Vilnius, which was awarded the crown of European Green Capital for a year, seems to have lost its priorities. The city government proposes to double the public transport ticket prices, conveniently ignoring the fact that public transport is not a business, but a public service, and that shifting the costs of network development and quality onto the financially weakest has nothing to do with sustainability. Even more distrust in the motives of the proposal is caused by the manipulation of public relations that was caught red-handed.
Vilnius city municipalities The council will consider whether the price of an annual public transport ticket should rise from 310 euros to 480 euros. For short-term tickets, it will increase even more: from 0,65 euros to 1,25 euros for a half-hour trip.
Last week, residents gathered in protest outside the municipality, expressing their outrage at such intentions. However, instead of open dialogue, suspicious circumstances worthy of a real detective emerged.
Instead of communication - a compromise that shatters trust
During the protest, people supporting the ticket price hikes also surrounded the crowd of protesters. There would seem to be nothing strange or wrong with that, except for the fact that some of them were very eager to give interviews to the media, and when given the opportunity, they did not introduce themselves by their own names.
A woman who introduced herself as Margarita wondered if the dissatisfied people were unemployed (understand, if you come to the protest, it's only because you have nothing to do). She also questioned what there was to be dissatisfied about – after all, more expensive tickets mean more routes, perhaps even to her residential district of Vilnius, and besides, public transport should be available not only to the socially disadvantaged, but also to those who are working.
What didn't Margarita mention? That her real name is Ekaterina. And that she holds a management position at "JUDU", a municipal company responsible for pricing and the current state of public transport organization.
The circumstances might not have come to light if it weren't for public figure Eduardas Kriščiūnas, who filmed how this "Margarita" was actively trying to attract media attention.
As soon as it became clear that the JUDU employee had infiltrated the crowd to spread an “alternative narrative,” information about her workplace disappeared from Jekaterina’s beautiful LinkedIn profile, and Jekaterina was no longer on the JUDU team page. The company rushed to justify that Jekaterina did everything on her own initiative, during her lunch break, and did not coordinate anything with the company’s management.
One would like to believe... If not for another fact that was soon noticed by Fridays for Future activists. The same Jekaterina called into a live radio broadcast before the protest to ask a question about the development of public transport as an ordinary resident, and the question was smoothly answered by her boss, the director of JUDU.
What is it? Colleague solidarity, supporting a leader in a difficult work situation? But why hide it by throwing things around, changing names? Or maybe it's old-fashioned propaganda after all: artificially creating the impression that the government's initiative has support in society?
Transparency is the golden rule of any reform, especially when it comes to the public sector and reforms related to citizens' money.
In this case, the ticket price hike is discredited by both its brazenly orchestrated legal actions and the Olympic calm ignoring the case by both the head of the institution itself and the municipal administration.
Maybe it's not for nothing that they say that silence is more eloquent than a thousand words.
Prices up - solidarity down
72% of Vilnius bus and trolleybus users say they do not own a car. This means that public transport is a necessity for them, without which the ability to travel to work, school, events or simply meetings becomes extremely difficult for them (if at all possible, knowing that not everything, not always and not for everyone is accessible by foot or bicycle).
Higher prices can turn this necessity into a luxury.
Why should this concern both the city government and those who own a car but neither want nor plan to get out of it?
Public transport, like healthcare or education, is a public service. Such services benefit not only those who use them, but also society as a whole.
The logic is simple: more public transport users → fewer cars → less congestion → more time used efficiently → less air pollution → less disease → less government spending on healthcare → more funds for other needs. The chains can go on and on.
Public services should not become more expensive based on market principles. States and municipalities have mechanisms to cushion the effects of inflation – to cover the increased costs of providing services with higher subsidies and more efficient management.
If public services become more expensive, lower-income residents suffer. Inflation already increases their cost of living (food, House), so the additional increase in the cost of public services only makes everyday life even more difficult, and at the same time may also increase the possibility of increased need for support.
Sustainability starts with justice
In addition to inflation, the municipality and its subordinate "JUDU" base the decision to increase prices on the need to improve the quality of public transport. It is rightly said that Vilnius has obligations to switch to non-emission vehicles, expand routes, and increase the frequency of trips.
One cannot disagree with that.
In Vilnius, every second trip is made by private car. We feel the consequences of this both in air pollution and congestion statistics, and in the constant hunt for a free parking space both in the courtyards of apartment buildings and in the city center.
But why should the shift from private cars be done at the expense of current public transport passengers?
Those who use public transportation today are the least to blame for the problems mentioned. Why should they be financially burdened with solving these problems?
In economics, there is a concept called “external costs” – these are operating costs that are not directly reflected in the price of a product or service. For example, we will not see the cost of medicines for diseases caused by air pollution included in the diesel fuel bill. Nor will we see the price that society pays for noise, accident victims or extremes caused by climate change.
The role of government is to ensure that these costs are not borne by society as a whole, but are covered by those who cause them. The polluter pays principle must apply!
When the opposite is done, climate injustice prevails.
And this injustice is exacerbated by the communication of the green city. We are encouraged to contribute to ecology through personal decisions. We do. However, the system, instead of rewarding us, makes our situation even more difficult.
Why don't people want to hear that sustainability means not only environmental protection, but also social justice?
Priorities and will
I've heard that in Scandinavian countries, when it snows, the sidewalks are cleared first, and then the streets. The logic is simple: a car accident means property damage, but a person who slips can suffer lifelong injuries.
Such respect for people and understanding of what the function of government really is is necessary in Lithuania as well.
International organizations, such as Greenpeace, are calling on European countries to introduce a Climate Ticket, an affordable subscription system covering all public transport in the country. Germany and Austria have already done this, and there are many attempts in regions or cities in other countries. And in Lithuania, there is not even a discussion on this topic.
Politicians are thinking about the next election, not the long-term welfare of society.
Vilnius has the only gingerbread house for reducing congestion, pollution and noise – public transport. Currently, the government itself is making it inedible: price increases reinforce the feeling of injustice among the most environmentally friendly Vilnius residents, while unethical communication of the plan increases distrust in the transparency of the need for funds.
This must stop. Taking advantage of its status as the European Green Capital, Vilnius must talk to the national government. Find other sources of funding for sustainable mobility. Review corporate governance. Ensure that funds are used there as efficiently as possible.
If the priority is the well-being and health of citizens, decisions should reflect this. So far, we are seeing the opposite situation: prices are up, trust is down.
Ieva Budraitė is a public policy analyst and the chairwoman of the Lithuanian Green Party.
