1

Public Transport services in Finland

Structural review of existing transport services in region of North Karelia

How existing rural transport services meet the needs of the citizens and what are the priorities for the future development

2

Rural Transport Solutions projectWork Package 2 report

Regional Council of North Karelia

Pielinen Karelia Development Centre

Northern Periphrery Programme

Jaakko Rintamäki

Heidi Tanskanen

Heikki Viinikka

Juho Mutanen

3

Contents

1 Introduction......................................................................4

2 Finnish Public Transport System – Legislation and Financial Analysis.............................................6 2.1 Legislation, transport authorities and service providers.......................................6

3 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..........................................24

4 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...................44

5 Surveys...........................................................................47 5.1 Pielinen Karelia surveys.......................................................................................47

5.2 Tourism enterprises surveys.................................................................................51

6 Good practices in North Karelia.............................................53

7 Conclusion and the Development priorities...............................59

4

The market share of public transport is approx-

imately 14.4% of the Finnish transportation

system1. However, the share of daily trips using

public transport is smaller, approximately 8%.

The figures have been collected from munici-

palities, transport companies, the former Finn-

ish Road Administration and questionnaires.

The market share of public transport is an esti-

mate, but it can be seen to give a relatively good

idea of the total share of different forms of

transport in Finland. The vast majority of trips

are made using private cars. The share of pas-

sengers using a private car has been increasing

strongly since the 1950s, especially during the

last 30 years.

In North Karelia, the share of trips made using

public transport is even lower than the Finnish

average. According to a recent transportation

system plan2, the market share of daily trips

made using public transport is approximately

5%. On longer trips in particular, the use of pri-

vate cars is significant (92.3%).

The increase in the use of private cars is linked

to the fact that Finnish society, including ru-

ral areas, rapidly became wealthier after the

1950s. Incomes rose, and industrial produc-

tion increased. For the first time, ordinary citi-

zens had the opportunity to purchase a car for

their own use. Finland is no longer in the phase

of becoming rapidly motorized, but transpor-

tation possibilities have radically changed dur-

ing the last few decades. The advantage of own-

ing a private car is the feeling of freedom and

mobility it gives.

1 Including air traffic (Public transport performance sta-

tistics 2007)

2 North Karelia transportation system plan 2010

At the same time, the public-transport sys-

tem has lost customers, and previously profit-

able rural routes have been abolished. During

the 21st century, the inhabitants of rural areas

have had to face the fact that the possibilities

of using public transport are minimal in some

areas. The only real alternative is to use a pri-

vate car.

The situation is the same in other parts of

northern Europe, where the era since the Sec-

ond World War has been one during which

people have become wealthier and the mid-

dle-class has expanded. The increase in the

number of private cars was not seen as a social

problem at first. Its problems were first visible

in the metropolises and capitals of Europe. In

European cities, public transport has tradition-

ally had a central role, but in some rural areas

of northern Europe the different forms of pub-

lic transport have not been developed in paral-

lel with the housing and service structure.

In rural areas, the problems to be tackled are

sparse housing and long distances, which do

not exist in cities. There are also fewer peo-

ple living in rural areas than in cities, and the

long-term trend of people moving from rural

areas to cities will further decrease the popu-

lation. Moreover, the population in rural areas

is constantly aging. This development, visible

throughout Europe, will continue for another

couple of decades as the baby-boom genera-

tions born after the war grow older and as the

new generations become ever smaller in size.

1 Introduction

5

In rural areas, aging is one of the main fac-

tors that are affecting the use of private cars.

It is no longer clear that everyone who owns a

car is also able to use it actively. Some people

are very dependent on their spouse who owns

a driving licence, since longer trips to run er-

rands and make recreational trips can only be

made if the spouse drives the car.

On the other hand, rural areas also provide

homes for young people, people of working age

and people with special needs due to disabil-

ities or social issues. These user groups may

also find it difficult to organise their transport

to work or to leisure activities.

The large global issue is how to promote sus-

tainable development and reduce carbon-diox-

ide emissions. The transition towards public,

communal transport must be a common goal

both in cities and in rural areas. The European

Union has been one of the most active institu-

tional promoters of sustainable development.

The Northern Periphery Programme aims at

finding solutions for the sparsely populated ar-

eas of the northern member countries.

6

In Finland, the state and municipalities are re-

sponsible for the funding of public transport.

The funding and support system is based on di-

rect purchases of transport services, the com-

pensation for deficits of contract transport and

fare revenues. As a supplementary system,

Finland uses an extensive transport cost reim-

bursement system for special user groups (cus-

tomers of social services, the disabled and peo-

ple needing transport to and from hospitals).

Funding by the state and by municipalities is

meant to ensure a basic level of service for pub-

lic transport and to promote the use of public

transport in areas where the operation of the

transport system would otherwise be jeopard-

ised and/or where the load on the environment

caused by traffic needs to be decreased3. Ef-

forts to ensure a basic level of service are tar-

geted, in particular, at sparsely populated are-

3 Ministry of Transport and Communications 2, p. 9,

2008

as, municipalities where the distances between

population centres are great and small urban

districts. Railway transport and long-distance

transport using coaches also require public-

transport purchases.

The public-transport performance statistics

(17, 2009) divide the funding of public trans-

port into the following categories according to

their purpose. The objective of the funding sys-

tem is to promote the supply and demand of

the services.

According to the Ministry of Transport and

Communication, the funding of Finnish pub-

lic transport is rather dispersed (Ministry of

Transport and Communications, Reviewing

the system of funding for public transport 2,

10. 2009).

2 Finnish Public Transport System – Legislation and Financial Analysis

2.1 Legislation, transport authorities and service providers

Public-Transport Funding purposes: Supply and Demand

Funding promoting supplyPublic funding covers the purchase of transport services, funding of scheduled transport and compensations for defi cits. The additional supply generated can be recognized most easily in the case of the purchase of transport.

Funding promoting demandCovers reimbursements of the travel expenses of special groups and purchases of fare reduc-tions. The funding is indirect and manifests itself in the form of the fare revenues accruing to the transport contractor. Tariff support is discussed here from the point of demand, as it is often diffi cult to distinguish it from the funding of supply.

Source: Public Transport Performance statistics 2007. Ministry of Transport

7

In addition to the objectives of the funding

and its functional division, it is also worth not-

ing that the funding of the Finn-

ish public transport system comes

from multiple channels. The re-

sponsibilities for organising and

funding public transport are divid-

ed between several authorities, and

in practice each Finnish municipal-

ity is in charge of organising and

financing public transport. Public

funding consists of two parts (Min-

istry of Transport and Communica-

tions 2, p. 11, 2009):

Direct funding: transport-•service purchases by the

state and by municipali-

ties, fare subsidies, com-

pensation for deficits of

contract transport

Reimbursements of travel expenses •(state, municipalities)

The responsibility for organising public trans-

port and service transport has been decentral-

ised to several different branches of adminis-

tration. The basic funding and organising re-

sponsibility structure of the Finnish public

transport system can be seen in the following

table. The table also includes public transport

organised by the armed forces and the Ministry

of Labour that is usually not presented togeth-

er with the rest of the public transport system

due to its special character. These services are

usually mainly used for the transport of con-

scripts.

As an addition to the table, it could be men-

tioned that the Centres for Economic Devel-

opment, Transport and the Environment, the

former State Provincial Offices, have a signif-

icant role in purchasing regional basic trans-

port services. The regional transport services

*4

purchased by the Centres for Economic Devel-

opment, Transport and the Environment en-

sure that public transport is also available in

areas where maintaining scheduled services is

not profitable. The purchased transport servic-

es can also support the already profitable serv-

ices on certain routes by increasing passenger

numbers. In other words, municipalities ben-

efit from the purchases made by the Centres

for Economic Development, Transport and the

Environment. For instance the school trans-

port services in many municipalities have been

based on scheduled services purchased by the

state. In addition to the basic public transport

services, the purchases made by the Centres

for Economic Development, Transport and the

Environment also support local transport and

service transport. Also, resources are used an-

nually for different kinds of fare subsidies (city

tickets, regional tickets, commuting tickets).

4 The Centres for Economic Development, Transport and

the Environment are in charge of the tasks that formerly

belonged to the State Provincial Offices.

Funding influencing Supply Funding influencing Demand

Ministry on Transport and Communication

Purchase of rail transport,purchase of air transport

State subsidised youth fares and purchase of fare reductions

Provincial governments Purchase of basic transport, state subsidy of local transport

State subsidy of fare reductions

Education School transport subsidy, secondary level education institutes

School pupil and student tickets

Health and social services Reimbursements of travel expenses

Ministry of Defence Charter transport fot conscripts and reserve forces

Reimbursements of travel expenses of conscripts and reserve forces

Ministry on Labour Reimbursements of travel expenses of performers of nonmilitary service

Major cities (Helsinki, Espoo and Kauniainen, Vantaa, Tampere, Turku)

City transport deficit support, contract transport

Reductions granted for special groups, tariff support

Other municipalities Purchase of transport services, deficit support for specific routes or companies

Reductions granted on social grounds, puchase of fare reductions

Table 1: The responsibility for organising public and service trans-

port (Source: Public-Transport Performance Statistics 2007. Minis-

try of Transport)

8

The role and responsibilities of the state

The development of the transport infrastruc-

ture including public transport systems be-

longs to the sphere of responsibilities of the

state. The state is not responsible for organis-

ing public transport services. In practice, pri-

vate enterprises provide the public transport

services, and the public sector supports these

services if a sufficient service level cannot be

attained in a certain area on purely commer-

cial grounds.

The role of the state as the organ ensuring a

certain service level mainly concerns long-

distance transport and regional transport.

The municipalities are left in charge of trans-

port within their borders. Combining different

forms of passenger transport and linking trips

have also been mentioned as responsibilities

of the state in the report produced by Nyberg’s

work group5.

The state has provided €150-200 million of an-

nual funding for public transport in the last few

years.

5 Ministry of Transport and Communications 2, p. 13,

2009

Areas where cities have full economic respon-

sibility include the Helsinki Metropolitan Area

Council district (metropolitan area and neigh-

bouring municipalities), Tampere and Turku.

In rural areas, the Centres for Economic De-

velopment, Transport and the Environment

(former State Provincial Offices) purchase sup-

plementary basic services for transport across

municipality borders. Each municipality pur-

chases transport for within its borders. The

Centres for Economic Development, Transport

and the Environment co-operate with munic-

ipalities and subsidise the prices of regional

tickets.

With regard to railway transport, VR (State

Rail) has an exclusive right to provide servic-

es. This has been justified by the fact that it en-

sures that extensive railway services are avail-

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-

able in the area7.

6 Ministry of Transport and Communications 2, p. 14,

2009

7 Ministry of Transport and Communications 2, p. 14,

2009

9

The role and responsibilities of municipalities

Municipalities are responsible for organising

statutory transport services for social-welfare

customers and for the disabled and for organ-

ising school transport services. A major part

of the municipalities’ public-transport budg-

et comes from the branches of administration

responsible, and the aim is to fulfil the target

group-specific service obligation.

Some municipalities also offer special trans-

port services that are available to all inhabit-

ants. These services provide inhabitants who

do not own a car with the possibility to run er-

rands, among other things.

In general, the public transport services in ru-

ral areas are not as good as services in cities if

the number of services and the service hours

are examined. A service that runs twice a week

is considered a basic-level service. A basic-lev-

el service cannot usually be used for going to

work, going to pursue hobbies in the evenings

or for running errands in the daytime.

There are major differences in the ways of or-

ganising special transport services and in the

frequency of the services in Finland and also

within the North Karelia region. In some mu-

nicipalities, special transport services are ba-

sically non-existent, and in others services are

available in population centres on weekdays.

The state supports statutory transport services

via the state subsidy system8, but public trans-

port that is available to everyone has not been

included in the system.

8 An income equalization system for the division of costs

between the state and municipalities

A total of approxi-

mately €120 million

has been spent annu-

ally for the purchases

of public transport services available to every-

one. Of this sum, 75% is used in the Uusimaa

region9.

School transport is the largest individual cost

item that municipalities have to cover when or-

ganising public transport. Pupils receiving ba-

sic education are entitled to free transport if

the trip to school is over five kilometres or if

the trip otherwise causes unreasonable strain10.

It is estimated that the annual cost of school

transport in Finland is €128.6 million.

The second most significant cost item consists

of service transport for the disabled, in accord-

ance with the Act on Services and Assistance

for the Disabled. Customers have a subjective

right to these transport services. Transport in

accordance with the Act on Services and As-

sistance for the Disabled is usually limited to

the municipality where the customer lives or

to neighbouring municipalities. The statistics

used do not include information on all munici-

palities, but the costs of these transport serv-

ices are over €70 million each year. In 2006,

€8.5 million was spent on discretionary trans-

port services in accordance with the Social Wel-

fare Act and €6 million on transport services in

accordance with the Act on Special Care for the

Mentally Handicapped11.

9 Ministry of Transport and Communications 2, p. 15,

2000

10 Ministry of Education and Culture 2010

11 Ministry of Transport and Communications, p. 15, 2009

(lacking information)

10

The statutory obligation of municipalities is

to organise service transport for those in need

of it in accordance with the Social Welfare Act

and the Act on Services and Assistance for the

Disabled. The state of other public transport

services, so called special transport services,

varies greatly from municipality to municipal-

ity. The assessment reports on basic services

made by State Provincial Offices have pointed

out this inequality for several years now. Some

municipalities are able to provide public trans-

port services at the basic service level in pop-

ulation centres and rural areas, whereas other

municipalities do not provide any public trans-

port services apart from the statutory services.

In such cases, the options are to use a bicycle, a

private car or an expensive taxi.

Table 2: The parties and division of tasks in Finnish

public transport services (Riikonen 2008)

2.2 Public Transport Funding in Finland

According to the expense information reported

by different state organisations and municipal-

ities, the delivery of different public transport

service forms cost the public sector approxi-

mately €700 million in 2007 (Public-transport

performance statistics 2007). The same year,

the portion financed by the state was €206.7

million and the total sum financed by munic-

ipalities €489.7 million. In 1997, the share of

the public funding of public transport financed

by the municipalities was 66.5%. In 2007, this

share had increased to 70.3%. The role of the

state has diminished especially in the direct

funding of public transport services. The sum

that municipalities invest in organising pub-

lic transport has increased by €200 million in

ten years, which is almost as much as the en-

tire sum the state uses for funding public trans-

port (Public-transport performance statistics

2007).

By comparing the means of transport used, two

principal means of transport can be singled

out from the Finnish public transport system,

at least based on expenses. These two means

of transport are buses/coaches and taxis. The

share of the funding of both means of transport

has grown, and their combined share of the en-

tire funding is now 90%. The public funding

of bus/coach transport has grown by 62% be-

tween the years 1997 and 2007. For taxi trans-

port, the growth is 84% (Public-transport per-

formance statistics 2007).

The vehicle capacity of railway transport has re-

mained almost the same as before, but seat ca-

pacity has increased. The share of public fund-

ing in railway transport has remained constant

or perhaps even decreased slightly while the

passenger capacity has increased.

Ministry on Transport and Communication

Purchased transport: Railroads and Air transport.

ELY-centre (9/15) Scheduled-transport grants and purchases inter-municipal trasport services.

Municipalities (342)

School Transport Largest municipal transport ser-vice in Finnish municipalities. Municipality purchases Regular tickets for regular routes or purchases bus/taxi service.

Transport service for dis-abled (statutory)

18 one-way trips per month for one individual. Possibility to cross municipal border.

Transport service for social reasons (statutory)

Discretionary. Different prac-tices in Finnish municipalities. Usually same kind of rights as in transport services for dis-abled.

Open public transport in municipal area (not statu-tory, basic-level service)

No regular state subsidizes. Quality and Quantity of open transport services varies greatly between different municipali-ties.

Kela – The Social Insur-ance Institution of Finland

Fare compensation for hospital travels. Public Transport rate.

11

Based on the number of buses and coaches

and their number of seats, the capacity of bus/

coach transport has grown. If measured by the

number of seats available, bus/coach transport

has a capacity of at least twice the size of all

other public transport forms put together. This

is also visible in the amount of public funding

directed at bus/coach transport. Bus/coach

transport receives by far the most funding of

all forms of public transport.

The number of taxis has decreased by approxi-

mately 200 vehicles in a decade. Of the Nordic

Countries, Finland is still the country with the

most taxis. The passenger capacity of taxis has

decreased in relation to the number of vehicles

that are no longer used as taxis. In 2007, there

were 9,449 taxis in Finland, and taxi transport

was the second most subsidised form of public

transport.

Public Transport fundingState and Municipalities

0

100

200

300

400

500

600

700

800

1997 1999 2001 2003 2005 2007

mill

ion

euro

s

State Municipalities Total

Figure 1. Public Transport funding, State an Munici-

palities (Source: Public-Transport performance statis-

tics 2007)

Public Transport funding betweendifferent transport modes

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

350

1997 1999 2001 2003 2005 2007m

illio

n eu

ros

RailwayTramUndergroundBus, CoachTaxiAirSL Ferry

Figure 2: Public Transport funding between different

transport modes (Source: Public-Transport Performance

statistics 2007. Ministry of Transport and Communica-

tions)

Vehicle capasity, numberRailway Tram Under-

groundBus,

coachTaxi Air Ferry to

SITotal

1997 888 105 42 6 579 9 676 27 4 17 3211999 918 104 42 6 921 9 700 27 4 17 7162001 896 109 54 6 799 9 272 32 3 17 1652003 878 122 54 6 992 9 186 29 3 17 2642005 904 131 54 6 876 9 152 32 3 17 1522007 869 131 54 7 056 9 449 22 3 17 593

Seating capacity, numberRailway Tram Under-

groundBus, coach Taxi Air Ferry to

SITotal

1997 58 710 3 953 5 460 311 793 48 699 2 174 750 431 5391999 64 315 3 922 5 460 317 331 50 000 2 044 870 443 9422001 67 785 4 317 6 948 311 749 48 200 2 730 710 442 4392003 63 940 5 320 6 948 322 658 46 900 2 764 710 449 2402005 70 441 5 889 6 948 317 511 46 332 2 895 810 450 8262007 69 607 5 898 6 948 325 426 48 473 1 959 810 459 121

Table 3: Vehicle and seating capacity (Source: Public Performance Statistics 2007.

Ministry of Transport and Communication)

12

The passenger volumes of public transport have

not increased at the same rate as public funding

has increased. The total passenger volume has

grown by 6.3% between 1997 and 2007. This

is significantly less than the increase in fund-

ing (60%). In practice, this means that the cur-

rent system would be able to increase the use of

public transport by 10% by raising funding by

100%. Railway transport represents an anom-

aly in the public transport system. The share of

public funding has decreased by 4%, and the

passenger volume has increased by 33%.

Out of all the public transport forms, taxi trans-

port receives the largest amount of support per

passenger. The public subsidy received by all

the taxis in the country is €4.91 per customer

if the subsidy is divided evenly among all taxi

transport. In reality, the share of the subsidy is

small for instance in Helsinki and in its neigh-

bouring areas, but in rural areas the share of

the public subsidy may be two thirds of a taxi

driver’s total sales.

€/pas-senger

Rail-way

Bus, Coach

Taxi Public Transport, average

2007 0,91 0,68 4,91 1,24

Railway transport receives the lowest public

subsidy per seat kilometre of the three main

forms of public transport. On average, each

seat kilometre travelled using public trans-

port was subsidised by 1.5 cents. For buses and

coaches the subsidy was 1.4 cents and for taxis

6.8 cents.

€/seat kilo-

metre

Rail-way

Bus, Coach

Taxi Public Transport, average

2007 0,005 0,014 0,068 0,015

The public-sector funding of public transport

has clearly increased in the last decade. Even

if the increase is standardised by taking infla-

tion into consideration, the general cost level

has increased by approximately 50%. The in-

creases in the costs of the Centres for Econom-

ic Development, Transport and the Environ-

ment (State Provincial Offices) have gone on

the purchases of scheduled services and other

direct subsidies of public transport. The costs

of municipalities have grown due to the rapid

increase in travel reimbursements. The eco-

nomic situation of municipalities is difficult all

over the country, and due to the high unem-

ployment rate and a low dependency ratio, the

municipalities of Eastern Finland are facing an

even greater challenge.

Public Transport annual passengers in Finland

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

350

400

1997 1999 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007

mill

ion

pass

enge

rs RailwayTramUndergroundBus, CoachTaxiAirSL Ferry

Figure 3: Public transport annual passengers (Source:

Public Performance Statistics 2007. Ministry of Transport

and Communication)

Table 4: Public subsidy €/passenger (Source: Public Per-

formance Statistics 2007. Ministry of Transport and Com-

munication)

Table 5: Public subsidy €/seat kilometre (Source: Pub-

lic Performance Statistics 2007. Ministry of Transport and

Communication)

13

The service level of public transport and the responsibilities of the public sector

Changes, challenges, new legisla-tion and the EU service regulations

This section covers the current state of Finnish

public transport and the changes that have tak-

en place from the point of view of national leg-

islation and EU directives. Special emphasis is

placed on how the renewed legislation and the

organisational changes affect the sustainable

organisation of public transport, particularly in

rural areas. The information presented in this

chapter is based on the new Finnish legisla-

tion concerning public transport, on reports by

work groups of the Ministry of Transport and

Communications and on EU directives12.

The work group led by Mikael Nyberg exam-

ined the current state of Finnish legislation

concerning public transport and the financing

of public transport in the report Reviewing the

system of funding for public transport13. The

work group comes to the conclusion that trans-

port planning should be widened and seen as

a comprehensive whole. There should be ex-

tensive co-operation, especially between au-

thorities, municipalities and Regional Couci-

ls. These parties prepare the service-level ob-

jectives of public transport together. As a new

item, the principle of the division of costs be-

tween the state and the municipalities was

added to the Public Transport Act.

12 Mainly (EC) No 1370/2007

13 Ministry of Transport and Communications 2, 2009

The portion of the public transport services to

be financed by the public sector varies great-

ly both regionally and between different forms

of transport. Nyberg’s work group14 finds that

the conditions for organising long-term public

transport services are weak. One of the prob-

lems of the current system is that subsidies are

determined based on budget years. This means

that the sustainable development of public

transport is not necessarily attained and that

the system is prone to major fluctuations. Ad-

ditionally, the incoherence of the system has

been an obstacle for the comprehensive plan-

ning of public transport.

A new Public Transport Act based on the Reg-

ulation (EC) No 1370/2007 of the European

Parliament and Council was passed in Fin-

land on 3 December 2009. The objective of the

regulation and the new act is to clarify the re-

sponsibilities of competent authorities organ-

ising public transport to ensure sufficient, se-

cure and high-quality public passenger trans-

port services 15.

The Regulation of the European Parliament

and Council and the new 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.

14 Ministry of Transport and Communications 2, p. 9,

2009

15 Government bill on the new public transport act 2009

14

The basic level of public transport as the goal of the legislator

When setting goals for the public transport sys-

tem in rural areas, the basic level of transport is

constantly the subject of discussions. The basic

level of public transport can be seen to include

the following16:

Inhabitants are able to use public 1.

transport for daily commuting, trav-

elling to their place of study and run-

ning errands between important serv-

ice centres, municipal centres and

other large population centres and for

joining the national public-transport

network.

Within municipalities, people who 2.

do not own a car should be able to

reach population centres at least twice

a week.

In North Karelia and in other sparsely populat-

ed areas, these goals mean that investment is

needed especially in functional, daily connec-

tions between population centres and munici-

pal centres. Public transport should be made a

real option for commuters and for people run-

ning errands in their free time. For rural areas,

the service-level goal has been set at two days

a week. The current basic level of public trans-

port in rural areas does not enable use of pub-

lic transport for commuting, studying or for

travelling to leisure activities in the evenings.

The target group of basic-level public transport

services in rural areas includes households that

do not possess a car.

16 Ministry of Transport and Communications 2, p. 12,

2009

Discussion, problems detected, in-ternational obligations and alter-native ideas for organising public transport

In its current state, the Finnish public trans-

port system has many points that require de-

velopment. The state of the system is analysed

quite critically in the introduction of the gov-

ernment bill on the new public-transport act17.

The amount of funding and fare subsidies has

grown significantly, but new customers have

not been reached. The total passenger vol-

ume of bus and coach transport has decreased

by 3%. At the same time, the railway-trans-

port passenger volume has increased by over

a quarter.

The Finnish State Provincial Offices have as-

sessed basic services in provinces annually. Ac-

cording to these assessments, the public trans-

port system has not been able to respond to

the changes that have taken place in the oper-

ational environment. Vehicle mileage has de-

creased, and the market share of public trans-

port has fallen. In North Karelia, the regional

ticket system has partly controlled this devel-

opment. However, in rural areas the declining

population and in urban areas the decline of

the market share of public transport represent

a threat to public-transport connections that

are reasonable at the moment18.

17 Government bill on the new public transport act, 3 De-

cember 2009

18 Government bill on the new public transport act, 3 De-

cember 2009, p. 13

15

Regional descriptions of the current state of

public transport services in four countries and

six areas have been carried out within the Ru-

ral Transport Solutions project between Janu-

ary and June 2010. In North Karelia, the pub-

lic transport services of the entire region have

been examined at a general level, including in-

formation on the actions of different service

providers, financing, routes and passenger vol-

umes. The report also includes information on

how inhabitants of the region and businesses

in the travel sector view the public transport

services and on what are the most important

areas for development. This information has

been collected with the help of questionnaires

and discussions. The report includes a vast

amount of information regarding travelling to

work, housing and the potential accessibility of

public transport services.

Up to the end of 2008, the State Provincial Of-

fice of Eastern Finland was the local adminis-

trative organ responsible for purchasing and

developing public transport services and for

ticket discounts. As the regional state admin-

istration was reformed, these responsibilities

were transferred to the Centre for Economic

Development, Transport and the Environment

for Pohjois-Savo. In 2010, the amount budg-

eted for public transport services for the Cen-

tre for Economic Development, Transport and

the Environment in Pohjois-Savo is approxi-

mately €8.6 million. The budget for the Centre

for Economic Development, Transport and the

Environment for Pohjois-Savo is distributed

among the regions of Pohjois-Savo, Etelä-Savo

and North Karelia19. More detailed information

on the State Provincial Office funding of public

transport services can be found in the section

of this publication

concerning the over-

all funding of Finnish

public transport.

19 Ministry of Transport and Communications

3 Public Transport services in North Karelia – Current status 2010

3.1 General information about North Karelia

Population and age structure in North Karelia 31.12.2009

0-14 yrs. % 15-64 % 65+ % TotalJoensuu 10 935 15,0 49 759 68,4 12 010 16,5 72 704Outokumpu 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

Table 6: Population and age structure in North Karelia 31.12.2009

(Source: Statistics of Finland)

16

3.2 The funding and different models of public transport services

The costs of public transport services in North

Karelia vary significantly from municipality to

municipality. Joensuu clearly has the lowest

overall costs in the region. From the beginning

of the year 2009, the municipalities of Eno and

Pyhäselkä have also been part of Joensuu. In

Outokumpu, Lieksa and Tohmajärvi the annu-

al transport costs of public transport services

are €70 - 80 per inhabitant. In proportion to

the number of inhabitants, the greatest trans-

port costs in North Karelia can be found in

Rääkkylä, Juuka and Kontiolahti.

The overall transport costs of public transport

and service transport in municipalities were

over €12.6 million in 200720. When comparing

costs, the age structure and housing structure

of municipalities and the availability of region-

al regular transport services supporting the use

of municipal services should be taken into ac-

count. In this sense, municipalities do not have

equal resources for organising public transport

services.

School transport is by far the most expensive

sector of transport services. Significant cost-

level differences can be found by examining the

costs of different branches of administration in

municipalities. For instance in Tohmajärvi, the

transport costs of social services per inhabitant

are seven times greater than in Lieksa. Howev-

er, the open public-transport costs in Tohma-

järvi are lower than in Lieksa. Based on the sta-

tistics, there are great discrepancies between

the basic structures for organising public trans-

port services in different municipalities.

The costs of public-transport and service-

transport services in municipalities have in-

creased rapidly. The nominal costs have more

than doubled since 1998, when delivering the

services came to €6.3 million. The real costs

have increased by over €5.5 million since the

year 2000, taking general inflation into consid-

eration. Reasons for the rapid increase in the

cost of public-transport and service-transport

services include the general increase in price

levels, the closing down of village schools and

the aging of the population.

20 Health care transport costs not included.

0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140

Eno

Ilomantsi

Joensuu

Juuka

Kesälahti

Kitee

Kontiolahti

Lieksa

Liperi

Nurmes

Outokumpu

Polvijärvi

Pyhäselkä

Rääkkylä

Tohmajärvi

Valtimo

Health Care Transit €/inhab.Social Transit €/inhab.School Transit €/inhab.Open public Transport €/inhab.Public Transport costs €/inhab.

Figure 4: Transport costs €/Inhabitant (Source: North-

Savo Ely-Centre and municipalities of North Karelia

2008)

17

Table 7: Public Transport costs for municipalities in North Karelia 2007 (Source: North-Savo Ely-Centre

and municipalities of North Karelia 2008)

Table 8: Public Transport costs 1998–2007 (Source: North-Savo Ely-Centre 2009)

Municipality Transport costs €/inhab. 1998

Transport costs € / inhab. 2007

Eno 46 72Ilomantsi 62 97Joensuu 19 38Juuka 79 136Kesälahti 65 109Kiihtelysvaara 84 Annexed to Joensuu 1.1.2005Kontiolahti 57 123Lieksa 43 82Liperi 52 85Nurmes 32 89Outokumpu 36 71Polvijärvi 61 97Pyhäselkä 58 95Rääkkylä 70 138Tohmajärvi 47 80Tuupovaara 75 Annexed to Joensuu 1.1.2005Valtimo 58 100Värtsilä 38 Annexed to Tohmajärvi 1.1.2005

Public Transport

costs €/inhab.

Open public

Transport €/inhab.

School Transit €/inhab.

Social Transit €/inhab.

Health CareTransit €/inhab.

Total costs €

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 9

18

Transport costs have grown in all the munic-

ipalities of North Karelia during the last ten

years. However, there have been great differ-

ences in the growth rate of the costs. The costs

of Nurmes have almost tripled during the pe-

riod under review, whereas in Ilomantsi the

growth in costs has been much more moderate

(+56%). The effects of inflation have not been

taken into consideration in the calculations.

Despite the rapid growth in costs of the pub-

lic transport services in the various branches

of administration of Nurmes, the municipality

has organised its public transport at a cost that

is lower than the average for the region. Mean-

while in Rääkkylä, Juuka, Kesälahti and Konti-

olahti, public transport services were produced

at a cost that is clearly higher than the average

for the region.

KELA reimbursements of travel costs

On a national level, Kela annually reimburses

travel costs of €215 million21 relating to treat-

ment and examination. Over 4.9 million trips

are 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 special

health-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 are

Juuka, Valtimo and Rääkkylä: the reimburse-

ments in all three municipalities are annually

over €102/inhabitant22.

21 Statistical Yearbook of the Social Insurance Institution

158. 2008

22 Paltta, Päivi 38. 2008

Public transport services in North Karelia

The next section examines public transport

services in North Karelia, their target groups

and operations models. Pielinen Karelia, the

target area of the Rural Transport Solutions

project, is examined in its own section in more

detail. The detailed report for the Pielinen Kare-

lia sub-region and Juuka has been compiled at

the Pielinen Karelia Development Centre.

Regular scheduled services by different opera-

tors form the base of the public transport sys-

tem in the region. Regular services and express

services constitute the majority of public trans-

port services available to all users. Further in-

formation on the routes covered by different

operators, including population analyses, can

be found in the section on routes. The regu-

lar services mainly serve the daily needs of in-

habitants travelling between municipal centres

and to the provincial centre.

19

The municipalities of North Karelia produce

statutory and voluntary public-transport and

service-transport services. Statutory services

include transport services in accordance with

the Social Welfare Act and the Act on Servic-

es and Assistance for the Disabled presented in

the first chapter of this report and school trans-

port services according to certain conditions.

According to Finnish legislation, rural munic-

ipalities and small towns are not required to

organise public transport. However, a major

part of the municipalities of North Karelia pro-

vide public transport services. Different kinds

of transport services that can be ordered in ad-

vance by the customer form one of the most

common forms of open public transport of-

fered. The idea of these services is that custom-

ers contact the transport combination centre

or the service provider in advance when they

know that they will need transport23.

Public transport from villages to the municipal centre (1 to 3 times a week)

The availability and practical arrangements of

transport services that need to be ordered in

advance vary from municipality to municipal-

ity, and in practice there is no common service

concept for providing the services. The Minis-

try of Transport and Communications has set a

general objective of two connections per week

for transport from sparsely populated areas to

municipal centres. The frequency of transport

services varies from municipality to munici-

pality, but also within municipalities. In gen-

eral, the aim of the current transport system

is to provide a service from the villages to the

municipal centre at least once a week. During

evenings, weekends and the summer-holiday

months, the availability of transport services is

much more limited.

23 Usually the previous working day at the latest.

Public transport services (mainly special serv-

ices that need to be ordered in advance) open to

all users are available in Nurmes, Juuka, Liek-

sa, Ilomantsi, Joensuu, Kontiolahti, Rääkkylä,

Tohmajärvi, Kitee, Kesälahti and Polvijärvi.

Service transport in municipalities (social welfare and health care)

Transport subsidies granted, based on social

welfare and disability, are controlled by legisla-

tion24. Transport in accordance with these acts,

in addition to school transport, forms part of

the public transport services that municipali-

ties are obliged to provide by law. Individual

municipalities, co-operation districts (Oku-

li), federations of municipalities and the pub-

lic utility Helli in Central Karelia are respon-

sible for social welfare and health-care service

transport.

Grounds for granting a transport subsidy in ac-

cordance with the Social Welfare Act

(Joensuu)

A transport subsidy may be granted •for running errands and for recrea-

tional trips according to the limits set

by the income and financial situation

of the customer

Customers over the age of 65, of lim-•ited means, who have an increased

need for support are given priority

Depending on the need, a maximum •of 8 one-way trips per month can be

granted

A certain part of the fare will remain •the customer’s responsibility

24 Social Welfare Act and Act on Services and Assistance

for the Disabled

20

Grounds for granting a transport subsidy in ac-

cordance with the Act on Services and Assist-

ance for the Disabled (Joensuu)

A transport subsidy may be granted to •a severely disabled person

A social worker will make the deci-•sion, and the customer will be in-

formed of how many trips he or she

has been granted per month

In North Karelia, there are two larger organisa-

tions that are responsible for service transport

for the social services and health-care depart-

ments, in addition to the municipalities. These

organisations are the social and health service

centre Helli in Central Karelia and the North

Karelian Transport Combination Centre (Poh-

jois-Karjalan matkojenyhdistelykeskus, MYK)

that provides services in Joensuu, Kontiolahti,

Liperi, Nurmes and Outokumpu.

The North Karelian Transport Combination

Centre is part of the organisation of the city

of Joensuu25 and is mainly responsible for the

smooth running of transport services in its op-

eration area in accordance with the Social Wel-

fare Act and the Act on Services and Assist-

ance for the Disabled. Everyone who has been

granted a transport subsidy in accordance with

the Social Welfare Act and the Act on Servic-

es and Assistance for the Disabled is entitled

to use service transport. The service is based

on customer orders and combining these or-

ders, which means that the combination cen-

tre plans routes based on the customers’ or-

ders. Customers can call and request transport

services on weekdays between 6.40 a.m. and

5 p.m.. In the evenings and at weekends, the

calls are directed to a taxi on duty.

25 1 August 2009 onwards

Since 1 August 2009, the transport combina-

tion centre has supplied approximately 4,800

service transport trips a month. Slightly less

than 60% of the trips organised by the trans-

port combination centre are made within Joen-

suu (including the former areas of Eno and Py-

häselkä). Outokumpu and Liperi come second

in trip numbers. The number of trips made has

increased steadily since the North Karelian

transport combination centre has been intro-

duced.

Before August 2009, the transport combina-

tion centre was a larger entity that included

the Joint Municipal Authority for Medical and

Social Services in North Karelia, the Town of

Kitee and Kela in addition to the current mu-

nicipalities. Pyhäselkä municipality was not

originally a member but became one after the

consolidation of municipalities on 1 January

2009. At that time, the centre organised more

trips, approximately 7,700 to 8,3oo per month

in 2008 and 2009. If the revised organisational

structure and the parties now outside the cen-

tre are taken into consideration, the number of

trips is at least at the same level if not slightly

higher.

According to the latest statistics, there were

1,578 customers entitled to combination-cen-

tre trips in different municipalities. Of these

customers, 625 made at least one trip per

month26. Special door-to-door transport serv-

ices that can be ordered in advance within the

grid layout of Joensuu are also available from

the North Karelian Transport Combination

Centre27. Transport is ordered via the transport

combination centre to the destination request-

ed by the customer. The service provides acces-

sible transport.

26 Social Welfare Act, Act on Services and Assistance for

the Disabled and others (28 trips)

27 Kyytipoika

21

School transport

Of all the transport services that municipal-

ities are responsible for, school transport is

the most expensive cost item. It accounts for

50 to 80% of the municipalities’ transport ex-

penses. The costs of school transport have been

itemized in the section covering the financing

of public transport services. The route infor-

mation of school transport is included in the

route, population and availability analyses in

the next chapter.

The regional base of school transport is formed

by the regular scheduled services of bus opera-

tors. These services are supplemented by serv-

ices purchased by the Centre for Economic De-

velopment, Transport and the Environment

and by school transport services purchased by

the municipalities. School transport services

are mainly targeted at pupils whose daily trip

to school exceeds five kilometres.

School transport that is organised using regu-

lar scheduled services is always part of the pub-

lic transport open to all users. School transport

purchased from taxi and bus operators by the

municipalities may or may not be open to all

users. There may even be varying practices

within the services of one municipality. School

transport services that are regular scheduled

bus services are provided using the normal ve-

hicles. On routes purchased separately by mu-

nicipalities, pupils are transported using vari-

ous vehicles, including taxis and buses with ap-

proximately 20 seats.

3.3 Public transport services in North Karelia: Maps and Routes

There are several forms of public transport in

use in North Karelia. There are several pro-

viders of commercial public transport services

(hereafter the main scheduled transport net-

work). In addition to public transport that is fi-

nanced by ticket sales, there are also services

supported by the Centre for Economic Devel-

opment, Transport and the Environment due

to their essential nature. These services may

have few passengers, or they may be otherwise

unprofitable. This purchased transport mainly

operates on the routes of the scheduled pub-

lic transport network, but the purchased serv-

ices are often the ones with the fewest passen-

gers, such as evening and weekend services.

In addition to bus transport, there is also rail

transport in the region. A rail bus transports

passengers to the northern parts of the region

between Joensuu, Lieksa and Nurmes. The

bus also stops at Eno, Uimaharju and the vil-

lages of Vuonislahti, Kylänlahti, Höljäkkä and

Kohtavaara. There is also a rail bus for those

travelling west. Within the region, the bus only

stops at Viinijärvi. Those travelling south can

use Intercity or Pendolino trains. These trains

stop at Kitee and Kesälahti and provide inhab-

itants of the region with an important connec-

tion to southern Finland.

A clear majority of the population of North

Karelia (approximately two thirds) lives in pop-

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

22

Joensuu area has also grown outside popula-

tion centres, in villages and rural areas (see ta-

ble 9: Population development in North Kare-

lia). Within the region, the population of the

Joensuu area has grown. Meanwhile, the pop-

ulation of Pielinen Karelia and Central Karelia

has decreased. Of the individual municipalities,

only the populations of Kontiolahti and Liperi

have grown besides the population of Joensuu,

and these two municipalities are situated near

Joensuu. The rural population in the outer ar-

eas of the region has decreased (see Figure 4:

Change in population, 1980-2005). The same

trend is also visible in most of the other pop-

ulation centres of the region. There are some

exceptions to the rule: the population centres

of Valtimo, Polvijärvi and Kesälahti have in-

creased their populations.

Table 9: Population development in North Karelia

It is also worth noting that the populations

of small population centres situated along-

side main roads have also increased. In Pie-

linen Karelia, in particular, the agglomerations

alongside the main roads are notable, whereas

the more peripheral areas in the region are be-

ing left without inhabitants.

Thus, the population in North Karelia is de-

creasing and agglomerating but also aging at

an increasing rate. Public transport is a prereq-

uisite for stopping rural areas from becoming

completely desolate. The services of rural areas

must be secured. Reasonable opportunities for

travel and public transport are part of the com-

prehensive services of a municipality. The de-

population of rural areas brings its own chal-

lenges to public transport.

POPULATION (2007)

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 176 650 177 567 176 836 177 271 171 609 168 322 166 744

23

Figure 4: Change in population 1980–2005

24

3.3 Population distribution and public transport routes

As has been described above, rural areas are

becoming more sparsely populated. Although

this has been the prevailing trend for several

years, the need for public transport has not dis-

appeared. On a map, the public transport net-

work seems comprehensive. The routes also

cover rural areas, and there are no major de-

fects in sight. However, the most peripheral ar-

eas are left without public transport services,

because it is simply not profitable to organise

transport in these areas.

In Pielinen Karelia, the population is agglom-

erated alongside main roads, whereas more pe-

ripheral areas are mostly desolate. In the cen-

tral and southern areas of the region, the popu-

lation is distributed more evenly, and desolate

areas do not exist. This can also be seen from

the service network which covers more rural

areas than in the north. Nonetheless, there are

no major differences in the population cover-

age between areas. In general, it can be said

that most of the rural population is situated

near roads. In central Karelia, there are simply

more roads than in the north. A good quality

road network is essential to inhabitants nowa-

days, which is why new housing is built near

roads.

Approximately 50% of the population living

outside population centres lives within 500

metres of the routes of the scheduled transport

network. Approximately 80% of the population

lives within two kilometres of the scheduled

network. If the inhabitants of population cen-

tres are included, 85% of the population lives

either within 500 metres of the network or

within population centres. Only 6% of the pop-

ulation lives more than two kilometres away

from the scheduled transport network or out-

side population centres. Thus, the scheduled

network covers the inhabited areas of North

Karelia extensively.

Despite these positive observations, an exam-

ination of the number of services reveals the

truth about the status of public transport in ru-

ral areas. The largest number of services trans-

ports people between population centres.

Bus services between Joensuu and the larg-

est population centres are the most frequent.

There are over ten daily services from Joen-

suu to Lieksa, Outokumpu, Polvijärvi, Liperi

and Kitee via Tohmajärvi. There are also many

services to Ilomantsi, including services to Ki-

ihtelysvaara and Tuupovaara. There are also

around ten daily services from Lieksa to Nur-

mes and from Joensuu to Nurmes via Juuka.

Population

Scheduled transport 0 - 14 years 15 - 65 years over 65 years Total

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 + Populationcentres

0 - 14 years 15 - 65 years over 65 years Totalpeople % people % people % people %

500 m buffer 852 km buffer 94

Table 10: Population coverage on public-transport network routes

25

Figure 5: Scheduled transport services

26

The daily connections between Nurmes and

Kajaani are also frequent, but elsewhere the

services are limited to a couple of individual

services.

Between the largest population centres, some

of the services are express services that follow

main roads and only stop in the population cen-

tres. These services are almost as quick as us-

ing a private car. Some of the services also stop

along the way and go along smaller roads, of-

fering the possibility to use public transport to

those living further away from the main roads.

Individual services are usually only oper-

ated on school days, up to four times a day.

On these routes, public transport is mainly

planned around the timetables of school chil-

dren for whom the municipality has purchased

seats for school transport. For commuters, the

infrequent services are problematic. For those

wanting to run errands, the infrequent servic-

es could be suitable, but since the services of-

ten run in the morning and in the afternoon,

the time spent at the destination would often

become too long. Alternatively, the customer

would have to find another means of transport

for the way there or the way back. Many feel

that the service is too infrequent if they have to

spend the whole day away.

In theory, there are many services suitable for

commuters since almost all services run in the

mornings and in the afternoons. In practice,

however, several connections are needed in or-

der to make commuting flexible. These flexible

routes only include the routes between Joens-

uu and other population centres with the larg-

27

est number of services. If the criterion of over

six services a day is set for good daily connec-

tions, 70% of the working population in the re-

gion lives in population centres or along routes

with good connections. Approximately 20% of

the working population living outside popula-

tion centres lives along routes with good con-

nections. Since a major part of the working

population lives in population centres, which

also provide most of the jobs, public transport

could be used for commuting more often than

is currently the case. However, the problem is

the lack of direct connections from people’s

homes to workplaces.

Rail transport supplements the bus services.

There are two daily railway services in both di-

rections on the route from Joensuu to Nurmes

via Lieksa. This service offers a good means

of transport since the rail bus stops at sever-

al local villages and supplements the local bus

transport. For those travelling west, there are

four services in both directions. The flaw on

this route is that the only stop within the region

is Viinijärvi, but the bus connections from here

are good to Joensuu and Outokumpu.

For those travelling south, there are more than

ten daily train services that stop at Kitee and

Kesälahti.There are also frequent bus services

to Kitee, but from Kitee onwards the services

are limited to one or two a day. The reason for

the limited number of bus services is probably

the railway transport that can take passengers

southwards faster than the buses do. In other

words, the railway connections from Kitee and

Kesälahti to Joensuu and to the southern parts

of the country are good, but these trains do not

stop elsewhere apart from Kitee and Kesälahti.

This shortens the journey time from Joensuu

to Helsinki but also weakens the transport pos-

sibilities of those living by the railway.

In addition to the number of services, anoth-

er problem that arises especially in rural are-

as is the transport at weekends and during the

summer. In Joensuu and between population

centres, services run every day all year round.

However, this is not the case in rural areas.

Many services disappear for the summer and at

weekends. The frequency of services decreases

elsewhere as well, but travelling is still possi-

ble since not all services are cancelled. In rural

areas, the disappearance of all services makes

travelling challenging.

In practice, many municipal centres are already

poorly accessible to rural inhabitants since the

number of services is so small. Moreover, when

the funding of the Centres for Economic Devel-

opment, Transport and the Environment ends,

many more services will be abolished. The

services to be abolished are often rural servic-

es, whose abolition further weakens the limited

travelling possibilities and puts people in rural

areas in an unequal position. In these cases, the

objective of a reasonable opportunity to travel

is not attained, and people do not have equal

opportunities to run their errands. No doubt

there are also exceptions in rural areas. Par-

ticularly in villages situated by main roads and

between population centres, there are good op-

portunities for using public transport. Such vil-

lages include Ahmovaara and Viekijärvi, for in-

stance.

28

Figure 6: Scheduled trasport during summer and at weekends

29

The services that run in the summer and at

weekends only cover about a quarter of the

population living outside population centres

but within 500 metres of the public transport

network. Within two kilometres of the trans-

port network, the figure is 51%. During week-

days in the winter, the corresponding figures

for public transport are 53% and 82%. Thus,

in the summer and at weekends, public trans-

port reaches far fewer people than in the win-

ter. Most of the services that stop for the sum-

mer and during holidays are rural services.

This fact affects the travel possibilities of all the

inhabitants of the rural areas as well as tour-

ists visiting the area and the accessibility of

companies providing services to tourists. In

North Karelia, the main season for tourism is

the summer when most people are on holiday,

but this is also when the public transport serv-

ices are at their worst. In order to improve the

situation, co-operation between different par-

ties is needed. This co-operation could lead to

a solution offering more comprehensive public

transport in the summer and at weekends.

According to the report, the scheduled trans-

port network in the rural areas of North Karelia

is extensive in many areas. However, in real-

ity this is not the case, since services run infre-

quently and there are few services in the sum-

mer and at weekends. Thus, in rural areas, in-

habitants wanting to use public transport for

travelling and running errands are depend-

ent on the special transport services provided

by municipalities. There are major differences

between municipalities in the organisation of

these services. Figure 7 presents the routes or-

ganised by municipalities that are open to eve-

ryone.

The main scheduled transport network cov-

ers populated areas rather extensively, so the

routes specially organised by municipalities do

not significantly affect the potential user vol-

umes of public transport on a regional scale.

Thus, the population coverage of the main

public transport network and the special trans-

port services organised by municipalities is

only slightly greater than the population cov-

erage of the main scheduled transport network

alone. Nonetheless, the special transport serv-

ices organised by municipalities are important

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,

for instance.

Most of the services from villages to popu-

lation centres only run once or twice a week,

often in the daytime. In general, there are no

special transport services in the evenings or

at weekends. Only a couple of the services in

the region run daily. The only exception is the

route between Koli and Joensuu, which has a

taxi service four times a day. Thus, the special

transport services are only suitable for people

who occasionally need transport. Within popu-

lation centres, there are daily special transport

services. The routes on the map are indicative,

as a customer can be collected from his or her

front door if necessary. The route map mainly

gives an idea of the areas where the vehicle is

available. Further information is always avail-

able from the operator.

Scheduled transport in the summer and at weekendspeople %

500 m buffer 13 298 262 km buffer 26 202 51Routes + Population centres500 m buffer 126030 772 km buffer 138934 84

Table 11: Population coverage in the summer and at weekends

30

Figure 7: Local transport services

31

The population coverage of the special trans-

port service routes is rather uniform in all

age groups. Over 65-year-olds do not seem to

have better population coverage, although they

would probably benefit the most from the serv-

ice. It is also worth noting that special transport

services open to all customers are not available

in Outokumpu and Liperi. These municipali-

ties only provide special transport services to

those who have been granted the service. Nor

do special transport services exist in Valtimo.

Conclusion

All in all, the public transport network in North

Karelia is comprehensive. The main scheduled

offers frequent services between Joensuu and

other population centres, in the summer and at

weekends too. However, the public transport

in rural areas is limited to services that run

on school days, up to four times a day. Addi-

tionally, many rural services stop at weekends

and during the summer. The aim is to correct

these deficiencies with special transport servic-

es provided by municipalities and thus to offer

inhabitants of rural areas the possibility to use

public transport for travelling. Due to the infre-

quency of the special transport services, these

services are only suitable for occasional trips to

run errands and cannot be used for commuting

or for trips in the evenings or at weekends. So

although the public transport services in rural

areas seem comprehensive, there are long in-

tervals between services, and during the sum-

mer and at weekends the number of services is

very limited. Making public transport a func-

tional option for passengers is a real challenge,

especially in rural areas.

Scheduled transport

Railway connection

Local transport services

Special transport services

School

Municipalitytransport

Valtimo x x xNurmes x x x x xJuuka x x x xLieksa x x x x xIlomantsi x x x xJoensuu 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 xKontiolahti x x x xLiperi x x (Only from Viinijärvi) x xPolvijärvi x x x xOutokumpu x x xRääkkylä x x x xTohmajärvi x x x xKitee x x x x xKesälahti x x x x x

Table 12: Services offered by municipality

32

33

In this report, Pielinen Karelia refers to the

area made up of Juuka, Lieksa, Nurmes and

Valtimo despite the fact that Juuka joined the

Joensuu region during the compilation of the

report. At the end of 2009, there were approxi-

mately 30,000 inhabitants living in the target

area. The population decreased by 316 persons

in 2009. This is about one percent of the entire

population (Table 13). The largest municipality

in the area is Lieksa, whose entire area is over

4,000 square kilometres. The population den-

sity is the highest in Nurmes and the lowest in

Valtimo (Table 13).

Transport needs in Pielinen Karelia

Commuting to work across municipality bor-

ders is quite limited in Pielinen Karelia: the

commuting percentage in 2007 was 24.6% in

Valtimo, 14.2% in Nurmes, 12.4% in Juuka and

11.4% in Lieksa. These percentages are lower

than the average commuting percentage in the

rest of the country. This can be explained by

the fact that there is no larger city in the region

or nearby that could offer jobs on a larger scale.

Commuting within the region is also limited

by Lake Pielinen, which significantly length-

ens the distance between Juuka and Liek-

sa. Within municipalities, the distances from

home to work can be quite long and the traffic

busy, since almost all workplaces are situated

in population centres, whereas approximately

half of the employees live outside them (Map:

workplaces and employees). Around half of the

working population and the unemployed pop-

ulation live within 500 metres of the nearest

main public transport network route. Approxi-

mately one fifth lives further than 2 kilometres

away from the nearest main public transport

network route.

4 Pielinen Karelia pilot region

4.1 Description of a pilot area

Lieksa Nurmes Valtimo Juuka Total

Population 12 788 8 573 2 482 5 70529,548

(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 inhab./km2 3,8 5,4 3,1 3,8 4,0 (4,1)

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,

www.kunnat.net)

34

There are currently 17 primary schools in use

in the Pielinen Karelia area (Figure 8). In Valti-

mo and Nurmes, the schools have been placed

in municipal centres, whereas in both Lieksa

and Juuka there are four primary schools out-

side the central population centre. The number

of village schools has decreased significantly

since the 1990s, and simultaneously the school

trips of children living in sparsely populated

areas and the need for school transport have

grown. According to Finnish law, the daily trip

to school of children under the age of 13 can be

a maximum of 2.5 hours and a maximum of 3

hours for children over 13. In practice, the trav-

el times are not followed by the parties organis-

ing transport, so the rather high limits provid-

ed by law are often exceeded if pupils live very

far from the school.

The destinations visited by inhabitants (health

centres, banks, offices and commercial servic-

es) in Pielinen Karelia are mainly situated in

municipal centres. Other destinations include

the Koli village centre (Lieksa) and Kolinport-

ti (Ahmovaara, Juuka). Inhabitants from Pie-

linen Karelia visit the regional centre Joensuu

often, particularly with regards to health mat-

ters.

Figure 8: Primary scholls and school transport routes

35

Pielinen Karelia with its many lakes is a popu-

lar tourist area in the summer, and there are

many summer cottages in the area (Figure 9).

The summer cottages are situated over a much

wider area than the permanent housing, which

is mainly situated in municipal centres, by

main roads and in village centres of sparsely

populated areas (Figure 10).

4.2 The funding of public transport services in Pielinen Karelia

The beginning of the 21st century has been a

time of rapidly increasing transport costs for

municipalities in Pielinen Karelia as well as

the rest of Finland. There are several general

reasons for the increasing costs: the transport

of preschool pupils has become statutory, the

school network has become sparser and public

bus services have been abolished in municipal-

ities with a sparse population.

Figure 9: Holiday estates and public transport routes

36

Municipal transport service costs 1998‐2007

0

200

400

600

800

1000

1200

1998 2001 2005 2007

1000

 €/ year

Juuka Lieksa Nurmes Valtimo

Figure 11: Municipal transport service costs 1998–2007

Municipal transport service costs per inhabitant 1998‐2007

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

1998 2001 2005 2007

€/inha

bitant

Juuka Lieksa Nurmes Valtimo

Figure 12: Municipal transport service costs per inhabitant 1998–2007

Figure 10: Population and scheduled transport

37

However, there are still clear differences be-

tween the development of transport costs in

different municipalities in Pielinen Karelia. In

Lieksa, the increase in total transport costs was

greater than in the other municipalities be-

tween the years 1998 to 2005 (increase of ap-

proximately 80% from the 1998 level), but then

the costs began to decrease (Figure 11). The rap-

id increase at the beginning of the 21st century

seems to have ended in Nurmes as well. Dur-

ing the reference period, the costs increased by

160%. In Juuka, transport costs have increased

steadily since 2001; since the 1998 level, the

costs have increased by approximately 60%.

In Valtimo, the total transport costs have re-

mained at about the same level between 1998

and 2007. In 2007, the costs were about 25%

greater than in 1998.

When calculating costs per inhabitant, the

highest costs are attained in Juuka (Figure 12).

In 2007, the transport costs per inhabitant in

Juuka were about €140/year, while the same

figure was €80 in Lieksa, €90 in Nurmes and

€100 in Valtimo. Since 2001, the costs per in-

habitant have increased the most in Juuka.

An examination of the situation in different

branches of administration in 2007 reveals

that the costs per inhabitant in Juuka are the

highest in all other areas except public trans-

port (Figure 13 and Table 14). Public trans-

port costs include the costs of special transport

services, such as the Kimppakyyti service in

Lieksa and the Kyytipoika service in Nurmes.

The transport costs of the social welfare serv-

ices in Juuka are increased particularly by the

services for the disabled, since the municipality

is lacking a service that would be less expensive

than private taxis. In Lieksa and Nurmes, the

costs of services for the disabled are lower be-

cause the municipalities have functional spe-

cial transport services that also provide trans-

port for disabled customers. The cost of trans-

port services for the disabled varied from €452

per customer in Lieksa to €1,378 per customer

in Valtimo.

Transport costs per inhabitant in different service branches 2007

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

160

Juuka Lieksa Nurmes Valtimo

€ / inha

b. / yea

r

Municipal service transport Education Social Care Total

Figure 13: Transport costs per inhabitant in different service branches 2007

38

There does not seem to be a specific reason

for the high transport costs of the municipal

educational administration of Juuka. How-

ever, the costs are almost double the costs of

Nurmes, where all the schools are situated in

population centres, and of Lieksa, with its vil-

lage schools and long distances. Taxi transport

forms a major part of the transport costs in Ju-

uka: its share of the total costs of the munici-

pal educational administration is greater than

in the other municipalities of the region.

Public Transport Costs in Pielinen Karelia Juuka Lieksa Nurmes Valtimo

Purchased 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 regional and city)

10 371 32 739 4 402 242

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 notincluding Kela funding (state)

4 936 0 0 7 943

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 (statutory)

26 249 13 906 17 734 0

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 of customers)

12 22 16 0

Social Welfare Act (Number of customers) 2 970 0 14Act on Services and Assistance for the disabled (Number of customers)

130 179 147 36

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 / recipient €

1 241 452 645 1 378

DRT services / over 75-vuotiaat € 296 170 166 185Basic education ticket prices share from total education costs %

21 % 35 % 42 % 29 %

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) all

costs in euros

39

4.3 Public Transport services in Pielinen Karelia and Juuka: Maps and Routes

During the school year, there is a relatively high

number of scheduled bus services between the

municipal centres of Pielinen Karelia (Figure

14). There are, however, clear deficiencies in

the morning and afternoon timetables regard-

ing the use of public transport for commuting

or for school transport. At weekends and in

the summer, the scheduled services are limit-

ed to a minimum (Map: summer and weekend

routes), and, for instance, the morning services

required by the working population practically

disappear altogether.

The normal ticket fares for bus transport be-

tween municipal centres are approximately

twice as much as private-car fuel costs on cor-

responding journeys, and the time spent when

travelling by bus is also double the time spent

travelling by car, except when using express

services. Most of the vehicles used in public

transport are not accessible to the disabled:

scheduled services are mainly run using large,

high-floor buses. In sparsely populated areas,

the current routes of the public transport net-

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

40

There is a railway connection between the mu-

nicipalities of Lieksa, Nurmes and Valtimo. A

rail bus runs on this from Lieksa to Nurmes.

There are no passenger trains between Nurmes

and Valtimo, but a train bus is used to connect

the two municipalities. The connections for

railway transport between Lieksa and Valtimo

are poor: There is only a good connection to

Valtimo, which is only 80 kilometres away and

next to the railway line, on Fridays and Sun-

days in the middle of the day. Otherwise, the

transport connections are not co-ordinated at

all. Train and train-bus services are infrequent

and badly scheduled with regard to the com-

muter transport between municipal centres.

To summarise the quality of the services, it

could be said that the service concepts of sched-

uled bus and rail transport in Pielinen Karelia

do not in their current state (vehicles, routes,

schedules, fares) take the actual needs of the

potential user groups (the elderly, the disabled,

the working population, people with a low in-

come, tourists) into consideration at all except

in the case of school transport. This has led to a

situation where large buses drive around emp-

ty, while sparsely populated areas suffer from a

lack of adequate public transport services.

The transport needs of the municipalities in

Pielinen Karelia are rather similar in different

municipalities, and the transport services con-

sist of statutory school transport and transport

of the disabled and customers of social servic-

es as well as supplementary transport services

for the elderly. Municipalities plan their trans-

port services individually, which is why there

are major differences in, for instance, the spe-

cial transport services provided. The transport

needs of different branches of administration

within municipalities are also often treated as

their own units, which can be seen from the fol-

lowing summaries of the transport services in

the municipalities of Pielinen Karelia.

Juuka

School transport is organised for four village

schools, the comprehensive school in the mu-

nicipal centre and for upper secondary school

students. In the spring of 2010, there were 334

basic education pupils in Juuka who were en-

titled to school transport. School transport is

purchased from scheduled transport opera-

tors and taxi companies. The transport servic-

es are planned by the departmental secretary

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 routes

41

and schedules are devised based on the orders

received by the driver. In general, the service

leaves for the centre of Juuka from the most re-

mote village location in the morning between 9

and 10 and leaves again from the centre of Ju-

uka between 11 a.m. and 1.30 p.m.. The contact

person for the special transport services is the

departmental secretary of the municipal edu-

cational administration.

In 2009, 4,900 one-way trips were made with-

in Juuka using special transport services. This

resulted in 53,000 road kilometres. The net

costs paid by the municipality for organising

the service were €25,000. The same year, the

transport costs of transport for the disabled,

according to the Act on Services and Assist-

ance for the Disabled, cost Juuka municipality

€197,000.

Other transport services organised in Juuka in-

clude meals on wheels for the elderly organised

by home-care services. Meals are delivered on

different routes five to seven days a week. In

the winter of 2010, there were 70 custom-

ers receiving meals in Juuka. The municipal-

ity of Juuka also organises joint taxi transpor-

tation from the centre of the municipality and

from some villages to a day club for the elder-

ly. The taxi companies charge the municipal-

ity for the service based on the kilometres driv-

en. The customers pay the municipality €7.50

per day for the services, which means that the

net cost left to be covered by the municipality

is approximately €10,000 per year. The trans-

port services for the club are ordered by the

club manager.

Figure 15: Population distribution and Demand-Response-based transport services

42

Lieksa

Basic education was given at eight different lo-

cations in Lieksa during the school year 2009-

2010, and there were 412 pupils receiving basic

education who needed school transport. The

longest one-way trip to school was 52 km in the

upper level of comprehensive school and 43 km

in the lower level of comprehensive school. The

pupils of the Koli, Viekki and Vuoniskylät pri-

mary schools had the shortest average trip to

school, whereas the pupils of the central school

had the longest average trip. It is a difficult task

to organise school transport cost-effectively

and in a user-friendly manner in Lieksa, as the

municipality is vast and most areas are sparse-

ly populated. School transport is organised us-

ing scheduled bus services or taxis. Transport

services are planned by the municipal educa-

tional administration.

Since 1999, the special transport services under

the Social Welfare Act and the Act on Services

and Assistance for the Disabled have mainly

been organised using a system called Kimppa-

kyyti that is open to all users and runs on de-

mand. The Kimppakyyti service runs on flex-

ible standard routes both in population centres

and sparsely populated areas on demand. It op-

erates two to five days a week and four times a

day on the route Koli-Joensuu-Koli. The routes

have been planned with consideration for good

connections. The customer and driver are in

direct contact with each other, and the custom-

er is informed of real-time waiting times and

the route. User groups with special needs are

taken into consideration when the routes are

planned, and, if necessary, customers can be

provided with an assistant.

In 2008 and 2009, a total of 25,600 one-way

trips were made each year and 256,000 road

kilometres were covered on all the routes of the

Kimppakyyti service. The companies providing

Kimppakyyti services received €235,000 (in-

cluding 8% VAT) in reimbursement from the

municipality. Individual transport services in

accordance with the Act on Services and Assist-

ance for the Disabled cost the municipality ap-

proximately €98,000 during these years.

Nurmes

During the school year 2009-2010, all seven

units providing preschool or basic education in

Nurmes were situated in population centres. In

January 2010, there were 327 pupils entitled to

school transport. The longest one-way school

43

trip was 31 km and the average trip to school

approximately 13 km. School transport is or-

ganised using public scheduled bus services

and chartered taxis mainly reserved for school

children. Transport services are planned by the

head of the municipal educational administra-

tion.

In Nurmes, a service called Kyytipoika has

long been one of the forms of public transport

and service transport. It is available to all us-

ers, but also covers service-transport services.

The Kyytipoika services can be ordered from

Monday to Friday between 7 a.m. and 6 p.m..

In sparsely populated areas, the order must be

made three hours before the planned trip and

in population centres two hours before the trip.

All Kyytipoika services are accessible for the

disabled. Kyytipoika services run in each de-

fined area three days a week. The routes have

been restricted to certain areas and roads in

the contract. The drivers can plan their exact

route within the target area according to the

orders received as is most convenient. If there

are school children needing transport along

the route and the schedule is suitable, the

Kyytipoika services can also transport school

children. In rural areas, disabled persons are

entitled to an assistant according to the Act on

Services and Assistance for the Disabled. The

service provider is compensated for the trans-

port of such an assistant.

The advantages of the Kyytipoika service in-

clude little administrative bureaucracy, the

service providers’ familiarity with the area and

the people, and the familiarity and safety of

the service. Customer satisfaction has not been

measured, but it is thought to be good. Those

entitled to transport services according to the

Act on Services and Assistance for the Disa-

bled seldom use the Kyytipoika services. So

far, tourists have not used the service very of-

ten either.

Nurmes also has meal services for those in

home care and transport services to day clubs

for the elderly.

Between 2007 and 2009, altogether 16,000

one-way trips were made annually and

110,000 road kilometres were covered on all

the Kyytipoika routes. The annual net cost of

the Kyytipoika services for the municipality

was €75,000. During these years, the individ-

ual transport services organised in accordance

with the Act on Services and Assistance for the

Disabled cost approximately €77,000 annual-

ly. The contact person for the Kyytipoika serv-

ices and other public transport issues in Nur-

mes is the head of the municipal educational

administration.

Valtimo

In Valtimo, there were 94 pupils entitled to

school transport during the school year 2009-

2010. All pupils attend the central school situ-

ated in the centre of the municipality. School

transport is organised using scheduled bus

services and chartered taxis. Transport is

planned by the head of the municipal educa-

tional administration / the head of the school.

To our knowledge, there are no special trans-

port services for the elderly or for those inhab-

itants who do not own a car and live in sparsely

populated areas. The municipality reimburses

taxi costs to inhabitants on a case-by-case ba-

sis. Information on other social-welfare trans-

port services was not received from the munic-

ipality.

44

4.4 Rural Transport - Special questions in Pielinen Karelia and Juuka

The Pielinen Karelia public transport services

are at a turning point. The scheduled servic-

es mainly run by private enterprises have be-

come and continue to be less frequent, leaving

responsibility for organising and funding stat-

utory public transport services in the hands

of municipalities. Municipalities have reacted

to the situation very differently, which means

that the level of services within Pielinen Kare-

lia varies greatly.

Municipalities have started to supplement the

dwindling scheduled services that do not an-

swer the needs of customers by providing spe-

cial transport services aimed at the elderly, the

physically handicapped and those entitled to

transport services according to the Social Wel-

fare Act and the Act on Services and Assistance

for the Disabled. The coverage of the special

transport services in Lieksa and Nurmes are

quite extensive especially with regards to the

over 65-year-olds and fulfil the recommenda-

tions set for special transport services by the

Ministry of Transport and Communications. In

Juuka, the quality of special transport services

varies, and in Valtimo these services do not ex-

ist (Figure 15).

The problem with these special transport serv-

ices is that they are only suitable for people

who are not in a hurry. The municipality may

also restrict the right to use special transport

services if the customer lives near a scheduled

public transport route. In such a case, the au-

thorities often conclude that the customer does

not have an actual need for special services, al-

though in reality the customer may not be able

to use the scheduled routes due to health prob-

lems, for instance.

In Lieksa and Nurmes, special transport serv-

ices have been developed steadily and purpose-

fully, and these municipalities now have a rath-

er good service system that treats inhabitants

equally. Unfortunately, there are also areas in

Pielinen Karelia where the situation of the eld-

erly and those who do not own a car is almost

unbearable: inhabitants living in sparsely pop-

ulated areas may only have a chance to visit

the nearest population centre by public trans-

port once a month and may be totally depend-

ent on the help of neighbours or self-financed

taxi services. Elderly people living in popula-

tion centres, who are not entitled to transport

services according to the Act on Services and

Assistance for the Disabled, also suffer from

the lack of suitable public transport services for

their needs. The inequality of citizens regard-

ing the availability of public transport servic-

es became clearly apparent during the compi-

lation of the report regarding the current state

of public transport.

Since scheduled services are becoming scarc-

er, the role of the municipality in organising

school transport is also becoming more and

more important. This could lead to a signifi-

cant increase in expenses: of all the transport

expenses in the public sector, school transport

expenses have increased the most in Finland

in the 21st century. In addition to the uncon-

trollable rise in costs, there are also other prob-

lems concerning school transport: daily travel

times are constantly growing and are very near

the maximum times allowed, which places ex-

tra strain on pupils.

The public transport sector that has developed

the least is commuter transport; both sched-

45

uled services and special transport services are

mainly unsuitable for commuting purposes due

to their schedules. The lack of public transport

suitable for commuting can partly be blamed

for long-term unemployment in the area since

the lack of connections limits the job oppor-

tunities available to those less wealthy people

who do not own a car. From the point of view of

the tourist industry, the public transport con-

nections are also weak: during the most impor-

tant season, summer, about three quarters of

the scheduled services stop running and the re-

maining services are not compatible with flight

and railway transport schedules. Tourists have

not found the special transport services as

well as was expected, perhaps due to the lack

of suitable marketing. The Kimppakyyti serv-

ice, which connects the Koli national park, the

most important tourist attraction in the area,

and the nearest airport and railway station, is

once again threatened and on the list of servic-

es to be abolished by the Centre for Economic

Development, Transport and the Environment.

The incoherence and instability of the funding

system for public transport decreases the op-

portunities of creating and stabilising func-

tional public transport services and brings un-

certainty to the development of sparsely popu-

lated areas.

The coordination of municipal transport serv-

ices needs developing in all the municipali-

ties of the area. A common problem is the vast

number of different transport needs and the

minimal co-operation in planning across mu-

nicipality borders and branches of administra-

tion: each branch of administration seems to

plan its own transport services on a case-by-

case basis without consulting other branches.

Municipalities call for bids regarding individ-

ual transport services, which means that the

cost of the service is sometimes greater than

the value of the product being transported /

the service. Individual planning and calling for

bids probably results in higher expenses than

calling for bids for a larger entity of transport

services. Taking into consideration the varie-

ty of transport needs and the susceptibility to

change in municipalities, a more functional,

centralised option would be to concentrate all

transport services in a regional transport serv-

ice unit owned by the municipality.

The development and supply of services in ru-

ral municipalities is limited by the fact that the

population density is low and that there sim-

ply are less potential users and payers than in

a large city covering a similar area. In order to

reach enough customers, the vehicles and serv-

46

ice concepts should be suitable for as many us-

ers as possible, i.e., transport needs should be

combined. Currently, combining is only imple-

mented by using the same service providers in

certain areas to provide staggered transport

services for different needs, which does not

greatly increase the cost-effectiveness of the

services from the point of view of the munici-

pality. In order to cut costs, it would be worth

thinking of ways to fulfil different transport

needs using the same services.

The incoherence of the funding and admin-

istration of the system and the fear of aboli-

tion of profitable scheduled services due to the

competition caused by alternatives impede the

development of alternative service solutions

significantly. However, the current scheduled

services cannot be used by the elderly, the larg-

est potential customer group in Pielinen Kare-

lia, if they live even slightly further away from

the route and/or need moving aids or an assist-

ant. Leaving these people without services does

not in any way prevent the decline of scheduled

services. In fact, it may even promote this de-

cline if the elderly are forced to move to larg-

er population centres due to the lack of trans-

port services and thus accelerate the desertion

of rural areas.

The Pielinen Karelia public transport services

are facing a challenging problem. Solving the

problem requires a systematic approach and

co-operation between different parties, as well

as firm actions by the state administration in

order to simplify the funding and controlling

system of public transport. High-quality serv-

ices and their cost-effective implementation re-

quire a significantly greater investment in the

planning of services and in the co-operation

between municipalities and different branches

of administration.

47

The use of public transport in Pielinen Karelia and Juuka

The purposes for which customers use public

transport reveal a great deal about the func-

tionality of local services. At its best, function-

al public transport can be used for all trips,

when there are no limiting factors that prevent

its use. In Pielinen Karelia and Juuka, public

transport is used for all the typical travelling

purposes. It is easy to believe that public trans-

port in the area offers the possibility to travel

freely and effortlessly on trips related to work

and leisure. However, there are problems that

become visible when the purposes for which

people use public transport are examined more

closely.

People mainly use public transport for travel-

ling in their free time. Those of working age

mostly use public transport for running er-

rands, holiday travelling, pursuing hobbies

and attending events. Pensioners mainly use

public transport for running errands, pursu-

ing hobbies and attending events. Young peo-

ple mainly use public transport when travelling

between home and their place of study, on holi-

day trips and when pursuing hobbies.

Only slightly less than a quarter of all trips

made using public transport in Pielinen Kare-

lia and Juuka are related to travelling to/from a

place of study or to/from a workplace. The rea-

sons for this are the long distances in the area

and the lack of services at suitable times. The

limited use of public transport for travelling to

work is simply due to the fact that the current

services do not correspond with the needs of

the customers. It is easier for public transport

to answer the needs of those travelling in their

free time because people have more flexible

timetables when they are not working.

5 Surveys

5.1 Pielinen Karelia surveys

10,6 % 31,9 %

9,6 %

8,5 %4,3 %

28,7 %

6,4 %Going to work

Work trips (except home-workingplace-home-travelling)

Travelling between home and school/student place

Running errands (for example banks, offices,health care, shopping)

Travelling to hobbies and events

Holiday travelling

Something else

For which travels you are using public transport?

Figure 16: The use of public transport in Pielinen Karelia and Juuka

48

Different age groups have different needs regarding the development of public transport

Public transport needs developing in the Pielin-

en Karelia and Juuka area. The questionnaire

reveals that 86.8% of those who answered be-

lieve that their transport possibilities could be

significantly improved both locally and nation-

ally by improving the public transport servic-

es in the area. The development needs of pub-

lic transport can only be determined by exam-

ining the existing problems. People find that

the greatest development needs concern mak-

ing schedules more frequent and extending the

services to remote locations. Organising public

transport all year round in remote areas is also

seen as important since, especially during the

summer months, people suffer from the lack of

public transport because school transport serv-

ices are not running.

For the working population, the most essential

development needs are increasing the number

of services in remote areas, making schedules

more frequent and decreasing travel times. Or-

ganising functional connections from Joensuu

to workplaces is also seen as an important fac-

tor. Women of working age are more interested

in making schedules more frequent than men

are. A difference between the two sexes is also

visible in other attitudes regarding the devel-

opment of public transport: women are more

open to developing public transport than men

are. A higher income level also correlates with

the interest in more frequent schedules. The

people with a low income are mostly pension-

ers who are often satisfied if it is generally pos-

sible to travel between home and population

centres using public transport. People with

higher income levels also often need to travel

more which is why more frequent schedules

and routes are seen as important.

In Pielinen Karelia and Juuka, there is a great

need for special transport services due to the

relatively large population of pensioners. The

current Kimppakyyti service in Lieksa and the

Kyytipoika service in Nurmes are important

and make travelling possible for the pension-

ers and physically disabled living in the area.

Similar services are also needed in Juuka and

Valtimo, where pensioners and the physically

disabled currently have to cope by using oth-

er forms of public transport. With regards to

transport pooling services, a functional infor-

mation system is also needed so that all those

requiring transport services receive the nec-

essary information about the services. Pen-

sioners mainly need public transport servic-

es for running different errands, so their use

of public transport is not tied to a certain time

of day, as is the case with the working popu-

lation. Local happenings should, however, be

taken into consideration when planning sched-

ules, so that it would be possible to attend spe-

cial events (e.g. the evening market in Nurmes)

even from remote areas.

Improving the train connections between Liek-

sa and Nurmes is seen as an important issue in

the development of public transport services in

remote districts. Bringing back the night trains

between Nurmes and Helsinki is also seen as an

important issue, as well as improving the train

connections from Nurmes and Lieksa to Joen-

suu. Improving local train connections would

increase the use of public transport when run-

ning errands and going to work and decrease

the use of private cars.

49

Improving services would increase the use of public transport

Developing public transport services has a

clear connection to the utilisation rate of the

services in the Pielinen Karelia and Juuka

area. According to 73% of the respondents in

the Pielinen Karelia and Juuka area, develop-

ing public transport services will directly affect

their willingness to use public transport. Wom-

en and those with a low income are more will-

ing to change their habits regarding the use of

public transport. In this case, the people with a

low income include school children, students,

unemployed people, physically disabled people

and pensioners, who are more able to arrange

their timetables so that they correspond with

the schedules of public transport. The people

who do not own a car are also open to new serv-

ices because they do not have any other possi-

bilities for travelling long distances.

Approximately one fifth of the respondents is

hesitant regarding the development of pub-

lic transport. Those hesitating are mainly of

working age or pensioners. This is understand-

able since the suitability of the services usual-

ly only becomes clear after testing them. Due

to irregular timetables and changing working

hours, people do not always believe that public

transport can sufficiently adapt to the changing

needs of individuals.

The single most important factor affecting the

use of public transport is the customer’s rela-

tionship with private cars. The people using

private cars will not begin to use public trans-

port unless they are no longer able to use their

car for some reason. When developing public

transport, it should be held in mind that public

transport should offer a respectable alternative

to using a private car. 79.5% of the population

in Pielinen Karelia and Juuka feel that pub-

lic transport is more environmentally friendly

than the use of a private car. The ecological de-

velopment of public transport includes taking

environmental issues into consideration but

also offering people such transport opportu-

nities that giving up the use of a private car is

possible.

50

Innovative ideas - data communica-tions and biogas

When developing public transport services,

it is important to know what the objective is.

When speaking of a service, the point of view

should be customer-oriented, and the finan-

cial resources should be in proportion with the

services the customers need. In addition to the

needs of the service provider and the custom-

er, environmental issues that fundamentally

affect the direction of public transport services

should also be taken into consideration.

In the Pielinen Karelia and Juuka area, envi-

ronmental issues, facilitating and making trav-

elling less expensive and decreasing the need

to travel all came up when the customers were

asked for development ideas. For instance, im-

proving the availability of services based on

data communications and information technol-

ogy by developing infrastructures and the serv-

ice structure was proposed. This is based on the

idea that people do not necessarily need trans-

port to services if the services can be brought

to the customers at home. In this case, devel-

oping infrastructures refers to extending the

broadband network so that it would be avail-

able to all inhabitants in the area. The service

structure should be developed both in the pub-

lic and the private sector so that people could

use more services over the Internet. The de-

velopment of services would mean that people

would no longer need to leave home in order to

run errands. Taking village schools back into

use was also proposed as a solution to reducing

the need for transport services. Additionally,

transport pooling was proposed as a solution

to transporting patients between health cen-

tres and the central hospital in order to reduce

the number of transport services in the area.

In addition to decreasing the need for trans-

port, propositions were made regarding the

development of existing services, and some

new ways of developing public transport were

also presented. For instance, giving a couple of

transport pooling vouchers to customers eve-

ry month was proposed so that new custom-

ers would find the service. The vouchers would

also help in marketing the service. A combina-

tion ticket that could be used with several dif-

ferent forms of public transport was also pro-

posed.

With regards to the ecological sustainability of

public transport, the subsidised production of

biogas was proposed in order to reduce the car-

bon-dioxide emissions caused by public trans-

port. The same proposition also included the

idea of changing the energy source of the train

between Joensuu and Nurmes from electrici-

ty to biogas. The ideas from customers includ-

ed many innovative solutions for developing

transport routes. One customer suggested in-

troducing a ferry between Koli and Vuonislahti

or between Koli and Lieksa and building a se-

ries of bridges between Paalasmaa and Joensu-

unniemi in Lieksa. The most important issue in

innovative ideas is not necessarily the feasibil-

ity of individual propositions but the fact that

different ideas are brought up and discussed.

By combining the positive features of various

ideas it is possible to create functional entities

that serve the system better than individual de-

velopment ideas.

51

5.2 Tourism enterprises surveys

The Regional Council of North Karelia carried

out a survey within the Rural Transport Solu-

tions project aimed at the tourism enterpris-

es in North Karelia at the end of 2009 and the

beginning of 2010. The objective of the survey

was to find out how the tourism industry sees

the current level of public transport services,

their availability and their significance to tour-

ism in the region. A total of 42 businesses from

around the region answered the survey. All the

municipalities in the region were represent-

ed apart from the Kesälahti district. The sur-

vey was a combined effort with Karelia Expert.

The survey also provided the respondents with

the opportunity to participate in the further de-

velopment of the public transport system. Out

of the 42 businesses, 16 provided their contact

details for this purpose.

The majority of the businesses that answered

the survey are small businesses that employ 0

to 4 persons28. Twenty-six of the businesses are

located further than 5 kilometres away from a

municipal centre. Sixteen businesses are locat-

ed in a municipal centre or in the immediate

transitional zone of a municipal centre. Ques-

tions were asked regarding the current flow of

customers and the main means of transport

used by the customers. No fewer than 39 busi-

nesses were of the opinion that most of their

customers arrived by private car. The three

other businesses had organised transport in-

dependently, and this was the main means of

transport used by the customers.

When the businesses were asked about the

current public transport services, 16 business-

es found that the current service level served

their business well, whereas 15 had the oppo-

site point of view.

28 In addition to the entrepreneur

When the businesses were asked about the in-

convenience experienced by their customers

when travelling to the region and to the target

destination, the results were exactly the same.

Despite this, 35 of the businesses found that

the availability of their services is poor without

a car. Based on this sampling, the flow of cus-

tomers and the development prospects for the

region’s tourism industry are heavily depend-

ent on car transport.

How, then, do the tourism enterprises in North

Karelia see the opportunities provided by pub-

lic transport as an element improving the avail-

ability and strategic competitiveness of their

business? Every other business has thought

about how to attract more customers who do

not own a car. Faster train connections from

Helsinki to Joensuu will enable investments

in environmentally responsible tourism if the

situation is exploited and suitable connections

from the regional centre to tourist attractions

are available. A clear majority of the business-

es (36) found that extensive and regular public

transport services bring added value to the op-

erations of their business. In addition to this,

35 businesses found investments in environ-

mentally responsible tourism important.

The businesses have different opinions about

the problems of public transport and their so-

lutions. The most critical deficiencies concern

availability in the summer (reduced services

during the summer months), bad connections

during weekends and the connections from the

airport29 to the region. Nor are the businesses

satisfied with the availability of the schedules

for public transport and communications re-

garding public transport.

29 Joensuu Airport Entrepreneurs from Pielinen Karelia

emphasized the Kuopio direction.

52

What are the greatest development needs ac-

cording to the businesses? On a regional level,

the loss of the night train connection has clear-

ly weakened the public transport service level.

The businesses feel that offering taxi services

for ride sharing30 and special transport serv-

ices that can be ordered in advance on sched-

uled transport routes would be a significant

improvement. Tourists should be informed of

possible further connections (from the airport

and from railway stations) when reservations

are made. The customer could, for instance,

receive information about alternative means

of transport when reserving a holiday on the

30 For instance the Kimppataksi service in Koli.

Internet and reserve these transport services

at the same time. This would provide the cus-

tomer with an actual opportunity to choose

the means of transport to the destination. The

service could be produced by the tourism en-

terprises in co-operation with the municipali-

ties of the region. Adding services that could

be ordered as necessary would bring the flex-

ibility that businesses want to the travel times

and routes. Currently, the schedules and exist-

ing stops do not serve business life in the best

possible way.

53

This chapter presents some of the good practic-

es of the public transport system in North Kare-

lia that the Regional Council of North Karelia

and the Pielinen Karelia Development Centre

want to further develop within the RTS project.

Characteristic of the public transport practices

of North Karelia are a strong local touch and

the knowledge of local conditions.

North Karelian Transport Combina-tion Centre

The North Karelian Transport Combination

Centre is part of the organisation of the city of

Joensuu31, and it is responsible for the smooth

flow of transport services in accordance with

the Social Welfare Act and the Act on Services

and Assistance for the Disabled in its operating

area. Everyone who has been granted a trans-

port subsidy in accordance with the Social Wel-

fare Act and the Act on Services and Assistance

for the Disabled is entitled to use service trans-

port. The service is based on customer calls

and combining, which means that the combi-

nation centre plans routes based on the cus-

tomers’ calls. Customers can call and request

transport services on weekdays between 6.40

a.m. and 5 p.m.. In the evenings and at week-

ends, the calls are directed to a taxi on duty. All

the transport services ordered via the transport

combination centre are door-to-door services.

The customers have the opportunity to use the

services of a personal assistant.

Since 1 August 2009, the transport combina-

tion centre has supplied approximately 4,800

service transport trips a month.

31 1 August 2009 onwards

Slightly less than 60% of the trips organised

by the transport combination centre are made

within Joensuu (includes former areas of Eno

and Pyhäselkä). The objective of the North

Karelian Transport Combination Centre is to

provide personal door-to-door services to in-

habitants who need them and to rationalise the

use of public resources by combining transport

services in order to attain a taxi utilisation rate

that is as high as possible. Bids have been re-

quested from different service providers before

choosing the service providers used.

Before August 2009, the transport combina-

tion centre was a larger entity that included the

Joint Municipal Authority for Medical and So-

cial Services in North Karelia, the Town of Kitee

and Kela in addition to the current municipali-

ties. Pyhäselkä municipality was not original-

ly a member but became one after the consoli-

dation of municipalities on 1 January 2009. At

that time, the centre organised more trips, ap-

proximately 7,700 to 8,3oo per month in 2008

and 2009. Currently 3,500 to 2,900 trips less

are made each month. However, if the revised

organisational structure and the parties now

outside the centre are taken into consideration,

the number of trips is at least at the same level

as before, if not slightly above it.

According to the latest statistics, there were

1,578 customers entitled to combination-centre

trips in different municipalities. Of these cus-

tomers, 625 made at least one trip per month32.

32 Social Welfare Act, Act on Services and Assistance for

the Disabled and others (28 trips)

6 Good practices in North Karelia

54

Special door-to-door transport services that

can be ordered in advance within the grid lay-

out of Joensuu are also available from the

North Karelian Transport Combination Cen-

tre33. Transport is ordered via the transport

combination centre to the destination request-

ed by the customer. The service simultaneous-

ly provides accessible public transport that is

available to all users.

Regional tickets

There are three regional tickets in North Kare-

lia that are meant to increase the attractive-

ness of scheduled bus services as a means of

transport. The ticket products maintained by

Matkahuolto, the Centre for Economic Devel-

opment, Transport and the Environment for

Pohjois-Savo and the municipalities of North

Karelia include the North Karelia ticket, the

Central Karelia regional ticket and the Joens-

uu regional ticket34. The North Karelia regional

ticket is the most expensive and covers almost

the entire region, whereas the Joensuu region

ticket and the Central Karelia ticket only entitle

customers to trips within these areas.

Table 15: Regional tickets (Source: North-Savo Ely-cen-

tre 2009)

Regional tickets purchased

Joensuu region

Central Karelia

North Karelia

2008 8 778 230 832

The North Karelia regional ticket and the oth-

er regional tickets offer an alternative to using

private cars for daily trips to work and hobby

activities that cross the borders of municipal-

ities. The ticket products have been priced so

that they are cheaper on an annual basis than

the use of a private car, even without taking

the purchase price of the car into considera-

tion. There are frequent connections between

33 Kyytipoika

34 Centre for Economic Development, Transport and the

Environment for Pohjois-Savo 2010

municipal centres in North Karelia, and in

the Joensuu area in particular it is possible to

use scheduled bus services to travel to work/a

place of study when travelling from popula-

tion centre to population centre during busi-

ness hours. The municipalities and the Centre

for Economic Development, Transport and the

Environment subsidise the price of the tickets.

In 2009, the subsidy was 45-48% of the price

of the final product.

The North Karelia regional ticket is valid in

all the municipalities in the region except for

Kesälahti. The regional ticket costs €123 and

is valid within the region for 30 days from the

date of purchase. It can be used on all sched-

uled services apart from the express services.

This also applies to other regional tickets35. If a

person with a regional ticket wishes to use an

express service, an additional express-service

fare will be collected.

The Joensuu region ticket can be used in Joen-

suu, Kontiolahti, Liperi, Outokumpu and Polv-

ijärvi. The price of the ticket depends on the

customer’s place of residence. The Joensuu re-

gional ticket is valid for 30 days from the date

of purchase36.

Table 16: Joensuu regional ticket (Source: Matkahuolto)

Joensuu regional ticket

Price for customer

Joensuu 84 €

Kontiolahti 64 €

Liperi 70 €

Outokumpu 93 €

Polvijärvi 85 €

The Central Karelia regional ticket can be used

in Kitee, Rääkkylä and Tohmajärvi. The condi-

tions regarding the period of validity and the

validity on scheduled services are the same as

35 Matkahuolto A

36 Matkahuolto B

55

for the other regional ticket products for North

Karelia37.

Table 17: Central Karelia regional ticket (Source: Matka-

huolto)

Central Karelia regional ticket

Price for customer

Kitee 44 €

Rääkkylä 65 €

Tohmajärvi 48 €

The regional tickets can be seen as successful

good practices in public transport, as in North

Karelia, in particular, the demand for these

ticket products has been increasing. The tick-

et products have been especially popular in

Joensuu where almost 9,000 tickets were sold

in 2008. Demand has grown particularly in

Kontiolahti. Many of the inhabitants travel be-

tween Kontiolahti and Joensuu daily on their

way to work or to a place of study38.

Pielinen Karelia and Juuka

Kimppakyyti (Lieksa)

Since 1999, the special transport services in ac-

cordance with the Social Welfare Act and the

Act on Services and Assistance for the Disa-

bled have mainly been organised using a sys-

tem called Kimppakyyti that is open to all users

and runs on demand. The Kimppakyyti service

is a special transport service that runs on fixed

days and is partly based on orders made by cus-

tomers. It is mainly operated using minibuses

with a capacity of 1+8. The customers can get

on the minibus at their front door, receive as-

sistance from the driver or order a personal as-

sistant to accompany them. The Kimppakyyti

service includes routes that cover both popu-

lation centres and sparsely populated areas.

37 Matkahuolto C

38 Persons travelling to work from Kontiolahti to Joensuu:

3,195 (31 December 2007)

Routes within population centres are driven

between 7.30 a.m. and 4.30 p.m.. In sparse-

ly populated areas, services run 2 to 7 times a

week, and the coverage of the routes in relation

to the location of the population is good.

The development of the system began in 1998

as part of the public transport project of North

Karelia. The aims of the project were to ensure

sufficient public services for the inhabitants of

the region and to achieve cost savings for the

city and for Kela by combining different trans-

port services. At the beginning of the develop-

ment project, the following service level objec-

tives were set for the project:

The routes will be planned with special atten-

tion being paid to onward connections. The

customers can order their next connection

during the trip, with the help of the driver, if

necessary. The customer and driver are in di-

rect contact with each other, so the driver can

inform the customer of the real-time waiting

time and route. The availability of the service

is good, and it is easy to order and use it. The

means of providing journeys and the compen-

sation system for travelling expenses are sim-

ple and functional from the point of view of

the customer. The customers receive individ-

ual, high-quality service that takes their spe-

cial needs into consideration. User groups with

special needs are taken account of when the

routes are planned, and, if necessary, custom-

ers may be accompanied by a personal assist-

ant. Customers in wheelchairs and customers

using other equipment are taken into consid-

eration when choosing suitable vehicles. The

driver allows for the needs and restrictions

of special user groups and helps to transport

the customers and their equipment safely. The

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-

stances.

56

The following good practices can be recognised

in the development phase and the implementa-

tion phase of the Kimppakyyti service in Liek-

sa:

The development of the transport 1.

service began with the clear definition

of the desired service-level objectives,

i.e. the functional quality require-

ments for the service

The service-level objectives were set 2.

high enough

The objectives and principles guid-3.

ing the development process included

customer-orientation and the com-

munal benefits of functional service

transport

A variety of interest groups participat-4.

ed in the development project: the city

of Lieksa, transport service provid-

ers, KELA, customers. This provided

a comprehensive view of the project

from the very beginning.

The development project of the 5.

Kimppakyyti service included a test

phase, an assessment phase and a

completion phase. This has made it

easy to improve the system based on

feedback from customers and service

providers.

The basic idea of the service was to 6.

combine several different transport

needs, which would promote the cost-

effectiveness of the service.

The Kimppakyyti service has been 7.

planned so that it is accessible to all

users.

The service was marketed actively 8.

from the very beginning of the project

using several different methods.

During the first few years, the Kimppakyyti

service succeeded in its concrete objective of

reducing the transport costs of the municipal-

ity’s social services. In the project, launched in

1999, the aim was to reduce the costs of trans-

port services for the disabled by 10%. The costs

were, however, reduced by 40% compared to

the previous year, although more trips were

made and the system was only in use for part of

the year. In the statistics for the year 2007, the

effectiveness of the Kimppakyyti service can be

seen as lower transport costs per inhabitant for

the customers of social services and as lower

transport costs of the disabled (Lieksa: €452,

Nurmes: €645, Juuka: €1241, Valtimo: €1378).

Lieksa is also the only municipality in the area

where the total costs of transport services de-

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.

57

Kyytipoika (Nurmes)

The Kyytipoika service in Nurmes is similar to

Lieksa’s Kimppakyyti service. It has been in

use since the 1990s and is open to everyone but

also takes care of service transport. The main

differences between the Kyytipoika and the

Kimppakyyti service are that the operational

objectives of the Kyytipoika service were not

originally planned as thoroughly as those of

the Kimppakyyti service and that the Kyytipoi-

ka system is not updated regularly based on

feedback collected from customers and service

providers. This is not a great problem as long

as most of the customers are satisfied with the

service and as long as the arranging party does

not have any financial or operational pressures

to develop the service.

The Kyytipoika services can be ordered from

Monday to Friday between 7 a.m. and 6 p.m..

In sparsely populated areas, the order must

be made three hours before the planned trip

and in population centres two hours before

the trip. All Kyytipoika services are accessi-

ble for the disabled. The regional coverage of

the Kyytipoika routes is good: the service takes

the customer to the requested destination. The

Kyytipoika routes have been restricted to cer-

tain areas and roads in the contract. Kyytipoi-

ka services are available in each area three days

a week. The drivers can plan their exact route

within the target area according to the orders

received as is most convenient.

If there are school children needing transport

along the route and the schedule is suitable, the

Kyytipoika services can also transport school

children. In rural areas, disabled people are

entitled to an assistant according to the Act on

Services and Assistance for the Disabled. The

service provider is compensated for the trans-

port of such an assistant.

The pros of the Kyytipoika service include ac-

cessibility and flexibility, uniform prices, the

simple ordering system, services that operate

quite frequently (three times a week), little ad-

ministrative bureaucracy and the good local

knowledge of the service providers (area and

people). The cons of the system are the slow-

ness of the service and the varying schedules:

Kyytipoika is a suitable means of transport

for people who are not in a hurry because the

routes may be quite long and circuitous. Cus-

tomer satisfaction has not been measured, but

it is thought to be good. Those entitled to trans-

port services according to the Act on Services

and Assistance for the Disabled seldom use the

Kyytipoika services. So far, tourists have not

used the service very often either.

Between 2007 and 2009, approximately

16,000 one-way trips were made annually and

110,000 road kilometres were covered on all

the Kyytipoika routes.

58

59

Different forms of (train, scheduled busses,

municipal) public transport services in North

Karelia covers quite well main population cen-

tres of the region. However situation is prob-

lematic for several reasons. Some of the most

relevant problems are: About 20 % of inhabitants have poor •possibility to use public transport of

any kind

Inhabitant areas around of city of •Joensuu are main origins of work

commuting. Housing structure is de-

centralized and therefore limits the

possibility to use scheduled services

as a basis for work commuting trans-

port.

Rural areas in Pielinen and Central •Karelia lack’s sufficient accessibility

to municipal centres (national for this

is at leas 2 times per week for every

main village)

Amount of funding has reach its po-•tential limits and seemingly only way

to maintain existing services is done

by improving cost-effectiveness

Finish national law guarantees certain •amount of monthly trips for elderly

(over 65 years old and some income

restrictions) and for handicapped. If

funding further diminishes this form

of service transport is basically only

form of public transport in rural re-

gions of Finland in the near future.

Inter-municipal and inter-city public

transport is priority one and govern-

ment funding is targeted for maintain

these vital services

Municipal basic level public transport •services needs more customers, but in

the same time services are only target-

ed for special groups. Trips of special

customer groups are highly subsidized

and costly for organizing municipal-

ity. More “hard money” customers are

needed in order to finance these serv-

ices more sustainable way.

Route and schedule searches doesn’t •cover all available services and don’t

include information about is the serv-

ice suitable for elderly or handicapped

Cooperation between municipalities •and different service branches is prac-

tically non-existent

No active marketing, and innovative •ticket products

Huge differences in service quality •within the region

These listed 10 main challenges throw a great

challenge for RTS project and regional trans-

port authorities. In Finland public transport

has traditionally been very decentralized and

managed by state regional units and differ-

ent service branches within municipal sys-

tem. This method for supporting unprofitable

scheduled transport services and individual

transport planning for different focus groups

(school pupils, elderly) has worked until now.

Current inter-municipal scheduled services are

operated by 40 - 50 seat busses. Constant sub-

sidizing these services which basically needs

busses only half a current size due to low us-

age rate (empty 50 seated buses is no wonder).

Smaller and more modern vehicles are needed.

7 Conclusion and the Development priorities

60

Work commuting is very common in north

Karelia but it is mainly done by using private

cars. Marketing of alternative ways to commute

is needed but until now there haven’t been rel-

evant actions to do it. Instead of developing

public transport there have been few multi mil-

lion investments for road junctions and road

infrastructure so that commuting with private

cars is smoother during rush hours.

Rural regions of North Karelia and especially

Rural Transports Solutions project pilot region

of Pielinen Karelia there’s two innovative indi-

vidual services that offers door-to-door service

with new and accessible vehicles. These good

practices are previously mentioned Kyytipoi-

ka and Kimppakyyti services which operate in

municipal centres and in all main villages (Nur-

mes, Lieksa). Elderly and handicapped people

are the main customer groups. These customer

groups receive ticket fare compensation. One

main problem is that service doesn’t reach oth-

er customer groups such as young, working age

people and travellers. These potential passen-

gers offer a great potential for maintaining ru-

ral transport services. If usage rates of exist-

ing services raises and more “hard cash” pay-

ers are attracted to use public transport, this

will greatly ease the financing of these serv-

ices. The big question is: Hoe to attract those

potential groups to become new regular cus-

tomer? Easiest way to do it is active marketing

(with improved timetable services) and inclu-

sive publicity campaigns. Services are open for

everyone, but until now targeted only for spe-

cial groups. Some preliminary ideas how to re-

brand the services:

Timetables delivered to home and •comprehensive search features avail-

able online

Public transport services are usually •located in social- and healthcare sec-

tion of internet pages (municipalities)

even though everyone can use these

services. RTS suggests that every mu-

nicipality should relocate transport

services in different section and mar-

ket services for all

61

Public meetings should be organized •concerning local transport needs and

development. More customer orien-

tated service planning is needed to

improve service quality and cost-ef-

fectiveness

Customer feedback system is required•Innovative new methods to raise pub-•lic interest and make public transport

as an interesting option. Municipali-

ties with local sme’s can for exam-

ple offer benefits for regular public

transport users. These benefits may

include lower prices on some serv-

ices and products. This kind of active

campaigning will benefit all actors

(customers, municipalities and local

sme’s) and create positive impact in

communities.

Development ideas for the RTS project partners

Partners from North Karelia and Pielinen Kare-

lia suggest for future work some ideas where

common development and new ideas are des-

perately needed. If partner organizations have

expertise and/or experiences concerning these

ideas partners from Finland are ready to eager-

ly learn from those experiences.

Online services (timetables, mobile 1.

solutions, spatial information sys-

tems)

Transport chains development (exam-2.

ples village-city centre-region level)

“Park and Ride” solutions (targeted 3.

improving sustainable and environ-

mental friendly work commuting)

Share-a-ride campaigns4.

E-Ticketing systems and automatic 5.

billing

Innovative ticket pricing6.

Marketing and participatory actions 7.

to raise usage rate of public transport

Demand Responsive Transport vs. 8.

scheduled service with fixed routes

62

Priorities North Karelia and Pielinen Karelia

Priority one (RTS, next few years)

Priority two (near future) Improvement suggestions

Service structure Service structure →

• Dispersed planning and operative management

• Lack of cooperation between different service branches and neighboring municipalities (Cooperation practically non-existent)

• Unbalanced service quality (between villages and municipalities)

• Lack of services • Problems with customer

orientated planning (service planning targeted meet the specialized need of the individual service branch)

• Old fleet (busses)

• Open public transport within

municipal borders doesn’t link-up with scheduled transport

• Over bureaucratic financing system

• Deficiencies in ticketing systems

• Too little effort has been put in applying more environmental friendly fleet (equipment old and usage rates low too big busses)

• Collective planning and shared

aims for whole regional public transport actors (ELY, Joensuun, other municipalities)

• Transport of goods and people is penetrating process for whole municipal organization and thus cannot be effectively organized if decision making is situated in different service branches

• At least regional/work commuting area based solutions instead of municipal planning

• Service level and service accessibility should follow the same standards everywhere

• 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

63

Priority one (RTS, next few years)

Priority two (near future) Improvement suggestions

Information system (ICT) Information systems (ICT) → • Lack of internet based search

services and outdated information (local connections)

• Information concerning municipal service transport isn’t easy to find

• Information sharing and marketing strategies non-existent

• Nationwide problem: No public transport timetable/search engine which covers all existing services

• Insufficient reporting and

planning system for public transport services

• Finland is highly develop information society but up-to-date ICT and mobile applications are missing

• One search engine which offers

information concerning all transport services (bus companies, State Rail and municipal service transport)

• Planned and targeted marketing concerning local transport services (for homes, local businesses and public spaces)

• Communication strategy for marketing purposes (Public Transport branding)

• 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

64

Red indicates priority one

Blue indicates priority two

Priority one (RTS, next few years)

Priority two (near future) Improvement suggestions

Customers Usability / Accessibility

Customers Usability / Accessibility →

• Lack of information concerning

local transport services • Few or no suitable connections

available • Un-flexible timetable

(especially scheduled transport), no possibility to revise routes if needed

• Is service barrier free? Accessibility information available for every route

• Lack of timetables on Public transport stops

• Unequal status of inhabitants. Some municipalities have rather good services other municipalities service level is appalling

• Lack of local connections in destination (Mainly concerns work commuters in Joensuu city region)

• Lack of service on weekends

and during summer • Poor possibilities to “park and

ride” • More information available

concerning local transport services (internet, timetables, mobile, bus stop, stores)

• Bus stops (scheduled service) should be named

• Night train connection to • Joensuu • Tourism areas and hiking trails

aren’t easy to access with public transport (sustainable tourism)

• Connections from Lieksa and Nurmes to Joensuu/Kuopio airport needs development

• Timetables should be delivered

to every household once a year • Better and more frequent public

transport services in Pilot region (Juuka)

• More flexible services (DRT such as Kimppakyyti) and new rural area covered by DRT services

• If services are accessible for elderly and handicapped (low floor, wheelchair capability) this information should be found from timetables

• More connections on weekends and holiday season

• Park and ride possibilities • More funding should be

allocated for train traffic • Marketing campaigns and

support to use share-a-drive type solutions