Raised cycle lanes at an intermediate level between the road and the sidewalk (so-called Danish cycle lanes) have been in place on Smetana’s Embankment in the center of Prague for two years now. Apart from a brief mention during their implementation, we haven’t yet dedicated a longer text to them. However, they undoubtedly deserve one. This is not just exemplary infrastructure but also the most significant cycling route in Prague. Let’s rectify this oversight.
Since the summer of 2022 Danish lanes have been a reality on a short section of Smetana’s Embankment between Národní and Betlémská when riding towards Staroměstská in Prague. This is luxuriously separated cycling infrastructure by Prague’s standards, which was informally referred to by the city’s political representatives at the time of its creation as a model or showcase example of what quality cycling infrastructure could look like on significant routes in Prague.
Danish cycle lanes are a technical solution for guiding cycling infrastructure on raised lanes at an intermediate level between the road and the sidewalk. They are thus elevated and separated from both the road and the sidewalk. They are called Danish because the main inspiration for this solution comes from Denmark.
The Danish inspiration is most evident in the design of intersections – in the case of Danish lanes, cyclists are generally guided through intersections along with other traffic, often with the help of a bike lane. Left turns are executed using indirect turns within the intersection. This approach differs from Dutch practice, where it is more common for cyclists to navigate intersections through adjacent spaces, such as bike crossings.
In simple terms, Danish lanes can be seen as a solution that holds the middle between a bike lane and a separated bike path.
Additionally, the use of Danish lanes is particularly suitable for the Czech environment today, as it is one of the few ways (under the current Czech regulations) to guide protected infrastructure along main routes through unsignalized intersections without losing priority. On a traditional bike crossing in an adjacent space, cyclists would have to yield.
Interestingly, this is not a new or groundbreaking solution. It has been used worldwide for decades. In fact, the first infrastructure in the style of Danish lanes was created in Prague on Letňanská Street as early as the 1950s.
It is important to note that when we refer to a Danish lane, we are primarily talking about the construction and technical solution of the infrastructure. The actual traffic regime that will be establish on the Danish cycle lane (in relation to traffic regulations) is a separate issue and also more variable. We will illustrate this below with an example from Smetana’s Embankment. In Czech practice, we have examples where the Danish lane operates as a designated bike lane, as well as in the mode of a bike path. It is also conceivable that it could be marked as a shared path for pedestrians and cyclists.
The cycle lane on Smetana’s Embankment is two meters wide and paved with cut, blasted tiles that are smooth enough for a comfortable ride while also providing good traction in wet conditions. The same tiles are used to pave the cycling corridor through the intersection with Národní.
The entire section of cycle lanes is approximately 360 meters long. In terms of length and the condition of the infrastructure on adjacent sections, this does not represent a groundbreaking change on the primary A2 cycle route. Its significance (for now) lies more in being the first exemplary solution of this type of infrastructure in Prague. It is the first, if we do not count the earlier example on Letňanská.
In these 360 meters, the cycle lane crosses two intersections. The signalized intersection with Národní, where cyclists have a separate traffic light for added safety, allows them to enter the intersection slightly earlier. Additionally, the red light turns on a bit earlier due to the slower clearing time. The second crossing is essentially just the exit of the cycle lane at the intersection with Betlémská. Here, the lane merges into traffic via a bike lane.
Thanks to the construction of the cycle lanes, the passage through the embankment intersection with Národní has been legalized for bicycles. Previously, under normal circumstances, one could only ride in this direction via the parallel Divadelní Street, as turning right at the intersection with Národní was mandatory, except for public transport. Now, cyclists can go straight through the intersection along the embankment. Motor traffic is still directed along Divadelní Street.
Along with the construction of the cycle lane, the priority at the intersection with Betlémská (Divadelní) was also changed. The main road is now marked along the embankment, giving cyclists in the cycle lane priority over those coming from Betlémská (Divadelní). Previously, the situation was the exact opposite.
In this context, it is interesting to see how the construction of the cycle lane and the associated changes have affected the traffic flow in the area. The change in priority does not automatically guarantee faster passage along the embankment; compared to Divadelní, there is one more traffic light. However, the stress of driving on the embankment will be significantly lower than on Divadelní.
According to city data from the Na kole Prahou app, the daily number of cyclists along the embankment was estimated at around 100 to 150 people per day in the years before the cycle lane was built, while approximately 400 to 600 people rode along Divadelní (depending on the year of analysis). In the first year after the cycle lane was built, i.e., in 2023, the ratio reversed, with approximately 300 to 350 people riding along the embankment daily, while the number of cyclists on Divadelní dropped to about 180 per day. However, these results are strongly influenced by the user base of the city’s navigation app.
Nonetheless, these data simply show that, for a significant portion of people, riding along the embankment has become much more attractive compared to the previous route along Divadelní Street. The effect and impact of these changes certainly deserve a much more thorough analysis, especially considering that this is a showcase piece of infrastructure.
As with any new development, the opening of this section sparked several larger and smaller debates regarding various details of the entire project. The fear that the lane would immediately turn into a parking lot was unfounded. Occasionally, cars do occupy the lane, and given its elevation, navigating around obstacles is not easy, but based on the author’s experience, this is not a permanent situation. Some cars leave the lane clear and park on the sidewalk. It was generally mentioned during the construction of the lanes that the buildings on the embankment primarily have deliveries handled via Divadelní Street.
I would like to briefly address some details of the solution. I decided not to evaluate the resulting solution myself but rather to present some fragments of arguments that were raised in the public space after the cycle lanes were opened.
An interesting aspect is the chosen traffic regime. As mentioned, the Danish lane is merely a construction solution. In this case, the regime of a designated bike lane and bike path was chosen. The bike lane runs along the entire section next to the National Theatre. After the intersection with Národní, a bike path begins, which then transitions back into a designated bike lane a few meters before the intersection with Betlémská (Divadelní).
The fact that bike lanes are used through intersections is not surprising. In the Czech context, this ensures continuous priority. Although in this section, this fact is relatively less significant and can be attributed more to the declared „exemplary“ nature of the chosen solution.
We tried through various channels to find out what led to the choice of the mentioned traffic regimes, but we did not receive specific answers. The following few words are thus only my uninformed reflection.
What’s interesting is that the designated bike lane was maintained along the entire section next to the National Theatre, even in the slightly elevated section above the road level. This could potentially set a small precedent, where it might not always be necessary to change the bike lane’s regime to a bike path on an elevated section. This approach could significantly reduce the need for traffic signage in similar future implementations, especially with frequent crossings of the bike lane and side streets. That the authors chose this approach here is not surprising because changing to a bike path regime for just a few meters would primarily increase the amount of traffic signage without any significant functional change.
However, it’s clear that this is not a given, as evidenced by the next adjacent section, where a C8a sign indicating the beginning of a bike path, rather than the continuation of a bike lane, is placed at the start of the cycle lane.
Why doesn’t the designated bike lane continue here as well? Or why wasn’t a shared pedestrian and cyclist path chosen, given that there’s a sidewalk right next to it? We don’t know. One can only speculate that such a long section of an elevated bike lane might be too far from the established local norms for traffic regimes. Similarly, one might speculate that the authors wanted to closely align with foreign models, where similar paths are often marked as bike paths. Thus, in the interest of authentic inspiration, they chose to mark it as a bike path.
Instead of a bike lane or a shared pedestrian and cyclist path, which are traffic regimes often associated with negative internet comments claiming that these are not the „true“ or ideal types of cycling infrastructure. Although in this location, none of these regimes would change the structural solution of the place.
Another point of discussion is the overall material and construction of the cycle lane. The discussion focused on two main aspects: the surface of the lane (paving vs. asphalt) and the style of the lane’s start and end (the termination through an angled curb).
This is essentially a technical (but very interesting) discussion about the style that similar infrastructure should have in Prague. Note that the adjacent road is mostly asphalt. So even though the paving in the cycle lane is luxurious and smooth, the comfort of riding is somewhat lower compared to the road.
Similarly, there was discussion about the style of the lane’s start and end. In this case, it is implemented with a traditional curb, which visually extends the sidewalk. Thus, the cycle lane ends in virtually the same position as the sidewalk.
Critics of the chosen solution pointed out that the entry and exit are created over a curb at an awkward angle, even though the construction almost eliminates any unevenness. Additionally, there was an argument that for motorists approaching from side streets, the cycle lane may appear more like a part of the sidewalk, and they may not intuitively recognize cyclists entering the intersection as traveling on the main road. According to this criticism, this could more easily lead to cyclists not being given priority at the intersection.
The fact that the cycle lane intuitively appears more like part of the sidewalk is also evident from observations by the AutoMat association, which noted during its research that pedestrians—waiting at the red light at the crosswalk at Národní—tend to wait in the cycle lane. „Our observations at the site showed that pedestrians at the Slávia crosswalk think the curb is part of the sidewalk, and while waiting for the green light, they often stand in the cycle lane,“ commented Vratislav Filler for Městem na kole at the time.
After the section was completed, several theories emerged about why this particular solution was chosen and what advantages it offers compared to an asphalt surface with ramps that do not require crossing a curb. Generally, the aesthetic qualities of paving compared to asphalt were emphasized. Some speculated that this might have been a requirement from conservation authorities, including considerations of maintaining Prague’s aesthetic tradition, where cycle lanes are simply not a common part of streets, raising the possibility that there was an effort to visually preserve the appearance of a classic Prague street (thus making the cycle lane as visually unobtrusive as possible). However, it should be noted that even in Prague, there is a historical precedent for cycle lanes, as seen on Letňanská.
We tried to find out the details regarding the choice of traffic regime and why paving was chosen for the cycle lane and why this specific termination was used (for example, whether it was a requirement of heritage conservation). However, the answer was so general that it essentially did not address these questions:
„Smetanovo nábřeží is part of the most popular Prague route A2, and it also forms part of two of the fifteen Eurovelo routes, 4 and 7, across Europe. The chosen solution resulted from collaboration between city institutions and was inspired by common practices in countries such as the Netherlands and Sweden. Its goal is to provide the highest possible (both visual and structural) protection for cyclists on this route, which is used not only by children on their way to school but also by long-distance cyclists traveling from southern Europe to as far as the Arctic Circle. This is only the first phase; further planned design and construction steps will include additional cycle lanes, forming a unified whole.“
Thus, these questions remain unanswered. The solution is simply the result of collaboration between city institutions, inspired by common practices in countries such as the Netherlands and Sweden. That’s the official response. However, it should be noted that the typical principle of Dutch solutions is quite different from the cycle lanes implemented on Smetanovo nábřeží.
Meanwhile, the technical discussion continues. Recently, it resurfaced near the Main Train Station, where there is a debate about how the passage alongside the Fantova building should be implemented—whether it will be less distinguishable from the sidewalk and paved, or if it will, for example, be asphalted.
The example of Smetana’s Embankment nicely illustrates how even for similar measures, the details can influence how such infrastructure ultimately feels—whether it will seem more like part of the road or, conversely, part of the sidewalk. Each approach has its proponents and opponents.
Since no one specifically commented for this article, I do not want to attribute motivations or arguments to anyone. However, ideologically, the entire discussion seems to revolve around whether such protected cycling infrastructure should resemble protected paths incorporated into sidewalk areas or if it should more closely mimic the appearance of the roadway.
Prague has thus created a model piece of protected cycling infrastructure, aiming to show what similar cycling infrastructure could look like in the capital. However, some details of the solution have not escaped critical responses. While the city considers it a model solution, it likely cannot be considered a model of the Danish approach to cycle lanes, as the original Danish cycle lanes have different characteristics in their details.
As is evident from the cited response, the inspiration did not primarily come from Denmark, but allegedly from the Netherlands and Sweden. This might explain the misunderstanding, where it is pointed out that Danish cycle lanes should look different. If Denmark was not indeed the inspiration, perhaps this solution should not be referred to as Danish cycle lanes in the first place, but rather as some hybrid model.
The discussion on the appropriateness of specific details was also influenced by an analysis from the AutoMat group, which came up with ten concrete proposals for improving the cycle lanes in the future.
The new cycle lanes quickly found their users, with most people now riding through the embankment’s cycle lanes rather than along Divadelní Street.
Although the lanes were supposed to be just the first stage of improving this gap in cycling infrastructure in central Prague, recent developments suggest that the passage along the primary A2 cycle route in the city center will remain in its current form for some time. A postponement of the construction of further improvements at least until 2026 has been proposed. Recently, the Deputy Mayor for Transport, Zdeněk Hřib (Pirates), also announced that the previously announced restrictions on transit traffic through the city center will not be implemented this fall.
This is an adjusted machine translation using Automat’s CycleLingo Translator (ChatGPT) of this article: https://mestemnakole.cz/2024/07/ohlednuti-za-danskymi-cyklopasy-na-smetanove-nabrezi-v-praze/
Líbil se Vám článek? Podpořte náš další obsah!
Stačí 20 Kč a minuta Vašeho času.
Vyberte prosím částku, poté budete přesmerováni na darujme.cz
komentář