places also have other vulnerable
populations and in order to attract a greater level of ridership, service must be more diverse in target user group.
Although included within the literature review, it was outside the scope of the Navigating Rural project to conduct a
detailed review of literature pertaining to vulnerable populations, including racialized individuals and new immigrants
and the factors that encourage and discourage them to use rural transit, which ultimately impacts ridership. However,
explorations of these critical themes can be found in other Mobility and Public Transit Knowledge Synthesis projects,
including Here Today, Gone Tomorrow: Public Transportation and Vulnerabilities in Rural and Remote Canada and
Missing the Bus: Indigenous Women, Tow‐Spirit People and Public Transit in Western Canada (Social Sciences and
Humanities Research Council 2021).
Challenges of Rural Transit
The unique challenges faced by rural areas in establishing a transit service or sustaining an existing service are
primarily discussed in the grey literature (Kar et al. 2014; McCue, Tolentino, and MacDonald 2014). A range of rural
specific barriers are identified within the literature, including challenges related to demographics, costs of operation,
governance, and support programs. These barriers are grouped into seven overarching categories and discussed in
detail in Section 4.2. However, within the literature these barriers are often not discussed in relation to a place, but
Navigating Rural – Final Report 11

are rather conceptualized as being independent of place and being transposable onto all rural areas. As mentioned
above there is a great diversity as to what constitutes “rural.” Therefore, there is a need for more primary research
to be conducted on this front to gain a deep understanding of barriers as they relate to place, which we begin to do
in Section 4.5.
Feasibility of Rural Transit
The feasibility of rural transit represented a sizeable theme within the grey literature reviewed. This literature is
primarily in the form of feasibility studies or guiding reports (e.g., IBI Group 2018; Municipality of Piney 2021; Roddick
2021b, 2021a). This literature essentially provides options and best practices for different types of transit services and
the structures that govern them. For example, rural transit service expansion is explored in various ways that explain
the benefits and drawbacks of particular service and governance types (Foord and Henry 2009; Kar et al. 2014;
Levesque 2020; Lysenko 2012). Such reports offer recommendations in terms of various aspects of service (e.g.,
service level, governance type, marketing strategies). Rural transit feasibility studies offer a starting point for local
governments and other organizations who are considering implementing or expanding transit systems.
Within the grey literature there are also examples of service reviews conducted by consultants that are complete with
recommendations for a particular place with its own unique needs (WSP 2018). It is important to acknowledge that
the communities that hired the consultants may or may not have implemented the suggestions. Therefore, one can
look to the consultancy reports and transit master plans for best practices, but the extent to which documents of this
nature are, or can be implemented by rural communities is unknown. In some cases, such as when the costs associated
with recommendations were high, such reports may be more idealistic than realistic for rural areas (WSP 2018).
Some grey literature attempted to make a financial case for rural transit by presenting the benefits of public transit
investments on the economy (Economic Development Research Group 2020; Majkut 2011). While transit provision
can impact the economy through providing greater access to jobs, this should not be conflated with generating a
profit from rural transit systems. Profit generation from rural transit systems is typically not possible (Beck and Mis
2010). Rather, there has been an increased understanding of the impacts on one’s overall quality of life through the
provision of accessible public transit (Canadian Urban Transit Association 2005), and an understanding of the
importance to properly communicate these benefits to the public and those in decision making positions (Beck and
Mis 2010).
Growing Transit Opportunities
Just as all rural areas can differ from one another, so too can the types of transit, extending beyond the traditional
fixed‐route transit option. Oftentimes, a typical fixed‐route service may not be viable in a rural area with low demand
for the service coupled with low‐density settlement patterns (Transport Canada 2006). The literature demonstrates a
range of alternative service types that have been proposed and/or established in rural areas.
Table 1: Non‐Traditional Examples of Transit Opportunities (Litman 2020; Loh et al. 2012; Majkut 2011; Matte
2014; Noxon Associates Limited 2009)
Option Name
Description
Active Transportation
Human‐powered mobility, including walking and biking.
Carshares
Community‐owned, collectively‐owned, or privately‐
owned asset that can be booked by members.
Combined solutions
E.g., a combination of traditional fixed‐route and
demand‐responsive transit.
Demand‐responsive transit
The use of a taxi service or ride hailing.
Flexible routes
Allow drivers to deviate slightly from the route to drop
passengers off at more convenient or safe locations.
Multimodal transit
Consideration of and connection between multiple
modes of transit (e.g., a cycling route that connects to
a transit stop).

Navigating Rural – Final Report 12

Option Name
Rideshare

Description
Joining someone for a ride in a private vehicle if you
are both heading in the same direction.

The growing number of options means that based upon community characteristics, existing assets, and needs, one
service delivery model for a rural area may be optimal over another. However, despite the growing options, traditional
fixed‐route transit systems dominate the current literature, particularly related to overarching guiding documents
from upper level governments.
Identified Rural Transit Solutions
Many grey literature reports and some peer reviewed literature included suggested and implemented solutions, which
related to transit service type, level of service, governance structure of service providers, making investments in
infrastructure, leveraging technology, or level of coordination between service providers (Economic Development
Research Group 2020; Malo et al. 2018; Noxon Associates Limited 2009; Velaga et al. 2012). The majority of specific,
tangible solutions presented were identified at the local scale, offering bottom‐up solutions. In one instance there
was a call to nationalize transit service, providing a top‐down solution (Albin et al. 2021). However, while potentially
more stable, a top‐down solution may be less likely to respond to diverse local needs (Co+Host 2016), suggesting a
need to balance local needs with supportive top‐down policy and programs (Markey, Ryser, and Halseth 2020)
In order for solutions to be successful and meaningful, there must be an understanding of what exists in a community
and what is needed (Markey, Ryser, and Halseth 2020). The application of the planning process to achieve this end
was mentioned in the literature (Gris Orange Consultant 2012), although not to a large extent. This may be due to the
fact that rural areas tend to have limited human resources, with local government employees and other local leaders
often taking on multiple responsibilities and wearing several hats (Fleming 2020). The role those in planning‐related
positions play is critical in formal rural transit planning and provision, and can either encourage or discourage transit
provision. However, the preconceptions of planners were noted as playing a potentially influencing role. For example,
a planner may be influenced by the car culture that pervades rural areas to hold the preconception that all rural
dwellers have access to a private vehicle, which is untrue (Transport Canada 2006). Such a preconception held by
individuals who influence or make local decisions may have impacts on mobility equity amongst rural dwellers.
There was an emergent theme in the grey literature exploring the use of transit‐friendly land use planning, urban
design, and other practices (Ontario Ministry of Transportation 2012). An example of this is transit‐oriented
development (TOD), a development and planning approach focused on walkable, mixed‐use forms of development
(Land Use Planning & Policy 2005). These types planning process started to gain popularity roughly in 2010. This
paradigm shift coincides with a focus on healthy communities from provincial planning organizations such as the
Ontario Professional Planners Institute which released a call to action in 2007 for planners to advocate through their
work for healthy communities (Ontario Professional Planners Institute 2007). There is an understanding that one’s
built environment has implications on their mobility and health, and TOD is one way in which to achieve a healthy,
transit‐oriented community. However, while there are best practices and guidance for TOD available, these are
primarily urban. While it is recognized that that low‐density, non‐mixed‐use development is typical of rural areas,
there is lack of a comprehensive blueprint or guidance for how rural areas can to implement such guidelines (Ontario
Ministry of Transportation 2012).
When it comes to transit solutions, rural communities were noted as potentially being better off making use of low
hanging fruit, which could take the form of using existing assets (Burkhardt et al. 2004). For many rural areas that are
considering a transit system, it would be helpful and encouraging for them to see successful examples of where
existing assets were put to use in an efficient and innovative manner (Burkhardt et al. 2004). For some rural areas,
the financial implications of a transit system are a non‐starter. A few examples in the literature suggested making use
of existing assets in the form of coordinating separate transit service providers as to increase efficiency, and to
generally coordinate synergies between service providers (Burkhardt et al. 2004). Conversely, in the innovative
examples in Section 4.4, going for the low‐hanging fruit was an initiative seldom employed. Rather, case studies

Navigating Rural – Final Report 13

tended to detail cases in which rural areas created and/or obtained new infrastructure in their pursuit to establish a
transit system.

4.2. Analysis Results: Rural Barrier Typology
When establishing or maintaining a transit system, rural communities face unique barriers. In order to create a
typology of barriers impacting rural communities (objective 2), we analyzed 43 documents that discussed these rural
barriers. From our analysis, we identified seven major thematic categories of barriers to establishing and sustaining
rural transit systems. The thematic categories are: 1) demographic factors and ridership; 2) socio‐cultural aspects of
transit; 3) the natural and built environment; 4) local costs of operation and potential sources of revenue; 5) local
governance; 6) local economic structure; and 7) external funding programs. Each category has several sub‐themes,
each comprised of specific barriers. Each category is shown as a coloured section in Figure 1. The size of the coloured
section indicates the number of documents where this category was found (i.e., a larger section equals more
documents where this category was found) and the number of divisions indicates the complexity of sub‐themes and
specific barriers. Each category, and its respective sub‐themes and examples of barriers are discussed in further detail
below.
Figure 1: Hierarchy of Barrier Typology

Demographic Factors and Ridership
Of the 43 documents analyzed, 38 mentioned demographic barriers to establishing rural transit systems. Based on
our analysis, these demographic barriers included factors related to characteristics of settlement, characteristics of
actual and potential riders, social capital, and service duplication. The following paragraphs identify and describe the
identified barriers.

Navigating Rural – Final Report 14

With regards to settlement characteristics, we found that rural settlement patterns are identified as expected barriers
across the literature and across rural places. As noted above, rural areas are characterized by low‐density settlement
patterns. This is one of the draws of rural living for many rural dwellers, but the lack of critical mass poses a barrier to
bolstering an adequate level of ridership (Noxon Associates Limited 2009). This links to other thematic barriers,
particularly financial factors, as cost tends to be greater for transit over greater distances, and cost rises even more
when there are not enough users of the service to make providing the service worthwhile for the transit operator
(Majkut 2011). The uniformity of this barrier across rural contexts will be further discussed in Section 4.5.
Ridership characteristics and needs also pose barriers to establishing or sustaining rural transit systems. Rural transit
tends to be more expensive than urban transit due to the greater distance travelled and lower ridership levels (Kidder
2006). This can mean that service access (especially for vulnerable groups) can be cost prohibitive for potential users
from accessing, and can limit the ridership available to sustain a service (Marr 2015). Specialized transit needs may also
pose a barrier to establishing sustainable rural transit, as these needs can necessitate further driver training or
specialized vehicles, both of which have associated costs (Federation of Canadian Municipalities 2005; Foord and Henry
2009). Interestingly, a community with a lack of transit need for the majority, yet a pro‐transit ideology may face barriers
due to the mismatch between ideology and actual demand (Columbia Basin Trust 2018). It is also evident within the
literature that factors like gender and race play roles in whether or not people have access to, or able to safely use
transit. Certain demographics (e.g., women fleeing domestic violence), particularly where there are overlapping and
intersectional factors are often more at risk (Breen et al. 2021; Marr 2015). Equitable access, public transit and mobility
are being further explored by other, related Mobility and Public Transit Knowledge Synthesis projects (Breen et al. 2021;
Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council 2021).
Rural areas tend to have greater levels of social capital compared to their urban counterparts (Noxon Associates Limited
2009; Turcotte 2015). Strong social capital benefits rural areas, especially those with lower levels of financial capacity,
due to the fact that it fosters volunteerism and other forms of community participation. Volunteer based rural transit
systems are common (Lysenko 2012; McCue, Tolentino, and MacDonald 2014). Volunteer transit service, in the absence
of more formal transit service, can decrease transit and mobility inequities (Noxon Associates Limited 2009). However,
transit provided on behalf of a social network or by a not‐for‐profit agency face their own unique barriers in the sense
that they are less stable than a formal transit service as volunteer services can be at the mercy of the availability and,
in some cases, the vehicle type of the volunteer (e.g., vehicles accessible for those with mobility challenges) (McCue,
Tolentino, and MacDonald 2014). Additionally, in the absence of coordination of transit services, there is the risk for
duplication of service (Kar et al. 2014). With uncoordinated service, the efficiency of any one service is diminished as
resources are not being used to their maximum capacity.
In communities with higher levels of social capital, there is typically greater community cohesion and support amongst
community members. In this spirit, social capital fosters community care and community champions to push forward
the discourse and understanding of the social good that transit provides in rural areas and break down misconceptions
(Noxon Associates Limited 2009). In the same vein, it may be difficult for a rural community to garner political will or
change public opinion on transit if there is not a community champion.
Socio‐Cultural Aspects of Transit
We found that of the 43 documents analyzed, 35 identified sociocultural barriers to establishing rural transit systems.
The socio‐cultural barriers theme included factors related to the social or cultural environment that have the capacity
to influence the perceptions and actions of the ridership and service providers, including car culture, perceptions (e.g.,
of transit, rural), level of service, and other factors. Sociocultural barriers represent an interesting challenge to
innovation due to the fact that an innovation responding to this barrier type effectively must influence some
sociocultural aspect of rural transit. These challenges, such as our perception of transit, can be engrained within us
and are therefore more difficult to change (see Section 4.5). The following paragraphs provide an overview of the
barriers identified.
The most common socio‐cultural barriers that tend to relate to rural culture, including the preponderance of car
culture, which was mentioned in almost half (20/43) of the documents, as well as perceptions of transit (7/43). It is
commonly thought that all rural dwellers have access to a car, and therefore that the provision of transit service is
Navigating Rural – Final Report 15

unnecessary (McCue, Tolentino, and MacDonald 2014; Roddick 2021a). However, this is an incorrect assumption and
a source of conflict within the literature, as there is clear identification of several distinct groups that may not have
access to a car or cannot drive (Marr 2015). As discussed in Section 4.1 these groups include: the elderly, who may
not hold a license or who cannot drive any longer due to their physical and/or cognitive condition; youth, who cannot
begin the process of obtaining a license until the age of 16 and may not be able to afford a car; women who may
experience challenges to access vehicles or transit particularly in the case of abusive relationships; individuals
belonging to low‐income households; individuals with cognitive and/or physical disabilities; marginalized groups who
may face discrimination and/or violence while using transit services; and recent immigrants, who may face
discrimination while using transit, and may find transit difficult to navigate due to language barriers (Mahali and Ray‐
Yol 2020; Marr 2015). It is also important to be conscious of the impacts of intersectionality on transit access (Breen
et al. 2021).
The assumption that all rural dwellers have access to a vehicle hinders the discourse surrounding the need for transit
systems in rural areas, and eventually halts meaningful actions in this vein. This assumption is especially negatively
impactful when it influences planning staff and decision makers (Transport Canada 2006). The car culture that
dominates in rural areas and the resultant assumption that all rural dwellers have access to a vehicle feeds the notion
that provision of transit services in rural areas is unnecessary and un‐rural. To a lesser extent, we found that rural
transit is perceived by some as being uncool or having other related stigma (Litman 2020; Ontario Ministry of
Transportation 2012). This may relate to the fact that it is not socialized as an option and therefore it is not a cultural
norm. However, the literature also identified some initiatives intending to change this. As recently as 2021, BC Transit
proposed free transit for those 12 years old and under (Government of British Columbia 2021). In the future, it may
be worth exploring how such a program may have changed perceptions of transit and how it impacted demand and
supply of transit amongst youth.
We found variety in the perceptions and actions of the ridership pool that pose barriers to rural transit. The most
important factor, cited in 31 of 43 documents, was the perception of level of service provided. For an existing or
proposed transit service to garner ridership, the service must be on par, or as close to on par as possible, to the
convenience offered by a private vehicle in terms of: cost, reliability, time, and frequency of service (Gorecki and Liepa
2018). If transit, either existing or proposed, is not viewed as being as convenient or similar in convenience to a private
vehicle, it will be difficult to build ridership, as many individuals may instead use their social network to reach a
destination even if they do not have access to their own vehicle, or continue unsafe practices like hitchhiking (Breen
et al. 2021; Co+Host 2016). Informal social network transit provision is helpful purely from a mobility lens, it can be
disruptive to the establishment of alternate transit services in rural areas that may stand to provide more stable
service (Co+Host 2016).
Aspects of rural transit systems that are related to convenience and therefore to service demand are autonomy,
scheduling, information about the service, and the feelings of comfort and safety while using the service. A transit
service must meet a diversity of demands related to where the ridership wants to go and when (Litman 2020). Fixed‐
route rural transit service, while reliable, forces riders to plan their movements around transit, and is therefore less
flexible. Within rural transit systems that operate on an on‐demand basis there is greater flexibility to go where one
wants and when (Chhay, Grollman, and Wayns 2008). However, it should be noted that on‐demand service usually
requires pre‐booking well ahead of time, which may negate the spontaneous intention of on‐demand service. In many
instances, fixed‐route rural service does not operate on weekends or in the evenings, with evening service generally
considered unfeasible in smaller communities (e.g., populations less than 10,000) (BC Transit 2018). This aspect of
scheduling potentially impedes the mobility of those who work non‐traditional hours, as well as those wanting to
engage in social activities in the evenings or on weekends (Malo et al. 2018).
The lack of information about existing service can also be a detriment to attracting ridership (BC Transit 2018; Co+Host
2016). It also depends where and how information is provided. For example, the need for significant improvement to
broadband access and cell phone service in rural areas remains, so information disseminated online or through the
form of an app may not reach the intended audience (Bosworth et al. 2020; Weeden and Kelly 2020). Depending on
age and means, riders may not have access to a smart phone, and therefore any information accessible via app, such
as real‐time scheduling information, will be inaccessible for riders without such a device or without the related digital
Navigating Rural – Final Report 16

capacity. Digital innovations appear within the literature (BC Transit 2020; Federation of Canadian Municipalities 2005;
Ontario Ministry of Transportation 2012). However, the push to digital should be approached with consideration in
rural areas, and a hybrid between hard copy and digital information will likely be a requirement for disseminating
information to the maximum level of ridership.
Comfort and safety are paramount considerations that influence one’s decision to use transit. If it is perceived that
one’s experience using a particular transit service will not be comfortable or safe, then the individual may not use the
service (Ontario Ministry of Transportation 2012). However, comfort and safety do not only pertain to when a rider is
using the service, as it also includes the “first and last mile,” which account for the trip from the rider’s initial position
to the transit stop as well as their trip from the transit stop to their destination (Ontario Ministry of Transportation
2012). If the first and last mile is not, or is not seen to be, safe or even possible, then the individual may not use the
service. Safety is influenced by factors like a lack of lighting, the establishments/landscapes that must be passed on
the way, or a lack of transit‐supportive infrastructure, such as sidewalks or active transportation infrastructure (e.g.,
bike lanes). Other factors include existing or potential for discrimination and/or violence experienced during the ride,
or a lack of implementation of accessible fixtures for boarding and alighting the vehicle.
There are also socio‐cultural barriers related to service providers, in terms of their criteria of who can use the service,
as well as the extent to which different service providers are coordinated. Oftentimes, rural transit providers will
target a specific demographic to provide service to, whether it be seniors or those seeking out medical care (Lysenko
2012). Those who do not meet these requirements cannot use this service, thereby limiting the potential efficiency
and benefit of the service. Those that do meet the criteria may still face barriers in using the service, as filling out
applications to prove their eligibility take time to process (Kar et al. 2014).
The Natural and Built Environment
Of the 43 documents analyzed, 31 discussed barriers to establishing rural transit systems related to or inherent in the
natural and built environment. Based on our analysis, natural and built environmental barriers included factors related
to land use development and planning, infrastructure, climate, and terrain. Section 4.5 discusses the common nature
of the challenges brought on by the rural built environment and the seasonality of climate in Canada, as well as the
ways in which terrain and climate extremity differ across Canada. The following paragraphs will describe the identified
barriers.
The existing or pre‐imposed physical infrastructure and planning of rural areas presents as a fundamental barrier to
establishing transit (Transport Canada 2006). This relates to the demographic theme in terms of a lack of density. For
example, the preponderance of dispersed land use planning in rural areas contributes to land uses separated by large
distances. As a result, transit services must travel over greater distances to reach destinations that rural dwellers want
to go – either creating large routes or a larger number of routes, which is costly over large distances. In contrast, areas
of more compact development higher density, such as a main street or core with a concentration of businesses can
make practical transit hubs (Noxon Associates Limited 2009). As rural areas are generally bereft of this density, there is
a lack of incentive to provide transit as a service due to the corresponding lack of related challenges (e.g., traffic, smog)
that are present in more urban areas. Planners are in the position to influence land use development patterns as well
as mobility within these patterns. Rural transit can be a non‐starter if it is of the opinion of the planner or those
performing transportation planning duties that all rural dwellers have private automobiles, and therefore transit is not
necessary (Noxon Associates Limited 2009).
Beyond the challenge of distance and density, the first and last mile problem as described above a barrier to use of a
service, and is exacerbated by land use development patterns and infrastructure. There tends to be a lack of transit‐
oriented development in rural areas especially in terms of active transportation infrastructure, primarily due to car
centric planning (Ontario Ministry of Transportation 2012). Active transportation infrastructure influences whether a
potential rider is physically able to get to and from a stop and/or whether they feel safe getting to and from the stop
(Bosworth et al. 2020; Ontario Ministry of Transportation 2012). For example, if one has to traverse along the shoulder
of a highway with a speed limit of 80 km per hour to get to a transit stop, they may choose not to take transit. As noted
in the section above, lack of infrastructure like sidewalks and lighting also plays a role. Additionally, it is important to

Navigating Rural – Final Report 17

note that many new transportation options (see Table 1), or technologies related to transit, rely on connectivity –
broadband and cell phone service, posing a challenge in underserved rural areas (Bosworth et al. 2020).
Beyond land use and infrastructure, a more general environmental barrier that impacts most of Canada is that of
climate and terrain, of which the impacts can range dramatically across rural areas. This can include temperature as
well as precipitation (e.g., snow), which can impact the basic transit infrastructure required (e.g., snow tires for transit
vehicles), the conditions of roads (e.g., snow removal), and the willingness of riders, particularly in cases where active
transit (e.g., walking or biking) is required for the first or last portion of the journey. Similarly, terrain in rural areas can
present as barriers. For example, in rural areas with many lakes, a transit service will have to go around these obstacles,
thereby increasing the distance, and subsequently cost, of the trip. The diversity of Canada’s physical terrain (e.g.,
coastal, mountains, prairies) ensures a range in barriers.
Local Costs of Operation and Potential Sources of Revenue
Of the 43 documents analyzed, 28 discussed financial barriers to establishing rural transit systems. Based on our
analysis, identified financial barriers included the cost and expense related to transit services and the smaller tax bases
and revenue sources of rural communities. The following paragraphs describe these identified barriers.
The high service cost to provide rural transit is the central financial barrier from a government and/or service provider
standpoint (Transport Canada 2006). This high cost is not only upfront (e.g., purchasing vehicles), but long‐term (e.g.,
maintenance, salaries) (Transport Canada 2006). The barrier of cost was ubiquitous across those documents that
discussed financial barriers (28/28). As discussed above, high transit service cost in rural areas is mainly resultant of low
population density and dispersed land uses, meaning that any service will have to travel over longer distances with less
ridership, or revenue generation. While innovations can help to lessen this challenge, the nature of rural places means
it is unlikely to be solvable. Rural transit systems are generally considered unlikely to be profitable using traditional
return on investment calculations. Rather, it is important to account for a broad range of benefits – financial and
otherwise, including those that are more challenging to measure (e.g., access to services) (Economic Development
Research Group 2020; Godavarthy, Mattson, and Ndembe 2014). The general rural nature of this barrier is further
discussed in Section 4.5
High service costs are exacerbated by the fact that rural areas have smaller populations (Kidder 2006; Transport Canada
2006), which means that not only is there a smaller potential ridership, but there are less dollars available to be
allocated toward providing a publicly‐funded transit service (e.g., fewer dollars as a result of a smaller local tax base)
(Kidder 2006). Both can result in negative public perceptions of public transit systems. Additionally, as noted above, the
tax dollars that are collected locally will also be in competition for where they get directed due to limited financial
resources.
Local Governance
Of the 43 documents analyzed, 27 discussed governance‐related barriers to establishing and sustaining rural transit
systems. Based on our analysis, governance barriers included factors related to capacity, competing needs and
priorities, policy and regulation, jurisdiction, and other related factors. Section 4.5 discusses the general rural nature of
these barriers, as the majority of them are common within rural governance structures with respect to transit provision.
The following paragraphs will go on to describe these barriers.
Of all barriers identified relating to governance, capacity was the most commonly cited barrier – impacting the ability
to initiate, operate, and maintain transit systems. Although rural areas tend to have a large amount of social capital,
this can hide gaps in other forms of capital. For example, rural local governments generally have limited human, time,
and financial capacity (Vodden et al. 2019). The responsibilities of local governments have grown over time, but without
compensatory resources to adequately address these growing responsibilities (Polèse 1999; Savoie 2003). This can
result in creased burden on social capital.
Not all local governments in rural communities have staff, and rely on elected officials and volunteers. Where there are
paid staff, it is not uncommon for employees of rural local governments to have broad responsibilities, including
handling multiple portfolios. As a result, local government employees may not be able to take on specialized work, such
Navigating Rural – Final Report 18

as transportation coordination (Kar et al. 2014). Where there is planning capacity, rural planners may be responsible
for all aspects of planning, or may hire external consulting firms (Vodden et al. 2019), so there may not be time to focus
on developing a transit plan or to conduct research on funding options. This type of capacity limitation specific to
planning, makes opportunities like transit‐oriented development (see Section 4.1) difficult.
Additionally, with limited resources and competing needs local governments have to determine where to allocate funds
between a variety of services. As discussed above in the socio‐cultural theme, rural transit can be a polarizing topic,
which can influence available political will (Beck and Mis 2010). Decision makers may not have the evidence to
understand the local benefits of transit (Beck and Mis 2010). This can make it more challenging to support, particularly
if there is competition amongst local priorities (Kar et al. 2014).
Jurisdiction for transit is shared across all levels of government and transit policies and regulations can exist locally,
provincially/territorially, and federally. Policy and regulation take time to change and may unintentionally hinder rural
transit in a variety of ways. Policy such as the one that prevents ridesharing services (e.g., Uber) is one example. Another
example are policies in place related to accessibility. In Ontario all vehicles used for public transportation are required
to be AODA (Accessibility for Ontarians with Disabilities Act) compliant certainly increases transit access while providing
mobility justice (Kar et al. 2014). While intended to promote accessibility, this policy has an unintended consequence
of preventing informal volunteer services (that may not have the funds to acquire an AODA‐compliant vehicle) from
providing rural service, as volunteer service providers are limited by the size of their private vehicle (Kar et al. 2014).
There are myriad related policies and regulations that both positively and negatively influence transit, as well as
influencing related support programs (see Section 4.3).
Related to both the issues of capacity and jurisdiction are barriers related to coordination. The lack of regional
connection (e.g., transit systems that go between communities, as opposed to simply within a community) is a critical
rural challenge (Roddick 2021b, 2021a). Jurisdiction can play a role as a barrier in establishing regional transit service.
With a regional service, agreements would have to be made amongst the regions that the transit service makes stops
in (BC Transit 2018). It can also be challenging to find financial support for regional or inter‐community transit as a
result of jurisdictional differences between the federal and provincial/territorial governments (Roddick 2021a). Even
within a single community, the coordination of existing services is a challenge. Treating services as one family rather
than as splintered entities would likely gain efficiencies and attract greater ridership compared to a framework where
each service acts independently and therefore maximize the efficiency of labour and capital (Kar et al. 2014). Under
such a framework, a service that was once solely for seniors would be able to provide service to youth, for example,
that desire to travel on the same route. However, jurisdictional challenges, as well as related legal barriers can prevent
this type of coordination (Lysenko 2012).
Local Economic Structure
Of the 43 documents analyzed, 27 discussed economic barriers to establishing rural transit systems. Based on our
analysis, economic barriers included factors related to workforce, commuting and travel patterns, and economic
foundations and structure. These factors are identified and discussed below.
Related to workforce, barriers included those related to availability, as well as skills and training. One of the identified
barriers relates to age and available labour. On average across Canada, rural areas tend to have aging populations
(Kidder 2006). Communities with greater proportions of retirees identified a smaller available pool to choose from for
employing individuals in the transit service industry (Roddick 2021b). Even where there is an available labour pool,
barriers were identified in terms of the skills that are required by transit service operators. This includes basic skills
requirements (e.g., licensed drivers or mechanics), as well as competition for those skills (e.g., similar positions with
higher pay in other sectors) (Co+Host 2016). More nuanced skill sets were also identified. For example, it was found
that in some rural areas, there is a skillset mismatch in that while there are licensed drivers, they may not have the soft
skills required when providing a public service to clients (e.g., licensed individuals moving from heavy industry to transit)
(Malo et al. 2018). These soft skills are required to create transit environments that are suitable and a safe and inclusive
environment (Marr 2015).

Navigating Rural – Final Report 19

Economic structuring within and around a community impacts local commuting and travel patterns. For instance, a
commuter‐based economy in an urban‐adjacent rural area will require that an inter‐community transit service that
shuttles employees between their rural origin and urban place of employment (Canadian Urban Transit Association
2005). Where there is a resource‐based economy, shift work can impact intra‐community travel needs and patterns,
necessitating consideration in route planning and schedules, as well as the potential for partnerships between transit
providers and employers (Kar et al. 2014). In the case that a remote resource extraction project is operating on a fly‐in‐
fly‐out (FIFO) basis, the cost of transit, as with other local necessities, may be higher. Other local economy permutations
can also impact transit needs. This includes the number of individuals working remotely, purported to be growing in
rural areas during the COVID‐19 pandemic (Rich, Hall, and Nelson 2021). This also includes seasonal economies, such
as tourism, where there will be varying levels of supply and demand throughout the high season and shoulder season,
which necessitates careful management of infrastructure and human resources for this flux (Canadian Urban Transit
Association 2005). Similar to local economies overall, rural mobility patterns are dictated by factors of place, which will
be further discussed in Section 4.5.
External Funding Programs
Of the 43 documents analyzed, 21 discussed funding barriers to establishing rural transit systems. Based on our analysis,
funding barriers included factors related to funding presence, coordination, structure and type, timeline, and related
requirements. The following paragraphs provide an overview of these barriers, with further analysis provided in Section
4.3.
A common theme that emerged was that there is not enough funding with a focus on rural transit systems and that the
funding that is offered does not match what is required (Transport Canada 2016). For example, capital funding is often
available to purchase vehicles, but not operational costs. However, as described in the financial section above it is these
long‐term operational costs that are cited as representing a large and challenging proportion of the cost of a transit
system (Levesque 2020). Inefficiencies may also arise when funding is not effectively coordinated in a way that will
support different aspects of rural transit provision/maintenance (Kar et al. 2014).
The duration of funding can also render rural transit project a non‐starter. Funding that is given consistently over a
longer period of time is more attractive than funding given at one point in time, as the former aids in making long‐term,
sustainable rural transit more feasible (Levesque 2020). As noted above, rural transit programs are unlikely to be
profitable based on a strict financial measure.
Special funding criteria that must be satisfied in order for the funding to be granted can often pose as a barrier,
effectively making funding exclusive. In certain instances, funding criteria may not match up with local realities
(Transport Canada 2016), which demonstrates the difficulty of making top‐down transit funding responsive to diverse
local needs, rather than responsive to what constitutes as “general rural” needs. Additional structural barriers related
to funding programs are expanded upon below.

4.3. Analysis Results: Existing Transit Support Programs
In response to objective #3 (explore existing transit support programs to understand gaps and challenges), we identified
a preliminary list of support programs (see Table 2). It is challenging to identify a complete list due to the overarching
complexity of the funding landscape. For example, many relevant programs are linked, or are different streams within
an overarching program. Additionally, more general community funding programs (e.g., those offered through charities
or civil society organizations) may not have been identified due to the focus on transit specific supports.
Of the identified programs, all are public (i.e., the programs are led by government). The majority involve the federal
government, followed by involvement of provincial/territorial governments, with the remaining involving local (regional
or municipal) governments. Nearly all of the identified programs are grant programs, with two that include loans.
Although difficult to determine in some cases, the majority of programs were multi‐year. Similarly, nearly all identified
programs fund capital purchases. Although some included funds for studies as well as capital purchases, few allowed
for operational funding.

Navigating Rural – Final Report 20

With regards to program goal or area of focus, many of the identified programs included, but were not exclusive to
transit, meaning eligible applicants could also draw on these funds in support of other types of infrastructure. Many of
the programs aimed to create positive environmental impacts. There were also a small number of programs specifically
related to COVID‐19, or specifically aimed as Indigenous applicants.
Table 2: Identified Programs
Program Name
CleanBC Communities Fund
Community Economic Recovery Infrastructure Program
Community Transportation Assistance Program
Community Transportation Grant Program – Municipal Stream
Green Infrastructure Fund ‐ PAN‐CANADIAN FRAMEWORK ‐ on Clean
Growth and Climate Change

Level of Government
Federal/Provincial
Provincial
Provincial
Provincial/Municipal
Federal/Provincial/Territorial/Municipal

Green Municipal Fund (FCM) ‐ Capital Project: Transportation networks
and commuting options

Municipal/Regional or
Provincial/Territorial

Green Municipal Fund (FCM) ‐ Capital: Transportation networks and
commuting options

Municipal/Regional or
Provincial/Territorial

Green Municipal Fund (FCM) ‐ Pilot project: Reduce fossil fuel use in
fleets
GreenTRIP ‐ Green Transit Incentives Program
Integrated Bilateral Agreement ‐ Public Transit, Regional Development
Corporation

Municipal/Regional or
Provincial/Territorial
Provincial
Provincial

Investing in Canada Plan ‐ Infrastructure Canada ‐ Canada
Infrastructure Bank ‐ Zero‐Emission Buses: Challenge and Opportunity

Federal

Investing in Canada Plan ‐ Infrastructure Canada ‐ Public Transit
Infrastructure Fund ‐ Public Transit Infrastructure

Federal

Investing in Canada Plan ‐ Investing in Canada Infrastructure Program
Investing in Canada Plan ‐ Investing in Canada Infrastructure Program ‐
British Columbia ‐ Rural and Northern Communities Infrastructure

Federal/Provincial/Territorial
Federal/Provincial

Investing in Canada Plan ‐ Municipal Asset Management Program
Investing in Canada Plan ‐ Municipalities for Climate Innovation
Program
Investing in Canada Plan ‐ National Trade Corridors Fund
Investing in Canada Plan ‐ New Building Canada Fund ‐ Provincial‐
Territorial Infrastructure Component – National and Regional Projects

Municipal
Municipal
Federal
Federal

Investing in Canada Plan ‐ New Building Canada Fund ‐ Provincial‐
Territorial Infrastructure Component – Small Communities Fund

Federal

Investing in Canada Plan ‐ The Canada Community‐Building Fund ‐
Formerly the Federal Gas Tax Fund

Federal/Provincial/Territorial
/Municipal

Investing in Canada Plan ‐ The Canada Community‐Building Fund
(Formerly the Federal Gas Tax Fund Small Communities Transportation
Fund)
Northern Transportation Adaptation Initiative Program
Program to Advance Connectivity and Automation in the
Transportation System
Rural Transportation Pilot Program

Federal/Provincial/Territorial
/Municipal
Federal
Federal
Provincial
Navigating Rural – Final Report 21

Program Name
Safe Restart Agreement funding

Level of Government
Federal/Provincial/Territorial

In terms of gaps and challenges related to rural access to existing rural transit supports and programs, six thematic
categories were identified through our analysis: 1) challenges with access to information surrounding to programs; 2)
the extent to which programs account for unique rural considerations; 3) exclusionary criteria; 4) expenses that are
deemed to be eligible under the funding framework; 5) consideration for the human resource capacity of the funding
recipient; and 6) consideration for the financial resource capacity of the funding recipient. Each of these themes is
discussed below in order of prominence.
Accessible Information
One of the emergent themes from the analysis was availability of information, specifically the availability of details as
to the nature of the program (e.g., how to apply, where to apply, deadlines, inclusionary and exclusionary criteria).
Based on the content analysis the lack of accessible information presents a prominent challenge for rural applicants. As
noted in previous sections, rural communities typically face shortages in capacity, particularly human capacity. If a
student research assistant, with dedicated time to identify program details, faced challenges finding clear and available
details, it is reasonable to assume that communities would face the similar challenges, which would be exacerbated
where communities lack dedicated staff specific to grant writing or transit.
In order for a funding program to be accessible generally, but in particular for rural communities, the related
information must be easy to locate and access, as well as clear. Otherwise, those searching for such information may
prematurely cease their search in frustration, leading to low numbers of rural applications.
Rural Considerations
Funding programs were assessed on the basis of whether or not they explicitly accounted for rural considerations,
including consideration of unique rural needs, rural‐targeted funding streams, or dedicated rural funding. Based on the
content analysis and number of items coded, we see that rural considerations, or lack thereof, is also a substantial
barrier to establishing rural transit systems. Few identified programs were rural specific or included dedicated rural
funding.
Our assessment of funding programs revealed that the majority of transit funding programs are inherently skewed
toward urban environments, either passively (e.g., as a result of factors like the capacity required to apply) or actively
(e.g., specific criteria). For example, the consideration of ridership as a factor in determining funding eligibility. Such a
consideration automatically disadvantages rural areas due to their lack of density. One can argue, however, that this
makes rural transit systems in even greater need of funding due to the fact that low ridership over long distances in
rural areas drives up the cost of the service for the provider.
Exclusion
Funding programs were assessed on the basis of whether or not they included exclusionary criteria based on the
geography or target audience. Based on the content analysis the majority of funding programs analyzed did not exclude
any particular rural geography or target audience. The lack of specificity and general nature of funding programs mean
that they could apply to a breadth places and communities, including the diversity across rural. Such flexibility in funding
programs are generally what enable the innovative examples of rural transit discussed in Section 4.4. However, while
rural communities are rarely explicitly excluded, as discussed above and below, this does not remove the challenge of
implicit or inadvertent exclusion.
Eligible Expenses
Funding programs were assessed on the basis of eligible expenses. This included whether there was flexibility in terms
of expenses covered or prescriptive limiting factors in terms of expenses that could be covered, whether the funding
coverage was long‐term and/or consistent or was short‐term and/or single‐use, as well as any other imposed
limitations. Based on the content analysis we identified a range of factors related to expenses.

Navigating Rural – Final Report 22

As noted above, the majority of identified funds focus on funding capital purchases. Such capital costs include
infrastructure such as buses or other vehicles to be used within transit system. However, as noted in sections 4.1 and
4.2, it is the operational costs that are most often the limiting factor in the establishment and implementation of rural
transit services. We found that the costs of operating rural transit systems, including human resources, are typically not
eligible expenses. While the inclusion of capital assets is common amongst eligible expenses for rural transit funding,
this type of funding expense represents funding at a single point in time for a tangible resource. In order to have a
sustainable service there is a need for long term and/or consistent funding for day‐to‐day operations, as without this
type of funding, the capital infrastructure is impractical due to the mismatch between the level of funding for it and the
level of funding for the human resources that make its operation and efficient use possible.
Human Capacity
Funding programs were assessed on the basis of whether human capacity related criteria (e.g., a specific skillset or
existing plan) were required in order to secure funding. The majority of the funding programs analyzed did not convey
that a specific level or type of human capacity was required, aside from the capacity required to identify, understand,
and create the application. However, it is best to interpret this finding with caution as rural local government employees
often take on multiple roles in their work, not specializing in one area of expertise. For example, in the case of rural
planners, it is rare that a rural local government would have a planner dedicated to transportation planning. A rural
planner, if they exist, may not have the specialized knowledge and skills required to implement a transportation plan,
especially if they are the only planner. These findings are consistent with those found in Section 4.2.
Financial Capacity
Lastly, funding programs were assessed on the basis of whether they considered factors related to financial capacity,
including limited available financial resources, sliding scale based on size and/or capacity, requirements for upfront
financial contributions from applicants, and long‐term financial burden. Based on the content analysis there is minimal
consideration for financial capacity in existing programs. The majority of funding programs do not cater toward the
financial capacity that is typical of rural areas, with the consideration for financial capacity being largely absent. In this
way, funding programs are more geared toward transit system establishment in urban areas where finance is not as
likely to pose such a limiting factor. Upfront costs and anticipated long‐term financial burdens have the potential to
effectively cease any sort of meaningful conversation or progress toward the establishment of transit systems in rural
areas, as these make rural transit appear to be cost‐prohibitive and a non‐starter. This, of course, is also dependent on
other factors, such as political will, the extent to which transit is recognized as a public good, as well as the political
leaning of the area (see Section 4.2).

4.4. Analysis Results: Existing Rural Transit Innovations
Based on the content analysis we compiled a list of 117 unique rural Canadian examples where communities met
barriers with innovative solutions. We took a broad approach to innovation, including new or improved products,
processes, or organizational methods (Working Party of National Experts on Scientific and Technology Indicators 2005).
“New” was also understood to be new to a particular place or application. All 117 examples were plotted onto a publicly
accessible web map, which can be found at:
https://selkirk.maps.arcgis.com/apps/webappviewer/index.html?id=17c858b73a014fbfa55d712141847a73.
For each example we collected and mapped the following attributes:
 Proximity to urban centres;
 Transit system type;
 Transit system ownership;
 Geographic scope of the service; and
 Population and population density.
Of the 117 cases, three innovative cases were chosen to conduct further analyses and are presented on the map as
rural transit example vignettes (see call out boxes) (Federation of Canadian Municipalities 2021a; Government of British
Columbia n.d.; Partners for Climate Protection 2021a).

Navigating Rural – Final Report 23

This list of innovations should not be considered
exhaustive. For example, the project team acknowledges
that there are examples of rural transit systems that have
not been publicly documented and therefore could not
be included as primary data collection was outside the
scope of this project. Other examples of transit services
were omitted from our list (e.g., BC Ferries) as while they
include rural, they are not rural community or region
specific. The following sections will summarize the details
of the examined innovative systems.
Proximity to an Urban Centre
Each example was mapped in terms of proximity to an
urban centre. For our purposes, an urban centre was
defined as a population of over 100,000 people.
Examples were classified as one of the following
classifications (see Figure 2):
1) Urban Adjacent: less than 200 km away from an
urban centre
2) Rural: over 200 km away from an urban centre
3) Remote: significant distance (over 800 km) away
from an urban centre, or separated by a physical
barrier (e.g., fly in or boat in)
4) General rural/urban adjacent: urban adjacent,
but it also serves surrounding rural
communities.
5) Urban: based in an urban centre, but it also
serves the surrounding urban adjacent rural
areas.

Vignette #1: Cochrane On‐demand
Local Transit, Cochrane, AB
COLT is the first of its kind ‐ a responsive on‐demand,
all‐day transit system. Community input resulted in an
innovative approach to the transit challenges and the
successful implementation of a low‐cost alternative
transit system specifically designed to meet the
community's needs. By booking a specific date, time
and location through their mobile app, website, or
phone, the bus will only go where it has been
requested, avoiding unpopulated stops and allowing it
to operate at one‐third the cost of traditional fixed‐
route systems. Efficient delivery of the service is based
on the implementation of innovative software which
provides up to the minute real‐time routing data.
COLT’s popularity is a testament to its success, with
20,000 passenger trips within the first 5 months
benefiting the environment with an estimated 12
tonnes of CO2 reductions. Prioritizing accessibility and
affordability, COLT uses wheelchair‐accessible buses
and allows bookings by phone for those without
internet access, while still offering one of the lowest
monthly pass prices in Alberta. While Cochrane may not
be seen as rural, this small city’s approach offers
transferable lessons as the agility of the on‐demand
system allows for matching service levels to ridership
demand, resulting in less lost revenue while still
meeting service demands.

The following summarizes trends observed based on
proximity to urban centres.
Amongst the innovative examples, the most common were in rural areas adjacent to urban centres (58/117). If those
classified as general rural/urban adjacent (4/117) and urban (2/117) are added, the total is 64/117 or 55% of all
examples. Of these examples, the largest cluster is seen in southern Ontario. This cluster of services is likely explained
by close proximity and travel patterns, whereby individuals either choose to, or must to live further from the Greater
Toronto and Hamilton Area (GTHA) where they can pay lower rents; as a tradeoff, they commute via public transit into
the GTHA for employment (Leach et al. 2007). There is also a cluster of urban adjacent cases in British Columbia’s Lower
Mainland, Capital Region, and Kelowna area.
The second most common was the general rural classification (47/117). Examples within this classification are primarily
found in the Atlantic provinces or British Columbia (BC). The most prominent cluster of general rural cases is found in
British Columbia, likely as a result of BC Transitii, a provincial Crown corporation that, in collaboration with Local
Government and First Nations, delivers public transit services (BC Transit n.d.).
Of the 117 identified examples, only six were classified as remote. Remote examples were found in the Yukon, northern
BC, Haida Gwaii, and along the Pacific coast

ii BC Transit is one of few such large‐scale transit authorities in North America.

Navigating Rural – Final Report 24

Figure 2: Innovative Examples Classified by Urban Proximity

Transit System Type and Ownership
Examples were mapped by system type and ownership, summarized in Tables 3 and 4, with trends discussed below.
Table 3: Innovative Examples by System Type
System Type
Combination of fixed‐route and on‐demand
Fixed‐route
On‐demand
Multimodal
Carshare
Rideshare
Flex route

Number of Examples
46
30
18
10
8
4
1

Table 4: Innovative Examples by Ownership
System ownership type
Public partnership
Public
Not‐for‐profit
Public‐private partnership
First Nations
Private for profit
First Nations private for profit
First Nations public‐private partnership

Number of Examples
45
43
14
9
2
2
1
1
Navigating Rural – Final Report 25

BC is dominated by partnerships between BC Transit and local
governments, First Nations, and contracted transit service
providers. BC Transit related service types include fixed‐
route, a mix of fixed‐route and on‐demand, and a small
number of on‐demand (see Figure 3). This trend highlights the
importance of BC Transit as a creator of economies of scale
when it comes to rural transit, where partners benefit by
gaining access to BC Transit’s resources, including
infrastructure, human capacity, and financial capacity (BC
Transit 2020). The tradeoff of BC Transit’s economies of scale
appears to be that that service types are often less flexible or
innovative, demonstrated by the dominance of traditional
transit.
Ontario has the greatest diversity in terms of service and
ownership type (see Figure 3). While public ownership
prevails in Ontario, there are also examples of not for profits,
public‐private partnerships, and public partnerships. The
diversity of service types includes: a combination of fixed and
on‐demand, on‐demand, flex, fixed, rideshare, and
multimodal.
Moving east to the Atlantic provinces, there is a split between
transit services that are owned by the public and not for profit
sectors, with a minority of ownership types being public‐
private partnerships. Not for profits dominate service delivery
(see Figure 3). With the variety of ownership types, as well as
the relative freedom that comes with not having to adhere to
the structure, legislation, and regulation guiding a Crown
corporation like BC Transit, comes variety and innovation in
service type, with cases representing fixed, on‐demand,
multimodal and car share service types. It appears that that
the variety of services offered in the Atlantic provinces are
due in part to the more flexible nature of one of the dominant
ownership regimes. Operationalized, this flexibility offers a
variety of service modes that are responsive and flexible to
local needs and conditions (Lysenko 2012). However, it is also
important to note, that while potentially more flexible and
innovative, the not for profit systems are also more
precarious.

Vignette #2: Highway 16 Action
Plan ‐ BC North Coast and Interior
The Highway 16 corridor spans from Prince Rupert
to Prince George and connects many rural and
Indigenous communities. Known as the “Highway
of Tears”, Highway 16 has been the site of
disappearances and murders of Indigenous
women. British Columbia’s Ministry of
Transportation and Infrastructure allocated $10.2
million in funding through 2024/25 to support a
Five‐Point Action Plan with the goal of
implementing an innovative multi‐faceted
approach focused on community needs, including:
safety, education, and economic opportunity.
BC Transit will be working alongside existing long‐
distance transit providers while leveraging its
shared service model with expansion into the
surrounding rural communities. The focus will be
on establishing an inter‐community transit system
with return same‐day transportation from smaller
communities to their nearest larger neighbours.
Twelve remote and Indigenous communities will
also receive funding to purchase community
vehicles in addition to four years of operational
support. Routes, schedules, and bus fares will be
set based on the specific needs of communities.
Indigenous peoples will receive driver education,
supporting individual mobility, as well as
employment and ride sharing opportunities.
Rider and road safety will be improved with the
installation of cameras, bus shelters, and pull‐outs
along Highway 16. A collaboration working group
will be formed focused on coordinating existing
private, public, and not for profit organizations to
ensure the locals are provided with safe and
reliable transit.

We were able to identify few examples in the Prairie
provinces or in the Territories, and thus trends are challenging to identify. It is unclear if this is a result of limited publicly
accessible information or a result of few existing examples. In the past Saskatchewan had the Saskatchewan
Transportation Company, a Crown corporation similar to BC Transit, however, it was shuttered in 2017 (CBC Radio The
Morning Edition 2017). The majority of services are owned either by the public sector or by First Nations. Due to the
remote nature of the rural north, creativity in service type is necessary for the sustainability of any transit service as the
greater distances between destinations lessens the viability of a fixed‐route service (Roddick 2021b, 2021a). Despite
the challenge that rural fixed‐route services, particularly in rural remote areas, there are a couple of examples in the
Yukon. These fixed‐route services are made more robust with the addition of multimodal services servicing the vicinity
of Whitehorse. In the Northwest Territories, a more flexible service option of a mixture of fixed and on‐demand service
exists for the Yellowknife area.

Navigating Rural – Final Report 26

Figure 3: Innovative Examples by Ownership and System Type

Service Geography
The innovative examples were mapped based on the service area. In this respect, there were three classifications (see
Table 5).
Table 5: Innovative Examples by Service Geography
Classification
Description
Inter‐community
Examples operate in multiple communities
One‐way collector Examples are commuter‐focused
Single community
Examples are contained within a single community

Number of Examples
59
8
50

Among the examples, rural transit services that operated on an inter‐community basis were the most common service
geography type (see Figure 4). There is clustering of inter‐community services in British Columbia and Ontario, with
additional examples spread across New Brunswick, Nova Scotia, and Newfoundland and Labrador. Again, in BC service
delivery and coordination is at least in part due to BC Transit, which may explain the dominance of intercommunity
service in the province. Many of the BC examples demonstrate a partnership between BC Transit and multiple rural
communities, creating a regional transit service. In south and eastern Ontario, the inter‐community cluster is likely
explained by close proximity and commuting patterns for employment and leisure opportunities. This is also where we
see examples that include larger (50,000‐100,000) population centres. As the Atlantic provinces are smaller, inter‐
community service can be more efficient and viable.

Navigating Rural – Final Report 27

Figure 4: Innovative Examples by Service Geography

Transit services operating in a single community were the second most common service geography type. Single
community services are dispersed throughout the country, but there are small clusters between this service type and
inter‐community services in BC and Ontario. The two service types have the potential to complement one another in
that an intercommunity service can bring riders from one community to another, but once they are in the community,
they can get around by using a single community service. In addition to the clusters, this service type is found in every
province and territory (excepting Nunavut where no examples were identified).
Single community transit systems that are not clustered with inter‐community service highlight mobility challenges for
rural dwellers, and posing barriers to inter‐community employment, service access, and partaking in social and
recreational activities. The is discussed in Section 4.2. Dedicated, one‐way collector services were found throughout
the country, although this service geography type is the least common.
Types of Innovations
Each of the identified examples incorporated an element of innovation, but in different ways. In order to better
understand the innovations, used the following definition of innovation to guide an analysis of the examples: “the
implementation of a new or significantly improved product (good or service), or process, a new marketing method, or a
new organizational method in business practices, workplace organization or external relations” (Working Party of
National Experts on Scientific and Technology Indicators 2005, p. 46).

A short list of innovations was created. To be included on the short list, the transit system had to have an interesting
or unconventional approach to one or more of the following:
 Funding
 Planning
 Scheduling
 Transit type
Navigating Rural – Final Report 28






Cost reduction
Resource allocation
Technology
Marketing

Providing representation across provinces and
territories was also considered when choosing cases
for the short list.
We then used these considerations to assist in
assigning each selected example into one or more of
the following innovation categories:
1) Innovation related to a product;
2) Innovation related to a process;
3) Innovation related to an organizational
method; and
4) Innovation related to marketing method.
The innovations found did not necessarily have to be
innovative on a global scale in order to be considered.
Rather, we considered location and context and as
such the innovations identified may be completely
new, new to an area, or simply a new use of an existing
asset. The findings are summarized below.

Vignette #3: Société d’innovation en
environnement (SIE) and YHC
Environnement pilot project
Six municipalities (Plessisville, Nicolet, Bromont,
Témiscouata‐sur‐le‐Lac, Rivière‐du‐Loup, and Sainte‐
Julienne) in Quebec have successfully implemented a
low‐cost, energy efficient electric car‐sharing transit
system in small and medium sized rural communities to
reduce the use of personal vehicles and encourage green
public transportation. The pilot project, SAUVéR, was
started by the Société d’innovation en environnement
(SIE) and YHC Environnement in 2016 and funded by the
Green Municipal Fund of the Federation of Canadian
Municipalities. This innovative project established a low‐
cost, green public transit systems in small municipalities
that could not sustain traditional public transit.
Each municipality was given one or two electric vehicles
to integrate into their fleet, reducing fossil fuel vehicle
use. Additionally, these electric vehicles could then be
shared with the community through the vehicle’s
integrated fleet management/car‐share software. The
built‐in car‐share software can record vehicle usage, such
as how far they were driven, the duration of the trips, and
how often they were used over the course of the three‐
year pilot project.

Innovation Related to a Product
There were 32 examples that included a product‐based
innovation. In terms of rural public transit, the product
can be understood as the capital component of the
The data revealed that the incorporation of the electric
service. An example of where this class of innovation is
cars into the fleet reduced all the fleets’ collective
employed is the not‐for‐profit Spark – Wildsight service
greenhouse gas emissions by 59.5 tonnes of carbon
in Columbia Valley, British Columbia (Keitch 2021). The
dioxide equivalent (CO2e) and saved them $21,018 in gas
service offers an inter‐community car sharing program
expenses. The SAUVéR projects success is in large part
that uses electrical vehicles. The product, being
due to its ability to address numerous challenges such as
electrical vehicles, are innovative in that they deliver an
municipal fleet operational costs and environmental
essential service while minimizing their carbon
impact, the cost of installation of electric charging
footprint, all while responding to barriers. As inter‐
infrastructure, and alternative public transit, all with a
community travel is often a need identified in rural
single solution. As a result of their success, a further 10
areas (Federation of Canadian Municipalities 2021b;
Quebec and 5 New Brunswick municipalities joined the
Roddick 2021b, 2021a), the Spark – Wildsight service
project in 2020.
leverages the benefits of its innovative product (e.g.,
lower maintenance fees that are associated with
electric vehicles) in order to provide a needed service (Keitch 2021). The carsharing aspect of this service also represents
an innovation in that each vehicle is operating more efficiently than a vehicle that is singularly owned and used. The
carsharing model also provides more flexibility and autonomy for those that are able to drive when compared to a
typical fixed‐route bus service.
Innovation Related to a Process
There were nine examples identified that included a process‐based innovation, something related to the processes
guiding service delivery. An example this is the Agence Metropolitaine de Transport (AMT)’s Village de la Gare project
in Ville de Mont Ste. Hilaire in Quebec (Partners for Climate Protection 2021b). This project intends to employ an
innovative long‐term planning process whereby the AMT is proposing to create a dense built‐up area within walking
Navigating Rural – Final Report 29

distance of the Village de la Gare train station. The density target includes 1,000 residential units mixed with commercial
and institutional uses. This planning process is revolutionary within the context of rural transit, as a lack of density and
walkability, coupled with generally long distances between destinations represents one of the greatest challenges that
advocates of rural transit face when trying to make the case for rural transit (Partners for Climate Protection 2021b).
The Village de la Gare project’s planning process promotes ridership, as those living in the village can commute to
Montréal, and those outside of the village have reasons and the means to come to the village for commercial and
institutional uses.
Innovation related to Organizational Method
The dominant category by far, 84 identified examples included an organizational method‐based innovation. An
innovation in organizational method could include partnerships between service provider organizations, or something
that the organization leverages. The majority of cases in BC could be considered as this type of innovation due to the
uniqueness of BC Transit (Government of British Columbia 2020). A specific example of this innovation class is the West
Kootenay Transit System which is an inter‐community transit service. This public partnership between BC Transit,
Regional District of Central Kootenay, Regional District of Kootenay Boundary, and the City of Nelson allows for an inter‐
community transit service (BC Transit 2021). This partnership leverages BC Transit’s economy of scale and serves as a
solution to many common barriers that rural areas face in establishing a transit system, which is a lack of the
aforementioned resources.
Innovation related to Marketing
There were two identified examples that included a marketing method‐based innovation. Marketing‐based innovations
effectively work to increase ridership by increasing awareness of the transit service offerings. This awareness is
sustained in the collective consciousness of the ridership pool through branding, which riders can identify and identify
with (BC Transit 2018). One of the barriers to establishing rural transit systems (see Section 4.2), is a lack of information
regarding an existing or planned transit service, which ultimately prevents the maximum potential level of ridership
from being realized. In addition to increasing awareness of a service, marketing and branding can also increase the
desirability of a service by changing public perception of the service over time. For instance, in a rural area, transit
marketing may focus on the convenience of the service compared to that of a private vehicle. North Bay Transit is an
example of where this innovation class has been leveraged (North Bay 2020). The system provides a combination of
fixed‐route and on‐demand service. In addition to requiring Smart DRIVER training for their drivers and implementing
a dynamic dispatching app to match riders travelling in the same direction so as to decrease duplication, the service
increases its desirability through marketing by offering incentive programs (North Bay 2020). North Bay Transit also
offers a Youth Travel Pass where up to three children can ride for free if they are accompanied by a fare‐paying adult
(North Bay 2020). This both provides financial relief for families with children and second normalizes transit from an
early age, which may effectively increase overall ridership due to decreased stigmas surrounding public transit.
The above categories of innovation are not mutually exclusive. Many examples encompassed multiple innovation
classes. An example is the COLT RideCo serving Cochrane, Alberta (see Vignette #1). The COLT is an on‐demand, one‐
way collector and single community pilot project that uses bus stops for an on‐demand service, which decreases the
cost of the service since it only runs when there is demand. COLT also connects regionally to Southland’s On‐It service.
This regional connection between the two services provides interim connection to the Brentwood light rail transit (LRT)
station in downtown Calgary. COLT employs an innovative product in that its on‐demand software matches riders with
transit in real time. COLT’s innovative organizational method of public ownership allows for a cost reduction of sixty‐six
percent (Federation of Canadian Municipalities 2021a).
Different types of innovations were found throughout activities and outcomes. In some cases, one influenced the other,
with innovative activities and processes resulting in innovative outcomes and products. For this reason, it is difficult to
separate activities from outcomes. Additionally, the lack of comprehensive information available, along with the fact
that primary research was beyond the scope of this project, makes it difficult to understand this relationship.
When considering innovations alongside the barriers identified in Section 4.2, the majority of innovations respond to a
core group of barriers:
 Meeting a specific need;
Navigating Rural – Final Report 30





Decreasing service cost;
Addresses the capacity limitations; and
Leveraging of funding opportunities.

The innovations identified responded less so to the following barriers:
 Barriers within the natural and built environments; and
 Barriers within workforce availability and training.
Lastly, there are those barriers that cannot be overcome by innovation easily, if at all:
 Dispersed land use patterns;
 Low population density;
 Aging and / or declining populations;
 Funding structures; and
 Transit policy and regulation.

4.5. Analysis: Place‐Based Differences
Rural communities share characteristics that make them innately “rural,”. However, there are also differences
between rural communities and regions. Conditions of place ‐ the unique combinations of economic, socio‐cultural,
and environmental factors ‐ play a critical role in influencing and impacting community conditions (Markey, Breen, et
al. 2019). It is recognized that place specific information is needed to design services – like transit – that are appropriate
to circumstances and assets (Markey, Ryser, and Halseth 2020; McCue, Tolentino, and MacDonald 2014).
We identified place specific themes and linked these themes to the typology of rural barriers (see Section 4.2). Based
on our analysis we found that place‐based trends can be understood as operating on three levels (see Figure 5):
1) Macro Rural Trends: Apply to all rural areas, limited influence of place beyond separating rural
characteristics from urban ones.
2) Meso Rural Trends: Apply over large areas based on a common place‐based characteristic.
3) Micro Rural Trends: Apply to specific places based on unique or near unique place‐based characteristics.
Details related to each level are discussed below.
Figure 5: Levels of Place‐Based Influence

Macro Rural Trends

Meso Rural
Trends

Macro Rural Trends
Macro rural trends typically apply across all
rural areas. When we think about rural, there
are certain characteristics that come to mind
(e.g., distance and density). Although there is
a multiplicity of rural contexts, these core
characteristics hold true across rural areas in
that they present themselves as barriers to
transit. There is little influence of place on
these trends beyond the largely uniform rural
characteristics that separate these areas from
urban.

Micro Rural
Trends

The trends that typically apply consistently
across rural areas are tied primarily to socio‐
cultural and environmental facets of place:
demographics and patterns of development
(e.g., settlement patterns; land use patterns; general development patterns).

Navigating Rural – Final Report 31

Trends related to the demographics and development patterns that are generally consistent across rural areas relate
to other ubiquitous rural barriers. Examples of these general, macro rural trends include:
 Demographic: aging population; low population density
 Sociocultural: the predominance of car culture; higher levels of social capital compared to urban
 Capacity: rural jurisdictions generally have less capacity to establish and maintain transit systems
 Natural and built environment: dispersed land use; general lack of transit‐supportive infrastructure
 Funding: absence or general misalignment of local needs and what is funded
 Financial: high cost to provide rural transit as a service
However, it is important to note that for each macro trend there are communities that prove to be exceptions. For
example, an innovative example of where barriers that follow the macro rural trend are being circumvented is the
example of Agence Métropolitaine de Transport (AMT)/Village de la Gare program in the urban‐adjacent rural area of
Ville de Mont‐Saint‐Hilaire of Montréal, Québec (see Section 4.4). The project endeavors to overcome the macro rural
barriers relating to demographic and the natural and built environment by developing a dense, highly walkable, mixed‐
use community where residents will be within walking distance to the train station that connects to Montréal (Partners
for Climate Protection 2021b).
Meso Rural Trends
Meso rural trends do not apply universally across rural, but were found to apply over large areas based on place‐
based characteristics. The meso‐level trends identified as being barriers to establishing rural transit systems occur
over relatively large geographies and relate to economic, socio‐cultural, and environmental facets of place.
Economic
Travel Patterns: Travel patterns related to labour and economic activities influence transit. These functional
economic regions differ in size, pattern, and need (Freshwater, Simms, and Ward 2014). Labour travel patterns,
particularly related to commuter patterns act as an influence on rural transit systems. Rural communities and
regions that are urban adjacent (e.g., southern Ontario, BC’s Lower Mainland) can act as sources of labour to
urban job markets, creating a predictable economic need for transit service and reliable market demand. For
instance, in southern Ontario there is a cluster of rural transit systems that supports travel between
communities for work. For rural communities without a major urban influence, travel patterns within a
functional region differ. For example, a functional region that contains multiple communities can demonstrate
movement between communities for work and recreation.
The rise of working from home brought about by the COVID‐19 pandemic has potentially influenced these
travel patterns in ways that are currently not clear and require further research. Potential implications include
a decrease in the necessity of commuter economies, either in the short‐ or long‐term, will may impact the
provision of transit services, particularly in urban adjacent regions.
Development, Investment, and Capacity: Rural areas where there is less rural investment and/or where there
are fewer local development resources appear to be at a disadvantage in that there are fewer formal resources
to support public transit. In the absence of rural transit investments from the public and/or private sector,
social capital often appears in order to fill gaps in service. For example, we identified a cluster of flexible, locally
responsive rural transit systems in the Atlantic provinces, that were instigated and maintained through social
capital ‐ volunteers, charities, and not for profits. While social capital is often high in rural areas, we observed
a difference between those regions with more obvious investment and support for rural transit (e.g., BC
Transit) in comparison to those without. In the latter we saw examples of leveraging existing local assets (e.g.,
social capital, private vehicles), working with what they already have in order to provide innovative, but
precarious rural transit.
An example of social capital in action is the Crest Bus Service in Newfoundland and Labrador that operates
primarily out of the community of Clarenville and travels between 12 communities (Town of Clarenville 2020).

Navigating Rural – Final Report 32

The service caters to seniors and those with moderate mobility impairments. The non‐profit is community‐run
by volunteers.
Socio‐Cultural
Transit Disadvantaged: Those rural populations that are transit disadvantaged (e.g., elderly, youth, women,
those with visible or invisible disabilities, Indigenous and other racialized individuals, low‐income individuals)
also tend to be marginalized in other ways (Mahali and Ray‐Yol 2020; Marr 2015). Just as there are a range
different transit needs, these populations also tend to face different barriers to transit, including prejudice,
discrimination, lack of general access, and/or violence when using public transit. Intersectionality between
groups further complicates this and can create additional barriers for regions.
For example, Highway 16, also known as the Highway of Tears, is a stretch of highway between Prince George
and Prince Rupert in BC that has historically lacked public transit. There are multiple First Nations communities
situated along this over 700 km long stretch of the highway (Government of British Columbia n.d.). There are
safety issues for those travelling along Highway 16, but particularly for Indigenous women and girls. A
disproportionate amount of Indigenous women and girls have gone missing and been murdered along this
route (Carrier Sekani Familty Services n.d.; Roddick 2021a). The call for safe travel options along Highway 16
was underscored in 2018 when Greyhound Canada’s northern bus route along Highway 16 was shuttered
(Roddick 2021a). Addressing this complex situation goes beyond transit. Any transit system currently operating
or proposed to operate along this stretch of highway must address underlying, systemic issues as part of truth
and reconciliation, in addition to addressing the infrastructural safety issues inherent with travelling along this
stretch of highway. See Vignette #2 for additional details.
Environmental
Climate Considerations: There are varying degrees of seasonality across Canada, impacting the provision of
transit. With the exception of the Lower Mainland and southern Vancouver Island regions of BC, every province
and territory in Canada has winters that are characterized by snow cover and temperatures below zero degrees
Celsius (Krueger 2021). This impacts road safety, especially in remote rural areas that may face challenges
related to snow removal services, as well as challenges with ridership getting to and from a transit stop. Freeze
and thaw cycles that are indicative of seasonal climates impact road infrastructure, as well as the vehicles
themselves, increasing the cost of maintenance (Rodrigue 2020). In the Arctic regions where permafrost exists,
there are additional challenges in establishing transit systems, as permafrost is damaged by heavy machinery
that may be used to establish transit infrastructure such as roads, or the mode of transit itself (e.g. a heavy bus
travelling over the permafrost) (Krueger 2021). Variations in climate across physiographic regions also have
meso scale impacts.
Physiographic Considerations: The physical environment can either help or hinder rural transit systems; it
impacts the viability of different modes of transit and, as a result, influences capacity, reliability, the physical
extent that the service can extend over, and the cost of service (Rodrigue 2020). Canada is divided into seven
physiographic regions: Appalachian Uplands, Great Lakes – St. Lawrence Lowlands, Canadian Shield, Hudson
Bay Lowland, Interior Plains, Arctic Lands, and Cordillera (see the Atlas of Canada:
https://atlas.gc.ca/phys/en/index.html). Each region is divided into subregions of varying physical environment
and terrain (Government of Canada 2019).
Generally, the spatial structure of transportation system networks remains static over time. This is due to two
factors. First is physical conditions. The natural environment can be modified in order to establish transit
networks, although it may be costly and/or require significant engineering (Rodrigue 2020). Transit patterns to
follow the path of least resistance (or least cost), resulting in land transit patterns through valleys and plains
(Rodrigue 2020). Second is historical patterns, where existing transit patterns tend to be reinforced by new
transit infrastructure (Rodrigue 2020).
Considering the physiographic regions in Canada, each with differing topography that presents differing
challenges to the establishment of transit systems. Much of Canadian physiography poses a physical
Navigating Rural – Final Report 33

impediment to transit systems. In assessing the physiographic regions and their impact on the establishment
of transit systems, we found that physiographic attributes such as plains, valleys and plateaus present the least
physical impediment to transit.
Micro Rural Trends
Micro trends are those were found to apply specifically to certain places, therefore demonstrating the greatest
influence of place, including economic, socio‐cultural, and environmental facets.
Economic
Economic Structure: Building on the macro trend of travel patterns and functional regions, the specific way in
which the economy of a rural region or community is structured can influence the type and level of transit
service needed. This can include factors related to economic diversification, industry and employment type,
and seasonality – all of which impact market size, needs, and travel patterns.
For example, in single industry, natural resource‐based economies, there is a dominance of shift work
scheduling. To serve this specific need may require coordination between the transit service provider and the
central employer for scheduling. Given the likelihood that a major industrial employer would be outside the
boundaries of the local government, this also requires a transit system that works across jurisdictions.
Efficiencies can also be achieved through a transit network that eliminates duplication of services for other
individuals who are not necessarily travelling to primary industry site, but may be on their way to a destination
along the same route.
Other examples include seasonal economies, as well as service‐based economies, which have different needs
and opportunities than the example described above. For example, tourism‐based economies have the
benefit of a greater potential market, contributing to critical mass required to make transit sustainable.
Similar to the above example, greater efficiencies can be achieved when duplication of service is eliminated.
As noted previously, increased remote work also adds a new and largely un‐studied influence on transit.
It is also prudent to consider the intersection of demographic factors like gender alongside economic structure.
For example, the continued dominance of men in many natural resource‐based sectors contribute to the
isolation of women in the case of single vehicle households and a lack of available transit. This can be
exacerbated by other factors, such as that in some regions it is not uncommon for women in rural areas to not
hold a driver’s license or to cease driving at an earlier age than men (Lysenko 2012).
Socio‐Cultural
Demographics: Although the majority of rural areas tend to have aging populations, there are notable
departures from this trend. For example, the Indigenous population in Canada is on average younger than the
non‐Indigenous population (Statistics Canada 2017). The average age of Inuit Peoples is 27.7, 30.6 for First
Nations Peoples, and 34.7 for Métis Peoples, all younger than the average age of 40.9 for Canada’s non‐
Indigenous population (Statistics Canada 2017). The younger age structure of Indigenous Peoples influences
patterns of movement and impacts transit needs.
Another notable example are rural communities that are amenity migrant destinations for remote working
professionals. Local mobility patterns will be different owing to younger populations, differing types of work,
lifestyles, and expectations. Examples of this type of community where the rural population skews younger are
places like Revelstoke BC. Data from the 2016 Census shows that the most populous age group was those
between 30 and 34 years old (Statistics Canada 2019), with an average age lower than that of the provincial
and national averages (Columbia Basin Rural Development Institute 2021).
Environmental
Remoteness: Although most rural areas have large distances between places due to the predominance of low‐
density land use development patterns, there is a spectrum of what constitutes as a “long” distance to travel
Navigating Rural – Final Report 34

whether you are referring to urban adjacent, remote rural, or those communities that are in between the two.
In remote rural areas, distances travelled are significantly further. And while remoteness is a key place‐based
influence, it is the least well represented within the existing literature.
Remoteness tends to increase as one travels north in Canada, with the Yukon, Northwest Territories and
Nunavut being among the most remote areas of Canada. Remoteness impacts the amount of time one must
travel to live, work, and play, as well as the type of transportation required (all with varying associated costs).
Figure 6 shows the various transportation types used in census subdivisions (CSDs) throughout Canada. In the
southern portion of the country, main road networks, and regular ferry services are dominant (Alasia et al.
2017). When we begin moving north the more dominant type of transportation is a combination of air, winter
road, charter boat and/or seasonal ferry service (Alasia et al. 2017). These transportation types are generally
greater in cost compared to transit services that use main road networks. There are few examples of CSDs with
unorganized or no transportation infrastructure (Alasia et al. 2017).
Figure 6: Transportation types used across Canada by census subdivision (Alasia et al. 2017)
Dawson City is an example of a
rural remote area in the Yukon
that has had to circumvent the
challenges of remoteness in its
establishment of a transit
system. The Dawson City
Rideshare is a program
facilitated through a social
network, making it an informal
(and therefore more flexible)
form of transit. It has had
success in filling the gaps in
formal transit service provision
though providing a citizen‐run
program via a Facebook page
where trips within the
community can be coordinated
on an as‐needed basis (Roddick
2021b, 2021a).
Islands are remote in that they
are physically separated by a body of water. Within our analysis island transit systems were primarily explored
from an intra‐island community perspective as opposed to the connections between island and mainland.
Interaction between Macro, Meso, and Micro Place‐Based Trends
The aforementioned place‐based trends – macro rural, meso rural, and micro rural – are not mutually exclusive, but
rather, there is intersection and overlap between them.
For example, natural and built environment patterns in the form of development patterns (macro rural trend),
remoteness (micro rural trend), and seasonal climate (meso rural trend) all interrelate. Remote areas have multiple
challenges, including establishing transit infrastructure over large distances and challenging geography, but also
require riders to be able, and motivated to deal with challenging climates as part of the first and last mile problem,
which is often much more than 1 mile in remote areas. In places like Dawson City, Yukon, where winters are harsh,
the absence of transit‐supportive infrastructure (e.g., a shelter to wait in for a formal transit service to arrive) may be
a non‐starter for someone who would otherwise take advantage of the service.

Navigating Rural – Final Report 35

There are additional interactions between the natural and built environment (meso rural trend) in the form of
dispersed land use development (macro rural trend) and demographics in the form of low‐density settlement (macro
rural trend). As land uses are further separated over distances, the incentive to densify can decrease, posing
challenges to the design of an efficient transit service.
Another point of intersection of place‐based themes that pose barriers to rural transit is between the capacity of local
governments (macro rural trend), the financial burden of transit service (macro rural trend), and organizational
structuring (meso rural trend). Rural areas generally tend to have less capacity in the way of human and financial
resources, which puts them at a disadvantage in terms of establishing or maintaining a transit system. We have
observed jurisdictions where capacity limitations lead to establishing informal, volunteer‐ or community‐led transit
services that attempt to address the absence of formal services.
Economic structure (micro rural trend) and low population density (macro rural trend) also interact with one another.
Where there is a seasonal economic base (e.g., tourism) the fluctuation in the tourist population during the high
season may result in a system that is over‐taxed in peak periods and overkill for low periods, or where services are
lost outside peak periods, with financial complications if the system is paid for through another mechanism beyond
rider fees (e.g., municipal taxes). The same interaction can be seen in resource‐based economies that operate on a
fly‐in‐fly‐out (FIFO) basis, where employees that fly into a rural remote community are not contributing to property
taxes, although they may be using local transit services during their shifts.
Implications of place‐based influences on rural transit are further discussion in Section 5.

5. IMPLICATIONS
The following section draws on the findings from Section 4, identifying and discussing implications for policy and
practice. A summary of key findings and implications is presented in Section 6.1 and opportunities for future research
are identified in Section 6.2.

The Impact of Knowledge Gaps
Our analysis of the literature related to rural transit identifies several critical factors for consideration. Transit services
are recognized within the literature for their benefits (where present) or related challenges (where absent). However,
literature focused on the development and implementation of rural transit systems is relatively small and dominated
by grey literature, suggesting an absence of in‐depth, peer reviewed research. This absence of research is particularly
problematic when considered alongside two of the dominant themes from within the existing literature.
First, the majority of the literature treats rural as a single, homogenous unit – it is effectively placeless. Even when
differences across rural are acknowledged, the subsequent findings, lessons, and/or recommendations do not provide
guidance related to how to adapt and apply findings across the diversity of rural communities that exist in Canada.
Second, there is a noticeably uneven geographic distribution of knowledge, wherein the literature is dominated by
larger, often urban adjacent communities, often from specific geographic locations – primarily southern Ontario and
British Columbia. As a result, the generalized rural findings are likely to favour larger, more urban adjacent
communities, diminishing the applicability to smaller and more remote rural communities.
Within the literature we also see a focus on traditional transit solutions – fixed‐route or combination of fixed an on‐
demand. This is despite, and somewhat contrary to, the acknowledgement in the same literature that these options
may not be suitable for all rural places, as well as the growth in available new and innovative multi‐modal transit
options, including car and ride shares. There are many potential explanations for this, including a direct relationship
with the factors described above – particularly the dominance of larger and urban adjacent communities where
traditional transit systems are most likely to have success, further diminishing applicability to smaller and more remote
rural communities.

Navigating Rural – Final Report 36

Within the literature there is little explicit understanding or discussion of the impact of place ‐ of the role that unique
economic, socio‐cultural, and environmental factors play in influencing or impacting rural transit. While we identified
three levels of place‐based trends (i.e., Macro, Meso, and Micro), the existing guiding documents, as well as programs,
predominantly focus on macro rural trends. Communities or regions with differing economic, demographic, or
environmental characteristics or trends are not represented or understood, reducing the potential for such
communities and regions to be successful, or for upper levels of government to successfully support them. Transit
systems need to not only respond to the needs of potential users, but to the unique local contexts.
Acknowledgement and understanding of place‐based factors is critical to not only identifying which type(s) of transit
system(s) may be successful locally, but also which barriers may be encountered and how to address them. Place is
also a predictor of what factors may be helpful in establishing and sustaining a rural transit system. An understanding
of place locally, as well as better representation of place within the literature, guiding documents, and programs, is
essential to set all rural communities up for successful, long term transit solutions.
It is important to be cognizant of the fact that place‐based trends can be subject to outward influences, which makes
it difficult to predict change over the long‐term. For example, it is unknown exactly how transit patterns in a post
COVID‐19 era will be influenced as more people are able to work from home in some capacity.

At the Community Level
Ideally, this section would be divided by place‐specific considerations. However, this is not possible with the current
available knowledge base. However, rural communities and regions should be aware that the existing literature (e.g.,
reports, guidelines) is more applicable for larger and urban adjacent communities, and requires readers to make
additional effort to consider what they are reading through the lens of their specific community.
It is helpful for all rural communities to recognize what and how place‐based barriers apply locally. This is particularly
important in terms of understanding what can and cannot be influenced locally. Some factors cannot be easily
changed, if at all. For example, physiography and climate are impossible to change, requiring transit systems to be
developed and funded accordingly. There are certain physical elements that will likely always present as barriers to
establishing transit systems, such as the presence of mountainous terrain or many small lakes in an area that must be
circumvented. Similarly, rural communities cannot easily change external constraints, such as available governmental
funding, or related legislation.
Our findings suggest that strained local capacity and resources presents a barrier. While some of this may be outside
local control, there is potential for local actions. Innovations from the identified examples of rural transit systems
suggest a key to success is identifying and leveraging existing assets and resources. For example, the examples
identified within the Atlantic provinces demonstrate leveraging of an existing asset ‐ social capital – in order to address
transit needs. Even if we explore the principles of active transportation/walkable neighbourhoods, small activities can
have an impact on transit infrastructure improvements. For example: providing a bike rack at a transit stop or on a
transit vehicle to minimize the first and last mile problem for transit users (Ontario Ministry of Transportation 2012).
Rural areas also cannot easily change the historical land use development and settlement patterns that both define
them and make transit difficult to establish and provide sustainably. However, with support and access to information,
rural areas can recognize unique local characteristics and needs and respond by establishing a service type that makes
the most sense for their local conditions. For many rural communities this means something other than the
establishment of a traditional fixed‐route transit system.
Communities may benefit from exploring the feasibility of transit service sharing between communities in order to
create economies of scale within a region. Communities are demonstrating that this type of collaboration and
coordination is possible. For example, in the South Georgian Bay area of southern Ontario Colltrans provides transit
connection links between Collingwood and Wasaga Beach and Collingwood and Blue Mountain through a regional
transit framework supported by municipal partnerships and public‐private partnerships (McCue, Tolentino, and

Navigating Rural – Final Report 37

MacDonald 2014). Collaborations can also prevent duplication of service if this arrangement includes multiple transit
service types, including social service providers.
Long range planning is important for all communities, and land use and transportation are often seen as two sides of
the same coin. Future reviews/updates/amendments to Official Community Plans could include assessments of
whether land use is transit oriented (i.e. transit oriented development ‐ TOD) (Ontario Ministry of Transportation
2012). Rural areas have opportunities to densify land uses and implement TOD to better facilitate public transit.
However, as noted, available development guidance is primarily urban and there is lack of a comprehensive blueprint
or guidance for how rural areas can to implement such approaches to planning and development.
Local community service agencies and governments are the “boots on the ground” and have deep understandings of
their unique place‐based communities and constituents. Gathering and communicating this information to upper
levels of government is key to facilitate better policies and programs.

At the Provincial/Territorial and Federal Level
Our findings suggest that barriers to sustainable transit systems vary by place. This has implications on the ways in
which federal and provincial/territorial transit policy and programs are conceptualized and administered. Additionally,
our findings recognize that transit relates to many issues of importance, from economic development to climate
change.
However, the limitations of the existing literature and the lack of consideration for place poses a challenge. Policies
and programs created based on the existing knowledge base will be limited by the dominance of certain community
types and locations, and subsequently unable to account for, or support the diversity of rural communities, particularly
remote communities. The dominance of specific community types and transit types leaves out experiences,
considerations, and opportunities relevant to other types of rural communities. This challenge is further exacerbated
when considering vulnerable and transit disadvantaged populations.
Our findings suggest that there is a lack of support in some regions and by some funders for regional rural transit that
connects communities. This is a critical gap due to the fact that many necessary services are unlikely to exist in each
community, necessitating travel between communities. Additionally, costs of living (e.g., housing) and available
opportunities (e.g., employment) vary across regions, also necessitating travel between communities. Coordination
of transit systems between communities is critical. We also found that province‐wide transportation supports (e.g.,
BC Transit) offer an opportunity for coordination, providing greater rural service coverage, and creating economies of
scale.
The federal government plays many roles related to rural and transit, including creating strategies, policies, and
programs that cut across ministries and agencies like the Centre for Rural Economic Development. Directly relating to
transit, investments in public transit is one of the stated federal goals specific to rural Canada, supported by the 2021
announcement of the Rural Transit Solutions Fund announced in 2021 (Infrastructure Canada 2021). More broadly,
the federal government plays a role in the health and welfare of Canadians, including myriad areas which are impacted
or influenced by rural transit. Applying explicit rural considerations during the development of all policy and programs
can help make them more relevant and accessible to rural communities. One example of this is having more flexibility
in rural transportation policies and programs (e.g., reflexivity with respect to local needs, structure and timing of
funding, type of funding).
Like the federal government, transit relates to many ministries, programs, and policies at the provincial and territorial
level. From a development perspective, partnerships for rural transit systems are supportive of goals related to
economic growth. While cities are typically targeted for growth, there are also opportunities in rural and remote areas.
For rural communities with aging and/or declining populations, providing comprehensive transit is one potential
solution to attract new residents. COVID‐19, along with competitive housing market conditions, saw a trend of city
dwellers moving out from the core to rural areas. While this trend is not without challenges for rural communities,

Navigating Rural – Final Report 38

viable transit systems can serve as both another attractant, but also contribute to local solutions (e.g., supporting
people to live and work across different communities).
At the federal and provincial/territorial level, addressing climate change is a priority, including reduction in
greenhouse gas emissions. Innovative transit solutions can help to reduce greenhouse gas emissions from personal
vehicle use – something that is important across Canada, not only in urban communities. However, the types of transit
systems will differ between urban and rural, as well as across rural.

Across the Board
It is necessary to shift perceptions surrounding rural transit in two key ways. First is in terms of changing perceptions
of existing or potential users, making transit a viable and socially desirable option. This change in perception has the
potential to increase both ridership and support. This may occur naturally to some extent with shifting demographics
(e.g., urban to rural migration; aging populations), but will likely require targeted action to reach critical mass.
Second is how decision makers and leaders perceive the purpose of transit and how its value is measured. There needs
to be recognition of the full benefits of transit beyond the simple cost to operate and return on investment, to the
inclusion of the impact to measures of wellbeing and social, economic, and environmental co‐benefits.
The identified existing rural examples illustrate the success comes as a result of combinations of factors (e.g., access
to BC Transit in BC, high social capital in Nova Scotia, access to urban periphery and large numbers of people in
southern Ontario). In order to enable sustainable rural transit sustainability requires changes to support and increase
factors of success. This includes the perspectives of users and decision makers, but also in supporting programs and
policy. This requires changes, including changes in support programs, what is funded, and how. To do so requires a
better understanding of the diversity of rural and the influence of place. This research has provided a foundation for
how place influences rural transit. Further work is required, including primary research, to explore this further, and to
use the results to better inform future programs and policy.

6. CONCLUSION
6.1. Summary
Background
Transit and mobility are fundamental to rural community resilience. However, despite the importance of transit and
the increase in available options, rural communities can struggle to initiate and maintain sustainable transit services.
While there is some understanding of rural barriers, the utility of this information is hampered by the lack of
understanding of how barriers are influenced by place‐based differences across rural communities. The lack of
understanding of place‐based influences on rural transit systems is a critical challenge to informed decision making.
This in turn impacts the development, implementation, and sharing of effective strategies, solutions, and supports,
resulting in potentially inappropriate actions, unintended consequences, and inefficient use of limited resources.
Without understanding the influence of place‐based factors, it is challenging to understand what is missing from the
existing literature, and to understand which promising policies and practices are applicable to which rural communities.

Objectives
The goal of the Navigating Rural project was to use place as a lens to identify, synthesize, and assess existing rural
transit literature in order to identify rural barriers and understand how barriers vary by place. The objectives were:
1) Compile a database of existing rural transit and mobility literature, identifying gaps within our knowledge;
2) Create a typology of barriers impacting rural communities;
3) Explore existing transit support programs to understand gaps and challenges;
4) Identify and explore innovative rural solutions;
5) Clearly identify the gaps within our knowledge base, data, and existing support programs; and
6) Conduct a place‐based analysis to understanding how barriers are influenced by place.

Navigating Rural – Final Report 39

Summary of Results
Rural Transit Literature
 Overarching themes: treating rural as a singular or uniform concept; uneven regional knowledge and
understanding; understanding who is (and is not) served; challenges of rural transit; feasibility and rationale
of rural transit; growing transit opportunities; and identified transit solutions.
 Gaps: little peer reviewed research – particularly on development of rural transit systems; little understanding
or differentiation between places; dominance of examples from certain regions (British Columbia, Ontario)
and community types (large, urban adjacent); minimal representation of remote communities.
Barriers to Rural Transit
 There are seven categories of barriers to sustainable rural transit systems, each with multiple specific barriers:
 Demographic factors and ridership
 Local governance
 Socio‐cultural aspects of transit
 Local economic structure
 Natural and built environment
 External funding programs
 Local costs of operation and potential sources of revenue
 Barriers differ by place, but the extent of this is unknown due to gaps in the literature.
Existing Support Programs
 There are six categories of gaps and challenges related to rural access to existing transit support programs:
• Challenges with access to information
 Expenses that are deemed to be eligible
surrounding programs
under the funding framework
• Extent to which programs account for unique
 Consideration for the human resource
capacity of the funding recipient
rural considerations
• Exclusionary criteria
 Consideration for the financial resource
capacity of the funding recipient
Innovative Rural Examples
 A publicly accessible web map of existing innovative rural examples was created and can be found at:
https://selkirk.maps.arcgis.com/apps/webappviewer/index.html?id=17c858b73a014fbfa55d712141847a73.
 The majority of examples identified are from urban‐adjacent communities, and are often larger communities.
There are very few examples identified from remote communities.
 The most common type of innovation was changes and improvements within organizational methods.
 Most of the examples can be found in southern Ontario or British Columbia, demonstrating the influence of
larger population centres (e.g., Toronto, Vancouver), as well as the impact of collaboration between multiple
communities (inter‐community regional systems) to achieve economies of scale.
 The examples demonstrate a contrast between smaller, volunteer run systems that are innovative, but also
highly precarious; and larger, government run systems that are more stable, but less innovative.
Influence of Place
The influence of place can be seen on three distinct but overlapping levels:
1) Macro Rural Trends apply to all rural areas, limited influence of place beyond separating rural
characteristics from urban ones. For example, low population density and long distances.
2) Meso Rural Trends apply over large areas based on a common place‐based characteristic. For example,
commuter patterns in urban adjacent communities or the characteristics of specific demographic groups.
3) Micro Rural Trends apply to specific places based on unique or near unique place‐based characteristics. For
example, specific economic structure – single industry, seasonality, unique demographic conditions,
remoteness.

Key Messages
For Rural Communities and Regions
 Recognize what unique place‐based barriers exist locally.
 Recognize and leverage existing assets and resources.
 Recognize unique local characteristics and needs.
 Establish a transit service that makes the most sense based on the above. For many rural communities this
means something other than a traditional fixed‐route system.
Navigating Rural – Final Report 40

For Policies and Programs
 Recognize that policies and programs based on the existing knowledge base are limited and unable to account
for the diversity of rural contexts.
 Recognize that the dominance of specific regions, community types, and transit system types leaves out
experiences, considerations, and opportunities relevant to other types of rural communities.
 Applying a rural lens (rural considerations) can help in development of program and policy, but should
recognize the impact of data and information gaps.
 Flexibility is required in rural transportation policies and program to ensure diverse rural transit types are
supported, both within a community and between communities.
Across the Board
 Change perceptions of existing or potential users, making transit a viable and socially desirable option.
 Recognize the full benefits of transit, going beyond the simple cost to operate and return on investment to
the inclusion of the impact to measures of wellbeing and social, economic, and environmental co‐benefits.
 Enabling sustainable rural transit requires changes to support and increase factors of success. This includes
the perspectives of users and decision makers, but also in supporting programs and policy. To do so requires
a better understanding of the diversity of rural and the influence of place.

Methodology
A multi‐staged, qualitative research approach was taken. The project team compiled a database of existing rural transit
and mobility literature based on four parameters: inclusion of peer‐reviewed or grey literature; publication within the
last 10 years; Canadian focus, or that of a similar jurisdiction; and having an explicit rural component. Documents were
screened for relevance related to barriers, existing support programs, and innovative examples. A separate
qualitative content analysis was developed and conducted for each. The project team then applied place as a lens to
explore the results of the completed content analyses. Barriers and existing examples were explored based on these
factors in order to identify if/how the results varied by place.

6.2. Future Research
Throughout the course of the Navigating Rural project, we identified several areas for potential future research. These
have been grouped by theme and listed below.
Primary Research Exploring Existing Canadian Rural Transit Systems
• Identify metrics to track the impact of transit on rural communities in order to better understand and
measure value and contribution. This should include better understanding and quantifying impacts on
economic development, workforce, education, health, and environment.
• Building on the identified examples of rural transit systems, conduct a more in‐depth analysis through
primary research in order to understand the key factors influencing the success or failure of different
approaches and innovations, as well as transferability.
• Exploration of inter‐community transit systems, including geographic size, services offered, and overlap with
other types of regional collaboration.
• Exploration of what prevents implementation of innovative ideas and exploration of pathways around these
barriers. For example, anecdotally ideas related to the re‐deployment of school buses in small communities
were challenged by insurance issues.
• Exploring pathways to addressing precariousness in rural transit systems (e.g., reliance on social capital).
• Spatial analysis to explore relationship between route length, number of stops, schedules, and ridership in
order to identify true nature of coverage and what improvements would most impact ridership.
• Exploring what activities will impact and change perceptions of transit in rural areas in the long term. For
example, exploring how programs aimed at youth change perceptions of transit, tracking impacts to demand
and supply, and looking for differences across communities.
• Direct comparison between transit system types for efficacy and utility. For example, between traditional
transit systems and multi‐model systems or between government run systems and volunteer run systems.

Navigating Rural – Final Report 41

•

Explore feasibility of provincial/territorial scale transit support agency (e.g., BC Transit) in other Canadian
jurisdictions.

Primary Research Specific to the Role of Place
 Primary research exploring place‐specific factors. There is a need for primary research to build on what is
identified in Section 4.5 in order to gain a deeper understanding of factors as they relate to place in order
to provide guidance across all rural contexts.
 Target studies to expand geographic representation within the literature, in order to better inform general
guides, policies, and programs.
 Analysis of activities aimed at supporting or enhancing transit through the lens of place. How does place
influence the impact and success of programs and policies?
 Role of political climate. Although insufficient evidence was identified to include in the report, the project
team observed a potential influence of the political representation and political trends on rural transit,
particularly related to public investment.
Understand the Impact of COVID‐19
• Exploration of the rise of working from home brought about by the COVID‐19 pandemic has potentially
influenced travel patterns, as well as shifting demographics and service expectations within rural
communities. Both have the potential to impact transit systems.
• Related to travel patterns another question to consider is whether or not rural connectivity (broadband and
cell phone) would be viable to support a major shift that would impact the transit patterns of the
commuter economy.
Potential for Lessons from Outside Canada
 Expanded literature review that included literature and examples from around the world.

7. KNOWLEDGE MOBILIZATION ACTIVITIES
A knowledge mobilization plan was developed and implemented to reach multiple audiences and to generate a
multidirectional flow of information. Seven knowledge mobilization methods were used, described below.
1)

SSHRC Required Products: This report and associated two‐page evidence brief are completed and will be made
publicly available.

2)

Rural Transit Innovation Map: examples of rural transit innovations from across Canada were identified and
are displayed on a publicly accessible virtual map:
https://selkirk.maps.arcgis.com/apps/webappviewer/index.html?id=17c858b73a014fbfa55d712141847a73.

3)

Targeted Summaries: targeted summaries were completed, each summarizing the final report material for a
different audience: local governments, provincial/territorial governments, and the federal government.
Summaries were shared through the networks of the project team and partner organizations. The
provincial/territorial and federal summaries were provided directly to key policy and decision makers through
Dr. Gibson’s Cross‐Provincial‐Territorial‐Federal Rural Dialogues. The project team will explore options for
publication of summaries in targeted trade magazines, such as Municipal World or Plan Canada.

4)

Project Website: Space dedicated to the project has been made available on the research webpages of Dr.
Breen (Selkirk Innovates ‐ https://selkirk.ca/rural‐resilience) and Dr. Gibson (http://ruraldev.ca/navigating‐
rural). A description of the project, as well as links to the final products will remain active for at least 5 years
beyond the funded initiative.

5)

Webinar: A public webinar entitled Rural Mobility and Public Transit was organized and delivered on December
7, 2021. This webinar was a collaborative effort between the Navigating Rural project team and other
Knowledge Synthesis funded projects: Here Today, Gone Tomorrow; Missing the Bus; and Equity and Justice in
Navigating Rural – Final Report 42

Public Transit. The webinar was advertised, delivered, and facilitated by the Rural Policy Learning Commons
(RPLC). It was open to the public, and attended by 41 people from across Canada. The webinar was recorded
and
the
recording
is
available
on
the
RPLC
YouTube
channel
at
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=45HGGrE8K3s.
6)

Conference Presentations: The project team delivered a presentation and participated in a discussion session
at the national Creating Inclusive Economies conference hosted by the Canadian Rural Revitalization
Foundation (September 28‐29 2021). The presentation was recorded and is available at
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=21lOTEBT‐OU&list=PLrzpP8UaccSM1fd98AwHSef5fPqcVPGzK.
The project team also delivered a presentation summarizing key project findings for rural policy makers from
across Canada at the October meeting of the Cross‐Provincial‐Territorial‐Federal Rural Dialogues (October 12,
2021).
A summary presentation of the project will be presented in January 2022 as part of SSHRC’s Mobility and
Public Transit KSG Forum.

7)

Newsletters and social media: Project announcements, updates, and materials have been circulated through
electronic newsletters and social media by the Canadian Rural Revitalization Foundation, Rural Policy Learning
Commons, Selkirk College (Columbia Basin Rural Development Institute newsletter and Selkirk Innovates social
media), and through the University of Guelph’s School of Environmental Design and Rural Development social
media platforms and rural partners.

8)

Peer‐Reviewed Manuscript: The project team is working on several peer‐reviewed publications based on the
results of this project. Articles are expected to be submitted in 2022.

9)

Rural Routes Podcast Episode: Project findings will provide input into one thirty‐minute episode of Rural Routes
– an open access podcast available online and on multiple radio stations. The podcast will focus on key findings
and links to innovative solutions in rural transit systems. This episode is expected to air in 2022.

Navigating Rural – Final Report 43

BIBLIOGRAPHY
Alasia, Alessandro et al. 2017. Statistics Canada – Catalogue no. 18‐001‐X Measuring Remoteness and Accessibility ‐
A Set of Indices for Canadian Communities. http://www.statcan.gc.ca/pub/18‐001‐x/18‐001‐x2017002‐
eng.htm%0Ahttp://www.statcan.gc.ca/pub/18‐001‐x/18‐001‐x2017002‐
eng.pdf%0Ahttps://trid.trb.org/view/1470512.
Albin, Jacob, Korem Alhassan, Cindy Hanson, and Lori Hanson. 2021. “Canada Needs a National Public
Transportation System — Here ’ s Why.” The Conversation. https://theconversation.com/canada‐needs‐a‐
national‐public‐transportation‐system‐heres‐why‐161786.
BC Transit. 2018. Bella Coola Valley Bella Coola Valley Transit: System Review Report.
———. 2020. Transforming Your Journey BC Transit’s Strategic Plan 2020‐2025.
https://www.bctransit.com/documents/1529707910287.
———. 2021. “Welcome to West Kootenay Transit System.” https://www.bctransit.com/west‐kootenay/home
(November 19, 2021).
———. “About BC Transit.” https://www.bctransit.com/about (November 20, 2020).
Beck, Wally, and Mark Mis. 2010. Right‐Sizing Transit: What Is a Reasonable Level of Transit Investment? Richmond
Hill.
Bosworth, Gary, Liz Price, Martin Collison, and Charles Fox. 2020. “Unequal Futures of Rural Mobility: Challenges for
a ‘Smart Countryside.’” Local Economy 35(6): 586–608. https://doi.org/10.1177/0269094220968231.
Breen, Sarah‐Patricia et al. 2021. “RPLC RDI Mobility and Transit Webinar.”
https://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=rural+policy+learning+commons.
Brinklow, Laurie, and Ryan Gibson, eds. 2017. From Black Horses to White Steeds: Building Community Resilience.
Charlottetown: Island Studies Press.
Burkhardt, Jon, Charles Nelson, Gail Murray, and David Koffman. 2004. TCRP Report 101: Toolkit for Rural Comminity
Coordinated Trasnportation Services. Washington, D.C.
Canadian Rural Revitalization Foundation. 2019. State of Rural Canada III: Bridging Rural Data Gaps. eds. H Main et
al. Canadian Rural Revitalization Foundation.
Canadian Urban Transit Association. 2005. Public Transit and Small Communities.
Carrier Sekani Familty Services. “Highway of Tears: Preventing Violence Against Women.”
https://www.highwayoftears.org/ (December 14, 2021).
CBC Radio The Morning Edition. 2017. “STC Not Coming Back — Even as Gov’t Repeals Bill 40, Minister Says.” CBC
News. https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/saskatchewan/province‐not‐resurrecting‐scrapped‐stc‐1.4370874.
Chhay, Vannak, Joseph Grollman, and Kevin Wayns. 2008. “Analysis of Transportation Services for a PACE Program.”
WORCESTER POLYTECHNIC INSTITUTE. https://web.wpi.edu/Pubs/E‐project/Available/E‐project‐030908‐
175319/unrestricted/MQP_SAJ_FC71_Final.pdf.
Co+Host. 2016. Exploring Public Transportation on Haida Gwaii: Haida Gwaii Transportation Feasibility Study. Village
of Port Clements. https://sd50.bc.ca/wp‐content/uploads/2020/09/HG‐Transportation‐Study‐Prepared‐by‐
CoHost‐2016‐V2.pdf.
Columbia Basin Rural Development Institute. 2021. “State of the Basin.” https://stateofthebasin.ca/ (January 20,
2021).
Columbia Basin Trust. 2018. The Future for Rideshare: Climate Action and the Sharing Economy. Cranbrook.
Economic Development Research Group. 2020. Economic Impact of Public Transportation Investment ‐ 2020 Update.
https://www.apta.com/wp‐content/uploads/APTA‐Economic‐Impact‐Public‐Transit‐2020.pdf.
Navigating Rural – Final Report 44

Federation of Canadian Municipalities. 2005. Strategies for Implementing Transit Priority.
https://fcm.ca/sites/default/files/documents/resources/guide/infraguide‐strategies‐implementing‐transit‐
priority‐mamp.pdf.
———. 2021a. “Case Study: Innovative on‐Demand Transit System Gets Cochrane, AB, Residents Where They’re
Going.” https://www.fcm.ca/en/resources/gmf/case‐study‐innovative‐demand‐transit‐system‐gets‐cochrane‐
ab‐residents‐where‐theyre‐going (November 18, 2021).
———. 2021b. “Municipalities Call for Support on Inter‐Community Transit, Action to Tackle Hate Speech.”
https://fcm.ca/en/news‐media/news‐release/municipalities‐call‐support‐inter‐community‐transit‐action‐
tackle‐hate.
Fleming, Susan. 2020. Gao Highlights Enhanced Federal Information Sharing on Coordination Could Improve Rural
Transit Services. Washington, D.C.
Foord, Chris, and Elizabeth Henry. 2009. Transportation Demand Management: A Small and Mid‐Size Communities
Toolkit. Vancouver. https://www.toolkit.bc.ca/resource/transportation‐demand‐management‐small‐and‐mid‐
sized‐communities‐toolkit.
Freshwater, David, Alvin Simms, and Jamie Ward. 2014. Local Labour Markets as a New Way of Organizing Policies
for Stronger Regional Economic Development in Atlantic Canada. St. John’s. https://ccednet‐
rcdec.ca/sites/ccednet‐rcdec.ca/files/functional_regions_january2014_en_0.pdf.
Godavarthy, Ranjit Prasad, Jeremy Mattson, and Elvis Ndembe. 2014. Transportation Research Record Cost‐Benefit
Analysis of Rural and Small Urban Transit. Fargo, ND. https://www.nctr.usf.edu/wp‐
content/uploads/2014/07/77060‐NCTR‐NDSU031.pdf.
Gorecki, Karen, and Ingrid Liepa. 2018. 2018 Ridesharing in the Columbia Basin Exploring the Opportunities.
Government of British Columbia. 2020. “Executive Council & Parliamentary Secretaries of B.C.”
———. 2021. “Transit Free in B.C. for Children 12 and Under.” Transportation and Infrastructure News Release.
https://news.gov.bc.ca/releases/2021TRAN0054‐001724 (December 7, 2021).
———. “Highway 16 Transportation Action Plan.”
https://www2.gov.bc.ca/gov/content/transportation/transportation‐reports‐and‐reference/reports‐
studies/planning‐strategic‐economic/highway16‐action‐plan (November 18, 2021).
Government of Canada. 2019. “The Atlas of Canada ‐ Physiographic Regions.” https://atlas.gc.ca/phys/en/index.html
(November 23, 2021).
Gris Orange Consultant. 2012. Improving Bus Service: Modest Investments to Increase Transit Ridership. Ottawa.
IBI Group. 2018. Phase 2 – Transit/Mobility Service Plan. Brant, ON.
Infrastructure Canada. 2021. Canada’s Rural Economic Development Strategy: Progress Report. Ottawa.
Kar, Dennis, Richard Puccini, Stephanie Simard, and Morgan Boyco. 2014. Towards Coordinated Rural
Transportation: A Resource Document.
Keitch, Lorene. 2021. “Bright Sparks in Invermere.” Wildsight. https://wildsight.ca/2021/02/09/bright‐sparks‐in‐
invermere/ (November 19, 2021).
Kidder, Ben. 2006. The Challenges of Rural Transportation. Logan.
Krueger, R.R. 2021. “Canada.” Encyclopedia Brittanica. https://www.britannica.com/place/Canada/Drainage.
Land Use Planning & Policy. 2005. Transit Oriented Development Policy Guidelines. Calgary.
https://www.calgarytransit.com/content/transit/en/home/about‐calgary‐transit/facts‐and‐figures/reports‐
and‐surveys.html.
Leach, B. et al. 2007. “Diverse Workplaces, Homogenous Towns: Some Preliminary Findings from Rural Southern
Ontario.” In Our Diverse Cities: Rural Communities, ed. Bill Reimer. Metropolis, 115–20.
Navigating Rural – Final Report 45

https://www.concordia.ca/content/dam/artsci/sociology‐
anthropology/nre/docs/reports/ODC_Summer07_3_en.pdf.
Levesque, Mario. 2020. “Governance Models for Rural Accessible Transportation: Insights from Atlantic Canada.”
Disability and Society.
Litman, Todd. 2020. Introduction to Multi‐Modal Transportation Planning: Principles and Practices. Victoria.
http://www.vtpi.org/multimodal_planning.pdf.
Loh, Tracy Hadden et al. 2012. Active Transportation beyond Urban Centers: Walking and Bicycling in Small Towns
and Rural America.
http://www.railstotrails.org/resources/documents/ourWork/reports/BeyondUrbanCentersReport.pdf.
Lowery, Brennan, John Dagevos, and Kelly Vodden. 2020. “Goal‐Driven or Data‐Driven? Inventory of Sustainability
Indicator Initiatives in Rural Canada.” Sustainability 12(20): 1–35. https://www.mdpi.com/2071‐
1050/12/20/8601/htm.
Lysenko, Ekaterina. 2012. Analysis of Literature and Secondary Data for Recommendations Related to Transportation
Models on the Avalon Peninsula.
Mahali, Saghar Chahar, and Elcin Ray‐Yol. 2020. A Review of Immigrants’ Transportation‐Related Experiences:
Enhancing Recent Immigrants’ Access to Transportation in Guelph‐Wellington.
http://www.guelphwellingtonlip.ca/wp‐content/uploads/2020/09/Transport‐Literature‐Review‐
GWLIP_FINAL.pdf.
Majkut, Kevin. 2011. Rural Transportation Issues and Strategies. Kingston.
http://vibrantcanada.ca/files/knowledge_synthesis_19_‐_transportation_‐_rev_5.pdf.
Malo, Cheri et al. 2018. City of Whitehorse Transit Master Plan. WHitehorse.
Markey, Sean, Greg Halseth, et al. 2019. “Bending the Arc of the Staples Trap: Negotiating Rural Resource Revenues
in an Age of Policy Incoherence.” Journal of Rural Studies 67: 25–36.
Markey, Sean, Sarah‐Patricia Breen, Kelly Vodden, and Jen Daniels. 2015. “Evidence of Place: Becoming a Region in
Rural Canada.” International Journal of Urban and Regional Research 39(5): 874–891.
———. 2019. “Identity and Commitment to Place: How Regions ‘Become’ in Rural Canada.” In The Theory, Practice,
and Potential of Regional Development, eds. Kelly Vodden et al. New York: Routledge, 102–22.
Markey, Sean, Greg Halseth, and Don Manson. 2012. Investing in Place. Vancouver: UBC Press.
Markey, Sean, Laura Ryser, and Greg Halseth. 2020. THE CRITICAL ROLE OF SERVICES DURING CRISIS AND IN
RECOVERY: LEARNING FROM SMART SERVICES AND INFRASTRUCTURE PROJECTS.
Marr, Eric. 2015. “Assessing Transportation Disadvantage in Rural Ontario, Canada: A Case Study of Huron County.”
Journal of Rural and Community Development 10(2): 100–120.
Matte, Colleen Marie. 2014. “THE SOCIAL FACTORS THAT INFLUENCE THE SUCCESS OF RURAL CARSHARE
OPERATIONS IN THE KOOTENAY REGION OF BRITISH COLUMBIA, CANADA.” Royal Roads University.
Mattson, Jeremy. 2013. Rural Transit Fact Book 2013. Tampa.
McCue, Lorna, Lisa Tolentino, and Robb MacDonald. 2014. Accelerating Rural Transportation Solutions: Ten
Community Case Studies from Ontario.
Ministry of Transportation and Infrastructure. 2020. “Backgrounder Active Transportation Infrastructure Grants
Program.”
Municipality of Piney. 2021. TRANSIT REPORT – PURPOSE & BACKGROUND ‐ February 2021. Piney.
North Bay. 2020. “North Bay Transit.” https://www.northbay.ca/services‐payments/north‐bay‐transit/ (November
19, 2021).

Navigating Rural – Final Report 46

Northern Alberta Development Council. 2013. Developing Sustainable Transit Options for Small Communities ‐ A
Summary of Best Practices. Peace River. https://www.nadc.gov.ab.ca/Docs/Sustainable‐Transit.pdf.
Noxon Associates Limited. 2009. Improving Travel Options in Small & Rural Communities. Ottawa.
https://www.fcm.ca/Documents/tools/GMF/Transport_Canada/ImprovingTravelSmallRural_EN.pdf.
Ontario Ministry of Transportation. 2012. Transit Supportive Guidelines.
http://www.mto.gov.on.ca/english/transit/pdfs/transit‐supportive‐guidelines.pdf.
Ontario Professional Planners Institute. 2007. Healthy Communities, Sustainable Communities: A Call to Action.
Toronto. https://ontarioplanners.ca/OPPIAssets/Documents/Calls‐to‐Action/HSC_Call_to_Action_2007.pdf.
Partners for Climate Protection. 2021a. “City of Plessisville, Quebec: Electric Cars, Vehicle Sharing and the SAUVéR
Project.” https://www.pcp‐ppc.ca/resources/city‐of‐plessisville‐quebec‐electric‐cars‐vehicle‐sharing‐and‐the‐
sauver‐project (November 18, 2021).
———. 2021b. “Ville de Mont‐Saint‐Hilaire, Quebec: Transit‐Oriented Development.” https://www.pcp‐
ppc.ca/resources/ville‐de‐mont‐saint‐hilaire‐quebec‐transit‐oriented‐development (November 19, 2021).
Polèse, Mario. 1999. “From Regional Development to Local Development: On the Life, Death and Rebirth (?) Of
Regional Science as a Policy Relevant Science.” Canadian Journal of Regional Science 22(3): 299–314.
Rich, Editors Kyle, Heather Hall, and Grace Nelson, eds. 2021. State of Rural Canada 2021: Opportunities , Recovery ,
and Resiliency in Changing Times. Canadian Plains Research Ctr. http://sorc.crrf.ca/fullreport2021/.
Roddick, Stephen. 2021a. Yukon’s Rural Transportation Challenge: Considerations and Preliminary Options for
Improving Intercommunity Travel. https://yfncc.ca/wp‐content/uploads/YCT‐Options‐Paper‐Final‐
June2021.pdf.
———. 2021b. Yukon’s Transportation Landscape: Assessment of Intercommunity Transportation Infrastructure,
Travel Activities, Traffic Patterns and Emerging Trends. https://yfncc.ca/wp‐content/uploads/YCT‐Yukons‐
Transportation‐Landscape‐Final‐June2021.pdf.
Rodrigue, J.P. 2020. The Geography of Transport Systems. 5th ed. Routledge.
https://transportgeography.org/contents/.
Savoie, Donald J. 2003. Reviewing Canada’s Regional Development Efforts.
http://www.gov.nf.ca/publicat/royalcomm/research/Savoie.pdf.
Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council. 2021. “Award Recipients for Knowledge Synthesis Grants: Mobility
and Public Transit.” https://www.sshrc‐crsh.gc.ca/results‐resultats/recipients‐
recipiendaires/2020/ksg_public_transit‐ssc_transport_commun‐eng.aspx (November 19, 2021).
Statistics Canada. 2017. “Focus on Geography Series, 2016 Census.” Statistics Canada Catalogue no. 98‐404‐
X2016001. https://www12.statcan.gc.ca/census‐recensement/2016/as‐sa/fogs‐spg/Facts‐CAN‐
eng.cfm?Lang=Eng&GK=CAN&GC=01&TOPIC=9 (December 14, 2021).
———. 2019. “Census Profile, 2016 Census.” http://www12.statcan.gc.ca/census‐recensement/2016/dp‐
pd/prof/index.cfm?Lang=E (February 23, 2021).
———. 2021. “Rural Canada Statistics.” https://www.statcan.gc.ca/en/subjects‐
start/society_and_community/rural_canada (November 12, 2021).
Town of Clarenville. 2020. “Transportation.” https://clarenville.ca/discover‐clarenville/transportation/ (December
14, 2021).
Transport Canada. 2006. Urban Transportation Showcase Program Sustainable Transportation in Small and Rural
Communities. Ottawa.
———. 2016. “Minister‐Led Indigenous Roundtable on the Future of Transportation.” In Ottawa, ON: Transport
Canada, 1–4.

Navigating Rural – Final Report 47

Transportation Association of Canada. 2016. Primer on Design and Implementation of Transit Services in Smaller
Communities. Ottawa.
Turcotte, M. 2015. Volunteering and Charitable Giving in Canada. Spotlight on Canadians: Results from the General
Social Survey. Ottawa. http://www.statcan.gc.ca/pub/89‐652‐x/89‐652‐x2015001‐eng.pdf.
Velaga, Nagendra R. et al. 2012. “Transport Poverty Meets the Digital Divide: Accessibility and Connectivity in Rural
Communities.” Journal of Transport Geography 21: 102–12.
Vodden, K., G. Baldacchino, and R. Gibson, eds. 2015. Place Peripheral: Place‐Based Development in Rural, Island,
and Remote Regions. ISER Press.
Vodden, Kelly et al., eds. 2019. The Theory, Practice, and Potential of Regional Development: The Case of Canada.
New York: Routledge.
Weeden, Ashleigh, and Wayne Kelly. 2020. Addressing the Digital Divide: COVID‐19 and the Importance of
Connecting Rural Canada.
Working Party of National Experts on Scientific and Technology Indicators. 2005. The Measurement of Scientific and
Technological Activities: Guidelines for Collecting and Interpreting Innovation Data: Oslo Manual. Third Edit.
Paris: OECD.
WSP. 2018. 2019 ‐ 2023 Milton Transit Services Review and Master Plan Update. Milton, ON.
https://www.milton.ca/en/living‐in‐milton/resources/2019_‐
_2023_Milton_Transit_Services_Review_and_Master_Plan_Update.pdf.

Navigating Rural – Final Report 48

ADDITIONAL LITERATURE
Ahern, A., & Hine, J. (2012). Rural transport ‐ Valuing the mobility of older people. Research in Transportation
Economics, 34(1), 27–34.
All Nations Driving Academy. (n.d.). https://driveallnations.ca/
Allen, J., & Farber, S. (2019). Sizing up transport poverty: A national scale accounting of low‐income households
suffering from inaccessibility in Canada, and what to do about it. Transport Policy, 74, 214–223.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tranpol.2018.11.018
Anderson, D., Brynne, A., & Davies, P. (2019). AGRICULTURE AGGREGATION, DISTRIBUTION & LOGISTICS
INFRASTRUCTURE.
Attaluri, P., Seneviratne, P. N., & Javid, M. (1997). MODELING DEMAND FOR PUBLIC TRANSIT SERVICES IN RURAL
AREAS. JOURNAL OF TRANSPORTATION ENGINEERING, 123(3), 216–222.
Barker, J. B., Alvarez, D., Barnes, R. L., Garber, C., Greene, S., Irwin, R. H., Lee, D. a, & Rosenberg, J. M. (2003). Toolkit
for Rural Community Coordinated Transportation Services. In TRANSIT COOPERATIVE RESEARCH PROGRAM: Report
101 (Vol. 5).
Calgary Transit. (2010). Cochrane Transit Feasibility Study ‐ Council Presentation (Issue April).
http://www.jeffersoncitymo.gov/JeffTranFeasibilityReportFINALDRAFT12_17_2010.pdf
Choi, Y., Nam, K., & Kim, C. Y. (2019). Association between convenience of transportation and unmet healthcare
needs of rural elderly in Korea. Journal of Preventive Medicine and Public Health, 52(6), 355–365.
https://doi.org/10.3961/jpmph.19.172
Cook, N., & Dumbaugh, K. (2010). Paying Our Way ‐ Transforming Transportation Finance. ProQuest Ebook Central.
https://ebookcentral‐proquest‐com.ezproxy.library.uvic.ca
Council of Ministers Responsible for Transportation and Highway Safety. (2014). Integrating Rural, Northern and
Remote Regions with Core Transportation Networks.
Del Rio, M., Hargrove, W. L., Tomaka, J., & Korc, M. (2017). Transportation matters: A health impact assessment in
rural New Mexico. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 14(6).
Esmaeili, L., & Hashemi, S. A. (2013). Toward the Design of Rural Intelligent Public Transportation System Rural
Public Transportation of Iran. New Marketing Research Journal, Special Issue, 51–58.
Fraser, J. (2013). Rural Transportation Initiatives: Preventing Crime and Promoting Safety. University of Ottawa.
Gabriola Community Bus Committee. (2013). A Community Bus for Gabriola Island.
Hanson, T. R., & Hildebrand, E. D. (2011). Can rural older drivers meet their needs without a car? Stated adaptation
responses from a GPS travel diary survey. Transportation, 38(6), 975–992.
Hosen, K. I., & Powell, S. B. (2011). National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. In Innovative Rural
Transit Services. National Academies Press.
Kamruzzaman, M., & Hine, J. (2012). Analysis of Rural Activity Spaces and Transport Disadvantage using a Multi‐
Method Approach. Transport Policy, 19(1), 105–120.

Navigating Rural – Final Report 49

Karahasanović, A., Culén, A. L., Skjetne, J. H., & Hasle, G. (2020). Designing for Transitions in Rural Transport. ICT.
Kotani, K. (2020). Transportation issues in rural healthcare. Journal of Preventive Medicine and Public Health, 53(2),
149–150. https://doi.org/10.3961/jpmph.20.038
Lebo, J., & Schelling, D. (2001). Design and Appraisal of Rural Transport Infrastructure: Ensuring Basic Access for
Rural Communities.
Litman, T. (2017). Public Transportation’s Impact on Rural and Small Towns Public. 1–48.
http://www.apta.com/resources/reportsandpublications/Documents/APTA‐Rural‐Transit‐2017.pdf
López‐Iglesias, E., Peón, D., & Rodríguez‐Álvarez, J. (2018). Mobility innovations for sustainability and cohesion of
rural areas: A transport model and public investment analysis for Valdeorras (Galicia, Spain). Journal of Cleaner
Production, 172, 3520–3534.
Madani Larijani, M., Nahornyi, T. M., & Crizzle, A. M. (2019). Using GIS to examine transportation connectivity in
Saskatchewan. The Journal of Rural and Community Development, 14(3), 87–99. www.jrcd.ca
Maretić B, & Abramović B. (2020). INTEGRATED PASSENGER TRANSPORT SYSTEMIN RURAL AREAS – A LITERATURE
REVIEW.
Maryam, A., Larijani, M., Nahornyi, T., & Ramsey, D. (2019). Journal of Rural and Community Development Using GIS
to Examine Transportation.
Ministry of Transportation. (2020). Connecting the North: A draft transportation plan for Northern Ontario (Issue
December). http://ezproxy.lakeheadu.ca/login?url=https://search.proquest.com/docview/21240
Monahan, P., High, W., Gandhi, A., Krull, L., & Bowen, B. (2017). CONSOLIDATION OF RURAL PUBLIC
TRANSPORTATION SERVICES (Issue 20).
Mounce, R., Wright, S., Emele, C. D., Zeng, C., & Nelson, J. D. (2017). A tool to aid redesign of flexible transport
services to increase efficiency in rural transport service provision. Journal of Intelligent Transportation Systems:
Technology, Planning, and Operations, 22(2), 175–185.
Mulley, C., Nelson, J., Teal, R., Wright, S., & Daniels, R. (2012). Barriers to implementing flexible transport services:
An international comparison of the experiences in Australia, Europe and USA. Research in Transportation Business
and Management, 3, 3–11.
Net Zero Transportation ‐ Department of Environment Energy and Climate Action. (2021). Issues Around Rural
Transportation and Potential Solutions (Presentation).
Noxon Associates Limited. (2011). TRANSPORTATION DEMAND for CANADIAN COMMUNITIES: A Guide to
Understanding, Planning and Delivering TDM Programs.
Nykyforuk, O. (2014). The Funding of Modernization and Development of Transport Sector and its
Infrastructure. Quarterly Journal Oeconomia Copernicana, 5(4), 117–138.
Okotoks Transit. (n.d.). Okotoks Local On‐Demand Transit: Frequently Asked Questions.
Ontario Ministry of Transportation. (2017). COMMUNITY TRANSPORTATION PILOT GRANT PROGRAM: Survey and
Final Reporting Evaluation.

Navigating Rural – Final Report 50

Partridge, M. D., Ali, K., & Olfert, M. R. (2010). Rural‐to‐Urban Commuting: Three Degrees of Integration. Growth
and Change, 41(2), 303–335.
Peel Halton Workforce Development Group. (2018). Literature review: Transportation options for employers dealing
with transit / commuting issues Peel Halton Workforce Development Group.
Pratelli, A., Farina, A., Pratelli, C., & Lupi, M. (2018). Comparing Route Deviation Bus Operation with Respect to Dial‐
a‐Ride Service for a Low‐Demand Residential Area. Proceedings of the Seventh International Conference on Data
Analytics, 141–148. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/329195954
Rideco. (2019). Cochrane, AB provides transit access for everyone with first Canadian city‐wide on‐demand
service. https://rideco.com/case‐study/cochrane
Rosyadi, S., Wijaya, S. S., Husnul Maab, M., Rizqi Atika, Z., & Sutikno, C. (2020). Impact of a free public transportation
service for rural households. Masyarakat, Kebudayaan Dan Politik, 33(1), 58–76.
Scheurer, J. (2020). Public transport network planning. In C. Curtis (Ed.), Handbook of Sustainable Transport (pp.
139–149). Edward Elgar Publishing.
Sörensen, L., Bossert, A., Jokinen, J. P., & Schlüter, J. (2021). How much flexibility does rural public transport need? –
Implications from a fully flexible DRT system. Transport Policy, 100, 5–20.
Tomej, K., & Liburd, J. J. (2020). Sustainable accessibility in rural destinations: a public transport network
approach. Journal of Sustainable Tourism, 28(2), 129–146.
Town of Cochrane ‐ Transit Task Force. (2018). Transit Task Force Local Transit Service Recommendation to Town
Council.
Translink. (2019). Transit On‐Demand Pilot Program: 2019 Bowen Island Report.
Transportation Research Board & KFH Group Incorporated. (2001). Guidebook for Change and Innovation at Rural
and Small Urban Transit Systems. In Transit Cooperative Research Program (TCRP) Report 70. Transportation
Research Board.
Weisbrod, G., & Reno, A. (2009). Economic Impact of Public Transportation Investment.
Why Canadians Can’t Bike in the Winter (but Finnish people can). (2021). https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Uhx‐
26GfCBU&feature=youtu.be
WSP. (2018a). Grand River Transit Business Plan 2017 ‐ 2021. March 2018.
Yang, H., Cherry, C. R., Zaretzki, R., Ryerson, M. S., Liu, X., & Fu, Z. (2016). A GIS‐based method to identify cost‐
effective routes for rural deviated fixed route transit. Journal of Advanced Transportation, 50(8), 1770–1784.

Navigating Rural – Final Report 51

301 Frank Beinder Way,
Castlegar, BC V1N 4L3
phone 250.365.7292
toll free 1.888.953.1133
email info@selkirk.ca

selkirk.ca