Inequality of Public Transport Services in Lithuanian Municipalities

Abstract

The public transport system must be developed evenly, it must be equally accessible to all groups of the population, regardless of gender, age, financial situation, etc. In Lithuania public transport is organized differently. Access to public transport services in rural areas further away from the main transport routes is limited. This leads to social and regional exclusion, which has a negative long-term impact on the communities life. In many rural areas, the population is scattered, therefore, public transport services in such areas are economically unviable. It is not beneficial for public transport operators to organize public transport routes to places where demand is lower. As a result, both public transport passengers flows and given financing are uneven. The aim of this article is to analyze the problem of inequality of public transport services in Lithuanian municipalities based on the collected data. To achieve this aim, the review analysis research method is used in this article. Research tasks: to present the problem of regional social exclusion, to present indicators describing the inequality of regional public transport services, to collect data of the indicators under consideration and to perform a review analysis of the collected data.

Active Labour Market Policies for Rural NEETs in Lithuania: A Case of Rural Municipalities

“…The lowest-funded public transports are in Rietavas, Pagegiai, Pakruojis, Anyksciai, and Varena, having a funding indicator of 3 euros/ha (Ranceva & Ušpalytė-Vitkūnienė, 2022). All rural municipalities in our research are funded up to 7 euros/ha, which means the enterprises cannot cover transportation costs (Ranceva & Ušpalytė-Vitkūnienė, 2022). The accessibility limitation of public transport is another restriction for the mobility of the unemployed from rural municipalities to other locations.…”

“…The secondary analysis of Lithuanian statistics for 2018 and 2020 was used to evaluate structural indicators, which include the average wage, the number of vacancies, and the number of unemployed youths in every municipality. These data are additionally interpreted using the meta-analysis of the municipalities index (Vilnius Policy Analysis Institute, 2022) and the data about public transport development in the municipalities (Ranceva & Ušpalytė-Vitkūnienė, 2022).…”

“…Accessibility of public transport in rural municipalities of Lithuania is less than 20-40% (Ranceva & Ušpalytė-Vitkūnienė, 2022). According to Ranceva and Ušpalytė-Vitkūnienė (2022), the public transport stations in rural areas should be at most one kilometre from the urban territories. Particular attention should be paid to these municipalities with less than 20% accessibility.…”

“…In rural municipalities, the public transport timetable frequency varies between 3-7 daily. Moletai, Ignalina, Zarasai, Kėdainiai, Jurbarkas, Lazdijai, Silale, Kretinga, Rietavas, Birzai, and Joniskis have each a frequency of 3.1-5 public transports per day (Ranceva & Ušpalytė-Vitkūnienė, 2022). The lowest-funded public transports are in Rietavas, Pagegiai, Pakruojis, Anyksciai, and Varena, having a funding indicator of 3 euros/ha (Ranceva & Ušpalytė-Vitkūnienė, 2022).…”

“…Moletai, Ignalina, Zarasai, Kėdainiai, Jurbarkas, Lazdijai, Silale, Kretinga, Rietavas, Birzai, and Joniskis have each a frequency of 3.1-5 public transports per day (Ranceva & Ušpalytė-Vitkūnienė, 2022). The lowest-funded public transports are in Rietavas, Pagegiai, Pakruojis, Anyksciai, and Varena, having a funding indicator of 3 euros/ha (Ranceva & Ušpalytė-Vitkūnienė, 2022). All rural municipalities in our research are funded up to 7 euros/ha, which means the enterprises cannot cover transportation costs (Ranceva & Ušpalytė-Vitkūnienė, 2022).…”