Your SlideShare is downloading. ×

RTS North Karelia


Published on

Published in: Business
  • Be the first to comment

  • Be the first to like this

No Downloads
Total Views
On Slideshare
From Embeds
Number of Embeds
Embeds 0
No embeds

Report content
Flagged as inappropriate Flag as inappropriate
Flag as inappropriate

Select your reason for flagging this presentation as inappropriate.

No notes for slide


  • 1. Public Transport services in FinlandStructural review of existing transportservices in region of North KareliaHow existing rural transport services meet the needsof the citizens and what are the priorities for thefuture development 1
  • 2. Rural Transport Solutions projectWork Package 2 reportRegional Council of North KareliaPielinen Karelia Development CentreNorthern Periphrery ProgrammeJaakko RintamäkiHeidi TanskanenHeikki ViinikkaJuho Mutanen2
  • 3. Contents1 Introduction......................................................................42 Finnish Public Transport System – Legislation and Financial Analysis.............................................6 2.1 Legislation, transport authorities and service providers.......................................63 Public Transport services in North Karelia – Current status 2010...........................................................15 3.1 General information about North Karelia............................................................15 3.2 The funding and different models of public transport services...........................16 3.3 Public transport services in North Karelia: Maps and Routes............................21 3.3 Population distribution and public transport routes..........................................244 Pielinen Karelia pilot region..................................................33 4.1 Description of a pilot area....................................................................................33 4.2 The funding of public transport services in Pielinen Karelia..............................35 4.3 Public Transport services in Pielinen Karelia and Juuka: Maps and Routes..................................................................................................39 4.4 Rural Transport - Special questions in Pielinen Karelia and Juuka...................445 Surveys...........................................................................47 5.1 Pielinen Karelia surveys.......................................................................................47 5.2 Tourism enterprises surveys.................................................................................516 Good practices in North Karelia.............................................537 Conclusion and the Development priorities...............................59 3
  • 4. 1 IntroductionThe market share of public transport is approx- At the same time, the public-transport sys-imately 14.4% of the Finnish transportation tem has lost customers, and previously profit-system1. However, the share of daily trips using able rural routes have been abolished. Duringpublic transport is smaller, approximately 8%. the 21st century, the inhabitants of rural areasThe figures have been collected from munici- have had to face the fact that the possibilitiespalities, transport companies, the former Finn- of using public transport are minimal in someish Road Administration and questionnaires. areas. The only real alternative is to use a pri-The market share of public transport is an esti- vate car.mate, but it can be seen to give a relatively goodidea of the total share of different forms of The situation is the same in other parts oftransport in Finland. The vast majority of trips northern Europe, where the era since the Sec-are made using private cars. The share of pas- ond World War has been one during whichsengers using a private car has been increasing people have become wealthier and the mid-strongly since the 1950s, especially during the dle-class has expanded. The increase in thelast 30 years. number of private cars was not seen as a social problem at first. Its problems were first visibleIn North Karelia, the share of trips made using in the metropolises and capitals of Europe. Inpublic transport is even lower than the Finnish European cities, public transport has tradition-average. According to a recent transportation ally had a central role, but in some rural areassystem plan2, the market share of daily trips of northern Europe the different forms of pub-made using public transport is approximately lic transport have not been developed in paral-5%. On longer trips in particular, the use of pri- lel with the housing and service structure.vate cars is significant (92.3%). In rural areas, the problems to be tackled areThe increase in the use of private cars is linked sparse housing and long distances, which doto the fact that Finnish society, including ru- not exist in cities. There are also fewer peo-ral areas, rapidly became wealthier after the ple living in rural areas than in cities, and the1950s. Incomes rose, and industrial produc- long-term trend of people moving from ruraltion increased. For the first time, ordinary citi- areas to cities will further decrease the popu-zens had the opportunity to purchase a car for lation. Moreover, the population in rural areastheir own use. Finland is no longer in the phase is constantly aging. This development, visibleof becoming rapidly motorized, but transpor- throughout Europe, will continue for anothertation possibilities have radically changed dur- couple of decades as the baby-boom genera-ing the last few decades. The advantage of own- tions born after the war grow older and as theing a private car is the feeling of freedom and new generations become ever smaller in size.mobility it gives.1 Including air traffic (Public transport performance sta-tistics 2007)2 North Karelia transportation system plan 20104
  • 5. In rural areas, aging is one of the main fac- also find it difficult to organise their transporttors that are affecting the use of private cars. to work or to leisure activities.It is no longer clear that everyone who owns acar is also able to use it actively. Some people The large global issue is how to promote sus-are very dependent on their spouse who owns tainable development and reduce carbon-diox-a driving licence, since longer trips to run er- ide emissions. The transition towards public,rands and make recreational trips can only be communal transport must be a common goalmade if the spouse drives the car. both in cities and in rural areas. The European Union has been one of the most active institu-On the other hand, rural areas also provide tional promoters of sustainable for young people, people of working age The Northern Periphery Programme aims atand people with special needs due to disabil- finding solutions for the sparsely populated ar-ities or social issues. These user groups may eas of the northern member countries. 5
  • 6. 2 Finnish Public Transport System – Legislation and Financial Analysis2.1 Legislation, transport authorities and service providersIn Finland, the state and municipalities are re- as, municipalities where the distances betweensponsible for the funding of public transport. population centres are great and small urbanThe funding and support system is based on di- districts. Railway transport and long-distancerect purchases of transport services, the com- transport using coaches also require public-pensation for deficits of contract transport and transport purchases.fare revenues. As a supplementary system,Finland uses an extensive transport cost reim- The public-transport performance statisticsbursement system for special user groups (cus- (17, 2009) divide the funding of public trans-tomers of social services, the disabled and peo- port into the following categories according tople needing transport to and from hospitals). their purpose. The objective of the funding sys- tem is to promote the supply and demand ofFunding by the state and by municipalities is the services.meant to ensure a basic level of service for pub-lic transport and to promote the use of public According to the Ministry of Transport andtransport in areas where the operation of the Communication, the funding of Finnish pub-transport system would otherwise be jeopard- lic transport is rather dispersed (Ministry ofised and/or where the load on the environment Transport and Communications, Reviewingcaused by traffic needs to be decreased3. Ef- the system of funding for public transport 2,forts to ensure a basic level of service are tar- 10. 2009).geted, in particular, at sparsely populated are- Public-Transport Funding purposes: Supply and Demand Funding promoting supply Funding promoting demand Public funding covers the Covers reimbursements of the travel expenses purchase of transport services, of special groups and purchases of fare reduc- funding of scheduled transport tions. The funding is indirect and manifests and compensations for deficits. itself in the form of the fare revenues accruing The additional supply generated to the transport contractor. Tariff support is can be recognized most easily discussed here from the point of demand, as in the case of the purchase of it is often difficult to distinguish it from the transport. funding of supply. Source: Public Transport Performance statistics 2007. Ministry of Transport3 Ministry of Transport and Communications 2, p. 9,20086
  • 7. In addition to the objectives of the funding Table 1: The responsibility for organising public and service trans-and its functional division, it is also worth not- port (Source: Public-Transport Performance Statistics 2007. Minis- try of Transport)ing that the funding of the Finn- Funding influencing Supply Funding influencing Demandish public transport system comes Ministry on Transport and Purchase of rail transport, State subsidised youth faresfrom multiple channels. The re- Communication purchase of air transport and purchase of fare reductionssponsibilities for organising and Provincial governments Purchase of basic transport, State subsidy of fare reductions state subsidy of local transportfunding public transport are divid- Education School transport subsidy, School pupil and student secondary level education ticketsed between several authorities, and institutesin practice each Finnish municipal- Health and social services Reimbursements of travel expensesity is in charge of organising and Ministry of Defence Charter transport fot conscripts Reimbursements of travelfinancing public transport. Public and reserve forces expenses of conscripts and reserve forcesfunding consists of two parts (Min- Ministry on Labour Reimbursements of travelistry of Transport and Communica- expenses of performers of nonmilitary servicetions 2, p. 11, 2009): Major cities (Helsinki, City transport deficit support, Reductions granted for special• Direct funding: transport- Espoo and Kauniainen, contract transport groups, tariff support Vantaa, Tampere, Turku) service purchases by the Other municipalities Purchase of transport services, Reductions granted on social state and by municipali- deficit support for specific grounds, puchase of fare routes or companies reductions ties, fare subsidies, com- pensation for deficits of contract transport *4• Reimbursements of travel expenses purchased by the Centres for Economic Devel- (state, municipalities) opment, Transport and the Environment en- sure that public transport is also available in areas where maintaining scheduled services isThe responsibility for organising public trans- not profitable. The purchased transport servic-port and service transport has been decentral- es can also support the already profitable serv-ised to several different branches of adminis- ices on certain routes by increasing passengertration. The basic funding and organising re- numbers. In other words, municipalities ben-sponsibility structure of the Finnish public efit from the purchases made by the Centrestransport system can be seen in the following for Economic Development, Transport and thetable. The table also includes public transport Environment. For instance the school trans-organised by the armed forces and the Ministry port services in many municipalities have beenof Labour that is usually not presented togeth- based on scheduled services purchased by theer with the rest of the public transport system state. In addition to the basic public transportdue to its special character. These services are services, the purchases made by the Centresusually mainly used for the transport of con- for Economic Development, Transport and thescripts. Environment also support local transport and service transport. Also, resources are used an-As an addition to the table, it could be men- nually for different kinds of fare subsidies (citytioned that the Centres for Economic Devel- tickets, regional tickets, commuting tickets).opment, Transport and the Environment, theformer State Provincial Offices, have a signif-icant role in purchasing regional basic trans-port services. The regional transport services 4 The Centres for Economic Development, Transport and the Environment are in charge of the tasks that formerly belonged to the State Provincial Offices. 7
  • 8. The role and responsibilities ofthe stateThe development of the transport infrastruc- Areas where cities have full economic respon-ture including public transport systems be- sibility include the Helsinki Metropolitan Arealongs to the sphere of responsibilities of the Council district (metropolitan area and neigh-state. The state is not responsible for organis- bouring municipalities), Tampere and public transport services. In practice, pri- In rural areas, the Centres for Economic De-vate enterprises provide the public transport velopment, Transport and the Environmentservices, and the public sector supports these (former State Provincial Offices) purchase sup-services if a sufficient service level cannot be plementary basic services for transport acrossattained in a certain area on purely commer- municipality borders. Each municipality pur-cial grounds. chases transport for within its borders. The Centres for Economic Development, TransportThe role of the state as the organ ensuring a and the Environment co-operate with munic-certain service level mainly concerns long- ipalities and subsidise the prices of regionaldistance transport and regional transport. tickets.The municipalities are left in charge of trans-port within their borders. Combining different With regard to railway transport, VR (Stateforms of passenger transport and linking trips Rail) has an exclusive right to provide servic-have also been mentioned as responsibilities es. This has been justified by the fact that it en-of the state in the report produced by Nyberg’s sures that extensive railway services are avail-work group5. able in all parts of the country6. The Ministry of Transport and Communications is respon- sible for railway-transport purchases. The lo- cal train services for the Helsinki metropolitan area are purchased by the Helsinki Metropoli- tan Area Council. Public transport services also receive a signifi- cant amount of funding via Kela (National In- surance Company). According to the Health Insurance Act, a person is entitled to receive reimbursements of travel expenses related to treatment. The act is meant to encourage peo- ple to use public transport on trips related to treatment and to take advantage of transport combination services if such services are avail-The state has provided €150-200 million of an- able in the area7.nual funding for public transport in the last fewyears.5 Ministry of Transport and Communications 2, p. 13, 6 Ministry of Transport and Communications 2, p. 14,2009 2009 7 Ministry of Transport and Communications 2, p. 14, 20098
  • 9. The role and responsibilities ofmunicipalitiesMunicipalities are responsible for organising A total of approxi-statutory transport services for social-welfare mately €120 millioncustomers and for the disabled and for organ- has been spent annu-ising school transport services. A major part ally for the purchasesof the municipalities’ public-transport budg- of public transport services available to every-et comes from the branches of administration one. Of this sum, 75% is used in the Uusimaaresponsible, and the aim is to fulfil the target service obligation. School transport is the largest individual costSome municipalities also offer special trans- item that municipalities have to cover when or-port services that are available to all inhabit- ganising public transport. Pupils receiving ba-ants. These services provide inhabitants who sic education are entitled to free transport ifdo not own a car with the possibility to run er- the trip to school is over five kilometres or ifrands, among other things. the trip otherwise causes unreasonable strain10. It is estimated that the annual cost of schoolIn general, the public transport services in ru- transport in Finland is €128.6 million.ral areas are not as good as services in cities ifthe number of services and the service hours The second most significant cost item consistsare examined. A service that runs twice a week of service transport for the disabled, in accord-is considered a basic-level service. A basic-lev- ance with the Act on Services and Assistanceel service cannot usually be used for going to for the Disabled. Customers have a subjectivework, going to pursue hobbies in the evenings right to these transport services. Transport inor for running errands in the daytime. accordance with the Act on Services and As- sistance for the Disabled is usually limited toThere are major differences in the ways of or- the municipality where the customer lives organising special transport services and in the to neighbouring municipalities. The statisticsfrequency of the services in Finland and also used do not include information on all munici-within the North Karelia region. In some mu- palities, but the costs of these transport serv-nicipalities, special transport services are ba- ices are over €70 million each year. In 2006,sically non-existent, and in others services are €8.5 million was spent on discretionary trans-available in population centres on weekdays. port services in accordance with the Social Wel-The state supports statutory transport services fare Act and €6 million on transport services invia the state subsidy system8, but public trans- accordance with the Act on Special Care for theport that is available to everyone has not been Mentally Handicapped11.included in the system.8 An income equalization system for the division of costs 9 Ministry of Transport and Communications 2, p. 15,between the state and municipalities 2000 10 Ministry of Education and Culture 2010 11 Ministry of Transport and Communications, p. 15, 2009 (lacking information) 9
  • 10. The statutory obligation of municipalities is 2.2 Public Transport Funding to organise service transport for those in need in Finland of it in accordance with the Social Welfare Act and the Act on Services and Assistance for the According to the expense information reported Disabled. The state of other public transport by different state organisations and municipal- services, so called special transport services, ities, the delivery of different public transport varies greatly from municipality to municipal- service forms cost the public sector approxi- ity. The assessment reports on basic services mately €700 million in 2007 (Public-transport made by State Provincial Offices have pointed performance statistics 2007). The same year, out this inequality for several years now. Some the portion financed by the state was €206.7 municipalities are able to provide public trans- million and the total sum financed by munic- port services at the basic service level in pop- ipalities €489.7 million. In 1997, the share of ulation centres and rural areas, whereas other the public funding of public transport financed municipalities do not provide any public trans- by the municipalities was 66.5%. In 2007, this port services apart from the statutory services. share had increased to 70.3%. The role of the In such cases, the options are to use a bicycle, a state has diminished especially in the direct private car or an expensive taxi. funding of public transport services. The sum that municipalities invest in organising pub- Table 2: The parties and division of tasks in Finnish lic transport has increased by €200 million in public transport services (Riikonen 2008) ten years, which is almost as much as the en-Ministry on Transport and Purchased transport: Railroads tire sum the state uses for funding public trans-Communication and Air transport. port (Public-transport performance statisticsELY-centre (9/15) Scheduled-transport grants 2007). and purchases inter-municipal trasport services. By comparing the means of transport used, twoMunicipalities (342) principal means of transport can be singled out from the Finnish public transport system,School Transport Largest municipal transport ser- at least based on expenses. These two means vice in Finnish municipalities. Municipality purchases Regular of transport are buses/coaches and taxis. The tickets for regular routes or share of the funding of both means of transport purchases bus/taxi service. has grown, and their combined share of the en-Transport service for dis- 18 one-way trips per month tire funding is now 90%. The public fundingabled (statutory) for one individual. Possibility to of bus/coach transport has grown by 62% be- cross municipal border. tween the years 1997 and 2007. For taxi trans-Transport service for social Discretionary. Different prac-reasons (statutory) tices in Finnish municipalities. port, the growth is 84% (Public-transport per- Usually same kind of rights as formance statistics 2007). in transport services for dis- abled. The vehicle capacity of railway transport has re-Open public transport in No regular state subsidizes. mained almost the same as before, but seat ca-municipal area (not statu- Quality and Quantity of opentory, basic-level service) transport services varies greatly pacity has increased. The share of public fund- between different municipali- ing in railway transport has remained constant ties. or perhaps even decreased slightly while theKela – The Social Insur- Fare compensation for hospital passenger capacity has increased.ance Institution of Finland travels. Public Transport rate. 10
  • 11. Public Transport funding State and Municipalities Public Transport funding between different transport modes 800 350 700 300 600 Railway 250 Tram million euros 500 Undergroundmillion euros 200 Bus, Coach 400 Taxi 150 Air 300 100 SL Ferry 200 50 100 0 0 1997 1999 2001 2003 2005 2007 1997 1999 2001 2003 2005 2007 Figure 2: Public Transport funding between different State Municipalities Total transport modes (Source: Public-Transport Performance statistics 2007. Ministry of Transport and Communica- Figure 1. Public Transport funding, State an Munici- tions) palities (Source: Public-Transport performance statis- tics 2007) Based on the number of buses and coaches The number of taxis has decreased by approxi- and their number of seats, the capacity of bus/ mately 200 vehicles in a decade. Of the Nordic coach transport has grown. If measured by the Countries, Finland is still the country with the number of seats available, bus/coach transport most taxis. The passenger capacity of taxis has has a capacity of at least twice the size of all decreased in relation to the number of vehicles other public transport forms put together. This that are no longer used as taxis. In 2007, there is also visible in the amount of public funding were 9,449 taxis in Finland, and taxi transport directed at bus/coach transport. Bus/coach was the second most subsidised form of public transport receives by far the most funding of transport. all forms of public transport. Table 3: Vehicle and seating capacity (Source: Public Performance Statistics 2007. Ministry of Transport and Communication) Vehicle capasity, number Railway Tram Under- Bus, Taxi Air Ferry to Total ground coach SI 1997 888 105 42 6 579 9 676 27 4 17 321 1999 918 104 42 6 921 9 700 27 4 17 716 2001 896 109 54 6 799 9 272 32 3 17 165 2003 878 122 54 6 992 9 186 29 3 17 264 2005 904 131 54 6 876 9 152 32 3 17 152 2007 869 131 54 7 056 9 449 22 3 17 593 Seating capacity, number Railway Tram Under- Bus, coach Taxi Air Ferry to Total ground SI 1997 58 710 3 953 5 460 311 793 48 699 2 174 750 431 539 1999 64 315 3 922 5 460 317 331 50 000 2 044 870 443 942 2001 67 785 4 317 6 948 311 749 48 200 2 730 710 442 439 2003 63 940 5 320 6 948 322 658 46 900 2 764 710 449 240 2005 70 441 5 889 6 948 317 511 46 332 2 895 810 450 826 2007 69 607 5 898 6 948 325 426 48 473 1 959 810 459 121 11
  • 12. Public Transport annual passengers in Finland 400 350 300 Railway million passengers Tram 250 Underground 200 Bus, Coach Taxi 150 Air 100 SL Ferry 50 Figure 3: Public transport annual passengers (Source: Public Performance Statistics 2007. Ministry of Transport 0 1997 1999 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 and Communication)The passenger volumes of public transport have Railway transport receives the lowest publicnot increased at the same rate as public funding subsidy per seat kilometre of the three mainhas increased. The total passenger volume has forms of public transport. On average, eachgrown by 6.3% between 1997 and 2007. This seat kilometre travelled using public trans-is significantly less than the increase in fund- port was subsidised by 1.5 cents. For buses anding (60%). In practice, this means that the cur- coaches the subsidy was 1.4 cents and for taxisrent system would be able to increase the use of 6.8 cents.public transport by 10% by raising funding by Table 5: Public subsidy €/seat kilometre (Source: Pub-100%. Railway transport represents an anom- lic Performance Statistics 2007. Ministry of Transport andaly in the public transport system. The share of Communication)public funding has decreased by 4%, and the €/seat Rail- Bus, Taxi Publicpassenger volume has increased by 33%. kilo- way Coach Transport, metre average 2007 0,005 0,014 0,068 0,015Out of all the public transport forms, taxi trans-port receives the largest amount of support per The public-sector funding of public transportpassenger. The public subsidy received by all has clearly increased in the last decade. Eventhe taxis in the country is €4.91 per customer if the increase is standardised by taking infla-if the subsidy is divided evenly among all taxi tion into consideration, the general cost leveltransport. In reality, the share of the subsidy is has increased by approximately 50%. The in-small for instance in Helsinki and in its neigh- creases in the costs of the Centres for Econom-bouring areas, but in rural areas the share of ic Development, Transport and the Environ-the public subsidy may be two thirds of a taxi ment (State Provincial Offices) have gone ondriver’s total sales. the purchases of scheduled services and otherTable 4: Public subsidy €/passenger (Source: Public Per- direct subsidies of public transport. The costsformance Statistics 2007. Ministry of Transport and Com- of municipalities have grown due to the rapidmunication) increase in travel reimbursements. The eco- €/pas- Rail- Bus, Taxi Public senger way Coach Transport, nomic situation of municipalities is difficult all average over the country, and due to the high unem- 2007 0,91 0,68 4,91 1,24 ployment rate and a low dependency ratio, the municipalities of Eastern Finland are facing an even greater challenge.12
  • 13. The service level of public transportand the responsibilities of thepublic sectorChanges, challenges, new legisla-tion and the EU service regulationsThis section covers the current state of Finnish The portion of the public transport services topublic transport and the changes that have tak- be financed by the public sector varies great-en place from the point of view of national leg- ly both regionally and between different formsislation and EU directives. Special emphasis is of transport. Nyberg’s work group14 finds thatplaced on how the renewed legislation and the the conditions for organising long-term publicorganisational changes affect the sustainable transport services are weak. One of the prob-organisation of public transport, particularly in lems of the current system is that subsidies arerural areas. The information presented in this determined based on budget years. This meanschapter is based on the new Finnish legisla- that the sustainable development of publiction concerning public transport, on reports by transport is not necessarily attained and thatwork groups of the Ministry of Transport and the system is prone to major fluctuations. Ad-Communications and on EU directives12. ditionally, the incoherence of the system has been an obstacle for the comprehensive plan-The work group led by Mikael Nyberg exam- ning of public transport.ined the current state of Finnish legislationconcerning public transport and the financing A new Public Transport Act based on the Reg-of public transport in the report Reviewing the ulation (EC) No 1370/2007 of the Europeansystem of funding for public transport13. The Parliament and Council was passed in Fin-work group comes to the conclusion that trans- land on 3 December 2009. The objective of theport planning should be widened and seen as regulation and the new act is to clarify the re-a comprehensive whole. There should be ex- sponsibilities of competent authorities organ-tensive co-operation, especially between au- ising public transport to ensure sufficient, se-thorities, municipalities and Regional Couci- cure and high-quality public passenger trans-ls. These parties prepare the service-level ob- port services 15.jectives of public transport together. As a newitem, the principle of the division of costs be- The Regulation of the European Parliamenttween the state and the municipalities was and Council and the new public-transport actadded to the Public Transport Act. are meant to clarify the work of authorities and to promote two of the service targets of pub- lic transport services: 1. increasing the use of public transport in urban districts and between cities and 2. securing the basic level of public transport across the entire country.12 Mainly (EC) No 1370/2007 14 Ministry of Transport and Communications 2, p. 9,13 Ministry of Transport and Communications 2, 2009 2009 15 Government bill on the new public transport act 2009 13
  • 14. The basic level of public transport Discussion, problems detected, in-as the goal of the legislator ternational obligations and alter- native ideas for organising public transportWhen setting goals for the public transport sys- In its current state, the Finnish public trans-tem in rural areas, the basic level of transport is port system has many points that require de-constantly the subject of discussions. The basic velopment. The state of the system is analysedlevel of public transport can be seen to include quite critically in the introduction of the gov-the following16: ernment bill on the new public-transport act17.1. Inhabitants are able to use public The amount of funding and fare subsidies has transport for daily commuting, trav- grown significantly, but new customers have elling to their place of study and run- not been reached. The total passenger vol- ning errands between important serv- ume of bus and coach transport has decreased ice centres, municipal centres and by 3%. At the same time, the railway-trans- other large population centres and for port passenger volume has increased by over joining the national public-transport a quarter. network.2. Within municipalities, people who The Finnish State Provincial Offices have as- do not own a car should be able to sessed basic services in provinces annually. Ac- reach population centres at least twice cording to these assessments, the public trans- a week. port system has not been able to respond to the changes that have taken place in the oper-In North Karelia and in other sparsely populat- ational environment. Vehicle mileage has de-ed areas, these goals mean that investment is creased, and the market share of public trans-needed especially in functional, daily connec- port has fallen. In North Karelia, the regionaltions between population centres and munici- ticket system has partly controlled this devel-pal centres. Public transport should be made a opment. However, in rural areas the decliningreal option for commuters and for people run- population and in urban areas the decline ofning errands in their free time. For rural areas, the market share of public transport representthe service-level goal has been set at two days a threat to public-transport connections thata week. The current basic level of public trans- are reasonable at the moment18.port in rural areas does not enable use of pub-lic transport for commuting, studying or fortravelling to leisure activities in the evenings.The target group of basic-level public transportservices in rural areas includes households thatdo not possess a car.16 Ministry of Transport and Communications 2, p. 12, 17 Government bill on the new public transport act, 3 De-2009 cember 2009 18 Government bill on the new public transport act, 3 De- cember 2009, p. 1314
  • 15. 3 Public Transport services in North Karelia – Current status 2010 3.1 General information about North Karelia Regional descriptions of the current state of Up to the end of 2008, the State Provincial Of- public transport services in four countries and fice of Eastern Finland was the local adminis- six areas have been carried out within the Ru- trative organ responsible for purchasing and ral Transport Solutions project between Janu- developing public transport services and for ary and June 2010. In North Karelia, the pub- ticket discounts. As the regional state admin- lic transport services of the entire region have istration was reformed, these responsibilities been examined at a general level, including in- were transferred to the Centre for Economic formation on the actions of different service Development, Transport and the Environment providers, financing, routes and passenger vol- for Pohjois-Savo. In 2010, the amount budg- umes. The report also includes information on eted for public transport services for the Cen- how inhabitants of the region and businesses tre for Economic Development, Transport and in the travel sector view the public transport the Environment in Pohjois-Savo is approxi- services and on what are the most important mately €8.6 million. The budget for the Centre areas for development. This information has for Economic Development, Transport and the been collected with the help of questionnaires Environment for Pohjois-Savo is distributed and discussions. The report includes a vast among the regions of Pohjois-Savo, Etelä-Savo amount of information regarding travelling to and North Karelia19. More detailed information work, housing and the potential accessibility of on the State Provincial Office funding of public public transport services. transport services can be found in the section of this publicationTable 6: Population and ageNorth Karelia 31.12.2009Population and age structure in structure in North Karelia 31.12.2009 concerning the over-(Source: Statistics of Finland) 0-14 yrs. % 15-64 % 65+ % Total all funding of FinnishJoensuu 10 935 15,0 49 759 68,4 12 010 16,5 72 704 public transport.Outokumpu 1 008 13,5 4 813 64,2 1 671 22,3 7 492Ilomantsi 689 11,4 3 623 60,2 1 710 28,4 6 022Kontiolahti 3 130 22,9 8 991 65,7 1 556 11,4 13 677Lipri 2 331 19,2 7 826 64,5 1 976 16,3 12 133Polvijärvi 695 14,4 3 051 63,3 1 075 22,3 4 821Joensu Region 18 788 16,1 78 063 66,8 19 998 17,1 116 849Lieksa 1 455 11,4 7 993 62,5 3 340 26,1 12 788Nurmes 1 114 13,0 5 334 62,2 2 125 24,8 8 573Juuka 781 13,7 3 507 61,5 1 417 24,8 5 705Valtimo 315 12,7 1 508 60,8 659 26,6 2 482Pielinen Karelia 3 665 12,4 18 342 62,1 7 541 25,5 29 548Kitee 1 256 13,4 6 017 64,0 2 128 22,6 9 401Kesälahti 324 13,2 1 449 58,9 687 27,9 2 460Rääkkylä 324 12,3 1 587 60,5 714 27,2 2 625Tohmajärvi 728 14,3 3 180 62,6 1 171 23,1 5 079Central Karelia 2 632 13,5 12 233 62,5 4 700 24,0 19 565North Karelia 25 085 15,1 108 638 65,5 32 239 19,4 165 962 19 Ministry of Transport and Communications 15
  • 16. 3.2 The funding and different models of public transport services The costs of public transport services in North The overall transport costs of public transport Karelia vary significantly from municipality to and service transport in municipalities were municipality. Joensuu clearly has the lowest over €12.6 million in 200720. When comparing overall costs in the region. From the beginning costs, the age structure and housing structure of the year 2009, the municipalities of Eno and of municipalities and the availability of region- Pyhäselkä have also been part of Joensuu. In al regular transport services supporting the use Outokumpu, Lieksa and Tohmajärvi the annu- of municipal services should be taken into ac- al transport costs of public transport services count. In this sense, municipalities do not have are €70 - 80 per inhabitant. In proportion to equal resources for organising public transport the number of inhabitants, the greatest trans- services. port costs in North Karelia can be found in Rääkkylä, Juuka and Kontiolahti. School transport is by far the most expensive sector of transport services. Significant cost- Valtimo level differences can be found by examining theTohmajärvi costs of different branches of administration in Rääkkylä municipalities. For instance in Tohmajärvi, the transport costs of social services per inhabitantPyhäselkä are seven times greater than in Lieksa. Howev- Polvijärvi er, the open public-transport costs in Tohma-Outokumpu järvi are lower than in Lieksa. Based on the sta- Nurmes tistics, there are great discrepancies between Liperi the basic structures for organising public trans- Lieksa port services in different municipalities.Kontiolahti The costs of public-transport and service- Kitee transport services in municipalities have in- Kesälahti creased rapidly. The nominal costs have more Juuka than doubled since 1998, when delivering the Joensuu services came to €6.3 million. The real costs have increased by over €5.5 million since the Ilomantsi year 2000, taking general inflation into consid- Eno eration. Reasons for the rapid increase in the 0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 cost of public-transport and service-transport Health Care Transit €/inhab. services include the general increase in price Social Transit €/inhab. levels, the closing down of village schools and School Transit €/inhab. Open public Transport €/inhab. the aging of the population. Public Transport costs €/inhab. Figure 4: Transport costs €/Inhabitant (Source: North- Savo Ely-Centre and municipalities of North Karelia 2008) 20 Health care transport costs not included. 16
  • 17. Table 7: Public Transport costs for municipalities in North Karelia 2007 (Source: North-Savo Ely-Centreand municipalities of North Karelia 2008) Public Open School Social Health Care Total costs Transport public Transit Transit Transit € costs Transport €/inhab. €/inhab. €/inhab. €/inhab. €/inhab.Eno 72 4 59 9 4 476 654Ilomantsi 97 8 71 17 8 600 617Joensuu 38 8 21 8 3 2 182 602Juuka 136 6 95 35 25 795 011Kesälahti 109 3 75 31 0 283 097Kitee 94 12 53 28 22 899 095Kontiolahti 123 5 95 22 12 1 632 805Lieksa 82 17 56 9 30 1 078 643Liperi 85 2 58 25 11 1 018 524Nurmes 89 9 59 20 0 781 351Outokumpu 71 2 36 33 4 545 203Polvijärvi 97 9 70 18 5 477 720Pyhäselkä 95 1 74 19 12 736 121Rääkkylä 138 3 68 67 0 378 337Tohmajärvi 80 4 63 13 15 418 457Valtimo 100 3 76 21 0 254 322Total 12 558 559Average 94 6 64 23 9Table 8: Public Transport costs 1998–2007 (Source: North-Savo Ely-Centre 2009) Municipality Transport costs Transport costs € / inhab. 2007 €/inhab. 1998 Eno 46 72 Ilomantsi 62 97 Joensuu 19 38 Juuka 79 136 Kesälahti 65 109 Kiihtelysvaara 84 Annexed to Joensuu 1.1.2005 Kontiolahti 57 123 Lieksa 43 82 Liperi 52 85 Nurmes 32 89 Outokumpu 36 71 Polvijärvi 61 97 Pyhäselkä 58 95 Rääkkylä 70 138 Tohmajärvi 47 80 Tuupovaara 75 Annexed to Joensuu 1.1.2005 Valtimo 58 100 Värtsilä 38 Annexed to Tohmajärvi 1.1.2005 17
  • 18. Transport costs have grown in all the munic- Public transport services inipalities of North Karelia during the last ten North Kareliayears. However, there have been great differ-ences in the growth rate of the costs. The costs The next section examines public transportof Nurmes have almost tripled during the pe- services in North Karelia, their target groupsriod under review, whereas in Ilomantsi the and operations models. Pielinen Karelia, thegrowth in costs has been much more moderate target area of the Rural Transport Solutions(+56%). The effects of inflation have not been project, is examined in its own section in moretaken into consideration in the calculations. detail. The detailed report for the Pielinen Kare-Despite the rapid growth in costs of the pub- lia sub-region and Juuka has been compiled atlic transport services in the various branches the Pielinen Karelia Development Centre.of administration of Nurmes, the municipalityhas organised its public transport at a cost that Regular scheduled services by different opera-is lower than the average for the region. Mean- tors form the base of the public transport sys-while in Rääkkylä, Juuka, Kesälahti and Konti- tem in the region. Regular services and expressolahti, public transport services were produced services constitute the majority of public trans-at a cost that is clearly higher than the average port services available to all users. Further in-for the region. formation on the routes covered by different operators, including population analyses, canKELA reimbursements of be found in the section on routes. The regu-travel costs lar services mainly serve the daily needs of in- habitants travelling between municipal centresOn a national level, Kela annually reimburses and to the provincial costs of €215 million21 relating to treat-ment and examination. Over 4.9 million tripsare made annually using ambulances, taxis,wheelchair taxis and other unspecified vehi-cles. In North Karelia, the costs of treatment-related trips reimbursed by Kela are great-est outside the immediate neighbouring mu-nicipalities of Joensuu. The regional specialhealth-care functions are located in Joensuu,which means that trips are made from the re-gion to the municipal centre. The municipali-ties with the highest costs per inhabitant areJuuka, Valtimo and Rääkkylä: the reimburse-ments in all three municipalities are annuallyover €102/inhabitant22.21 Statistical Yearbook of the Social Insurance Institution158. 200822 Paltta, Päivi 38. 200818
  • 19. The municipalities of North Karelia producestatutory and voluntary public-transport andservice-transport services. Statutory servicesinclude transport services in accordance withthe Social Welfare Act and the Act on Servic-es and Assistance for the Disabled presented in Public transport services (mainly special serv-the first chapter of this report and school trans- ices that need to be ordered in advance) open toport services according to certain conditions. all users are available in Nurmes, Juuka, Liek-According to Finnish legislation, rural munic- sa, Ilomantsi, Joensuu, Kontiolahti, Rääkkylä,ipalities and small towns are not required to Tohmajärvi, Kitee, Kesälahti and Polvijärvi.organise public transport. However, a majorpart of the municipalities of North Karelia pro- Service transport in municipalitiesvide public transport services. Different kinds (social welfare and health care)of transport services that can be ordered in ad-vance by the customer form one of the most Transport subsidies granted, based on socialcommon forms of open public transport of- welfare and disability, are controlled by legisla-fered. The idea of these services is that custom- tion24. Transport in accordance with these acts,ers contact the transport combination centre in addition to school transport, forms part ofor the service provider in advance when they the public transport services that municipali-know that they will need transport23. ties are obliged to provide by law. Individual municipalities, co-operation districts (Oku-Public transport from villages li), federations of municipalities and the pub-to the municipal centre lic utility Helli in Central Karelia are respon-(1 to 3 times a week) sible for social welfare and health-care service transport.The availability and practical arrangements oftransport services that need to be ordered in Grounds for granting a transport subsidy in ac-advance vary from municipality to municipal- cordance with the Social Welfare Actity, and in practice there is no common service (Joensuu)concept for providing the services. The Minis- • A transport subsidy may be grantedtry of Transport and Communications has set a for running errands and for recrea-general objective of two connections per week tional trips according to the limits setfor transport from sparsely populated areas to by the income and financial situationmunicipal centres. The frequency of transport of the customerservices varies from municipality to munici- • Customers over the age of 65, of lim-pality, but also within municipalities. In gen- ited means, who have an increasederal, the aim of the current transport system need for support are given priorityis to provide a service from the villages to the • Depending on the need, a maximummunicipal centre at least once a week. During of 8 one-way trips per month can beevenings, weekends and the summer-holiday grantedmonths, the availability of transport services is • A certain part of the fare will remainmuch more limited. the customer’s responsibility23 Usually the previous working day at the latest. 24 Social Welfare Act and Act on Services and Assistance for the Disabled 19
  • 20. Grounds for granting a transport subsidy in ac- Since 1 August 2009, the transport combina-cordance with the Act on Services and Assist- tion centre has supplied approximately 4,800ance for the Disabled (Joensuu) service transport trips a month. Slightly less• A transport subsidy may be granted to than 60% of the trips organised by the trans- a severely disabled person port combination centre are made within Joen-• A social worker will make the deci- suu (including the former areas of Eno and Py- sion, and the customer will be in- häselkä). Outokumpu and Liperi come second formed of how many trips he or she in trip numbers. The number of trips made has has been granted per month increased steadily since the North Karelian transport combination centre has been intro-In North Karelia, there are two larger organisa- duced.tions that are responsible for service transportfor the social services and health-care depart- Before August 2009, the transport combina-ments, in addition to the municipalities. These tion centre was a larger entity that includedorganisations are the social and health service the Joint Municipal Authority for Medical andcentre Helli in Central Karelia and the North Social Services in North Karelia, the Town ofKarelian Transport Combination Centre (Poh- Kitee and Kela in addition to the current mu-jois-Karjalan matkojenyhdistelykeskus, MYK) nicipalities. Pyhäselkä municipality was notthat provides services in Joensuu, Kontiolahti, originally a member but became one after theLiperi, Nurmes and Outokumpu. consolidation of municipalities on 1 January 2009. At that time, the centre organised moreThe North Karelian Transport Combination trips, approximately 7,700 to 8,3oo per monthCentre is part of the organisation of the city in 2008 and 2009. If the revised organisationalof Joensuu25 and is mainly responsible for the structure and the parties now outside the cen-smooth running of transport services in its op- tre are taken into consideration, the number oferation area in accordance with the Social Wel- trips is at least at the same level if not slightlyfare Act and the Act on Services and Assist- higher.ance for the Disabled. Everyone who has beengranted a transport subsidy in accordance with According to the latest statistics, there werethe Social Welfare Act and the Act on Servic- 1,578 customers entitled to combination-cen-es and Assistance for the Disabled is entitled tre trips in different municipalities. Of theseto use service transport. The service is based customers, 625 made at least one trip peron customer orders and combining these or- month26. Special door-to-door transport serv-ders, which means that the combination cen- ices that can be ordered in advance within thetre plans routes based on the customers’ or- grid layout of Joensuu are also available fromders. Customers can call and request transport the North Karelian Transport Combinationservices on weekdays between 6.40 a.m. and Centre27. Transport is ordered via the transport5 p.m.. In the evenings and at weekends, the combination centre to the destination request-calls are directed to a taxi on duty. ed by the customer. The service provides acces- sible transport.25 1 August 2009 onwards 26 Social Welfare Act, Act on Services and Assistance for the Disabled and others (28 trips) 27 Kyytipoika20
  • 21. School transport 3.3 Public transport services in North Karelia:Of all the transport services that municipal- Maps and Routesities are responsible for, school transport isthe most expensive cost item. It accounts for There are several forms of public transport in50 to 80% of the municipalities’ transport ex- use in North Karelia. There are several pro-penses. The costs of school transport have been viders of commercial public transport servicesitemized in the section covering the financing (hereafter the main scheduled transport net-of public transport services. The route infor- work). In addition to public transport that is fi-mation of school transport is included in the nanced by ticket sales, there are also servicesroute, population and availability analyses in supported by the Centre for Economic Devel-the next chapter. opment, Transport and the Environment due to their essential nature. These services mayThe regional base of school transport is formed have few passengers, or they may be otherwiseby the regular scheduled services of bus opera- unprofitable. This purchased transport mainlytors. These services are supplemented by serv- operates on the routes of the scheduled pub-ices purchased by the Centre for Economic De- lic transport network, but the purchased serv-velopment, Transport and the Environment ices are often the ones with the fewest passen-and by school transport services purchased by gers, such as evening and weekend services.the municipalities. School transport services In addition to bus transport, there is also railare mainly targeted at pupils whose daily trip transport in the region. A rail bus transportsto school exceeds five kilometres. passengers to the northern parts of the region between Joensuu, Lieksa and Nurmes. TheSchool transport that is organised using regu- bus also stops at Eno, Uimaharju and the vil-lar scheduled services is always part of the pub- lages of Vuonislahti, Kylänlahti, Höljäkkä andlic transport open to all users. School transport Kohtavaara. There is also a rail bus for thosepurchased from taxi and bus operators by the travelling west. Within the region, the bus onlymunicipalities may or may not be open to all stops at Viinijärvi. Those travelling south canusers. There may even be varying practices use Intercity or Pendolino trains. These trainswithin the services of one municipality. School stop at Kitee and Kesälahti and provide inhab-transport services that are regular scheduled itants of the region with an important connec-bus services are provided using the normal ve- tion to southern Finland.hicles. On routes purchased separately by mu-nicipalities, pupils are transported using vari- A clear majority of the population of Northous vehicles, including taxis and buses with ap- Karelia (approximately two thirds) lives in pop-proximately 20 seats. ulation centres. The largest city is the regional centre Joensuu, with approximately one third of the population of the region. Almost half of the population of the region lives within 20 kil- ometres of Joensuu. Thus, 25% of the popula- tion lives outside the Joensuu area (20 kilo- metres from Joensuu) and outside population centres. An examination of the population dis- tribution development between 1980 and 2005 reveals that in particular the population of the 21
  • 22. Joensuu area has also grown outside popula- It is also worth noting that the populationstion centres, in villages and rural areas (see ta- of small population centres situated along-ble 9: Population development in North Kare- side main roads have also increased. In Pie-lia). Within the region, the population of the linen Karelia, in particular, the agglomerationsJoensuu area has grown. Meanwhile, the pop- alongside the main roads are notable, whereasulation of Pielinen Karelia and Central Karelia the more peripheral areas in the region are be-has decreased. Of the individual municipalities, ing left without inhabitants.only the populations of Kontiolahti and Liperihave grown besides the population of Joensuu, Thus, the population in North Karelia is de-and these two municipalities are situated near creasing and agglomerating but also aging atJoensuu. The rural population in the outer ar- an increasing rate. Public transport is a prereq-eas of the region has decreased (see Figure 4: uisite for stopping rural areas from becomingChange in population, 1980-2005). The same completely desolate. The services of rural areastrend is also visible in most of the other pop- must be secured. Reasonable opportunities forulation centres of the region. There are some travel and public transport are part of the com-exceptions to the rule: the population centres prehensive services of a municipality. The de-of Valtimo, Polvijärvi and Kesälahti have in- population of rural areas brings its own chal-creased their populations. lenges to public transport. POPULATION (2007)Table 9: Population development in North Karelia 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005 2007Joensuu 63 969 66 166 67 363 70 507 71 013 72 292 72 105Outokumpu 10 312 9 678 9 307 8 887 8 155 7 758 7 688Ilomantsi 8 753 8 469 8 054 7 832 7 129 6 422 6 203Kontiolahti 8 351 9 213 10 450 10 831 11 517 12 768 13 326Liperi 10 737 10 994 11 500 11 708 11 479 11 750 11 940Polvijärvi 6 167 6 006 6 001 5 730 5 411 5 008 4 931Joensuu region 108 289 110 526 112 675 115 495 114 704 115 998 116 193Lieksa 19 157 18 588 17 527 16 752 15 208 13 722 13 181Nurmes 1 155 11 419 10 944 10 718 9 781 9 151 8 816Juuka 7 875 7 617 7 317 7 065 6 583 6 034 5 832Valtimo 4 019 3 880 3 637 3 370 3 002 2 671 2 541Pielinen Karelia 42 601 41 504 39 425 37 905 34 574 31 578 30 370Kitee 11 374 11 461 11 350 11 058 10 412 9 795 9 611Kesälahti 3 172 3 192 3 164 3 071 2 871 2 667 2 596Rääkkylä 4 063 3 879 3 556 3 364 3 175 2 838 2 735Tohmajärvi 7 151 7 005 6 666 6 378 5 873 5 446 5 239Central Karelia 2 576 25 537 24 736 23 871 22 331 20 746 20 181North Karelia 176 650 177 567 176 836 177 271 171 609 168 322 166 74422
  • 23. Figure 4: Change in population 1980–2005 23
  • 24. 3.3 Population distribution and public transport routesAs has been described above, rural areas are Approximately 50% of the population livingbecoming more sparsely populated. Although outside population centres lives within 500this has been the prevailing trend for several metres of the routes of the scheduled transportyears, the need for public transport has not dis- network. Approximately 80% of the populationappeared. On a map, the public transport net- lives within two kilometres of the scheduledwork seems comprehensive. The routes also network. If the inhabitants of population cen-cover rural areas, and there are no major de- tres are included, 85% of the population livesfects in sight. However, the most peripheral ar- either within 500 metres of the network oreas are left without public transport services, within population centres. Only 6% of the pop-because it is simply not profitable to organise ulation lives more than two kilometres awaytransport in these areas. from the scheduled transport network or out- side population centres. Thus, the scheduledIn Pielinen Karelia, the population is agglom- network covers the inhabited areas of Northerated alongside main roads, whereas more pe- Karelia extensively.ripheral areas are mostly desolate. In the cen-tral and southern areas of the region, the popu- Despite these positive observations, an exam-lation is distributed more evenly, and desolate ination of the number of services reveals theareas do not exist. This can also be seen from truth about the status of public transport in ru-the service network which covers more rural ral areas. The largest number of services trans-areas than in the north. Nonetheless, there are ports people between population major differences in the population cover-age between areas. In general, it can be said Bus services between Joensuu and the larg-that most of the rural population is situated est population centres are the most frequent.near roads. In central Karelia, there are simply There are over ten daily services from Joen-more roads than in the north. A good quality suu to Lieksa, Outokumpu, Polvijärvi, Liperiroad network is essential to inhabitants nowa- and Kitee via Tohmajärvi. There are also manydays, which is why new housing is built near services to Ilomantsi, including services to Ki-roads. ihtelysvaara and Tuupovaara. There are also around ten daily services from Lieksa to Nur- mes and from Joensuu to Nurmes via Juuka. Population Table 10: Population coverage on public-transport network routes 0 - 14 years 15 - 65 years over 65 years TotalScheduled transport people % people % people % people %500 m buffer 4 668 53 17 790 53 4 852 51 27 310 532 km buffer 7 373 84 27 615 82 7 498 79 42 486 82Routes + Population 0 - 14 years 15 - 65 years over 65 years Totalcentres people % people % people % people %500 m buffer 852 km buffer 9424
  • 25. Figure 5: Scheduled transport services 25
  • 26. The daily connections between Nurmes and seats for school transport. For commuters, theKajaani are also frequent, but elsewhere the infrequent services are problematic. For thoseservices are limited to a couple of individual wanting to run errands, the infrequent servic-services. es could be suitable, but since the services of- ten run in the morning and in the afternoon,Between the largest population centres, some the time spent at the destination would oftenof the services are express services that follow become too long. Alternatively, the customermain roads and only stop in the population cen- would have to find another means of transporttres. These services are almost as quick as us- for the way there or the way back. Many feeling a private car. Some of the services also stop that the service is too infrequent if they have toalong the way and go along smaller roads, of- spend the whole day away.fering the possibility to use public transport tothose living further away from the main roads. In theory, there are many services suitable for commuters since almost all services run in theIndividual services are usually only oper- mornings and in the afternoons. In practice,ated on school days, up to four times a day. however, several connections are needed in or-On these routes, public transport is mainly der to make commuting flexible. These flexibleplanned around the timetables of school chil- routes only include the routes between Joens-dren for whom the municipality has purchased uu and other population centres with the larg-26
  • 27. est number of services. If the criterion of over In addition to the number of services, anoth-six services a day is set for good daily connec- er problem that arises especially in rural are-tions, 70% of the working population in the re- as is the transport at weekends and during thegion lives in population centres or along routes summer. In Joensuu and between populationwith good connections. Approximately 20% of centres, services run every day all year round.the working population living outside popula- However, this is not the case in rural areas.tion centres lives along routes with good con- Many services disappear for the summer and atnections. Since a major part of the working weekends. The frequency of services decreasespopulation lives in population centres, which elsewhere as well, but travelling is still possi-also provide most of the jobs, public transport ble since not all services are cancelled. In ruralcould be used for commuting more often than areas, the disappearance of all services makesis currently the case. However, the problem is travelling challenging.the lack of direct connections from people’shomes to workplaces. In practice, many municipal centres are already poorly accessible to rural inhabitants since theRail transport supplements the bus services. number of services is so small. Moreover, whenThere are two daily railway services in both di- the funding of the Centres for Economic Devel-rections on the route from Joensuu to Nurmes opment, Transport and the Environment ends,via Lieksa. This service offers a good means many more services will be abolished. Theof transport since the rail bus stops at sever- services to be abolished are often rural servic-al local villages and supplements the local bus es, whose abolition further weakens the limitedtransport. For those travelling west, there are travelling possibilities and puts people in ruralfour services in both directions. The flaw on areas in an unequal position. In these cases, thethis route is that the only stop within the region objective of a reasonable opportunity to travelis Viinijärvi, but the bus connections from here is not attained, and people do not have equalare good to Joensuu and Outokumpu. opportunities to run their errands. No doubt there are also exceptions in rural areas. Par-For those travelling south, there are more than ticularly in villages situated by main roads andten daily train services that stop at Kitee and between population centres, there are good op-Kesälahti.There are also frequent bus services portunities for using public transport. Such vil-to Kitee, but from Kitee onwards the services lages include Ahmovaara and Viekijärvi, for in-are limited to one or two a day. The reason for stance.the limited number of bus services is probablythe railway transport that can take passengerssouthwards faster than the buses do. In otherwords, the railway connections from Kitee andKesälahti to Joensuu and to the southern partsof the country are good, but these trains do notstop elsewhere apart from Kitee and Kesälahti.This shortens the journey time from Joensuuto Helsinki but also weakens the transport pos-sibilities of those living by the railway. 27
  • 28. Figure 6: Scheduled trasport during summer and at weekends28
  • 29. The services that run in the summer and at travelling and running errands are depend- weekends only cover about a quarter of the ent on the special transport services provided population living outside population centres by municipalities. There are major differences but within 500 metres of the public transport between municipalities in the organisation of network. Within two kilometres of the trans- these services. Figure 7 presents the routes or- port network, the figure is 51%. During week- ganised by municipalities that are open to eve- days in the winter, the corresponding figures ryone. for public transport are 53% and 82%. Thus, in the summer and at weekends, public trans- The main scheduled transport network cov- port reaches far fewer people than in the win- ers populated areas rather extensively, so the ter. Most of the services that stop for the sum- routes specially organised by municipalities do mer and during holidays are rural services. not significantly affect the potential user vol- umes of public transport on a regional scale. Thus, the population coverage of the mainTable 11: Population coverage in the summer and at weekends public transport network and the special trans-Scheduled transport in the summer and at weekends port services organised by municipalities is people % only slightly greater than the population cov-500 m buffer 13 298 262 km buffer 26 202 51 erage of the main scheduled transport networkRoutes + Population centres alone. Nonetheless, the special transport serv-500 m buffer 126030 77 ices organised by municipalities are important2 km buffer 138934 84 in areas where the main scheduled transport network is not available or where it is difficult to use its services due to a physical disability, This fact affects the travel possibilities of all the for instance. inhabitants of the rural areas as well as tour- ists visiting the area and the accessibility of Most of the services from villages to popu- companies providing services to tourists. In lation centres only run once or twice a week, North Karelia, the main season for tourism is often in the daytime. In general, there are no the summer when most people are on holiday, special transport services in the evenings or but this is also when the public transport serv- at weekends. Only a couple of the services in ices are at their worst. In order to improve the the region run daily. The only exception is the situation, co-operation between different par- route between Koli and Joensuu, which has a ties is needed. This co-operation could lead to taxi service four times a day. Thus, the special a solution offering more comprehensive public transport services are only suitable for people transport in the summer and at weekends. who occasionally need transport. Within popu- lation centres, there are daily special transport According to the report, the scheduled trans- services. The routes on the map are indicative, port network in the rural areas of North Karelia as a customer can be collected from his or her is extensive in many areas. However, in real- front door if necessary. The route map mainly ity this is not the case, since services run infre- gives an idea of the areas where the vehicle is quently and there are few services in the sum- available. Further information is always avail- mer and at weekends. Thus, in rural areas, in- able from the operator. habitants wanting to use public transport for 29
  • 30. Figure 7: Local transport services30
  • 31. The population coverage of the special trans- in rural areas is limited to services that runport service routes is rather uniform in all on school days, up to four times a day. Addi-age groups. Over 65-year-olds do not seem to tionally, many rural services stop at weekendshave better population coverage, although they and during the summer. The aim is to correctwould probably benefit the most from the serv- these deficiencies with special transport servic-ice. It is also worth noting that special transport es provided by municipalities and thus to offerservices open to all customers are not available inhabitants of rural areas the possibility to usein Outokumpu and Liperi. These municipali- public transport for travelling. Due to the infre-ties only provide special transport services to quency of the special transport services, thesethose who have been granted the service. Nor services are only suitable for occasional trips todo special transport services exist in Valtimo. run errands and cannot be used for commuting or for trips in the evenings or at weekends. SoConclusion although the public transport services in rural areas seem comprehensive, there are long in-All in all, the public transport network in North tervals between services, and during the sum-Karelia is comprehensive. The main scheduled mer and at weekends the number of services isoffers frequent services between Joensuu and very limited. Making public transport a func-other population centres, in the summer and at tional option for passengers is a real challenge,weekends too. However, the public transport especially in rural areas. Table 12: Services offered by municipality Scheduled Railway Local Special School transport connection transport transport transport Municipality services services Valtimo x x x Nurmes x x x x x Juuka x x x x Lieksa x x x x x Ilomantsi x x x x Joensuu x x x x x -Eno x x x x x -Tuupovaara x x x x -Kiihtelysvaara x x x x -Pyhäselkä x x x x Kontiolahti x x x x Liperi x x (Only from Viinijärvi) x x Polvijärvi x x x x Outokumpu x x x Rääkkylä x x x x Tohmajärvi x x x x Kitee x x x x x Kesälahti x x x x x 31
  • 32. 32
  • 33. 4 Pielinen Karelia pilot region4.1 Description of a pilot areaIn this report, Pielinen Karelia refers to the 11.4% in Lieksa. These percentages are lowerarea made up of Juuka, Lieksa, Nurmes and than the average commuting percentage in theValtimo despite the fact that Juuka joined the rest of the country. This can be explained byJoensuu region during the compilation of the the fact that there is no larger city in the regionreport. At the end of 2009, there were approxi- or nearby that could offer jobs on a larger scale.mately 30,000 inhabitants living in the target Commuting within the region is also limitedarea. The population decreased by 316 persons by Lake Pielinen, which significantly length-in 2009. This is about one percent of the entire ens the distance between Juuka and Liek-population (Table 13). The largest municipality sa. Within municipalities, the distances fromin the area is Lieksa, whose entire area is over home to work can be quite long and the traffic4,000 square kilometres. The population den- busy, since almost all workplaces are situatedsity is the highest in Nurmes and the lowest in in population centres, whereas approximatelyValtimo (Table 13). half of the employees live outside them (Map: workplaces and employees). Around half of theTransport needs in Pielinen Karelia working population and the unemployed pop- ulation live within 500 metres of the nearestCommuting to work across municipality bor- main public transport network route. Approxi-ders is quite limited in Pielinen Karelia: the mately one fifth lives further than 2 kilometrescommuting percentage in 2007 was 24.6% in away from the nearest main public transportValtimo, 14.2% in Nurmes, 12.4% in Juuka and network route.Table 13: Pielisen Karjalan perustietoja. Viimeisen sarakkeen suluissa nykyisen Pielisen Karjalan seutukunnan virallis-esti muodostavien Lieksan, Nurmeksen ja Valtimon yhteistilanne 31.12.2009. (Source: Kuntaliiton aluekohtaiset tilastot, Lieksa Nurmes Valtimo Total Juuka 29,548Population 12 788 8 573 2 482 5 705 (23,843)Net Change (2009) -129 / 1 % -104 / -1,2 % -25 / -1 % -58 / -1 % -316 (-258)Surface area km2 4 068 1 855 838 1 847 8608 (6761)Population density 3,8 5,4 3,1 3,8 4,0 (4,1)inhab./km2 33
  • 34. Figure 8: Primary scholls and school transport routes There are currently 17 primary schools in use el times are not followed by the parties organis- in the Pielinen Karelia area (Figure 8). In Valti- ing transport, so the rather high limits provid- mo and Nurmes, the schools have been placed ed by law are often exceeded if pupils live very in municipal centres, whereas in both Lieksa far from the school. and Juuka there are four primary schools out- side the central population centre. The number The destinations visited by inhabitants (health of village schools has decreased significantly centres, banks, offices and commercial servic- since the 1990s, and simultaneously the school es) in Pielinen Karelia are mainly situated in trips of children living in sparsely populated municipal centres. Other destinations include areas and the need for school transport have the Koli village centre (Lieksa) and Kolinport- grown. According to Finnish law, the daily trip ti (Ahmovaara, Juuka). Inhabitants from Pie- to school of children under the age of 13 can be linen Karelia visit the regional centre Joensuu a maximum of 2.5 hours and a maximum of 3 often, particularly with regards to health mat- hours for children over 13. In practice, the trav- ters. 34
  • 35. 4.2 The funding of public transport services in Pielinen Karelia Pielinen Karelia with its many lakes is a popu- The beginning of the 21st century has been a lar tourist area in the summer, and there are time of rapidly increasing transport costs for many summer cottages in the area (Figure 9). municipalities in Pielinen Karelia as well as The summer cottages are situated over a much the rest of Finland. There are several general wider area than the permanent housing, which reasons for the increasing costs: the transport is mainly situated in municipal centres, by of preschool pupils has become statutory, the main roads and in village centres of sparsely school network has become sparser and public populated areas (Figure 10). bus services have been abolished in municipal- ities with a sparse population.Figure 9: Holiday estates and public transport routes 35
  • 36. Figure 10: Population and scheduled transport Municipal transport service costs  Municipal transport service costs 1998‐2007 per inhabitant 1998‐2007 1200 140 1000 120 100 8001000 €/ year €/inhabitant 80 600 60 400 40 200 20 0 0 1998 2001 2005 2007 1998 2001 2005 2007 Juuka Lieksa Nurmes Valtimo Juuka Lieksa Nurmes ValtimoFigure 11: Municipal transport service costs 1998–2007 Figure 12: Municipal transport service costs per inhabitant 1998–2007 36
  • 37. However, there are still clear differences be- €100 in Valtimo. Since 2001, the costs per in-tween the development of transport costs in habitant have increased the most in Juuka.different municipalities in Pielinen Karelia. InLieksa, the increase in total transport costs was An examination of the situation in differentgreater than in the other municipalities be- branches of administration in 2007 revealstween the years 1998 to 2005 (increase of ap- that the costs per inhabitant in Juuka are theproximately 80% from the 1998 level), but then highest in all other areas except public trans-the costs began to decrease (Figure 11). The rap- port (Figure 13 and Table 14). Public trans-id increase at the beginning of the 21st century port costs include the costs of special transportseems to have ended in Nurmes as well. Dur- services, such as the Kimppakyyti service ining the reference period, the costs increased by Lieksa and the Kyytipoika service in Nurmes.160%. In Juuka, transport costs have increased The transport costs of the social welfare serv-steadily since 2001; since the 1998 level, the ices in Juuka are increased particularly by thecosts have increased by approximately 60%. services for the disabled, since the municipalityIn Valtimo, the total transport costs have re- is lacking a service that would be less expensivemained at about the same level between 1998 than private taxis. In Lieksa and Nurmes, theand 2007. In 2007, the costs were about 25% costs of services for the disabled are lower be-greater than in 1998. cause the municipalities have functional spe- cial transport services that also provide trans-When calculating costs per inhabitant, the port for disabled customers. The cost of trans-highest costs are attained in Juuka (Figure 12). port services for the disabled varied from €452In 2007, the transport costs per inhabitant in per customer in Lieksa to €1,378 per customerJuuka were about €140/year, while the same in Valtimo.figure was €80 in Lieksa, €90 in Nurmes and Transport costs per inhabitant in different service branches 2007 160 140 120 € / inhab. / year 100 80 60 40 20 0 Juuka Lieksa Nurmes Valtimo Municipal service transport Education Social Care Total Figure 13: Transport costs per inhabitant in different service branches 2007 37
  • 38. Table 14: Pielisen Karjalan vuoden 2007 kuljetuskustannustilastot pois lukien terveydenhuolto, koska sektorin tieto-ja ei ollut saatavilla kaikista alueen kunnista (Lähde: Itä-Suomen lääninhallitus / Pohjois-Savon ELY-keskus 2010) allcosts in eurosPublic Transport Costs in Pielinen Karelia Juuka Lieksa Nurmes ValtimoPurchased scheduled bus services 0 0 0 0Purchased taxi service (feeder transport)Muncipal open transport, basic.level service (taxi) 26 279 0 0 0Service Transport 0 196 337 7 864 7 643Ticket compensaticons (Municipal share of costs from 10 371 32 739 4 402 242regional and city)Education sector Juuka Lieksa Nurmes ValtimoPre-School transport 55 881 94 542 28 476 39 681Tickets for Primary school pupils 101 855 223 925 19 513 41 787Tickets for secondary level students (only muncipal costs not 4 936 0 0 7 943including Kela funding (state)Purchased bus transport 20 188 13 946 2 979 5 288Taxi transport 371 919 403 442 237 769 97 149Other transport costs (such as meals) 107 40 31 618 0Social Care Juuka Lieksa Nurmes ValtimoPre-School transport 0 3 232 0 0Childern day care tranport service 488 1 761 1 963 0Act on Special Care for the Mentally handicapped 26 249 13 906 17 734 0(statutory)Social Welfare Act (statutory) 11 911 0 0 4 963Act on Services and Assistance for the disabled 16 127 80 978 94 797 49 625Other transport costs (such as meals) 2 594 13 797 61 033 0Inhabitants that have grant for fare compensations Juuka Lieksa Nurmes ValtimoPrimary school pupils requiring tranport (Fall 2007) 329 454 343 133Act on Special Care for the Mentally handicapped (Number 12 22 16 0of customers)Social Welfare Act (Number of customers) 2 970 0 14Act on Services and Assistance for the disabled (Number of 130 179 147 36customers)Age over 75 674 1 629 1 045 336Age under 15 (31.12.2007) 891 1 765 1 326 343Inhabitants (31.12.2007) 5 832 13 181 8 816 2 541Total Juuka Lieksa Nurmes ValtimoTransport Costs in total (helth care sector not included) 795 011 1 078 643 781 351 254 322Transport costs of basic education 493 963 641 313 462 689 144 224Transport costs per inhabitant € 136 82 89 100Transport costs /over 75- and under 15-v € 508 318 330 375Basic education transport costs / pupil € 1 501 1 413 1 349 1 084Act on Services and Assistance for the disabled / 1 241 452 645 1 378recipient €DRT services / over 75-vuotiaat € 296 170 166 185Basic education ticket prices share from total education 21 % 35 % 42 % 29 %costs %There does not seem to be a specific reason lage schools and long distances. Taxi transportfor the high transport costs of the municipal forms a major part of the transport costs in Ju-educational administration of Juuka. How- uka: its share of the total costs of the munici-ever, the costs are almost double the costs of pal educational administration is greater thanNurmes, where all the schools are situated in in the other municipalities of the region.population centres, and of Lieksa, with its vil-38
  • 39. 4.3 Public Transport services in Pielinen Karelia and Juuka: Maps and Routes During the school year, there is a relatively high The normal ticket fares for bus transport be- number of scheduled bus services between the tween municipal centres are approximately municipal centres of Pielinen Karelia (Figure twice as much as private-car fuel costs on cor- 14). There are, however, clear deficiencies in responding journeys, and the time spent when the morning and afternoon timetables regard- travelling by bus is also double the time spent ing the use of public transport for commuting travelling by car, except when using express or for school transport. At weekends and in services. Most of the vehicles used in public the summer, the scheduled services are limit- transport are not accessible to the disabled: ed to a minimum (Map: summer and weekend scheduled services are mainly run using large, routes), and, for instance, the morning services high-floor buses. In sparsely populated areas, required by the working population practically the current routes of the public transport net- disappear altogether. work are quite far from a large number of peo- ple who do not own a car or are unemployed and who would be physically more able to use the vehicles available than the elderly.Figure 14: Scheduled transport services during school year 39
  • 40. There is a railway connection between the mu- The transport needs of the municipalities innicipalities of Lieksa, Nurmes and Valtimo. A Pielinen Karelia are rather similar in differentrail bus runs on this from Lieksa to Nurmes. municipalities, and the transport services con-There are no passenger trains between Nurmes sist of statutory school transport and transportand Valtimo, but a train bus is used to connect of the disabled and customers of social servic-the two municipalities. The connections for es as well as supplementary transport servicesrailway transport between Lieksa and Valtimo for the elderly. Municipalities plan their trans-are poor: There is only a good connection to port services individually, which is why thereValtimo, which is only 80 kilometres away and are major differences in, for instance, the spe-next to the railway line, on Fridays and Sun- cial transport services provided. The transportdays in the middle of the day. Otherwise, the needs of different branches of administrationtransport connections are not co-ordinated at within municipalities are also often treated asall. Train and train-bus services are infrequent their own units, which can be seen from the fol-and badly scheduled with regard to the com- lowing summaries of the transport services inmuter transport between municipal centres. the municipalities of Pielinen Karelia.To summarise the quality of the services, it Juukacould be said that the service concepts of sched-uled bus and rail transport in Pielinen Karelia School transport is organised for four villagedo not in their current state (vehicles, routes, schools, the comprehensive school in the mu-schedules, fares) take the actual needs of the nicipal centre and for upper secondary schoolpotential user groups (the elderly, the disabled, students. In the spring of 2010, there were 334the working population, people with a low in- basic education pupils in Juuka who were en-come, tourists) into consideration at all except titled to school transport. School transport isin the case of school transport. This has led to a purchased from scheduled transport opera-situation where large buses drive around emp- tors and taxi companies. The transport servic-ty, while sparsely populated areas suffer from a es are planned by the departmental secretarylack of adequate public transport services. of the municipal educational administration. Juuka currently has eight so-called special transport service routes that are mainly run us- ing minibuses (capacity of 1+8 persons). Seven of the routes take passengers from remote vil- lages to the centre of Juuka and one route from remote villages to Kolinportti in Ahmovaara (Figure 15). These special transport services have been organised in areas with no scheduled services or with infrequent scheduled services that make it difficult to use public transport for running errands. The service is organised by the municipal government, and the contact person is the departmental secretary of the mu- nicipal educational administration. The routes are only operated on demand, up to three times a week depending on the area. The exact routes40
  • 41. and schedules are devised based on the orders Other transport services organised in Juuka in- received by the driver. In general, the service clude meals on wheels for the elderly organised leaves for the centre of Juuka from the most re- by home-care services. Meals are delivered on mote village location in the morning between 9 different routes five to seven days a week. In and 10 and leaves again from the centre of Ju- the winter of 2010, there were 70 custom- uka between 11 a.m. and 1.30 p.m.. The contact ers receiving meals in Juuka. The municipal- person for the special transport services is the ity of Juuka also organises joint taxi transpor- departmental secretary of the municipal edu- tation from the centre of the municipality and cational administration. from some villages to a day club for the elder- ly. The taxi companies charge the municipal- In 2009, 4,900 one-way trips were made with- ity for the service based on the kilometres driv- in Juuka using special transport services. This en. The customers pay the municipality €7.50 resulted in 53,000 road kilometres. The net per day for the services, which means that the costs paid by the municipality for organising net cost left to be covered by the municipality the service were €25,000. The same year, the is approximately €10,000 per year. The trans- transport costs of transport for the disabled, port services for the club are ordered by the according to the Act on Services and Assist- club manager. ance for the Disabled, cost Juuka municipality €197,000.Figure 15: Population distribution and Demand-Response-based transport services 41
  • 42. LieksaBasic education was given at eight different lo- day on the route Koli-Joensuu-Koli. The routescations in Lieksa during the school year 2009- have been planned with consideration for good2010, and there were 412 pupils receiving basic connections. The customer and driver are ineducation who needed school transport. The direct contact with each other, and the custom-longest one-way trip to school was 52 km in the er is informed of real-time waiting times andupper level of comprehensive school and 43 km the route. User groups with special needs arein the lower level of comprehensive school. The taken into consideration when the routes arepupils of the Koli, Viekki and Vuoniskylät pri- planned, and, if necessary, customers can bemary schools had the shortest average trip to provided with an, whereas the pupils of the central schoolhad the longest average trip. It is a difficult task In 2008 and 2009, a total of 25,600 one-wayto organise school transport cost-effectively trips were made each year and 256,000 roadand in a user-friendly manner in Lieksa, as the kilometres were covered on all the routes of themunicipality is vast and most areas are sparse- Kimppakyyti service. The companies providingly populated. School transport is organised us- Kimppakyyti services received €235,000 (in-ing scheduled bus services or taxis. Transport cluding 8% VAT) in reimbursement from theservices are planned by the municipal educa- municipality. Individual transport services intional administration. accordance with the Act on Services and Assist- ance for the Disabled cost the municipality ap-Since 1999, the special transport services under proximately €98,000 during these years.the Social Welfare Act and the Act on Servicesand Assistance for the Disabled have mainly Nurmesbeen organised using a system called Kimppa-kyyti that is open to all users and runs on de- During the school year 2009-2010, all sevenmand. The Kimppakyyti service runs on flex- units providing preschool or basic education inible standard routes both in population centres Nurmes were situated in population centres. Inand sparsely populated areas on demand. It op- January 2010, there were 327 pupils entitled toerates two to five days a week and four times a school transport. The longest one-way school42
  • 43. trip was 31 km and the average trip to school Act on Services and Assistance for the Disa-approximately 13 km. School transport is or- bled seldom use the Kyytipoika services. Soganised using public scheduled bus services far, tourists have not used the service very of-and chartered taxis mainly reserved for school ten either.children. Transport services are planned by thehead of the municipal educational administra- Nurmes also has meal services for those intion. home care and transport services to day clubs for the elderly.In Nurmes, a service called Kyytipoika haslong been one of the forms of public transport Between 2007 and 2009, altogether 16,000and service transport. It is available to all us- one-way trips were made annually anders, but also covers service-transport services. 110,000 road kilometres were covered on allThe Kyytipoika services can be ordered from the Kyytipoika routes. The annual net cost ofMonday to Friday between 7 a.m. and 6 p.m.. the Kyytipoika services for the municipalityIn sparsely populated areas, the order must be was €75,000. During these years, the individ-made three hours before the planned trip and ual transport services organised in accordancein population centres two hours before the trip. with the Act on Services and Assistance for theAll Kyytipoika services are accessible for the Disabled cost approximately €77,000 annual-disabled. Kyytipoika services run in each de- ly. The contact person for the Kyytipoika serv-fined area three days a week. The routes have ices and other public transport issues in Nur-been restricted to certain areas and roads in mes is the head of the municipal educationalthe contract. The drivers can plan their exact administration.route within the target area according to theorders received as is most convenient. If there Valtimoare school children needing transport alongthe route and the schedule is suitable, the In Valtimo, there were 94 pupils entitled toKyytipoika services can also transport school school transport during the school year 2009-children. In rural areas, disabled persons are 2010. All pupils attend the central school situ-entitled to an assistant according to the Act on ated in the centre of the municipality. SchoolServices and Assistance for the Disabled. The transport is organised using scheduled busservice provider is compensated for the trans- services and chartered taxis. Transport isport of such an assistant. planned by the head of the municipal educa- tional administration / the head of the school.The advantages of the Kyytipoika service in- To our knowledge, there are no special trans-clude little administrative bureaucracy, the port services for the elderly or for those inhab-service providers’ familiarity with the area and itants who do not own a car and live in sparselythe people, and the familiarity and safety of populated areas. The municipality reimbursesthe service. Customer satisfaction has not been taxi costs to inhabitants on a case-by-case ba-measured, but it is thought to be good. Those sis. Information on other social-welfare trans-entitled to transport services according to the port services was not received from the munic- ipality. 43
  • 44. 4.4 Rural Transport - Special questions in Pielinen Karelia and JuukaThe Pielinen Karelia public transport services In Lieksa and Nurmes, special transport serv-are at a turning point. The scheduled servic- ices have been developed steadily and purpose-es mainly run by private enterprises have be- fully, and these municipalities now have a rath-come and continue to be less frequent, leaving er good service system that treats inhabitantsresponsibility for organising and funding stat- equally. Unfortunately, there are also areas inutory public transport services in the hands Pielinen Karelia where the situation of the eld-of municipalities. Municipalities have reacted erly and those who do not own a car is almostto the situation very differently, which means unbearable: inhabitants living in sparsely pop-that the level of services within Pielinen Kare- ulated areas may only have a chance to visitlia varies greatly. the nearest population centre by public trans- port once a month and may be totally depend-Municipalities have started to supplement the ent on the help of neighbours or self-financeddwindling scheduled services that do not an- taxi services. Elderly people living in popula-swer the needs of customers by providing spe- tion centres, who are not entitled to transportcial transport services aimed at the elderly, the services according to the Act on Services andphysically handicapped and those entitled to Assistance for the Disabled, also suffer fromtransport services according to the Social Wel- the lack of suitable public transport services forfare Act and the Act on Services and Assistance their needs. The inequality of citizens regard-for the Disabled. The coverage of the special ing the availability of public transport servic-transport services in Lieksa and Nurmes are es became clearly apparent during the compi-quite extensive especially with regards to the lation of the report regarding the current stateover 65-year-olds and fulfil the recommenda- of public transport.tions set for special transport services by theMinistry of Transport and Communications. In Since scheduled services are becoming scarc-Juuka, the quality of special transport services er, the role of the municipality in organisingvaries, and in Valtimo these services do not ex- school transport is also becoming more andist (Figure 15). more important. This could lead to a signifi- cant increase in expenses: of all the transportThe problem with these special transport serv- expenses in the public sector, school transportices is that they are only suitable for people expenses have increased the most in Finlandwho are not in a hurry. The municipality may in the 21st century. In addition to the uncon-also restrict the right to use special transport trollable rise in costs, there are also other prob-services if the customer lives near a scheduled lems concerning school transport: daily travelpublic transport route. In such a case, the au- times are constantly growing and are very nearthorities often conclude that the customer does the maximum times allowed, which places ex-not have an actual need for special services, al- tra strain on pupils.though in reality the customer may not be ableto use the scheduled routes due to health prob- The public transport sector that has developedlems, for instance. the least is commuter transport; both sched-44
  • 45. uled services and special transport services are The coordination of municipal transport serv-mainly unsuitable for commuting purposes due ices needs developing in all the municipali-to their schedules. The lack of public transport ties of the area. A common problem is the vastsuitable for commuting can partly be blamed number of different transport needs and thefor long-term unemployment in the area since minimal co-operation in planning across mu-the lack of connections limits the job oppor- nicipality borders and branches of administra-tunities available to those less wealthy people tion: each branch of administration seems towho do not own a car. From the point of view of plan its own transport services on a case-by-the tourist industry, the public transport con- case basis without consulting other branches.nections are also weak: during the most impor- Municipalities call for bids regarding individ-tant season, summer, about three quarters of ual transport services, which means that thethe scheduled services stop running and the re- cost of the service is sometimes greater thanmaining services are not compatible with flight the value of the product being transported /and railway transport schedules. Tourists have the service. Individual planning and calling fornot found the special transport services as bids probably results in higher expenses thanwell as was expected, perhaps due to the lack calling for bids for a larger entity of transportof suitable marketing. The Kimppakyyti serv- services. Taking into consideration the varie-ice, which connects the Koli national park, the ty of transport needs and the susceptibility tomost important tourist attraction in the area, change in municipalities, a more functional,and the nearest airport and railway station, is centralised option would be to concentrate allonce again threatened and on the list of servic- transport services in a regional transport serv-es to be abolished by the Centre for Economic ice unit owned by the municipality.Development, Transport and the Environment.The incoherence and instability of the funding The development and supply of services in ru-system for public transport decreases the op- ral municipalities is limited by the fact that theportunities of creating and stabilising func- population density is low and that there sim-tional public transport services and brings un- ply are less potential users and payers than incertainty to the development of sparsely popu- a large city covering a similar area. In order tolated areas. reach enough customers, the vehicles and serv- 45
  • 46. ice concepts should be suitable for as many us- the route and/or need moving aids or an assist-ers as possible, i.e., transport needs should be ant. Leaving these people without services doescombined. Currently, combining is only imple- not in any way prevent the decline of scheduledmented by using the same service providers in services. In fact, it may even promote this de-certain areas to provide staggered transport cline if the elderly are forced to move to larg-services for different needs, which does not er population centres due to the lack of trans-greatly increase the cost-effectiveness of the port services and thus accelerate the desertionservices from the point of view of the munici- of rural areas.pality. In order to cut costs, it would be worththinking of ways to fulfil different transport The Pielinen Karelia public transport servicesneeds using the same services. are facing a challenging problem. Solving the problem requires a systematic approach andThe incoherence of the funding and admin- co-operation between different parties, as wellistration of the system and the fear of aboli- as firm actions by the state administration intion of profitable scheduled services due to the order to simplify the funding and controllingcompetition caused by alternatives impede the system of public transport. High-quality serv-development of alternative service solutions ices and their cost-effective implementation re-significantly. However, the current scheduled quire a significantly greater investment in theservices cannot be used by the elderly, the larg- planning of services and in the co-operationest potential customer group in Pielinen Kare- between municipalities and different brancheslia, if they live even slightly further away from of administration.46
  • 47. 5 Surveys 5.1 Pielinen Karelia surveys The use of public transport in mostly use public transport for running er- Pielinen Karelia and Juuka rands, holiday travelling, pursuing hobbies and attending events. Pensioners mainly use The purposes for which customers use public public transport for running errands, pursu- transport reveal a great deal about the func- ing hobbies and attending events. Young peo- tionality of local services. At its best, function- ple mainly use public transport when travelling al public transport can be used for all trips, between home and their place of study, on holi- when there are no limiting factors that prevent day trips and when pursuing hobbies. its use. In Pielinen Karelia and Juuka, public transport is used for all the typical travelling Only slightly less than a quarter of all trips purposes. It is easy to believe that public trans- made using public transport in Pielinen Kare- port in the area offers the possibility to travel lia and Juuka are related to travelling to/from a freely and effortlessly on trips related to work place of study or to/from a workplace. The rea- and leisure. However, there are problems that sons for this are the long distances in the area become visible when the purposes for which and the lack of services at suitable times. The people use public transport are examined more limited use of public transport for travelling to closely. work is simply due to the fact that the current services do not correspond with the needs of People mainly use public transport for travel- the customers. It is easier for public transport ling in their free time. Those of working age to answer the needs of those travelling in their free time because people have more flexible timetables when they are not working.For which travels you are using public transport? 6,4 % 4,3 % 8,5 % Going to work Work trips (except home-workingplace-home- travelling) 9,6 % 28,7 % Travelling between home and school/student place Running errands (for example banks, offices, health care, shopping) Travelling to hobbies and events 10,6 % 31,9 % Holiday travelling Something else Figure 16: The use of public transport in Pielinen Karelia and Juuka 47
  • 48. Different age groups have differentneeds regarding the development ofpublic transportPublic transport needs developing in the Pielin- In Pielinen Karelia and Juuka, there is a greaten Karelia and Juuka area. The questionnaire need for special transport services due to thereveals that 86.8% of those who answered be- relatively large population of pensioners. Thelieve that their transport possibilities could be current Kimppakyyti service in Lieksa and thesignificantly improved both locally and nation- Kyytipoika service in Nurmes are importantally by improving the public transport servic- and make travelling possible for the pension-es in the area. The development needs of pub- ers and physically disabled living in the area.lic transport can only be determined by exam- Similar services are also needed in Juuka andining the existing problems. People find that Valtimo, where pensioners and the physicallythe greatest development needs concern mak- disabled currently have to cope by using oth-ing schedules more frequent and extending the er forms of public transport. With regards toservices to remote locations. Organising public transport pooling services, a functional infor-transport all year round in remote areas is also mation system is also needed so that all thoseseen as important since, especially during the requiring transport services receive the nec-summer months, people suffer from the lack of essary information about the services. Pen-public transport because school transport serv- sioners mainly need public transport servic-ices are not running. es for running different errands, so their use of public transport is not tied to a certain timeFor the working population, the most essential of day, as is the case with the working popu-development needs are increasing the number lation. Local happenings should, however, beof services in remote areas, making schedules taken into consideration when planning sched-more frequent and decreasing travel times. Or- ules, so that it would be possible to attend spe-ganising functional connections from Joensuu cial events (e.g. the evening market in Nurmes)to workplaces is also seen as an important fac- even from remote areas.tor. Women of working age are more interestedin making schedules more frequent than men Improving the train connections between Liek-are. A difference between the two sexes is also sa and Nurmes is seen as an important issue invisible in other attitudes regarding the devel- the development of public transport services inopment of public transport: women are more remote districts. Bringing back the night trainsopen to developing public transport than men between Nurmes and Helsinki is also seen as anare. A higher income level also correlates with important issue, as well as improving the trainthe interest in more frequent schedules. The connections from Nurmes and Lieksa to Joen-people with a low income are mostly pension- suu. Improving local train connections woulders who are often satisfied if it is generally pos- increase the use of public transport when run-sible to travel between home and population ning errands and going to work and decreasecentres using public transport. People with the use of private cars.higher income levels also often need to travelmore which is why more frequent schedulesand routes are seen as important.48
  • 49. Improving services would increasethe use of public transportDeveloping public transport services has a ly only becomes clear after testing them. Dueclear connection to the utilisation rate of the to irregular timetables and changing workingservices in the Pielinen Karelia and Juuka hours, people do not always believe that publicarea. According to 73% of the respondents in transport can sufficiently adapt to the changingthe Pielinen Karelia and Juuka area, develop- needs of public transport services will directly affecttheir willingness to use public transport. Wom- The single most important factor affecting theen and those with a low income are more will- use of public transport is the customer’s rela-ing to change their habits regarding the use of tionship with private cars. The people usingpublic transport. In this case, the people with a private cars will not begin to use public trans-low income include school children, students, port unless they are no longer able to use theirunemployed people, physically disabled people car for some reason. When developing publicand pensioners, who are more able to arrange transport, it should be held in mind that publictheir timetables so that they correspond with transport should offer a respectable alternativethe schedules of public transport. The people to using a private car. 79.5% of the populationwho do not own a car are also open to new serv- in Pielinen Karelia and Juuka feel that pub-ices because they do not have any other possi- lic transport is more environmentally friendlybilities for travelling long distances. than the use of a private car. The ecological de- velopment of public transport includes takingApproximately one fifth of the respondents is environmental issues into consideration buthesitant regarding the development of pub- also offering people such transport opportu-lic transport. Those hesitating are mainly of nities that giving up the use of a private car isworking age or pensioners. This is understand- since the suitability of the services usual- 49
  • 50. Innovative ideas - data communica-tions and biogasWhen developing public transport services, In addition to decreasing the need for trans-it is important to know what the objective is. port, propositions were made regarding theWhen speaking of a service, the point of view development of existing services, and someshould be customer-oriented, and the finan- new ways of developing public transport werecial resources should be in proportion with the also presented. For instance, giving a couple ofservices the customers need. In addition to the transport pooling vouchers to customers eve-needs of the service provider and the custom- ry month was proposed so that new custom-er, environmental issues that fundamentally ers would find the service. The vouchers wouldaffect the direction of public transport services also help in marketing the service. A combina-should also be taken into consideration. tion ticket that could be used with several dif- ferent forms of public transport was also pro-In the Pielinen Karelia and Juuka area, envi- posed.ronmental issues, facilitating and making trav-elling less expensive and decreasing the need With regards to the ecological sustainability ofto travel all came up when the customers were public transport, the subsidised production ofasked for development ideas. For instance, im- biogas was proposed in order to reduce the car-proving the availability of services based on bon-dioxide emissions caused by public trans-data communications and information technol- port. The same proposition also included theogy by developing infrastructures and the serv- idea of changing the energy source of the trainice structure was proposed. This is based on the between Joensuu and Nurmes from electrici-idea that people do not necessarily need trans- ty to biogas. The ideas from customers includ-port to services if the services can be brought ed many innovative solutions for developingto the customers at home. In this case, devel- transport routes. One customer suggested in-oping infrastructures refers to extending the troducing a ferry between Koli and Vuonislahtibroadband network so that it would be avail- or between Koli and Lieksa and building a se-able to all inhabitants in the area. The service ries of bridges between Paalasmaa and Joensu-structure should be developed both in the pub- unniemi in Lieksa. The most important issue inlic and the private sector so that people could innovative ideas is not necessarily the feasibil-use more services over the Internet. The de- ity of individual propositions but the fact thatvelopment of services would mean that people different ideas are brought up and discussed.would no longer need to leave home in order to By combining the positive features of variousrun errands. Taking village schools back into ideas it is possible to create functional entitiesuse was also proposed as a solution to reducing that serve the system better than individual de-the need for transport services. Additionally, velopment ideas.transport pooling was proposed as a solutionto transporting patients between health cen-tres and the central hospital in order to reducethe number of transport services in the area.50
  • 51. 5.2 Tourism enterprises surveysThe Regional Council of North Karelia carried When the businesses were asked about the in-out a survey within the Rural Transport Solu- convenience experienced by their customerstions project aimed at the tourism enterpris- when travelling to the region and to the targetes in North Karelia at the end of 2009 and the destination, the results were exactly the same.beginning of 2010. The objective of the survey Despite this, 35 of the businesses found thatwas to find out how the tourism industry sees the availability of their services is poor withoutthe current level of public transport services, a car. Based on this sampling, the flow of cus-their availability and their significance to tour- tomers and the development prospects for theism in the region. A total of 42 businesses from region’s tourism industry are heavily depend-around the region answered the survey. All the ent on car transport.municipalities in the region were represent-ed apart from the Kesälahti district. The sur- How, then, do the tourism enterprises in Northvey was a combined effort with Karelia Expert. Karelia see the opportunities provided by pub-The survey also provided the respondents with lic transport as an element improving the avail-the opportunity to participate in the further de- ability and strategic competitiveness of theirvelopment of the public transport system. Out business? Every other business has thoughtof the 42 businesses, 16 provided their contact about how to attract more customers who dodetails for this purpose. not own a car. Faster train connections from Helsinki to Joensuu will enable investmentsThe majority of the businesses that answered in environmentally responsible tourism if thethe survey are small businesses that employ 0 situation is exploited and suitable connectionsto 4 persons28. Twenty-six of the businesses are from the regional centre to tourist attractionslocated further than 5 kilometres away from a are available. A clear majority of the business-municipal centre. Sixteen businesses are locat- es (36) found that extensive and regular publiced in a municipal centre or in the immediate transport services bring added value to the op-transitional zone of a municipal centre. Ques- erations of their business. In addition to this,tions were asked regarding the current flow of 35 businesses found investments in environ-customers and the main means of transport mentally responsible tourism important.used by the customers. No fewer than 39 busi-nesses were of the opinion that most of their The businesses have different opinions aboutcustomers arrived by private car. The three the problems of public transport and their so-other businesses had organised transport in- lutions. The most critical deficiencies concerndependently, and this was the main means of availability in the summer (reduced servicestransport used by the customers. during the summer months), bad connections during weekends and the connections from theWhen the businesses were asked about the airport29 to the region. Nor are the businessescurrent public transport services, 16 business- satisfied with the availability of the scheduleses found that the current service level served for public transport and communications re-their business well, whereas 15 had the oppo- garding public point of view. 29 Joensuu Airport Entrepreneurs from Pielinen Karelia28 In addition to the entrepreneur emphasized the Kuopio direction. 51
  • 52. What are the greatest development needs ac- Internet and reserve these transport servicescording to the businesses? On a regional level, at the same time. This would provide the cus-the loss of the night train connection has clear- tomer with an actual opportunity to choosely weakened the public transport service level. the means of transport to the destination. TheThe businesses feel that offering taxi services service could be produced by the tourism en-for ride sharing30 and special transport serv- terprises in co-operation with the municipali-ices that can be ordered in advance on sched- ties of the region. Adding services that coulduled transport routes would be a significant be ordered as necessary would bring the flex-improvement. Tourists should be informed of ibility that businesses want to the travel timespossible further connections (from the airport and routes. Currently, the schedules and exist-and from railway stations) when reservations ing stops do not serve business life in the bestare made. The customer could, for instance, possible way.receive information about alternative meansof transport when reserving a holiday on the30 For instance the Kimppataksi service in Koli.52
  • 53. 6 Good practices in North KareliaThis chapter presents some of the good practic- Slightly less than 60% of the trips organisedes of the public transport system in North Kare- by the transport combination centre are madelia that the Regional Council of North Karelia within Joensuu (includes former areas of Enoand the Pielinen Karelia Development Centre and Pyhäselkä). The objective of the Northwant to further develop within the RTS project. Karelian Transport Combination Centre is toCharacteristic of the public transport practices provide personal door-to-door services to in-of North Karelia are a strong local touch and habitants who need them and to rationalise thethe knowledge of local conditions. use of public resources by combining transport services in order to attain a taxi utilisation rateNorth Karelian Transport Combina- that is as high as possible. Bids have been re-tion Centre quested from different service providers before choosing the service providers used.The North Karelian Transport CombinationCentre is part of the organisation of the city of Before August 2009, the transport combina-Joensuu31, and it is responsible for the smooth tion centre was a larger entity that included theflow of transport services in accordance with Joint Municipal Authority for Medical and So-the Social Welfare Act and the Act on Services cial Services in North Karelia, the Town of Kiteeand Assistance for the Disabled in its operating and Kela in addition to the current municipali-area. Everyone who has been granted a trans- ties. Pyhäselkä municipality was not original-port subsidy in accordance with the Social Wel- ly a member but became one after the consoli-fare Act and the Act on Services and Assistance dation of municipalities on 1 January 2009. Atfor the Disabled is entitled to use service trans- that time, the centre organised more trips, ap-port. The service is based on customer calls proximately 7,700 to 8,3oo per month in 2008and combining, which means that the combi- and 2009. Currently 3,500 to 2,900 trips lessnation centre plans routes based on the cus- are made each month. However, if the revisedtomers’ calls. Customers can call and request organisational structure and the parties nowtransport services on weekdays between 6.40 outside the centre are taken into consideration,a.m. and 5 p.m.. In the evenings and at week- the number of trips is at least at the same levelends, the calls are directed to a taxi on duty. All as before, if not slightly above it.the transport services ordered via the transportcombination centre are door-to-door services. According to the latest statistics, there wereThe customers have the opportunity to use the 1,578 customers entitled to combination-centreservices of a personal assistant. trips in different municipalities. Of these cus- tomers, 625 made at least one trip per month32.Since 1 August 2009, the transport combina-tion centre has supplied approximately 4,800service transport trips a month. 32 Social Welfare Act, Act on Services and Assistance for31 1 August 2009 onwards the Disabled and others (28 trips) 53
  • 54. Special door-to-door transport services that municipal centres in North Karelia, and incan be ordered in advance within the grid lay- the Joensuu area in particular it is possible toout of Joensuu are also available from the use scheduled bus services to travel to work/aNorth Karelian Transport Combination Cen- place of study when travelling from popula-tre33. Transport is ordered via the transport tion centre to population centre during busi-combination centre to the destination request- ness hours. The municipalities and the Centreed by the customer. The service simultaneous- for Economic Development, Transport and thely provides accessible public transport that is Environment subsidise the price of the tickets.available to all users. In 2009, the subsidy was 45-48% of the price of the final product.Regional tickets The North Karelia regional ticket is valid inThere are three regional tickets in North Kare- all the municipalities in the region except forlia that are meant to increase the attractive- Kesälahti. The regional ticket costs €123 andness of scheduled bus services as a means of is valid within the region for 30 days from thetransport. The ticket products maintained by date of purchase. It can be used on all sched-Matkahuolto, the Centre for Economic Devel- uled services apart from the express services.opment, Transport and the Environment for This also applies to other regional tickets35. If aPohjois-Savo and the municipalities of North person with a regional ticket wishes to use anKarelia include the North Karelia ticket, the express service, an additional express-serviceCentral Karelia regional ticket and the Joens- fare will be collected.uu regional ticket34. The North Karelia regionalticket is the most expensive and covers almost The Joensuu region ticket can be used in Joen-the entire region, whereas the Joensuu region suu, Kontiolahti, Liperi, Outokumpu and Polv-ticket and the Central Karelia ticket only entitle ijärvi. The price of the ticket depends on thecustomers to trips within these areas. customer’s place of residence. The Joensuu re- gional ticket is valid for 30 days from the dateTable 15: Regional tickets (Source: North-Savo Ely-cen- of purchase36.tre 2009) Regional Joensuu Central North Table 16: Joensuu regional ticket (Source: Matkahuolto) tickets region Karelia Karelia purchased Joensuu regional Price for customer ticket 2008 8 778 230 832 Joensuu 84 €The North Karelia regional ticket and the oth- Kontiolahti 64 €er regional tickets offer an alternative to using Liperi 70 €private cars for daily trips to work and hobby Outokumpu 93 €activities that cross the borders of municipal- Polvijärvi 85 €ities. The ticket products have been priced sothat they are cheaper on an annual basis than The Central Karelia regional ticket can be usedthe use of a private car, even without taking in Kitee, Rääkkylä and Tohmajärvi. The condi-the purchase price of the car into considera- tions regarding the period of validity and thetion. There are frequent connections between validity on scheduled services are the same as33 Kyytipoika 35 Matkahuolto A34 Centre for Economic Development, Transport and the 36 Matkahuolto BEnvironment for Pohjois-Savo 201054
  • 55. for the other regional ticket products for North Routes within population centres are drivenKarelia37. between 7.30 a.m. and 4.30 p.m.. In sparse- ly populated areas, services run 2 to 7 times aTable 17: Central Karelia regional ticket (Source: Matka- week, and the coverage of the routes in relationhuolto) to the location of the population is good. Central Karelia Price for customer regional ticket The development of the system began in 1998 Kitee 44 € as part of the public transport project of North Rääkkylä 65 € Karelia. The aims of the project were to ensure Tohmajärvi 48 € sufficient public services for the inhabitants of the region and to achieve cost savings for theThe regional tickets can be seen as successful city and for Kela by combining different trans-good practices in public transport, as in North port services. At the beginning of the develop-Karelia, in particular, the demand for these ment project, the following service level objec-ticket products has been increasing. The tick- tives were set for the project:et products have been especially popular inJoensuu where almost 9,000 tickets were sold The routes will be planned with special atten-in 2008. Demand has grown particularly in tion being paid to onward connections. TheKontiolahti. Many of the inhabitants travel be- customers can order their next connectiontween Kontiolahti and Joensuu daily on their during the trip, with the help of the driver, ifway to work or to a place of study38. necessary. The customer and driver are in di- rect contact with each other, so the driver canPielinen Karelia and Juuka inform the customer of the real-time waiting time and route. The availability of the serviceKimppakyyti (Lieksa) is good, and it is easy to order and use it. The means of providing journeys and the compen-Since 1999, the special transport services in ac- sation system for travelling expenses are sim-cordance with the Social Welfare Act and the ple and functional from the point of view ofAct on Services and Assistance for the Disa- the customer. The customers receive individ-bled have mainly been organised using a sys- ual, high-quality service that takes their spe-tem called Kimppakyyti that is open to all users cial needs into consideration. User groups withand runs on demand. The Kimppakyyti service special needs are taken account of when theis a special transport service that runs on fixed routes are planned, and, if necessary, custom-days and is partly based on orders made by cus- ers may be accompanied by a personal assist-tomers. It is mainly operated using minibuses ant. Customers in wheelchairs and customerswith a capacity of 1+8. The customers can get using other equipment are taken into consid-on the minibus at their front door, receive as- eration when choosing suitable vehicles. Thesistance from the driver or order a personal as- driver allows for the needs and restrictionssistant to accompany them. The Kimppakyyti of special user groups and helps to transportservice includes routes that cover both popu- the customers and their equipment safely. Thelation centres and sparsely populated areas. service is available as a door-to-door service. If necessary, the form of the service can be rapid- ly changed to correspond to differing circum-37 Matkahuolto C stances.38 Persons travelling to work from Kontiolahti to Joensuu:3,195 (31 December 2007) 55
  • 56. The following good practices can be recognised 6. The basic idea of the service was toin the development phase and the implementa- combine several different transporttion phase of the Kimppakyyti service in Liek- needs, which would promote the cost-sa: effectiveness of the service.1. The development of the transport 7. The Kimppakyyti service has been service began with the clear definition planned so that it is accessible to all of the desired service-level objectives, users. i.e. the functional quality require- 8. The service was marketed actively ments for the service from the very beginning of the project2. The service-level objectives were set using several different methods. high enough3. The objectives and principles guid- During the first few years, the Kimppakyyti ing the development process included service succeeded in its concrete objective of customer-orientation and the com- reducing the transport costs of the municipal- munal benefits of functional service ity’s social services. In the project, launched in transport 1999, the aim was to reduce the costs of trans-4. A variety of interest groups participat- port services for the disabled by 10%. The costs ed in the development project: the city were, however, reduced by 40% compared to of Lieksa, transport service provid- the previous year, although more trips were ers, KELA, customers. This provided made and the system was only in use for part of a comprehensive view of the project the year. In the statistics for the year 2007, the from the very beginning. effectiveness of the Kimppakyyti service can be5. The development project of the seen as lower transport costs per inhabitant for Kimppakyyti service included a test the customers of social services and as lower phase, an assessment phase and a transport costs of the disabled (Lieksa: €452, completion phase. This has made it Nurmes: €645, Juuka: €1241, Valtimo: €1378). easy to improve the system based on Lieksa is also the only municipality in the area feedback from customers and service where the total costs of transport services de- providers. creased between the years 2005 and 2007. In 2008 and 2009, approximately 25,600 one- way trips were made annually on the routes of the Kimppakyyti service and 256,000 road kil- ometres were covered.56
  • 57. Kyytipoika (Nurmes)The Kyytipoika service in Nurmes is similar to If there are school children needing transportLieksa’s Kimppakyyti service. It has been in along the route and the schedule is suitable, theuse since the 1990s and is open to everyone but Kyytipoika services can also transport schoolalso takes care of service transport. The main children. In rural areas, disabled people aredifferences between the Kyytipoika and the entitled to an assistant according to the Act onKimppakyyti service are that the operational Services and Assistance for the Disabled. Theobjectives of the Kyytipoika service were not service provider is compensated for the trans-originally planned as thoroughly as those of port of such an assistant.the Kimppakyyti service and that the Kyytipoi-ka system is not updated regularly based on The pros of the Kyytipoika service include ac-feedback collected from customers and service cessibility and flexibility, uniform prices, theproviders. This is not a great problem as long simple ordering system, services that operateas most of the customers are satisfied with the quite frequently (three times a week), little ad-service and as long as the arranging party does ministrative bureaucracy and the good localnot have any financial or operational pressures knowledge of the service providers (area andto develop the service. people). The cons of the system are the slow- ness of the service and the varying schedules:The Kyytipoika services can be ordered from Kyytipoika is a suitable means of transportMonday to Friday between 7 a.m. and 6 p.m.. for people who are not in a hurry because theIn sparsely populated areas, the order must routes may be quite long and circuitous. Cus-be made three hours before the planned trip tomer satisfaction has not been measured, butand in population centres two hours before it is thought to be good. Those entitled to trans-the trip. All Kyytipoika services are accessi- port services according to the Act on Servicesble for the disabled. The regional coverage of and Assistance for the Disabled seldom use thethe Kyytipoika routes is good: the service takes Kyytipoika services. So far, tourists have notthe customer to the requested destination. The used the service very often either.Kyytipoika routes have been restricted to cer-tain areas and roads in the contract. Kyytipoi- Between 2007 and 2009, approximatelyka services are available in each area three days 16,000 one-way trips were made annually anda week. The drivers can plan their exact route 110,000 road kilometres were covered on allwithin the target area according to the orders the Kyytipoika routes.received as is most convenient. 57
  • 58. 58
  • 59. 7 Conclusion and the Development prioritiesDifferent forms of (train, scheduled busses, • Municipal basic level public transportmunicipal) public transport services in North services needs more customers, but inKarelia covers quite well main population cen- the same time services are only target-tres of the region. However situation is prob- ed for special groups. Trips of speciallematic for several reasons. Some of the most customer groups are highly subsidizedrelevant problems are: and costly for organizing municipal-• About 20 % of inhabitants have poor ity. More “hard money” customers are possibility to use public transport of needed in order to finance these serv- any kind ices more sustainable way.• Inhabitant areas around of city of • Route and schedule searches doesn’t Joensuu are main origins of work cover all available services and don’t commuting. Housing structure is de- include information about is the serv- centralized and therefore limits the ice suitable for elderly or handicapped possibility to use scheduled services • Cooperation between municipalities as a basis for work commuting trans- and different service branches is prac- port. tically non-existent• Rural areas in Pielinen and Central • No active marketing, and innovative Karelia lack’s sufficient accessibility ticket products to municipal centres (national for this • Huge differences in service quality is at leas 2 times per week for every within the region main village)• Amount of funding has reach its po- These listed 10 main challenges throw a great tential limits and seemingly only way challenge for RTS project and regional trans- to maintain existing services is done port authorities. In Finland public transport by improving cost-effectiveness has traditionally been very decentralized and• Finish national law guarantees certain managed by state regional units and differ- amount of monthly trips for elderly ent service branches within municipal sys- (over 65 years old and some income tem. This method for supporting unprofitable restrictions) and for handicapped. If scheduled transport services and individual funding further diminishes this form transport planning for different focus groups of service transport is basically only (school pupils, elderly) has worked until now. form of public transport in rural re- Current inter-municipal scheduled services are gions of Finland in the near future. operated by 40 - 50 seat busses. Constant sub- Inter-municipal and inter-city public sidizing these services which basically needs transport is priority one and govern- busses only half a current size due to low us- ment funding is targeted for maintain age rate (empty 50 seated buses is no wonder). these vital services Smaller and more modern vehicles are needed. 59
  • 60. Work commuting is very common in north people and travellers. These potential passen-Karelia but it is mainly done by using private gers offer a great potential for maintaining ru-cars. Marketing of alternative ways to commute ral transport services. If usage rates of exist-is needed but until now there haven’t been rel- ing services raises and more “hard cash” pay-evant actions to do it. Instead of developing ers are attracted to use public transport, thispublic transport there have been few multi mil- will greatly ease the financing of these serv-lion investments for road junctions and road ices. The big question is: Hoe to attract thoseinfrastructure so that commuting with private potential groups to become new regular cus-cars is smoother during rush hours. tomer? Easiest way to do it is active marketing (with improved timetable services) and inclu-Rural regions of North Karelia and especially sive publicity campaigns. Services are open forRural Transports Solutions project pilot region everyone, but until now targeted only for spe-of Pielinen Karelia there’s two innovative indi- cial groups. Some preliminary ideas how to re-vidual services that offers door-to-door service brand the services:with new and accessible vehicles. These good • Timetables delivered to home andpractices are previously mentioned Kyytipoi- comprehensive search features avail-ka and Kimppakyyti services which operate in able onlinemunicipal centres and in all main villages (Nur- • Public transport services are usuallymes, Lieksa). Elderly and handicapped people located in social- and healthcare sec-are the main customer groups. These customer tion of internet pages (municipalities)groups receive ticket fare compensation. One even though everyone can use thesemain problem is that service doesn’t reach oth- services. RTS suggests that every mu-er customer groups such as young, working age nicipality should relocate transport services in different section and mar- ket services for all60
  • 61. • Public meetings should be organized Development ideas for the RTS concerning local transport needs and project partners development. More customer orien- tated service planning is needed to Partners from North Karelia and Pielinen Kare- improve service quality and cost-ef- lia suggest for future work some ideas where fectiveness common development and new ideas are des-• Customer feedback system is required perately needed. If partner organizations have• Innovative new methods to raise pub- expertise and/or experiences concerning these lic interest and make public transport ideas partners from Finland are ready to eager- as an interesting option. Municipali- ly learn from those experiences. ties with local sme’s can for exam- ple offer benefits for regular public 1. Online services (timetables, mobile transport users. These benefits may solutions, spatial information sys- include lower prices on some serv- tems) ices and products. This kind of active 2. Transport chains development (exam- campaigning will benefit all actors ples village-city centre-region level) (customers, municipalities and local 3. “Park and Ride” solutions (targeted sme’s) and create positive impact in improving sustainable and environ- communities. mental friendly work commuting) 4. Share-a-ride campaigns 5. E-Ticketing systems and automatic billing 6. Innovative ticket pricing 7. Marketing and participatory actions to raise usage rate of public transport 8. Demand Responsive Transport vs. scheduled service with fixed routes 61
  • 62. Priorities North Karelia and Pielinen KareliaPriority one (RTS, next Priority two (near future) Improvement suggestionsfew years)Service structure Service structure →• Dispersed planning and • Open public transport within • Collective planning and shared operative management municipal borders doesn’t link- aims for whole regional public• Lack of cooperation between up with scheduled transport transport actors (ELY, Joensuun, different service branches and • Over bureaucratic financing other municipalities) neighboring municipalities system • Transport of goods and people (Cooperation practically non- • Deficiencies in ticketing is penetrating process for whole existent) systems municipal organization and thus• Unbalanced service quality • Too little effort has been put in cannot be effectively organized (between villages and applying more environmental if decision making is situated in municipalities) friendly fleet (equipment old different service branches• Lack of services and usage rates low too big • At least regional/work• Problems with customer busses) commuting area based solutions orientated planning (service instead of municipal planning planning targeted meet the • Service level and service specialized need of the accessibility should follow the individual service branch) same standards everywhere• Old fleet (busses) • Service planning more transparent: Public authorities should offer more possibilities for service users • “Transport chains” from villages to population centres and to Joensuu should needs improvement and action plans • Public Transport system financing system needs nationwide revision • Ticketing systems: More variable ticket and payment possibilities - single ticket that is valid in every vehicle regionally 62
  • 63. Priority one (RTS, next Priority two (near future) Improvement suggestionsfew years)Information system (ICT) Information systems (ICT) →• Lack of internet based search • Insufficient reporting and • One search engine which offers services and outdated planning system for public information concerning all information (local connections) transport services transport services (bus• Information concerning • Finland is highly develop companies, State Rail and municipal service transport isn’t information society but up-to- municipal service transport) easy to find date ICT and mobile • Planned and targeted marketing• Information sharing and applications are missing concerning local transport marketing strategies non- services (for homes, local existent businesses and public spaces)• Nationwide problem: No • Communication strategy for public transport marketing purposes (Public timetable/search engine which Transport branding) covers all existing services • More information available in schools and working spaces. Now public transport is targeted only for elderly and disabled (in rural municipalities) • ICT systems, map-applications and gps surveillance systems for improve cost effectiveness and planning • Standardized customer feedback system • Mobile applications for service searches • Biofuels and other methods to improve sustainable travel 63
  • 64. Priority one (RTS, next Priority two (near future) Improvement suggestionsfew years)Customers CustomersUsability / Accessibility Usability / Accessibility →• Lack of information concerning • Lack of service on weekends • Timetables should be delivered local transport services and during summer to every household once a year• Few or no suitable connections • Poor possibilities to “park and • Better and more frequent public available ride” transport services in Pilot region• Un-flexible timetable • More information available (Juuka) (especially scheduled concerning local transport • More flexible services (DRT transport), no possibility to services (internet, timetables, such as Kimppakyyti) and new revise routes if needed mobile, bus stop, stores) rural area covered by DRT• Is service barrier free? • Bus stops (scheduled service) services Accessibility information should be named • If services are accessible for available for every route • Night train connection to elderly and handicapped (low• Lack of timetables on Public • Joensuu floor, wheelchair capability) this transport stops • Tourism areas and hiking trails information should be found• Unequal status of inhabitants. aren’t easy to access with from timetables Some municipalities have public transport (sustainable • More connections on weekends rather good services other tourism) and holiday season municipalities service level is • Connections from Lieksa and • Park and ride possibilities appalling Nurmes to Joensuu/Kuopio • More funding should be• Lack of local connections in airport needs development allocated for train traffic destination (Mainly concerns • Marketing campaigns and work commuters in Joensuu support to use share-a-drive city region) type solutions Red indicates priority one Blue indicates priority two 64