What does Bratislava need to move better, in everyday life and in a crisis? In January 2026, around 40 residents came together to answer a question many European cities face: how should urban mobility work not only on ordinary days, but when disruption hits?

Held over two Saturdays (24 and 31 January), the Bratislava AntifragiCity Forum (BAF) brought together a diverse group of residents to discuss urban mobility challenges, priorities, and trade-offs. The forum took place at TUBA, Bratislava’s centre for architecture and urban planning, a fitting setting for conversations about the future of the city.

More than a public consultation: a process designed for thoughtful decision-making

The BAF was not a simple consultation. It was a structured, two-day deliberative process inspired by citizens’ assembly models. Participants did not just share opinions. They engaged with experts, debated with fellow residents, and worked together to develop collective recommendations.

The forum was organised around four themes: livable cities: people, space, and quality of life; crisis-responsive mobility; resilient and diverse mobility options; and the sustainable mobility transition. These themes helped participants explore mobility not as an end in itself, but as a way to improve safety, accessibility, equity, and sustainability in Bratislava.

A total of 229 people registered interest in taking part, and 40 participants were selected to reflect the demographic, socio-economic, and attitudinal diversity of the city, ensuring a broad range of lived experiences and perspectives.

What citizens said 

The discussions were rich, practical, thoughtful, and revealing.

“A quality city means living well overall; transport is not the goal but the means; the point is to make it a good place to live, not just to have the fastest transport.”

Other participants reflected on what the forum itself offered: “I gained perspectives from people who view transport differently.” Another participant said: “The forum revealed many interesting inputs, which showed me other perspectives on transport and movement in the city.”

That broadening of perspective was central to the experience. Many participants said the forum helped them better understand the mobility needs of pedestrians, cyclists, older residents, and people with disabilities. This wider perspective shaped the recommendations they created together.

The main takeaways

Participants developed 12 recommendations and then voted to identify shared priorities. The results were clear: Bratislava’s residents want structural, long-term solutions, not quick fixes.

The top priorities were:

• Expanding the tram network. Participants saw trams as the backbone of urban mobility: reliable, high-capacity, and effective during disruptions. They called for extended lines, better timetables, and fully barrier-free stops.

• Creating an independent expert platform. Residents expressed a strong desire to separate long-term mobility planning from short-term political cycles. An apolitical, expert-led coordination body — bringing together city, regional, and national authorities — was seen as essential for coherent, trustworthy decision-making.

• Building safe and connected cycling infrastructure. A fully connected cycling network, with clear signage, quality surfaces, and priority at intersections, was seen as both an everyday necessity and useful when other modes fail.

• Improving safety across the whole transport system. From better lighting at stops and underpasses, to physical separation of transport modes and monitored CCTV, participants treated safety as a baseline condition, not an optional improvement.

• Delivering transparent, real-time information. Citizens want a single, centralised source of transport information, accessible across multiple channels and in multiple languages, with live updates during disruptions.

Participants were also more open to regulation and integrated measures after the forum than before, a sign that informed deliberation genuinely shifts perspectives. As one participant put it, the forum showed that “discussion can be conducted 98% calmly; the remaining 2% are not disruptive and can also be constructive.”

What this means for AntifragiCity

The Bratislava forum confirms something key to AntifragiCity: citizens are not resistant to change. They are resistant to change that feels arbitrary, unfair, or disconnected from their daily lives. When mobility interventions are well-communicated, embedded in coherent plans, and clearly designed to improve everyone’s safety and access, people support them.

These findings will feed into AntifragiCity’s research, informing the design of antifragile urban mobility strategies and contributing to wider European-level policy discussions.

About AntifragiCity’s Citizens’ Forums

The AntifragiCity Citizens’ Forums took place in three of the project’s demonstration cities: Bratislava, Larissa, and Thessaloniki. They form part of a broader effort to ensure that the project’s research is grounded in real citizens’ voices.

Each forum brought together a diverse group of  residents for structured and informed deliberation. Recommendations were developed independently by participants, with no predetermined outcomes.

The forums were commissioned and funded by the AntifragiCity project and led by the Luxembourg Institute of Socio-Economic Research (LISER). In Bratislava, LISER was supported by the Metropolitan Institute of Bratislava (MIB).

For more updates and stories on AntifragiCity, subscribe to our newsletter and follow us on LinkedIn, Bluesky, X, Facebook, and YouTube.