Finnish models of public transport

Nowadays in Finland is in use three prototypes arranging of the local public transport. Those regulates law and setting from the permissible traffic in road. From the railways part traffic regulates the railway law and Helsinki's metro and tram traffic town's own standing orders.

By law public traffic in way requires transport licence. According to the setting, transport licences acknowledge in Espoo, Helsinki, Hyvinkää, Hämeenlinna, Imatra, Joensuu, Jyväskylä, Kajaani, Kemi, Kokkola, Kotka, Kouvola, Kuopio, Lahti, Lappeenranta, Mikkeli, Oulu, Pori, Rauma, Riihimäki, Rovaniemi, Savonlinna, Seinäjoki, Tampere, Turku, Vaasa, Vantaa and Varkaus by the town in case; between Helsinki, Espoo, Vantaa and Kauniainen, in traffic YTV; and elsewhere transport licence acknowledges provincial government.

The law and setting from the permissible traffic in way don't set as being public traffic arranging target in Finland for example highest passenger amounts or high service level. The main thought of the law and setting is, that public transport is primarily business dealings. From this regardless main part Finnish from the public traffic is community either directly on the traffic purchase or indirectly ticket support and on the pupil slid supported.

Line permission model

In the line permission model traffic is supported ticket support and by buying the profitless turns. In the model traffic contractor apply for transport licence to different line and to the known turn. For the necessary the traffic of the watched lines or turns, to which nobody apply for transport licence, traffic competition tetaan and is being bought on the net competition principle. The community supports traffic on the paying pupil flags and by investing municipality or region ticket to the price, so that from the consumer perspective regular matter would be cheaper and people would use it more then.

The model is in use main part, but outside of it are Finnish YTV-area and Turku and Tampere the municipality internal traffic to the figure without taking. In practise also on VR Oy monopoly run railway traffic answers this model to the figure without taking YTV-area.

Benefit
*Risk and developing liability is on the entrepreneur par *entrepreneur has possibility to produce services on the most reasonable or for the most competitive by assessing manner.
*Model doesn't demand from the community significant planning charge par *from the point of view of the traffic contractor, traffic is independent carpel par harmful effects
*Amount of mass transit rides is as compared with the noticeable low, to the other systems (journey profit under in practise, from 50% other systems) par *community is difficult to control system, although support level journey towards is higher as in other in the models.
*Community to support is paid also to the beneficial lines as the from individual ticket supporting company setting, in which the new customers add the expenses of the community.
*In system has appeared misuse, in which part of the turn is revealed for the profitless, so the competition is won by this company, which operates also other buses in the route.
*Travelling is to the passenger expensive and in the flag systems are not reasonable reductions and exchange ticket possibility is principally between the same traffic contractor turns.

Orderer-producer-model

In model community plans traffic and buys productions from different traffic contractor and pay on traffic ticket income and with the community support. The main part from traffic is competed. The model is in use on YTV-area, in Helsinki bus traffic and in Turku public transport. YTV buys train traffic from VR rather like traffic would be competed, but VR Oy by virtue of the monopoly, to define to the price. Bus company of City of Turku will get from traffic competition proportioned compensation.

Benefit
* ridership is high
* traffic flow is efficient
* the community has good control over the system and it control service levels and administer traffic policies as they wish
* community can plan traffic and community structure's simultaneously.Harmful effects
* almost whole traffic risk moves to the community.
* traffic contractor lacks interest in developing traffic, if not in the agreement to be working gift and sanction system.
* in system has been references dumping price and forming cartels
* in system was problems employment relationship safety and manpower position relationship.
* future of the small traffic contractors is at , if company loses its line in competition.

ecured public transport model

Secured public transport - model is in use Helsinki tram and metro traffic, Tampere internal traffic (about 90%) and in Turku internal traffic (about 25%).

Benefit
* passenger amounts are the high
* community has to the details within reach power of decision from traffic.
* part of the possibility to answer competed traffic.Harmful effects
* whole business risk is on the community.
* in municipal, protected traffic is as danger inefficiency and action carpets practices.
* model not in practise be able to expands current EU normston in the frames, to the figure without taking traffic, which is almost certainly beneficial.

Arranging of the public transport in other countries

In other EU countries is in use the types of the other arranging models of the public traffic. Under three examples:

wedish Länstrafik net competition model

In the model traffic competition, that competition is being defined collecting ticket rate and at the least driving turns and service level. Traffic wins the supplier, which offers to the best on the service level most reasonable price. In the model can to the traffic contractor gives large freedom is gauged plan traffic and develops.

Benefit
* in model traffic contractor has significant developing liability
* in model is possible to improve noticeably service level and capacity during the agreement period,. For example in Helsingborg intention is double the use of the bus. Harmful effects
* too large risk to the traffic contractor can lead to the bankruptcies and to the rise in price. For example BK Tåg went bankrupt of because of the competition.
* in model supervision is more difficult than in the gross competition.

German Verkehrsverbund -model

In the model whole area's traffic contractors and municipalities are flag kinds of the common, all' covering shareholderses of the flag system. From the common tariff available ticket income is deveded between companies on the basis of the traffic calculation. On the ticket income distribution part beneficial traffic is driven with the comparable system as route licence. Profitless traffic will be held a competition on the net competition principle.

Benefit
* in model is possibility to the beneficial traffic, even if very much on the smaller income passenger towards as in Finnish transport licence model.
* model gives to the community the good possibilities guide developing of the traffic.
* in model entrepreneur has significant possibility to develop business dealings, if traffic can have on the distribution part to be carried. Harmful effects
* in model is risks traffic amounts forecasting and computation relationship.
* in model income journey towards is as compared with the small, to the transport licence system.

Municipality and local officials owned traffic company

This model is possible eg. in the new line traffic designs. In practise new from the public transport base traffic can't more establishes. Traffic, which risks or investments are too the large to the private company, can put into effect municipalities or municipality unions or states as established as the company. The model can put into effect also so, that community owned company owns only fixtures and service will be competition. This works at moment the traffic company of Stockholm SL metro, tram and in local train traffic. SL owns fixtures and traffic contractors compare with only from the services.

ources

* [http://www.kuukankorpi.com/paikallisliikenne/tilaaja-tuottaja.html About orderer-producer-model in Finnish]