The document provides an overview of public transport services in Finland, with a focus on the rural region of North Karelia. It discusses the legislation and funding models for public transport in Finland. Responsibility for organizing and funding public transport is divided between the state, municipalities, and regional authorities. The state funds long-distance and regional routes, while municipalities fund local routes and special services. Existing rural transport services are analyzed to identify how well they meet citizen needs and priorities for future development.

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
1

2. Rural Transport Solutions project
Work Package 2 report
Regional Council of North Karelia
Pielinen Karelia Development Centre
Northern Periphrery Programme
Jaakko Rintamäki
Heidi Tanskanen
Heikki Viinikka
Juho Mutanen
2

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
3

4. 1 Introduction
The market share of public transport is approx- At the same time, the public-transport sys-
imately 14.4% of the Finnish transportation tem has lost customers, and previously profit-
system1. However, the share of daily trips using able rural routes have been abolished. During
public transport is smaller, approximately 8%. the 21st century, the inhabitants of rural areas
The figures have been collected from munici- have had to face the fact that the possibilities
palities, transport companies, the former Finn- of using public transport are minimal in some
ish Road Administration and questionnaires. areas. The only real alternative is to use a pri-
The market share of public transport is an esti- vate car.
mate, but it can be seen to give a relatively good
idea of the total share of different forms of The situation is the same in other parts of
transport in Finland. The vast majority of trips northern Europe, where the era since the Sec-
are made using private cars. The share of pas- ond World War has been one during which
sengers using a private car has been increasing people have become wealthier and the mid-
strongly since the 1950s, especially during the dle-class has expanded. The increase in the
last 30 years. number of private cars was not seen as a social
problem at first. Its problems were first visible
In North Karelia, the share of trips made using in the metropolises and capitals of Europe. In
public transport is even lower than the Finnish European cities, public transport has tradition-
average. According to a recent transportation ally had a central role, but in some rural areas
system plan2, the market share of daily trips of northern Europe the different forms of pub-
made using public transport is approximately lic transport have not been developed in paral-
5%. On longer trips in particular, the use of pri- lel with the housing and service structure.
vate cars is significant (92.3%).
In rural areas, the problems to be tackled are
The increase in the use of private cars is linked sparse housing and long distances, which do
to the fact that Finnish society, including ru- not exist in cities. There are also fewer peo-
ral areas, rapidly became wealthier after the ple living in rural areas than in cities, and the
1950s. Incomes rose, and industrial produc- long-term trend of people moving from rural
tion increased. For the first time, ordinary citi- areas to cities will further decrease the popu-
zens had the opportunity to purchase a car for lation. Moreover, the population in rural areas
their own use. Finland is no longer in the phase is constantly aging. This development, visible
of becoming rapidly motorized, but transpor- throughout Europe, will continue for another
tation possibilities have radically changed dur- couple of decades as the baby-boom genera-
ing the last few decades. The advantage of own- tions born after the war grow older and as the
ing a private car is the feeling of freedom and new generations become ever smaller in size.
mobility it gives.
1 Including air traffic (Public transport performance sta-
tistics 2007)
2 North Karelia transportation system plan 2010
4

5. In rural areas, aging is one of the main fac- also find it difficult to organise their transport
tors that are affecting the use of private cars. to work or to leisure activities.
It is no longer clear that everyone who owns a
car is also able to use it actively. Some people The large global issue is how to promote sus-
are very dependent on their spouse who owns tainable development and reduce carbon-diox-
a driving licence, since longer trips to run er- ide emissions. The transition towards public,
rands and make recreational trips can only be communal transport must be a common goal
made if the spouse drives the car. both in cities and in rural areas. The European
Union has been one of the most active institu-
On the other hand, rural areas also provide tional promoters of sustainable development.
homes for young people, people of working age The Northern Periphery Programme aims at
and people with special needs due to disabil- finding solutions for the sparsely populated ar-
ities or social issues. These user groups may eas of the northern member countries.
5

6. 2 Finnish Public Transport System –
Legislation and Financial Analysis
2.1 Legislation, transport authorities and
service providers
In Finland, the state and municipalities are re- as, municipalities where the distances between
sponsible for the funding of public transport. population centres are great and small urban
The funding and support system is based on di- districts. Railway transport and long-distance
rect purchases of transport services, the com- transport using coaches also require public-
pensation for deficits of contract transport and transport purchases.
fare revenues. As a supplementary system,
Finland uses an extensive transport cost reim- The public-transport performance statistics
bursement system for special user groups (cus- (17, 2009) divide the funding of public trans-
tomers of social services, the disabled and peo- port into the following categories according to
ple needing transport to and from hospitals). their purpose. The objective of the funding sys-
tem is to promote the supply and demand of
Funding by the state and by municipalities is the services.
meant to ensure a basic level of service for pub-
lic transport and to promote the use of public According to the Ministry of Transport and
transport in areas where the operation of the Communication, the funding of Finnish pub-
transport system would otherwise be jeopard- lic transport is rather dispersed (Ministry of
ised and/or where the load on the environment Transport and Communications, Reviewing
caused by traffic needs to be decreased3. Ef- the system of funding for public transport 2,
forts to ensure a basic level of service are tar- 10. 2009).
geted, in particular, at sparsely populated are-
Public-Transport Funding purposes: Supply and Demand
Funding promoting supply Funding promoting demand
Public funding covers the Covers reimbursements of the travel expenses
purchase of transport services, of special groups and purchases of fare reduc-
funding of scheduled transport tions. The funding is indirect and manifests
and compensations for deficits. itself in the form of the fare revenues accruing
The additional supply generated to the transport contractor. Tariff support is
can be recognized most easily discussed here from the point of demand, as
in the case of the purchase of it is often difficult to distinguish it from the
transport. funding of supply.
Source: Public Transport Performance statistics 2007. Ministry of Transport
3 Ministry of Transport and Communications 2, p. 9,
2008
6

7. In addition to the objectives of the funding Table 1: The responsibility for organising public and service trans-
and its functional division, it is also worth not- port (Source: Public-Transport Performance Statistics 2007. Minis-
try of Transport)
ing that the funding of the Finn-
Funding influencing Supply Funding influencing Demand
ish public transport system comes
Ministry on Transport and Purchase of rail transport, State subsidised youth fares
from multiple channels. The re- Communication purchase of air transport and purchase of fare reductions
sponsibilities for organising and Provincial governments Purchase of basic transport, State subsidy of fare reductions
state subsidy of local transport
funding public transport are divid- Education School transport subsidy, School pupil and student
secondary level education tickets
ed between several authorities, and institutes
in practice each Finnish municipal- Health and social services Reimbursements of travel
expenses
ity is in charge of organising and
Ministry of Defence Charter transport fot conscripts Reimbursements of travel
financing public transport. Public and reserve forces expenses of conscripts and
reserve forces
funding consists of two parts (Min-
Ministry on Labour Reimbursements of travel
istry of Transport and Communica- expenses of performers of
nonmilitary service
tions 2, p. 11, 2009): Major cities (Helsinki, City transport deficit support, Reductions granted for special
• Direct funding: transport- Espoo and Kauniainen, contract transport groups, tariff support
Vantaa, Tampere, Turku)
service purchases by the Other municipalities Purchase of transport services, Reductions granted on social
state and by municipali- deficit support for specific grounds, puchase of fare
routes or companies reductions
ties, fare subsidies, com-
pensation for deficits of
contract transport *4
• Reimbursements of travel expenses purchased by the Centres for Economic Devel-
(state, municipalities) opment, Transport and the Environment en-
sure that public transport is also available in
areas where maintaining scheduled services is
The responsibility for organising public trans-
not profitable. The purchased transport servic-
port and service transport has been decentral-
es can also support the already profitable serv-
ised to several different branches of adminis-
ices on certain routes by increasing passenger
tration. The basic funding and organising re-
numbers. In other words, municipalities ben-
sponsibility structure of the Finnish public
efit from the purchases made by the Centres
transport system can be seen in the following
for Economic Development, Transport and the
table. The table also includes public transport
Environment. For instance the school trans-
organised by the armed forces and the Ministry
port services in many municipalities have been
of Labour that is usually not presented togeth-
based on scheduled services purchased by the
er with the rest of the public transport system
state. In addition to the basic public transport
due to its special character. These services are
services, the purchases made by the Centres
usually mainly used for the transport of con-
for Economic Development, Transport and the
scripts.
Environment also support local transport and
service transport. Also, resources are used an-
As an addition to the table, it could be men-
nually for different kinds of fare subsidies (city
tioned that the Centres for Economic Devel-
tickets, regional tickets, commuting tickets).
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 The Centres for Economic Development, Transport and
the Environment are in charge of the tasks that formerly
belonged to the State Provincial Offices.
7

8. The role and responsibilities of
the state
The development of the transport infrastruc- Areas where cities have full economic respon-
ture including public transport systems be- sibility include the Helsinki Metropolitan Area
longs to the sphere of responsibilities of the Council district (metropolitan area and neigh-
state. The state is not responsible for organis- bouring municipalities), Tampere and Turku.
ing public transport services. In practice, pri- In rural areas, the Centres for Economic De-
vate enterprises provide the public transport velopment, Transport and the Environment
services, and the public sector supports these (former State Provincial Offices) purchase sup-
services if a sufficient service level cannot be plementary basic services for transport across
attained in a certain area on purely commer- municipality borders. Each municipality pur-
cial grounds. chases transport for within its borders. The
Centres for Economic Development, Transport
The role of the state as the organ ensuring a and the Environment co-operate with munic-
certain service level mainly concerns long- ipalities and subsidise the prices of regional
distance transport and regional transport. tickets.
The municipalities are left in charge of trans-
port within their borders. Combining different With regard to railway transport, VR (State
forms of passenger transport and linking trips Rail) has an exclusive right to provide servic-
have also been mentioned as responsibilities es. This has been justified by the fact that it en-
of the state in the report produced by Nyberg’s sures that extensive railway services are avail-
work group5. able in all parts of the country6. The Ministry
of Transport and Communications is respon-
sible for railway-transport purchases. The lo-
cal train services for the Helsinki metropolitan
area are purchased by the Helsinki Metropoli-
tan Area Council.
Public transport services also receive a signifi-
cant amount of funding via Kela (National In-
surance Company). According to the Health
Insurance Act, a person is entitled to receive
reimbursements of travel expenses related to
treatment. The act is meant to encourage peo-
ple to use public transport on trips related to
treatment and to take advantage of transport
combination services if such services are avail-
The state has provided €150-200 million of an- able in the area7.
nual funding for public transport in the last few
years.
5 Ministry of Transport and Communications 2, p. 13, 6 Ministry of Transport and Communications 2, p. 14,
2009 2009
7 Ministry of Transport and Communications 2, p. 14,
2009
8

9. The role and responsibilities of
municipalities
Municipalities are responsible for organising A total of approxi-
statutory transport services for social-welfare mately €120 million
customers and for the disabled and for organ- has been spent annu-
ising school transport services. A major part ally for the purchases
of the municipalities’ public-transport budg- of public transport services available to every-
et comes from the branches of administration one. Of this sum, 75% is used in the Uusimaa
responsible, and the aim is to fulfil the target region9.
group-specific service obligation.
School transport is the largest individual cost
Some municipalities also offer special trans- item that municipalities have to cover when or-
port services that are available to all inhabit- ganising public transport. Pupils receiving ba-
ants. These services provide inhabitants who sic education are entitled to free transport if
do not own a car with the possibility to run er- the trip to school is over five kilometres or if
rands, among other things. the trip otherwise causes unreasonable strain10.
It is estimated that the annual cost of school
In general, the public transport services in ru- transport in Finland is €128.6 million.
ral areas are not as good as services in cities if
the number of services and the service hours The second most significant cost item consists
are examined. A service that runs twice a week of service transport for the disabled, in accord-
is considered a basic-level service. A basic-lev- ance with the Act on Services and Assistance
el service cannot usually be used for going to for the Disabled. Customers have a subjective
work, going to pursue hobbies in the evenings right to these transport services. Transport in
or for running errands in the daytime. accordance with the Act on Services and As-
sistance for the Disabled is usually limited to
There are major differences in the ways of or- the municipality where the customer lives or
ganising special transport services and in the to neighbouring municipalities. The statistics
frequency of the services in Finland and also used do not include information on all munici-
within the North Karelia region. In some mu- palities, but the costs of these transport serv-
nicipalities, special transport services are ba- ices are over €70 million each year. In 2006,
sically non-existent, and in others services are €8.5 million was spent on discretionary trans-
available in population centres on weekdays. port services in accordance with the Social Wel-
The state supports statutory transport services fare Act and €6 million on transport services in
via the state subsidy system8, but public trans- accordance with the Act on Special Care for the
port that is available to everyone has not been Mentally Handicapped11.
included in the system.
8 An income equalization system for the division of costs 9 Ministry of Transport and Communications 2, p. 15,
between the state and municipalities 2000
10 Ministry of Education and Culture 2010
11 Ministry of Transport and Communications, p. 15, 2009
(lacking information)
9

10. The statutory obligation of municipalities is 2.2 Public Transport Funding
to organise service transport for those in need in Finland
of it in accordance with the Social Welfare Act
and the Act on Services and Assistance for the According to the expense information reported
Disabled. The state of other public transport by different state organisations and municipal-
services, so called special transport services, ities, the delivery of different public transport
varies greatly from municipality to municipal- service forms cost the public sector approxi-
ity. The assessment reports on basic services mately €700 million in 2007 (Public-transport
made by State Provincial Offices have pointed performance statistics 2007). The same year,
out this inequality for several years now. Some the portion financed by the state was €206.7
municipalities are able to provide public trans- million and the total sum financed by munic-
port services at the basic service level in pop- ipalities €489.7 million. In 1997, the share of
ulation centres and rural areas, whereas other the public funding of public transport financed
municipalities do not provide any public trans- by the municipalities was 66.5%. In 2007, this
port services apart from the statutory services. share had increased to 70.3%. The role of the
In such cases, the options are to use a bicycle, a state has diminished especially in the direct
private car or an expensive taxi. funding of public transport services. The sum
that municipalities invest in organising pub-
Table 2: The parties and division of tasks in Finnish
lic transport has increased by €200 million in
public transport services (Riikonen 2008)
ten years, which is almost as much as the en-
Ministry on Transport and Purchased transport: Railroads tire sum the state uses for funding public trans-
Communication and Air transport. port (Public-transport performance statistics
ELY-centre (9/15) Scheduled-transport grants 2007).
and purchases inter-municipal
trasport services. By comparing the means of transport used, two
Municipalities (342) principal means of transport can be singled
out from the Finnish public transport system,
School Transport Largest municipal transport ser-
at least based on expenses. These two means
vice in Finnish municipalities.
Municipality purchases Regular of transport are buses/coaches and taxis. The
tickets for regular routes or share of the funding of both means of transport
purchases bus/taxi service. has grown, and their combined share of the en-
Transport service for dis- 18 one-way trips per month tire funding is now 90%. The public funding
abled (statutory) for one individual. Possibility to
of bus/coach transport has grown by 62% be-
cross municipal border.
tween the years 1997 and 2007. For taxi trans-
Transport service for social Discretionary. Different prac-
reasons (statutory) tices in Finnish municipalities. port, the growth is 84% (Public-transport per-
Usually same kind of rights as formance statistics 2007).
in transport services for dis-
abled.
The vehicle capacity of railway transport has re-
Open public transport in No regular state subsidizes. mained almost the same as before, but seat ca-
municipal area (not statu- Quality and Quantity of open
tory, basic-level service) transport services varies greatly pacity has increased. The share of public fund-
between different municipali- ing in railway transport has remained constant
ties. or perhaps even decreased slightly while the
Kela – The Social Insur- Fare compensation for hospital passenger capacity has increased.
ance Institution of Finland travels. Public Transport rate.
10

11. Public Transport funding
State and Municipalities Public Transport funding between
different transport modes
800 350
700 300
600 Railway
250
Tram
million euros
500 Underground
million euros
200
Bus, Coach
400 Taxi
150
Air
300
100 SL Ferry
200
50
100
0
0 1997 1999 2001 2003 2005 2007
1997 1999 2001 2003 2005 2007
Figure 2: Public Transport funding between different
State Municipalities Total transport modes (Source: Public-Transport Performance
statistics 2007. Ministry of Transport and Communica-
Figure 1. Public Transport funding, State an Munici- tions)
palities (Source: Public-Transport performance statis-
tics 2007)
Based on the number of buses and coaches The number of taxis has decreased by approxi-
and their number of seats, the capacity of bus/ mately 200 vehicles in a decade. Of the Nordic
coach transport has grown. If measured by the Countries, Finland is still the country with the
number of seats available, bus/coach transport most taxis. The passenger capacity of taxis has
has a capacity of at least twice the size of all decreased in relation to the number of vehicles
other public transport forms put together. This that are no longer used as taxis. In 2007, there
is also visible in the amount of public funding were 9,449 taxis in Finland, and taxi transport
directed at bus/coach transport. Bus/coach was the second most subsidised form of public
transport receives by far the most funding of transport.
all forms of public transport.
Table 3: Vehicle and seating capacity (Source: Public Performance Statistics 2007.
Ministry of Transport and Communication)
Vehicle capasity, number
Railway Tram Under- Bus, Taxi Air Ferry to Total
ground coach SI
1997 888 105 42 6 579 9 676 27 4 17 321
1999 918 104 42 6 921 9 700 27 4 17 716
2001 896 109 54 6 799 9 272 32 3 17 165
2003 878 122 54 6 992 9 186 29 3 17 264
2005 904 131 54 6 876 9 152 32 3 17 152
2007 869 131 54 7 056 9 449 22 3 17 593
Seating capacity, number
Railway Tram Under- Bus, coach Taxi Air Ferry to Total
ground SI
1997 58 710 3 953 5 460 311 793 48 699 2 174 750 431 539
1999 64 315 3 922 5 460 317 331 50 000 2 044 870 443 942
2001 67 785 4 317 6 948 311 749 48 200 2 730 710 442 439
2003 63 940 5 320 6 948 322 658 46 900 2 764 710 449 240
2005 70 441 5 889 6 948 317 511 46 332 2 895 810 450 826
2007 69 607 5 898 6 948 325 426 48 473 1 959 810 459 121
11

12. Public Transport annual passengers in Finland
400
350
300 Railway
million passengers
Tram
250
Underground
200 Bus, Coach
Taxi
150
Air
100 SL Ferry
50 Figure 3: Public transport annual passengers (Source:
Public Performance Statistics 2007. Ministry of Transport
0
1997 1999 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 and Communication)
The passenger volumes of public transport have Railway transport receives the lowest public
not increased at the same rate as public funding subsidy per seat kilometre of the three main
has increased. The total passenger volume has forms of public transport. On average, each
grown by 6.3% between 1997 and 2007. This seat kilometre travelled using public trans-
is significantly less than the increase in fund- port was subsidised by 1.5 cents. For buses and
ing (60%). In practice, this means that the cur- coaches the subsidy was 1.4 cents and for taxis
rent system would be able to increase the use of 6.8 cents.
public transport by 10% by raising funding by
Table 5: Public subsidy €/seat kilometre (Source: Pub-
100%. Railway transport represents an anom- lic Performance Statistics 2007. Ministry of Transport and
aly in the public transport system. The share of Communication)
public funding has decreased by 4%, and the €/seat Rail- Bus, Taxi Public
passenger volume has increased by 33%. kilo- way Coach Transport,
metre average
2007 0,005 0,014 0,068 0,015
Out of all the public transport forms, taxi trans-
port receives the largest amount of support per
The public-sector funding of public transport
passenger. The public subsidy received by all
has clearly increased in the last decade. Even
the taxis in the country is €4.91 per customer
if the increase is standardised by taking infla-
if the subsidy is divided evenly among all taxi
tion into consideration, the general cost level
transport. In reality, the share of the subsidy is
has increased by approximately 50%. The in-
small for instance in Helsinki and in its neigh-
creases in the costs of the Centres for Econom-
bouring areas, but in rural areas the share of
ic Development, Transport and the Environ-
the public subsidy may be two thirds of a taxi
ment (State Provincial Offices) have gone on
driver’s total sales.
the purchases of scheduled services and other
Table 4: Public subsidy €/passenger (Source: Public Per- direct subsidies of public transport. The costs
formance Statistics 2007. Ministry of Transport and Com-
of municipalities have grown due to the rapid
munication)
increase in travel reimbursements. The eco-
€/pas- Rail- Bus, Taxi Public
senger way Coach Transport, nomic situation of municipalities is difficult all
average over the country, and due to the high unem-
2007 0,91 0,68 4,91 1,24 ployment rate and a low dependency ratio, the
municipalities of Eastern Finland are facing an
even greater challenge.
12

13. The service level of public 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 The portion of the public transport services to
public transport and the changes that have tak- be financed by the public sector varies great-
en place from the point of view of national leg- ly both regionally and between different forms
islation and EU directives. Special emphasis is of transport. Nyberg’s work group14 finds that
placed on how the renewed legislation and the the conditions for organising long-term public
organisational changes affect the sustainable transport services are weak. One of the prob-
organisation of public transport, particularly in lems of the current system is that subsidies are
rural areas. The information presented in this determined based on budget years. This means
chapter is based on the new Finnish legisla- that the sustainable development of public
tion concerning public transport, on reports by transport is not necessarily attained and that
work groups of the Ministry of Transport and the system is prone to major fluctuations. Ad-
Communications and on EU directives12. ditionally, the incoherence of the system has
been an obstacle for the comprehensive plan-
The work group led by Mikael Nyberg exam- ning of public transport.
ined the current state of Finnish legislation
concerning public transport and the financing A new Public Transport Act based on the Reg-
of public transport in the report Reviewing the ulation (EC) No 1370/2007 of the European
system of funding for public transport13. The Parliament and Council was passed in Fin-
work group comes to the conclusion that trans- land on 3 December 2009. The objective of the
port planning should be widened and seen as regulation and the new act is to clarify the re-
a comprehensive whole. There should be ex- sponsibilities of competent authorities organ-
tensive co-operation, especially between au- ising public transport to ensure sufficient, se-
thorities, municipalities and Regional Couci- cure and high-quality public passenger trans-
ls. These parties prepare the service-level ob- port services 15.
jectives of public transport together. As a new
item, the principle of the division of costs be- The Regulation of the European Parliament
tween the state and the municipalities was and Council and the new public-transport act
added to the Public Transport Act. are meant to clarify the work of authorities and
to promote two of the service targets of pub-
lic transport services: 1. increasing the use of
public transport in urban districts and between
cities and 2. securing the basic level of public
transport across the entire country.
12 Mainly (EC) No 1370/2007 14 Ministry of Transport and Communications 2, p. 9,
13 Ministry of Transport and Communications 2, 2009 2009
15 Government bill on the new public transport act 2009
13

14. The basic level of public transport Discussion, problems detected, in-
as the goal of the legislator ternational obligations and alter-
native ideas for organising public
transport
When setting goals for the public transport sys- In its current state, the Finnish public trans-
tem in rural areas, the basic level of transport is port system has many points that require de-
constantly the subject of discussions. The basic velopment. The state of the system is analysed
level of public transport can be seen to include quite critically in the introduction of the gov-
the following16: ernment bill on the new public-transport act17.
1. Inhabitants are able to use public The amount of funding and fare subsidies has
transport for daily commuting, trav- grown significantly, but new customers have
elling to their place of study and run- not been reached. The total passenger vol-
ning errands between important serv- ume of bus and coach transport has decreased
ice centres, municipal centres and by 3%. At the same time, the railway-trans-
other large population centres and for port passenger volume has increased by over
joining the national public-transport a quarter.
network.
2. Within municipalities, people who The Finnish State Provincial Offices have as-
do not own a car should be able to sessed basic services in provinces annually. Ac-
reach population centres at least twice cording to these assessments, the public trans-
a week. port system has not been able to respond to
the changes that have taken place in the oper-
In North Karelia and in other sparsely populat- ational environment. Vehicle mileage has de-
ed areas, these goals mean that investment is creased, and the market share of public trans-
needed especially in functional, daily connec- port has fallen. In North Karelia, the regional
tions between population centres and munici- ticket system has partly controlled this devel-
pal centres. Public transport should be made a opment. However, in rural areas the declining
real option for commuters and for people run- population and in urban areas the decline of
ning errands in their free time. For rural areas, the market share of public transport represent
the service-level goal has been set at two days a threat to public-transport connections that
a week. The current basic level of public trans- are reasonable at the moment18.
port in rural areas does not enable use of pub-
lic transport for commuting, studying or 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, 17 Government bill on the new public transport act, 3 De-
2009 cember 2009
18 Government bill on the new public transport act, 3 De-
cember 2009, p. 13
14

15. 3 Public Transport services in North Karelia –
Current status 2010
3.1 General information about North Karelia
Regional descriptions of the current state of Up to the end of 2008, the State Provincial Of-
public transport services in four countries and fice of Eastern Finland was the local adminis-
six areas have been carried out within the Ru- trative organ responsible for purchasing and
ral Transport Solutions project between Janu- developing public transport services and for
ary and June 2010. In North Karelia, the pub- ticket discounts. As the regional state admin-
lic transport services of the entire region have istration was reformed, these responsibilities
been examined at a general level, including in- were transferred to the Centre for Economic
formation on the actions of different service Development, Transport and the Environment
providers, financing, routes and passenger vol- for Pohjois-Savo. In 2010, the amount budg-
umes. The report also includes information on eted for public transport services for the Cen-
how inhabitants of the region and businesses tre for Economic Development, Transport and
in the travel sector view the public transport the Environment in Pohjois-Savo is approxi-
services and on what are the most important mately €8.6 million. The budget for the Centre
areas for development. This information has for Economic Development, Transport and the
been collected with the help of questionnaires Environment for Pohjois-Savo is distributed
and discussions. The report includes a vast among the regions of Pohjois-Savo, Etelä-Savo
amount of information regarding travelling to and North Karelia19. More detailed information
work, housing and the potential accessibility of on the State Provincial Office funding of public
public transport services. transport services can be found in the section
of this publication
Table 6: Population and ageNorth Karelia 31.12.2009
Population and age structure in structure in North Karelia 31.12.2009
concerning the over-
(Source: Statistics of Finland)
0-14 yrs. % 15-64 % 65+ % Total all funding of Finnish
Joensuu 10 935 15,0 49 759 68,4 12 010 16,5 72 704
public transport.
Outokumpu 1 008 13,5 4 813 64,2 1 671 22,3 7 492
Ilomantsi 689 11,4 3 623 60,2 1 710 28,4 6 022
Kontiolahti 3 130 22,9 8 991 65,7 1 556 11,4 13 677
Lipri 2 331 19,2 7 826 64,5 1 976 16,3 12 133
Polvijärvi 695 14,4 3 051 63,3 1 075 22,3 4 821
Joensu Region 18 788 16,1 78 063 66,8 19 998 17,1 116 849
Lieksa 1 455 11,4 7 993 62,5 3 340 26,1 12 788
Nurmes 1 114 13,0 5 334 62,2 2 125 24,8 8 573
Juuka 781 13,7 3 507 61,5 1 417 24,8 5 705
Valtimo 315 12,7 1 508 60,8 659 26,6 2 482
Pielinen Karelia 3 665 12,4 18 342 62,1 7 541 25,5 29 548
Kitee 1 256 13,4 6 017 64,0 2 128 22,6 9 401
Kesälahti 324 13,2 1 449 58,9 687 27,9 2 460
Rääkkylä 324 12,3 1 587 60,5 714 27,2 2 625
Tohmajärvi 728 14,3 3 180 62,6 1 171 23,1 5 079
Central Karelia 2 632 13,5 12 233 62,5 4 700 24,0 19 565
North Karelia 25 085 15,1 108 638 65,5 32 239 19,4 165 962
19 Ministry of Transport and Communications
15

16. 3.2 The funding and
different models of
public transport services
The costs of public transport services in North The overall transport costs of public transport
Karelia vary significantly from municipality to and service transport in municipalities were
municipality. Joensuu clearly has the lowest over €12.6 million in 200720. When comparing
overall costs in the region. From the beginning costs, the age structure and housing structure
of the year 2009, the municipalities of Eno and of municipalities and the availability of region-
Pyhäselkä have also been part of Joensuu. In al regular transport services supporting the use
Outokumpu, Lieksa and Tohmajärvi the annu- of municipal services should be taken into ac-
al transport costs of public transport services count. In this sense, municipalities do not have
are €70 - 80 per inhabitant. In proportion to equal resources for organising public transport
the number of inhabitants, the greatest trans- services.
port costs in North Karelia can be found in
Rääkkylä, Juuka and Kontiolahti. School transport is by far the most expensive
sector of transport services. Significant cost-
Valtimo level differences can be found by examining the
Tohmajärvi costs of different branches of administration in
Rääkkylä municipalities. For instance in Tohmajärvi, the
transport costs of social services per inhabitant
Pyhäselkä
are seven times greater than in Lieksa. Howev-
Polvijärvi
er, the open public-transport costs in Tohma-
Outokumpu
järvi are lower than in Lieksa. Based on the sta-
Nurmes tistics, there are great discrepancies between
Liperi the basic structures for organising public trans-
Lieksa
port services in different municipalities.
Kontiolahti
The costs of public-transport and service-
Kitee
transport services in municipalities have in-
Kesälahti creased rapidly. The nominal costs have more
Juuka than doubled since 1998, when delivering the
Joensuu services came to €6.3 million. The real costs
have increased by over €5.5 million since the
Ilomantsi
year 2000, taking general inflation into consid-
Eno
eration. Reasons for the rapid increase in the
0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 cost of public-transport and service-transport
Health Care Transit €/inhab. services include the general increase in price
Social Transit €/inhab. levels, the closing down of village schools and
School Transit €/inhab.
Open public Transport €/inhab. the aging of the population.
Public Transport costs €/inhab.
Figure 4: Transport costs €/Inhabitant (Source: North-
Savo Ely-Centre and municipalities of North Karelia
2008)
20 Health care transport costs not included.
16

17. Table 7: Public Transport costs for municipalities in North Karelia 2007 (Source: North-Savo Ely-Centre
and municipalities of North Karelia 2008)
Public Open School Social Health Care Total costs
Transport public Transit Transit Transit €
costs Transport €/inhab. €/inhab. €/inhab.
€/inhab. €/inhab.
Eno 72 4 59 9 4 476 654
Ilomantsi 97 8 71 17 8 600 617
Joensuu 38 8 21 8 3 2 182 602
Juuka 136 6 95 35 25 795 011
Kesälahti 109 3 75 31 0 283 097
Kitee 94 12 53 28 22 899 095
Kontiolahti 123 5 95 22 12 1 632 805
Lieksa 82 17 56 9 30 1 078 643
Liperi 85 2 58 25 11 1 018 524
Nurmes 89 9 59 20 0 781 351
Outokumpu 71 2 36 33 4 545 203
Polvijärvi 97 9 70 18 5 477 720
Pyhäselkä 95 1 74 19 12 736 121
Rääkkylä 138 3 68 67 0 378 337
Tohmajärvi 80 4 63 13 15 418 457
Valtimo 100 3 76 21 0 254 322
Total 12 558 559
Average 94 6 64 23 9
Table 8: Public Transport costs 1998–2007 (Source: North-Savo Ely-Centre 2009)
Municipality Transport costs Transport costs € / inhab. 2007
€/inhab. 1998
Eno 46 72
Ilomantsi 62 97
Joensuu 19 38
Juuka 79 136
Kesälahti 65 109
Kiihtelysvaara 84 Annexed to Joensuu 1.1.2005
Kontiolahti 57 123
Lieksa 43 82
Liperi 52 85
Nurmes 32 89
Outokumpu 36 71
Polvijärvi 61 97
Pyhäselkä 58 95
Rääkkylä 70 138
Tohmajärvi 47 80
Tuupovaara 75 Annexed to Joensuu 1.1.2005
Valtimo 58 100
Värtsilä 38 Annexed to Tohmajärvi 1.1.2005
17

18. Transport costs have grown in all the munic- Public transport services in
ipalities of North Karelia during the last ten North Karelia
years. However, there have been great differ-
ences in the growth rate of the costs. The costs The next section examines public transport
of Nurmes have almost tripled during the pe- services in North Karelia, their target groups
riod under review, whereas in Ilomantsi the and operations models. Pielinen Karelia, the
growth in costs has been much more moderate target area of the Rural Transport Solutions
(+56%). The effects of inflation have not been project, is examined in its own section in more
taken into consideration in the calculations. detail. The detailed report for the Pielinen Kare-
Despite the rapid growth in costs of the pub- lia sub-region and Juuka has been compiled at
lic transport services in the various branches the Pielinen Karelia Development Centre.
of administration of Nurmes, the municipality
has organised its public transport at a cost that Regular scheduled services by different opera-
is lower than the average for the region. Mean- tors form the base of the public transport sys-
while in Rääkkylä, Juuka, Kesälahti and Konti- tem in the region. Regular services and express
olahti, public transport services were produced services constitute the majority of public trans-
at a cost that is clearly higher than the average port services available to all users. Further in-
for the region. formation on the routes covered by different
operators, including population analyses, can
KELA reimbursements of be found in the section on routes. The regu-
travel costs lar services mainly serve the daily needs of in-
habitants travelling between municipal centres
On a national level, Kela annually reimburses and to the provincial centre.
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
18

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 Public transport services (mainly special serv-
the first chapter of this report and school trans- ices that need to be ordered in advance) open to
port services according to certain conditions. all users are available in Nurmes, Juuka, Liek-
According to Finnish legislation, rural munic- sa, Ilomantsi, Joensuu, Kontiolahti, Rääkkylä,
ipalities and small towns are not required to Tohmajärvi, Kitee, Kesälahti and Polvijärvi.
organise public transport. However, a major
part of the municipalities of North Karelia pro- Service transport in municipalities
vide public transport services. Different kinds (social welfare and health care)
of transport services that can be ordered in ad-
vance by the customer form one of the most Transport subsidies granted, based on social
common forms of open public transport of- welfare and disability, are controlled by legisla-
fered. The idea of these services is that custom- tion24. Transport in accordance with these acts,
ers contact the transport combination centre in addition to school transport, forms part of
or the service provider in advance when they the public transport services that municipali-
know that they will need transport23. ties are obliged to provide by law. Individual
municipalities, co-operation districts (Oku-
Public transport from villages li), federations of municipalities and the pub-
to the municipal centre lic utility Helli in Central Karelia are respon-
(1 to 3 times a week) sible for social welfare and health-care service
transport.
The availability and practical arrangements of
transport services that need to be ordered in Grounds for granting a transport subsidy in ac-
advance vary from municipality to municipal- cordance with the Social Welfare Act
ity, and in practice there is no common service (Joensuu)
concept for providing the services. The Minis- • A transport subsidy may be granted
try of Transport and Communications has set a for running errands and for recrea-
general objective of two connections per week tional trips according to the limits set
for transport from sparsely populated areas to by the income and financial situation
municipal centres. The frequency of transport of the customer
services varies from municipality to munici- • Customers over the age of 65, of lim-
pality, but also within municipalities. In gen- ited means, who have an increased
eral, the aim of the current transport system need for support are given priority
is to provide a service from the villages to the • Depending on the need, a maximum
municipal centre at least once a week. During of 8 one-way trips per month can be
evenings, weekends and the summer-holiday granted
months, the availability of transport services is • A certain part of the fare will remain
much more limited. the customer’s responsibility
23 Usually the previous working day at the latest. 24 Social Welfare Act and Act on Services and Assistance
for the Disabled
19

20. Grounds for granting a transport subsidy in ac- Since 1 August 2009, the transport combina-
cordance with the Act on Services and Assist- tion centre has supplied approximately 4,800
ance for the Disabled (Joensuu) service transport trips a month. Slightly less
• A transport subsidy may be granted to than 60% of the trips organised by the trans-
a severely disabled person port combination centre are made within Joen-
• A social worker will make the deci- suu (including the former areas of Eno and Py-
sion, and the customer will be in- häselkä). Outokumpu and Liperi come second
formed of how many trips he or she in trip numbers. The number of trips made has
has been granted per month increased steadily since the North Karelian
transport combination centre has been intro-
In North Karelia, there are two larger organisa- duced.
tions that are responsible for service transport
for the social services and health-care depart- Before August 2009, the transport combina-
ments, in addition to the municipalities. These tion centre was a larger entity that included
organisations are the social and health service the Joint Municipal Authority for Medical and
centre Helli in Central Karelia and the North Social Services in North Karelia, the Town of
Karelian Transport Combination Centre (Poh- Kitee and Kela in addition to the current mu-
jois-Karjalan matkojenyhdistelykeskus, MYK) nicipalities. Pyhäselkä municipality was not
that provides services in Joensuu, Kontiolahti, originally a member but became one after the
Liperi, Nurmes and Outokumpu. consolidation of municipalities on 1 January
2009. At that time, the centre organised more
The North Karelian Transport Combination trips, approximately 7,700 to 8,3oo per month
Centre is part of the organisation of the city in 2008 and 2009. If the revised organisational
of Joensuu25 and is mainly responsible for the structure and the parties now outside the cen-
smooth running of transport services in its op- tre are taken into consideration, the number of
eration area in accordance with the Social Wel- trips is at least at the same level if not slightly
fare Act and the Act on Services and Assist- higher.
ance for the Disabled. Everyone who has been
granted a transport subsidy in accordance with According to the latest statistics, there were
the Social Welfare Act and the Act on Servic- 1,578 customers entitled to combination-cen-
es and Assistance for the Disabled is entitled tre trips in different municipalities. Of these
to use service transport. The service is based customers, 625 made at least one trip per
on customer orders and combining these or- month26. Special door-to-door transport serv-
ders, which means that the combination cen- ices that can be ordered in advance within the
tre plans routes based on the customers’ or- grid layout of Joensuu are also available from
ders. Customers can call and request transport the North Karelian Transport Combination
services on weekdays between 6.40 a.m. and Centre27. Transport is ordered via the transport
5 p.m.. In the evenings and at weekends, the combination centre to the destination request-
calls are directed to a taxi on duty. ed by the customer. The service provides acces-
sible transport.
25 1 August 2009 onwards 26 Social Welfare Act, Act on Services and Assistance for
the Disabled and others (28 trips)
27 Kyytipoika
20

21. School transport 3.3 Public transport services
in North Karelia:
Of all the transport services that municipal- Maps and Routes
ities are responsible for, school transport is
the most expensive cost item. It accounts for There are several forms of public transport in
50 to 80% of the municipalities’ transport ex- use in North Karelia. There are several pro-
penses. The costs of school transport have been viders of commercial public transport services
itemized in the section covering the financing (hereafter the main scheduled transport net-
of public transport services. The route infor- work). In addition to public transport that is fi-
mation of school transport is included in the nanced by ticket sales, there are also services
route, population and availability analyses in supported by the Centre for Economic Devel-
the next chapter. opment, Transport and the Environment due
to their essential nature. These services may
The regional base of school transport is formed have few passengers, or they may be otherwise
by the regular scheduled services of bus opera- unprofitable. This purchased transport mainly
tors. These services are supplemented by serv- operates on the routes of the scheduled pub-
ices purchased by the Centre for Economic De- lic transport network, but the purchased serv-
velopment, Transport and the Environment ices are often the ones with the fewest passen-
and by school transport services purchased by gers, such as evening and weekend services.
the municipalities. School transport services In addition to bus transport, there is also rail
are mainly targeted at pupils whose daily trip transport in the region. A rail bus transports
to school exceeds five kilometres. passengers to the northern parts of the region
between Joensuu, Lieksa and Nurmes. The
School transport that is organised using regu- bus also stops at Eno, Uimaharju and the vil-
lar scheduled services is always part of the pub- lages of Vuonislahti, Kylänlahti, Höljäkkä and
lic transport open to all users. School transport Kohtavaara. There is also a rail bus for those
purchased from taxi and bus operators by the travelling west. Within the region, the bus only
municipalities may or may not be open to all stops at Viinijärvi. Those travelling south can
users. There may even be varying practices use Intercity or Pendolino trains. These trains
within the services of one municipality. School stop at Kitee and Kesälahti and provide inhab-
transport services that are regular scheduled itants of the region with an important connec-
bus services are provided using the normal ve- tion to southern Finland.
hicles. On routes purchased separately by mu-
nicipalities, pupils are transported using vari- A clear majority of the population of North
ous vehicles, including taxis and buses with ap- Karelia (approximately two thirds) lives in pop-
proximately 20 seats. ulation centres. The largest city is the regional
centre Joensuu, with approximately one third
of the population of the region. Almost half of
the population of the region lives within 20 kil-
ometres of Joensuu. Thus, 25% of the popula-
tion lives outside the Joensuu area (20 kilo-
metres from Joensuu) and outside population
centres. An examination of the population dis-
tribution development between 1980 and 2005
reveals that in particular the population of the
21

22. Joensuu area has also grown outside popula- It is also worth noting that the populations
tion centres, in villages and rural areas (see ta- of small population centres situated along-
ble 9: Population development in North Kare- side main roads have also increased. In Pie-
lia). Within the region, the population of the linen Karelia, in particular, the agglomerations
Joensuu area has grown. Meanwhile, the pop- alongside the main roads are notable, whereas
ulation of Pielinen Karelia and Central Karelia the more peripheral areas in the region are be-
has decreased. Of the individual municipalities, ing left without inhabitants.
only the populations of Kontiolahti and Liperi
have grown besides the population of Joensuu, Thus, the population in North Karelia is de-
and these two municipalities are situated near creasing and agglomerating but also aging at
Joensuu. The rural population in the outer ar- an increasing rate. Public transport is a prereq-
eas of the region has decreased (see Figure 4: uisite for stopping rural areas from becoming
Change in population, 1980-2005). The same completely desolate. The services of rural areas
trend is also visible in most of the other pop- must be secured. Reasonable opportunities for
ulation centres of the region. There are some travel and public transport are part of the com-
exceptions to the rule: the population centres prehensive services of a municipality. The de-
of Valtimo, Polvijärvi and Kesälahti have in- population of rural areas brings its own chal-
creased their populations. lenges to public transport.
POPULATION (2007)
Table 9: Population development in North Karelia
1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005 2007
Joensuu 63 969 66 166 67 363 70 507 71 013 72 292 72 105
Outokumpu 10 312 9 678 9 307 8 887 8 155 7 758 7 688
Ilomantsi 8 753 8 469 8 054 7 832 7 129 6 422 6 203
Kontiolahti 8 351 9 213 10 450 10 831 11 517 12 768 13 326
Liperi 10 737 10 994 11 500 11 708 11 479 11 750 11 940
Polvijärvi 6 167 6 006 6 001 5 730 5 411 5 008 4 931
Joensuu region 108 289 110 526 112 675 115 495 114 704 115 998 116 193
Lieksa 19 157 18 588 17 527 16 752 15 208 13 722 13 181
Nurmes 1 155 11 419 10 944 10 718 9 781 9 151 8 816
Juuka 7 875 7 617 7 317 7 065 6 583 6 034 5 832
Valtimo 4 019 3 880 3 637 3 370 3 002 2 671 2 541
Pielinen Karelia 42 601 41 504 39 425 37 905 34 574 31 578 30 370
Kitee 11 374 11 461 11 350 11 058 10 412 9 795 9 611
Kesälahti 3 172 3 192 3 164 3 071 2 871 2 667 2 596
Rääkkylä 4 063 3 879 3 556 3 364 3 175 2 838 2 735
Tohmajärvi 7 151 7 005 6 666 6 378 5 873 5 446 5 239
Central Karelia 2 576 25 537 24 736 23 871 22 331 20 746 20 181
North Karelia 176 650 177 567 176 836 177 271 171 609 168 322 166 744
22

23. Figure 4: Change in population 1980–2005
23

24. 3.3 Population distribution
and public transport
routes
As has been described above, rural areas are Approximately 50% of the population living
becoming more sparsely populated. Although outside population centres lives within 500
this has been the prevailing trend for several metres of the routes of the scheduled transport
years, the need for public transport has not dis- network. Approximately 80% of the population
appeared. On a map, the public transport net- lives within two kilometres of the scheduled
work seems comprehensive. The routes also network. If the inhabitants of population cen-
cover rural areas, and there are no major de- tres are included, 85% of the population lives
fects in sight. However, the most peripheral ar- either within 500 metres of the network or
eas are left without public transport services, within population centres. Only 6% of the pop-
because it is simply not profitable to organise ulation lives more than two kilometres away
transport in these areas. from the scheduled transport network or out-
side population centres. Thus, the scheduled
In Pielinen Karelia, the population is agglom- network covers the inhabited areas of North
erated alongside main roads, whereas more pe- Karelia extensively.
ripheral areas are mostly desolate. In the cen-
tral and southern areas of the region, the popu- Despite these positive observations, an exam-
lation is distributed more evenly, and desolate ination of the number of services reveals the
areas do not exist. This can also be seen from truth about the status of public transport in ru-
the service network which covers more rural ral areas. The largest number of services trans-
areas than in the north. Nonetheless, there are ports people between population centres.
no major differences in the population cover-
age between areas. In general, it can be said Bus services between Joensuu and the larg-
that most of the rural population is situated est population centres are the most frequent.
near roads. In central Karelia, there are simply There are over ten daily services from Joen-
more roads than in the north. A good quality suu to Lieksa, Outokumpu, Polvijärvi, Liperi
road network is essential to inhabitants nowa- and Kitee via Tohmajärvi. There are also many
days, which is why new housing is built near services to Ilomantsi, including services to Ki-
roads. ihtelysvaara and Tuupovaara. There are also
around ten daily services from Lieksa to Nur-
mes and from Joensuu to Nurmes via Juuka.
Population
Table 10: Population coverage on public-transport network routes
0 - 14 years 15 - 65 years over 65 years Total
Scheduled transport people % people % people % people %
500 m buffer 4 668 53 17 790 53 4 852 51 27 310 53
2 km buffer 7 373 84 27 615 82 7 498 79 42 486 82
Routes + Population 0 - 14 years 15 - 65 years over 65 years Total
centres people % people % people % people %
500 m buffer 85
2 km buffer 94
24

25. Figure 5: Scheduled transport services
25

26. The daily connections between Nurmes and seats for school transport. For commuters, the
Kajaani are also frequent, but elsewhere the infrequent services are problematic. For those
services are limited to a couple of individual wanting to run errands, the infrequent servic-
services. es could be suitable, but since the services of-
ten run in the morning and in the afternoon,
Between the largest population centres, some the time spent at the destination would often
of the services are express services that follow become too long. Alternatively, the customer
main roads and only stop in the population cen- would have to find another means of transport
tres. These services are almost as quick as us- for the way there or the way back. Many feel
ing a private car. Some of the services also stop that the service is too infrequent if they have to
along the way and go along smaller roads, of- spend the whole day away.
fering the possibility to use public transport to
those living further away from the main roads. In theory, there are many services suitable for
commuters since almost all services run in the
Individual services are usually only oper- mornings and in the afternoons. In practice,
ated on school days, up to four times a day. however, several connections are needed in or-
On these routes, public transport is mainly der to make commuting flexible. These flexible
planned around the timetables of school chil- routes only include the routes between Joens-
dren for whom the municipality has purchased uu and other population centres with the larg-
26

27. est number of services. If the criterion of over In addition to the number of services, anoth-
six services a day is set for good daily connec- er problem that arises especially in rural are-
tions, 70% of the working population in the re- as is the transport at weekends and during the
gion lives in population centres or along routes summer. In Joensuu and between population
with good connections. Approximately 20% of centres, services run every day all year round.
the working population living outside popula- However, this is not the case in rural areas.
tion centres lives along routes with good con- Many services disappear for the summer and at
nections. Since a major part of the working weekends. The frequency of services decreases
population lives in population centres, which elsewhere as well, but travelling is still possi-
also provide most of the jobs, public transport ble since not all services are cancelled. In rural
could be used for commuting more often than areas, the disappearance of all services makes
is currently the case. However, the problem is travelling challenging.
the lack of direct connections from people’s
homes to workplaces. In practice, many municipal centres are already
poorly accessible to rural inhabitants since the
Rail transport supplements the bus services. number of services is so small. Moreover, when
There are two daily railway services in both di- the funding of the Centres for Economic Devel-
rections on the route from Joensuu to Nurmes opment, Transport and the Environment ends,
via Lieksa. This service offers a good means many more services will be abolished. The
of transport since the rail bus stops at sever- services to be abolished are often rural servic-
al local villages and supplements the local bus es, whose abolition further weakens the limited
transport. For those travelling west, there are travelling possibilities and puts people in rural
four services in both directions. The flaw on areas in an unequal position. In these cases, the
this route is that the only stop within the region objective of a reasonable opportunity to travel
is Viinijärvi, but the bus connections from here is not attained, and people do not have equal
are good to Joensuu and Outokumpu. opportunities to run their errands. No doubt
there are also exceptions in rural areas. Par-
For those travelling south, there are more than ticularly in villages situated by main roads and
ten daily train services that stop at Kitee and between population centres, there are good op-
Kesälahti.There are also frequent bus services portunities for using public transport. Such vil-
to Kitee, but from Kitee onwards the services lages include Ahmovaara and Viekijärvi, for in-
are limited to one or two a day. The reason for stance.
the limited number of bus services is 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.
27

28. Figure 6: Scheduled trasport during summer and at weekends
28

29. The services that run in the summer and at travelling and running errands are depend-
weekends only cover about a quarter of the ent on the special transport services provided
population living outside population centres by municipalities. There are major differences
but within 500 metres of the public transport between municipalities in the organisation of
network. Within two kilometres of the trans- these services. Figure 7 presents the routes or-
port network, the figure is 51%. During week- ganised by municipalities that are open to eve-
days in the winter, the corresponding figures ryone.
for public transport are 53% and 82%. Thus,
in the summer and at weekends, public trans- The main scheduled transport network cov-
port reaches far fewer people than in the win- ers populated areas rather extensively, so the
ter. Most of the services that stop for the sum- routes specially organised by municipalities do
mer and during holidays are rural services. not significantly affect the potential user vol-
umes of public transport on a regional scale.
Thus, the population coverage of the main
Table 11: Population coverage in the summer and at weekends
public transport network and the special trans-
Scheduled transport in the summer and at weekends port services organised by municipalities is
people % only slightly greater than the population cov-
500 m buffer 13 298 26
2 km buffer 26 202 51 erage of the main scheduled transport network
Routes + Population centres alone. Nonetheless, the special transport serv-
500 m buffer 126030 77 ices organised by municipalities are important
2 km buffer 138934 84
in areas where the main scheduled transport
network is not available or where it is difficult
to use its services due to a physical disability,
This fact affects the travel possibilities of all the
for instance.
inhabitants of the rural areas as well as tour-
ists visiting the area and the accessibility of
Most of the services from villages to popu-
companies providing services to tourists. In
lation centres only run once or twice a week,
North Karelia, the main season for tourism is
often in the daytime. In general, there are no
the summer when most people are on holiday,
special transport services in the evenings or
but this is also when the public transport serv-
at weekends. Only a couple of the services in
ices are at their worst. In order to improve the
the region run daily. The only exception is the
situation, co-operation between different par-
route between Koli and Joensuu, which has a
ties is needed. This co-operation could lead to
taxi service four times a day. Thus, the special
a solution offering more comprehensive public
transport services are only suitable for people
transport in the summer and at weekends.
who occasionally need transport. Within popu-
lation centres, there are daily special transport
According to the report, the scheduled trans-
services. The routes on the map are indicative,
port network in the rural areas of North Karelia
as a customer can be collected from his or her
is extensive in many areas. However, in real-
front door if necessary. The route map mainly
ity this is not the case, since services run infre-
gives an idea of the areas where the vehicle is
quently and there are few services in the sum-
available. Further information is always avail-
mer and at weekends. Thus, in rural areas, in-
able from the operator.
habitants wanting to use public transport for
29

30. Figure 7: Local transport services
30