The Vilnius Metro: The Project That May Never Happen

[@DS.J]

There is no single standard of what "metro" actually is. There can be heavy metro or light metro. It can be under ground or over ground. Many people in Lithuania imagine metro to be underground, but most metro lines aren't. Even London Underground is, in fact, mostly... above ground. Moreover, some cities, like Porto in Portugal, use the term "metro" (Metro do Porto) to describe what is effectively a pimped up tram system. Many U-Bahn systems in Germany are actually using tram vehicles for their systems and just like Porto are effectively pimped up trams with some underground sections in city centres. In Brisbane, Australia, metro is actually... a bus system. In Hong Kong (or any major Chinese city, Tokyo, Singapore etc.) metro usually means super high capacity, super long and super frequent trains that can transport enormous amounts of people. So there is no clear and strict definition of metro, hence everyone may have a different idea of what the word "metro" means, and they won't be wrong, because it can be pretty much anything. Therefore, anyone saying that Vilnius absolutely needs a metro, or that it absolutely doesn't need a metro, or that it's "too expensive", should be VERY specific about what exactly they mean when they talk about "metro", because it's an extremely wide spectrum of what it could mean and we can't even start to discuss it if we talk about very different things. My opinion: Vilnius certainly doesn't need Hong Kong or Singapore style "heavy" metro with 8 car trains and capacity of 5000 people per trainset, but it probably needs something like a "light metro" akin to what there is in Copenhagen or London DLR which is also a "light metro". Or perhaps a "light rail" system like Odense Letbane in Denmark which is a tram with significant priority, some separated sections and effectively a step below of Copenhagen style "light metro". What Vilnius cannot cope with is bus/trolleybus system. It's just too big for that and it will never have an efficient and convenient system this way. Buses are the "last mile" type of transportation and there is no city in Europe that is 500-700K in population that would rely on buses/trolleybuses for public transport backbones. That simply is not possible and we're not going to invent a bicycle here. Also note that EU is ALWAYS co-financing such projects and Vilnius metro/tram/light rail would be no exception, just like it isn't in any Polish city that is spending billions on public transport improvements with EU's help.

[@aidanpeck180]

There actually is very clear guidelines as to what a metro system is and it has to do with grade separation. The best outline for the term metro is on the Wikipedia page metro systems in the world. It does not matter how it’s done but a true metro system is generally utilizes heavy rail equipment but this isn’t the necessary part, and is fully grade separated along the entirety of its route. Frequencies are also generally 15 mins or under but that is not exclusive, and generally the line or system has to mainly service a metropolitan area. Thus commuter lines or “Stadtbahn” style lines that are grade separated aren’t counted as they serve commuter purposes of funneling people into cities as opposed to moving people across cities. They even say that just because a city or system said they have a metro does not mean that system is a metro and vice versa. For old European cities that care about their history and historical landmarks a metro will almost certainly not be elevated or probably not even at grade so the people of Lithuania and Vilnius are right to think that the majority of this system will be underground. Also the expense will most likely not be as high as Europe is not as expensive to build metros compared to the United States or Canada. Idk why he used a Canadian city as an example when Canada and Lithuania could not be more different of countries, especially when Helsinki Metro in Finnland another country that is near by, culturally somewhat similar and also has a very small population would have been a much better alternative

[@rxvvy_]

Unfortunately Leeds in the UK is larger than 700k and relies on a core network of buses for its main public transport. There is a 'Metro' branding on specific train routes but it does not function as a metro in reality, and these train routes are part of the national rail system. It's really poor that cities of Vilnius' size and importance don't have metros but therr are even worse offenders out there. As per the comment regarding grade separation, again this is not a hard and fast rule. The Tyne and Wear metro has 4 or so at-grade level crossings but it is undeniably a metro system

[@aidanpeck180]

@@rxvvy_ Tyne and Wear is one very specific example. It is almost negligible the amount of systems or even lines that have an at grade crossing and for that matter it is unheard of for a real metro or subway (that’s what they are called where I am from regardless to their being underground or not) to have at grade crossing on the main line or in the downtown urban core of the system. For instance where I am from in Boston Massachusetts one of the lines on the T which is the subway here has four branches 3 of which having crossings completely disqualifies the line as metro even though there is an underground part in the city center (which is actually the oldest underground tramway in the world) and the one branch on the line that is fully grade separated act almost identically to a metro. I guess this could also be a cultural semantic thing as in the United States even one grade crossing would disqualify the system and it would be called a light metro or light subway. All 13 systems in the US are completely grade separated anything else is light rail. While I’m unsure I’m pretty sure Canada is the same situation. Thus what I was getting at is it is simply easier to just say that the defining rule of a metro really is grade separation even though it is a tad more complicated than that. It’s less of a some systems do and some don’t situation and more of an almost every example follows this rule and there only a few exceptions.

[@andrewweitzman4006]

@@aidanpeck180 The Chicago L has a few grade crossings on its outlying branches, because of legacy railways that were absorbed into the system.

[@roberturbanczyk204]

Of course there is one type of transport called metro. Some cities lie themselves with calling their tramway or suburban railway metro

[@averagejoe7987]

I never understood why Lithuanian politics put so much emphasis on good streets for cars. Do you have a car industry? Do you have a hilly or big country? All the hard earned money flows out of the country and brings no benefit at all. Even worse car-centric infrastructure is expensive in the short, middle and long term. Expensive to build, expensive to maintain and expensive to replace. Additionally Lithuania is one of the most obese countries in Europe. Countries with great public infrastructure and narrow, people focused streets are countries with great quality of life. Where do you feel better: In the old town where you can go by foot or on a busy main street frequented mainly by cars instead of people? What do you need big open streets for anyway? Russian tanks? Get yourself a great public transportation system namely a metro.

[@m.a.d.m.5425]

AGREED ❤

[@akalion213]

Because people are obsessed with cars. It's a status symbol. Dudes will literally inherit like 30k while living in some rundown shithole apartment and take on debt to buy a new BMW

[@harshenvy]

russian tanks for sure:D

[@menone7993]

I posted my previous comment without even watching a single second of the video up-loader, "Lithuania explained". He is a person whom I admire and respect. Nothing but concrete insight and facts. At he end of the video he explained the importance of a developed metro system not only as convenience for the commuters but also as a vital infrastructure for the capital of Lithuania in terms of military and civilian defense. In all previous analyses of a feasibility the factor of private investment was mentioned and it's very important. Vilnius is one of the greenest (if not the greenest capitals in the world). Vilnius, territory wise is very big, with a great potential to grow bigger, incorporating neighboring small municipalities. If not a bad location, having Russians, Germans and Poles as our neighbors, Vilnius would be a prosperous city of 2-3 million residents as of now. Sadly, we can not turn back time. Since the author mentioned Vancouver - I reside in Chicago last 30+ years. In Chicago and in Vancouver there are big challenges everywhere. Difficult geology, existing expensive infrastructure and what's not. Enough of that - anyone who needs more info about Chicago - I'll be glad to share. My one more, very important point is Vilnius geography and geology. Neris is a small, though nice ;) river. Underground - sand and clay. Thus the price of a kilometer of a metro line I can assume should be around 20% of before mentioned cities. Vilnius is extended from the west (airport) to the east (hospitals, universities, living neighborhoods) quite a bit. Rail Baltica soon will be completed. It would be so nice and effective and efficient if Vilnius could pull up a new, state of the art metro (we don't need it to be big) to be be connected to this railway project of XXI century. Guys, let's rally together for such a nice, needed opportunity!

[@menone7993]

I am a complete supporter of a metro in Vilnius. EU funding, local financing input from the government, municipality and never forget a major player - private sector. As I see, finances, properly managed are available for sure. We all know that infrastructure projects of such scale - that's contracts for local construction companies, jobs and etc. Euros spent will stay in Lithuania. Noneed to do more detailed analysis on that. THOUGH!!! Metro systems play another HUGE factor. They are integrated into military and civilian defense systems. Couple hundreds miles from Lithuanian borders a biggest war since WWII is going on on full scale for 2+ years. IF, Vilnius could build a metro - that's a lot of infrastructure underground, Safefrom the arial rocket or heavy bomb attacks. This aspect of the purpose and necessity of a metro in Vilnius I think is even more important than just a convenience of a commute for the Vilnius residents.

[@m.a.d.m.5425]

I was thinking of this too. THIS IS A SELLING POINT. ❤

[@ZakTheKaiju]

As a resident of Vilnius, I personally am on a fence about metro as well. As I think current public transit should be updated. Metro could solve some issues, sure, but at the same time, how long will construction take and how much will it cost even? I think a good alternative would be trams instead of metro. In terms of capacity, they can be similar or slightly smaller. Then again, the discussion about old town would take place. That said, we are getting some long overdue updates to the current public transit. For one, VVT is changing some trolleybus wire junctions to be more up to date, granted more should still be updated but better than nothing. For two, we are finally getting new trolleybuses to replace the old ones. For three, JUDU have announced a competition for more public transit operators (smth like Kautra or Transrevis I'd imagine), so we should see some new lines in the near-ish future. Overall, I think metro could be a good idea, but costs and time taken to construct it could be used elsewhere, like updating current system.

[@Mr_Topek]

EU could finance it.

[@m.a.d.m.5425]

TRAMS RUIN SKYLINES. The Trolleybuses, although cute, should be moved elsewhere because the cords in the air obscure the beautiful buildings. I think it’s time to find a new home for them on the outliers of Vilnius. FYI not a fully thought idea as I am Tired and writing this at 4 am

[@roberturbanczyk204]

I think Wilno definitelly needs rail system. They can't afford metro, 1km of metro in Warsaw costs around 400€. Wilno doesn't have have places that would need to move 40000 per hour. It would be difficult to find places with need for 15000 people. I think lithuanians should make public transport based on suburban railway. It works perfectly in Gdańsk which is simmilar size city. It's much cheaper than metro. If Wilno would have2mln inhabitants, they should think about metro but for now, SKM type railway should be enough.

[@m.a.d.m.5425]

We can afford a metro. Especially with EU assurance.

[@roberturbanczyk204]

@@m.a.d.m.5425 show me any any analizes showing small Wilno needs metro. Fast tramway should be enough for Wilno

[@roberturbanczyk204]

​@@m.a.d.m.5425Cracow is much richer than Wilno, still can't afford it

[@guillaumedumont1559]

You mentioned Lille in this video, that is smaller than Vilnius. The city of Lille (Municipality) is smaller. But combined with the suburbs it’s much much bigger. Note that it is the 5th metropolitan area. in France.

[@anzelmasmatutis2500]

Example of Vilnius Stadium is a proof that Vilnius Metro will have same story: Tens of millions euros spent will ZERO build.

[@eimantas314-rblx]

Sadly yes

[@BitWise501]

Its mind blowing how Vilnius can't get shit together while other cities achieve way more with less.

[@efraimrotterdamus3815]

Демагогия

[@roberturbanczyk204]

Metro costs bilions of euro per line, not milions

[@lukaslt4806]

Many times i saw articles about public transport: "does Vilnius need metros", "should Vilnius build tram", "should Vilnius get rid of trolleybuses". All these pop up from time to time. And most of the time people say: metro- no, trams- maybe, trolleybuses and buses- renew the fleet, make more public transport lanes lanes. There were many possibilities to improve curent sistem with more priority lanes, fixing roads. But instead many thinks were done backwards: narowing lanes where a lot of buses oparate, creating choke points, just straight up not upgrading trolleybus network. Example with this: Teadoro narbuto street. When contruction started many were hapy that extra lane for buses will be added so in rush hour public transport will pass the cars... Well, we only got some of it. The rest just forces public trasnport to be stuck behind the cars. But why there wasn't bus lane made? Because of wide bike lane. It only has use during warm wether. In winter its nearly always empty. And im sure cold and wet weather is more common than warm and dry weather. The other think about trams: they require more infrustructure than trolleybuses. Some idiots even said that trolleybuses and trams cant oparate on same street. But what's important about this is wires: trams can't run without them (unless you want a big battery that i will say more down bellow). Many plans show it running in the old town. And like it was said in the video trams (simillar to metro make a lot of vibrations. Meanwhile Vilnius council wants to remove all trolleybus wires in the old town because they "create a lot of vibrations" when trolleybuses passes by. In reality some rich people live there and are annoyed by them and want them gone. Few weeks ago there was a post for more private operators to take more bus routes from VVT. Curently there are 2 private companies operating in the city: kautra and transreivis. While kautra operates small electric buses just on 8 routes, transreivis operate with way more. And time and time transreivis show that they work unreliably. Just in case people don't know the main big lines they operate are 4G,7,43 and 55 (btw this is not some private info, it's all shown in stops,lt). They also oparate line 88 to airport. So one think that was said in that post was all new buses will be electric, just under 300 of them. From small capacity to duoble articulated. And even tho im not an expert electric buses don't like few thinks that is in Vilnius: steep hills, cold and hot weather, a LOT of people. And i'm sure some of you heard that big batteries are wery good at burning. Yea. Few days after this post there were news from Latvia where multiple standart size electric buses burned down. While off. Standing outside.

[@darjuskulakovskis5707]

Actually it is not the Vilnius city council who wants to remove the wires in the city center, but the VVT themselves. I haven't seen a more stubborn company than VVT when it comes to upgrading the trolleybus network - look at the Kaunas for example. A lot of new radio operated trolleybus switches are shit, because they were mounted in a random way, without following any manufacturer's instructions or EU wide regulations.

[@lukaslt4806]

New switches instaled badly, no changing of other parts and the fact that old town near centras clinic there are still 3 old switches and one more to MO museum. Meanwhile at antakalnis loop there are 9 new ones instaled (most of them badly). 3 in žirmūnai loop, 2 in karoliniškės, 2 in pašilaičių loop, 2 out of 4 in saulėtekis loop, 1 in naujininkai loop Strangly there's none in skalvių loop

[@litwatram6431]

​@@darjuskulakovskis5707 initially, council planned to remove the wires, but later (around 2022) street renovation plans had a new marking added to them called "decorative trolleybus pylons" which would be used instead of hanging wires to the walls. A few months ago VVT was asked to make a project for those pylons and they straight up refused and thus wires will be dismantled. 😊😊😊

[@andrewweitzman4006]

* But what's important about this is wires: trams can't run without them* Actually, they can. The Alstom APS system has been used a fair bit. It is essentially a third rail laid between the tracks that is radio controlled so that it is only "live" when the tram is over it. It is used in areas where overhead wires might cause "visual pollution".

[@cte4dota]

You are not alone here in Belgrade Serbia we wait for Metro 50+ years, finally construction started.

[@lucadelnegro7621]

The Chief Engineer of Vilnius (Anton Nikitin) often shows on Twitter what he has been working on. He has been developing a dense network of Dutch-style bike lanes. Vilnius has now more than 150 km of bike lanes, while 9 years ago it was only 20 or 30 km. Besides the discussion on the metro system, I am sure this is playing and will play a huge role in decreasing car traffic, just like Dutch cities have been showing for decades

[@m.a.d.m.5425]

We need this. Vilnius has the potential to be tenfold of what other cities are. We are a green city and can become greener and greener with time. ❤ thanks for sharing!

[@Xenu321]

I really like the busses in Vilnius and I think the system is working for now. But metros are superior in every city. A metro is just the greatest thing a city can offer in terms of transportation. But yeah, financing is difficult

[@DS.J]

Financing isn't difficult. EU happily finances such projects and even smaller polish cities like Olsztyn are building brand new tram systems from scratch and without significant burden on their budget. What IS expensive is time spent in traffic jams and lost productivity due to poor transport in the city. every year we effectively lose billions for this reason and claiming that a humble tram, largely financed by EU, is "too expensive" for one of the largest and richest cities in the region is just beyound absurd.

[@realdronthego]

It is not working… being like sardines in a can everyday on your way to work isn’t the alternative to get Vilnius’ highly automobilized people out of their cars, as it is not a better solution.

[@DS.J]

@@realdronthego I get chills when people say that Vilnius public transport is "good" or that it's "working". The reality is that it's perhaps the most disastrous public transport system among all European cities of comparable size and importance. It's juts a pain to use public transport here compared to pretty much anything outside Lithuania. It's slow, uncomfortable, often overcrowded, with poor ticketing system, poor customer service and from what I know from my sources, horrendous working culture in the main public transport company. It's just so bad on so many levels that I honestly believe we should simply abolish the entire system with its corporate structure and establish a new entity and start building everything from scratch. It's that bad.

[@Mr_Topek]

​@@DS.J Olsztyn isn't a small city lol it's a voivodeship capital.

[@urbandweller]

​@@Mr_Topek It's not small small in a sense that it's not a village or a town but it is indeed one of the smaller cities in Poland with a population of around 170K and not 500-600K.

[@cliffwoodbury5319]

I think once Baltic (high-speed) rail is built these cities will get far more transit, and I also believe in the next few decades that the White Sea/Baltic Sea Canal is going to be reconstructed (it's to small now) to allow world class ships threw from the Arctic threw the Baltic Seas. With the fact that Central and East European economies will drastically increase over the next half century as the E.U. expands, the whole region will develop metro systems.

[@RafaelMaps]

Vilnius 🤝 Bratislava

[@realdronthego]

Bratislava has trams, we don’t even have that…

[@RafaelMaps]

@@realdronthego oh, I didn't get that. So I believe and keep my fingers crossed that Vilnius will make it :) And it won't be like the Bratislava metro project in the 90s, when construction started and then it all stopped.

[@TheRandCrews]

and dublin, if they actually ever start that metro idea

[@rpdrajev]

* Belgrade, larger than both combined stares down in terror * "you guys don't have what, you said?"

[@realdronthego]

To me, metro is too radical of a solution for a city like Vilnius, with only a few small villages in its surroundings. I would opt for an extensive tram network in a similar fashion to German Stadtbahns, like in Cologne, Düsseldorf. However, looking at Copenhagen’s automated metro and the lack of drivers, a metro scheme similar to that could work as well. Buslanes and more buses don’t fix the issue, it is just a bondage to a wound, and will not remotely address the fact that Vilnius will get a modern high speed rail station. If (trolley)buses stay the only thing we have, it will still be faster for people in the north of the city to drive to Riga, than taking the high speed train, simply due to the time it takes to get to the railway station.

[@KyrilPG]

I'd say YES ! But I'll start with a little correction : taking Vancouver as an example about cost, or any metro in a developed English speaking country for that matter, sadly skews the comparison. Transportation infrastructure in developed English speaking countries is notoriously outrageously and excessively expensive, far from the cost of such infrastructure in most non-English speaking G7 or G20 countries. About the other cities mentioned, Lille is only the name-city of a much larger agglomeration exceeding the million inhabitants. Rennes agglomeration has slightly under 500k inhabitants, even though its metro (2 lines) is mostly centered on the core city, allowing to travel much faster under the oldest and narrowest parts of the city. Rennes' Metro is loved by the city's inhabitants, it's extremely efficient and practical. People even demand extensions. Vilnius could really benefit from a metro, either a light automated one, like Milano M4 & M5 and Copenhagen metro both using Ansaldo Hitachi solutions, or Lille M1 & M2, Rennes M1 & M2, Toulouse A & B all using VAL or NeoVAL - CityVAL systems. Or a reduced size automated metro system like Toulouse new line C (using a shorter train version of the systems used for the humongous Grand Paris Express project currently being built), or Lausanne M2 (and future M3) using a shortened train version of what Paris uses for its M1& M4, two of the network's busiest lines... They can then couple that with a modern tramway network and massively reduce car traffic in the streets, while massively increasing transportation capacity. At the same time pedestrianizing, "bike laning" and appeasing the streets. A metro isn't specifically a status symbol nowadays, it's not having one (or another high capacity and good speed system) that is a negative status symbol in this day and age. The EU would obviously participate in funding the project, especially now that Rail Baltica is really advancing. This would transform Vilnius into a modern capital and tremendously improve the quality of life. With European non-English speaking countries' costs, it's estimated that a major and efficient urban transportation infrastructure usually returns about 2.5 to 4 times its cost in economic boost. So yeah, it's a substantial cost, but with even more substantial benefits. Vilnius really has no interest in continuing to prioritize the private car, they don't have a car manufacturing industry and no fuel production if I recall correctly. Prioritizing mass public transit would be positive on all aspects.

[@gedog77]

🎉 having used 100% public transport in Vilnius for 2weeks in January I can compare it to London and the wider 🇬🇧. The buses are affordable and regular. I was on time a getting to uni every day. Don’t take that for granted. If this is what is currently possible then maybe explore what is possible without a metro at this time? Maybe use a low emission zone to move people out of their cars?

[@solroko_]

that will cause even more traffic jams. you dont even understand how people here are used to having cars in and out… we need to change their point of view by upgrading trollys, buses, and building another, very useful transport system, either metro or tram. as well as their mind, most car driving people dont even care if it exists unfortunately :D

[@gedog77]

@@solroko_ London, Tokyo and Paris have heavy metro use because cars are no longer practical. While cars are inconvenient but possible these hams will happen.

[@realdronthego]

And pack these people in the already overcrowded busroutes?🤔

[@Misterlikeseverythin]

First build a national stadium, improve Kalvariju-Ozas intersection and Žalgiris-Geležinis Vilkas intersection with a roundabout. Build the long planned connection to Geležinis Vilkas Street with Kalvarijų street, buy new trolleys. Vilnius is really behind on infrastructure projects and renovation of old town. Taking another one onto this massive to-do pile might not be the best idea.

[@neurofiedyamato8763]

Vilnius have enough population and density for a metro to work and be profitable. And since it already has a robust bus network, it can use feeder buses to improve the catchment area even if in less dense area. The metro will bring economic development and investment that will more than offset the cost of construction in the long run along with reducing traffic. There is also a possibility to get the EU to help finance part of it. As for disruption, it is only temporary and in a city where its ever changing with new buildings, road maintenance; worrying about disruption is just silly. There always will be disruptions or else your city falls apart due to lack of maintenance. Lastly, worrying about historic building's structural integrity is valid but people need to actually bring up engineering studies to back it up. From the video, the new plan already avoids the historic district, so how is it still a problem? Engineers will obviously calculate and measure the local area prior to construction. No one is building the metro blindly and hope buildings don't collapse. They would have done the math ahead of time. It feels like a very disingenuous argument because it assumes the engineers are incompetent and can't build a tunnel without destroying nearby foundations. They went to years of schooling for this and cities around the world have built metros in historic districts just fine.

[@rpdrajev]

Hmmm, Vilnius, Bratislava, Tallinn, Riga, Luxembourg, Ljubljana etc. have 2 things in common: 1) they don't have a metro 2) they just haven't grown enough to need one and that's probably why 1) Any town and city can dream all they want of skyscrapers, gigantic suspension bridges, airports and and a subway to act like one of the cool kids but the question is - can they sustain it. For having a metro you have to have high density, a looot of people and large distances. It's not that "no one" will ride the metro if they build it (how sceptics say it) - people will ride it. However, these people won't be nearly enough to pay back the exploitational expenses as well as the construction cost in a decent amount of time as they will only fill the trains on rush hour (maybe then), using it to like 10% or less of its capacity the rest of the time and will also probably not be willing to pay expensive tickets but expect the trains to run frequently. Can't have everything. There is a very good reason why the cities that have metro are almost always 1 mio of population and above with very negligible exceptions (that is why they are exceptions, not the rule) where there's usually either a sensible reason for the metro (scattered but dense urban layout, for instance) or it is some joke of an excuse of the word "metro". Don't you even try to crawl up some toys as examples for "metro" like some higher capacity funicular or some tram that the locals feel a need to call metro to feel more special. A metro is a metro when it runs 100.00% grade separated, when it has 4-5 or more wagons per train, and wide, we're not talking tram-sized, and can large distances as its stops are far apart. I know that's not set in stone anywhere but let's face it, there has to be some relative definition as what qualifies as metro and what doesn't or else any BS can have "metro" slapped across it and not make much sense, making the term pointless. So anyway, I believe if any European city that doesn't have a metro actually needs one and can properly sustain one, it is Belgrade and maybe next would be Zagreb, I guess. Not very large in population but a city dominated by one axis, shaped narrow and long, begging for one metro line along its spine of density end-to-end. Cities like Vilnius and similar just need proper bus lanes and a well separated tram system that runs on independent lanes or to the side of the boulevard most of the total length, in order to skip traffic and the cities will be more than good. No need to drop a bag to act like a metropolis when you're far from one. People work haaard to earn money and pay taxes, no need to waste that money for overkill projects for a d-measuring contest between cities.

[@RyanUehara12345252Rpage]

Try to build a small line along a corridor where it can get high ridership. It needs to also work with other transportation systems in the area.

[@ivanzhekov3799]

You guys need a tram system with autonomous tracks.

[@blueeyedbaer]

I love riding metros. I always do that when travelling to cities that have metro systems. I would be very glad if Vilnius built one but I suppose it's not gonna happen in comming 50 years.

[@gintarascerniauskas8798]

Bilbao city metro is best metro i ever used. Vilnius must have metro. It could be combi, part undergound and part onground cause Vilnius have good roads infrastructure for onground metro lines.

[@simasvilkas2312]

Turi būti požeminis, nes atominio karo metu galėtų pasitarnauti kaip bunkeris

[@gintarascerniauskas8798]

@@simasvilkas2312 i agree, but onground metro coast much much less.

[@simasvilkas2312]

@@gintarascerniauskas8798 Ne kainoje esmė, o žmonių evakuavimo greityje. Geriau statyti ilgiau, tačiau svarbu jog tai atlieptų visus poreikius (ginyba, evakuacija, eismo srautų mažinimą ir etc.)

[@d3iviz600]

@@simasvilkas2312 Ne Dimitrio Glukhovskio noveleje gyvenam, metro neapsaugotu nuo atominio karo.

[@m.a.d.m.5425]

I like this idea too. It would be nice that all of them are well insulated and serve as winter shelters too between commutes.

[@Canadianinvesting]

I think realistically it needs to be determined by statistics like density, city income (personal income) and land use planning options. Does the density or the future expected density meet a modern metro ability to handle and move people. They are expensive to operate so really you don't want it to do so in the future (i.e. 2040-2050) you want it to do so now to cover a portion of your costs. Your never going to make money on public transit, outside of some Asian countries I don't think anywhere makes money on Metro. So the idea of private business building and operating this without government intervention is a fallacy. Subsequently, if it doesn't meet the requirements then what option does best do that? BRT, Tram, additional buses, trolley etc. You need to use the most effective means of getting people around on a per $ basis. Do the people of Vilnius want or can they afford to use the metro, either your ticket prices are higher or your subsidy to the metro operation budget needs to be. It ties back to people to use it and costs. Finally, does your land use planning allow for enough density around the stations and lines to support them. Its all well and good to have people want to be by transit but if your land use says you can only build 4 stories metro or not then your stuck with that requirement. I am actually in Vilnius visiting as I write this. Beautiful city and they have done a lot of work to protect the old town and its culture. Basic investment into new fleets from buses and trolleys, services like payment cards etc. Can do a lot with minimal investment to improve the comfort and operations of a service and draw people to it.

[@m.a.d.m.5425]

I like your approach. It’s correct and smart. ❤

[@A_Canadian_In_Poland]

Transport for London is about the only one where the farebox recovery ratio is close to 100% and does not receive substantial real estate revenues.

[@EponskijGorodovoij]

Oh, Lazdynai already has nice metro station draft, implemented in 'classic' pedestrian underground road cross))

[@reudovaniaball9548]

Do you think that in tallinn it could be constructed

[@CheezBoyz2009]

Hoping it gets a system one day

[@didmiestis123]

Vilnius is way too small to have a metro system. The traffic jams are laughable. There is simply no need for one. It would make zero financial sense…

[@zersdgy752]

🇱🇹 🇲🇦❤️💚

[@ilovecats0406]

I don't think Lithuania needs a metro but it would be nice. I loved using the metro abroad because it is so convenient. I think it would be very beneficial for people that work because it would cut down commuting time. Also, less traffic jams are beneficial to the environment. On the other hand, the cost might be astronomical and it might take years.

[@Sofus.]

The Copenhagen metro system, It is efficient and reactive cheap 🚄

[@evgenyishchenko]

So funny how you put something quite similar to Moskva 2024 metro train on your thumbnail :D

[@n2e913]

Alstom

[@evgenyishchenko]

​@@n2e913in moscow livery? Sure😂

[@eruno_]

it would be pretty cool...

[@firepalmmy5933]

stop commenting random comments on each videos

[@eruno_]

@@firepalmmy5933 ?

[@ady8817]

No, Vilinius is too small for metro. For this size is ok LRT and urban train.

[@darkmatter5424]

Vilnius (and other Baltic capitals) are too small to have a viable metro systems. It's just a vanity project if ever. 😅

[@m.a.d.m.5425]

Shew. Go comment elsewhere. Your comment was a vanity comment.

[@robertstranins6221]

I believe You will start do it first in Vilnius. Until Rīga will wake UP : )) Both citys, metro is only solution whatever somebody says.. This is only Time question, but long Time ....

[@jur4x]

In early 80's U-bahn type system was proposed for Riga. All they needed is two-three new stations on existing railway lines and one more railway bridge/tunnel. Could've been done within local budget. But someone up top started pushing metro as more prestigious project. Which never had chance to even start. These days, reviving that project would be better than building metro. Especially since proposed lines would duplicate existing railways if those were actually built.

[@randomstuff65486]

We got buses and trolleybuses we dont need metros

[@ivanos_95]

Vilnius should build a subway-system with at least one line, between the major hubs, but ultimately the city should focus on building a tram-system between the regular districts, because it's much cheaper and easier to build than a subway-system, or it's generally the best kind of public transportation, especially for a city of this size.

[@patrickfiedler9261]

Trams are a good alternative system instead of a metro

[@aircraft2]

Vilnius is too small for a metro and the country as a whole is rapidly losing population so there is really no point now. I live in America now but the last time I came back i didnt even need to use the buses because the old town and my hotel are so close together its honestly kinda a blessing whereas other cities you need transport because everything is spread out. Traffic jams as you mentioned are seriously a joke compared to South america western europe or Asian countries. In some ways we don't know how good we have it

[@realdronthego]

Vilnius is growing.. there are way smaller cities with a metro, and we are located in Europe, where the EU happily funds public transport schemes.

[@aircraft2]

@@realdronthego It is growing at the expense of the rest of the country. Also I've never seen this many foreigners before. We got other larger problems right now to deal with and to be honest its better to stick it to those WEF oligarchs that own the EU we will never be apart of your 15 minute city bs.

[@justsamoo3480]

@@aircraft2 You are so insanely misinformed. Vilnius is literally a 15 minute city, which is term that refers to city where you can get most things done by a 15 minute walk. You literally praised the walkability and compactness of Vilnius in your previous comment, so why would you be opposed to it now?

[@aircraft2]

@@justsamoo3480 the EU will do anything to stop people from owning what little they still have. Outside of the major cities you still need a car for reliable transport and even within its better to own one. Communists like you want to destroy what little we have left Kay why ess

[@travelvideos]

Even bigger cities like Yangon, Karachi or Kabul don't have metro systems yet, so there is not much to worry in Vilnius. Although, this club of cities is shrinking fast.

[@realdronthego]

But Vilnius is located in the EU, where we have appropriate funding schemes for large projects.

[@m.a.d.m.5425]

Vilnius is expanding again.

[@Kreicss]

You forgot that Liepaja and Daugavpils latvia have tram systems

[@robertstranins6221]

1 mio inhabitants is Soviet Time standarts. Vilnius and Rīga are biggest cities without underground transport. Question is only LRT underground tram, metro, light metro. Thers only One reason why thers no any type of underground transportation......its poor economics and no money, corruption and birocration (I m more about Rīga). End many Local peaple are not well educated about same size cities in rich countries. So ...not enough inhabitants is more no excuse and old generation, or poor knowlidge.....really reasen is only money and budget.

[@UtamagUta]

Anyone pro-metro forget the core mentality of a Lithuanian person: a) car = good ; public transport = lame b) (real story of my coworker) : they traveled on half speed from Palanga to Kaunas because fuel tank was almost empty and petrol was cheaper nearby Kaunas by a whooping 2 cents / liter! So you telling me to exchange my convenience of a vehicle to an overpriced tram? Does not compute?

[@jur4x]

Exactly. Instead of wasting money on public transport, just buy loads of second hand BMW from Germany and gift them to residents of Vilnius

[@darbas57]

I am not sure it's needed, but trips that used to be 5-15 minutes, now take around 30-45 minutes and it's getting longer every time I visit. If the money is available, it's a good investment.

[@m.a.d.m.5425]

It’s needed and the commutes are showing that! It will get worse with time until a metro is built. Especially with Rail Baltic’s, the influx of people will intensify and we need the infrastructure… yesterday.

[@TodDltu]

I think this project is getting the same status as Vilnius football stadium. "Nowhere", or "Now, here".

[@tom4stream]

No metro for Vilnius. I was born and raised in Vilnius, I love it the way it is. Non-Vilnius bred people like Zuokas tend to stand at the forefront of destruction of the old vibe. Latvian academicians had fiercely and successfuly fought against the occupational Moscow government's plans to build a metro in Riga. Remote work mode is here, the need to commute diminishes.

[@m.a.d.m.5425]

You love the horrible (albeit cute) trolley busses that even Vilnius kept out of public sight during the NATO meetings? Haha Vilnius needs a metro!

[@flamemasterwwwwwwwwwww]

duxas blet

[@n2e913]

​@@m.a.d.m.5425 It didn't keep them out of sight, it was only proposed.

[@jur4x]

I don't know about that "successfully fought". According to plans they were supposed to start tunnel boring in 1990 and open first line for public with only 4 or 5 stations in 2000. Meeting the timeline was already difficult in USSR in the second half of the 80's. They haven't completed apartment blocks meant for tunneling engineers on time. So there was a delay in bringing them in. And in 1991 we've got our independence. For the record. Metro in Alma-Ata began construction in 1987. Was only open in 2012. Works were not going through most of the 90's.

[@notusingpremium]

Haha, the Baltics are third world nations pretending to be first world.

[@martynashu_9157]

They could finally fix the already existing bus and troleybus system by buying new buses and creating new lines

[@m.a.d.m.5425]

It’s lipstick on a pig

[@Mendogology]

Personally I think a metro is not worth the money. Vilnius doesn't have big population compared to other cities in the world and also its density is pretty low, giving the space to allow improving other public transport, as trolleybus - bus. More, I think the only people who want metro for Vilnius are people who think it's cool, and some businessmen who want to make money building it.

[@DS.J]

What is a metro exactly, according to you?

[@realdronthego]

Density is low if you calculate in all the forests in the municipality’s boundaries. If you look at connecting the actual spaces where people live, you would get a different view. Besides that, a lot of infill development is happening, without public transport connections, but with parking garages, stimulating further car use.

[@m.a.d.m.5425]

Vilnius is expanding again in population. We would be bigger however the past is the past. Lithuania will become bigger again and better to create a system now than in the future.

[@anzelmasmatutis2500]

As a resident of Vilnius I am against metro. Waste a money.

[@alfonsasgrinevicius7477]

It's a white elephant's dream 😅. Vilnius hasn't got 1000 000 inhabitants. Vilnius has a normal European system of public transport. In ~~25----30 years el.buses and el. taxis will zigzag everywhere. Steel poles , copper wires of trolley-buses will be cut off to hell , and sold as scrap metal. Visually , the streets will become " wider " 😮.....At present, during ~~50 years , all local governments of Vilnius cannot complete the football stadium. Throughout those decades roubles, dollars, talonai, litas existed and disappeared, € came up. Certain city authorities keep mumbling about high materials and talking trash. LOL.

[@realdronthego]

You know the “1 million” is simply some odd soviet relic, right? There are plenty of European cities of smaller size with a metro. Electric buses are okay for smaller cities, although problematic on their own due to their weight, de-facto slavery down in the supply chains and increased reliability on questionable regimes.

[@m.a.d.m.5425]

Maybe they don’t want to complete the stadium because Rail Baltics and a Vilnius metro are more important ;)

[@techgregory5253]

Hi from Belarus. Vilnius, don't make metro system. Wait until it appears a new more modern mean of transport and implement it. Metro is past