rts north karelia
DESCRIPTION
TRANSCRIPT
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