Cycling measures according to Prague’s Active Mobility Standards

Publikováno: 25. srpna. 2024, 15 min. čtení
Publikováno: 25. srpna. 2024, 15 min. čtení

The Active Mobility Standards were approved by the Prague City Council in August 2022. In this article, we provide guidance on how to determine appropriate cycling measures for a project or location in accordance with the standards, or assess whether an existing project complies with these standards.

The Active Mobility Standards in Prague (hereinafter referred to as the „Standards“) is a fairly comprehensive document. They were briefly introduced by Městem na kole in the fall of 2022. Since then, evaluating transportation projects through the lens of the Standards has become a common part of commenting and reviewing cycling measures as conducted by the Sustainable Urbanism Laboratory of AutoMat (the author is an employee of the association, editor’s note).

The Standards offer an idea of what optimal cycling measures would look like

However, we observe that projects are often not commissioned with the Standards in mind, and older projects are not revised to comply with the Standards even when possible. This largely depends on the willingness and abilities of the architect and designer to adhere to the Standards. Additionally, with the new construction law allowing easier commissioning and processing of projects, the importance of the Standards for street space design is increasing—as are the demands on the designer’s approach.

In designing cycling measures, the current practice in Prague follows the Public Space Design Manual from 2014 (hereinafter referred to as the „Manual“). The Standards were also created because the Manual does not sufficiently specify the type of cycling measures in relation to the street’s characteristics, and experience showed the need to increase the separation of cyclists from motor traffic and pedestrians. Technically, the newly issued Standards refine and update the original Manual in some points: If there is a conflict between the Standards and the Manual regarding a specific situation, the Standards should generally be followed.

So how should we proceed when commissioning a project or designing cycling measures to achieve a result as compliant with the Standards as possible? Or when assessing an existing project’s compliance with the Standards? Let’s illustrate this with a model example of the hypothetical reconstruction of the profile of Počernická Street, combined with the construction of a tram line.

Step 1: Determining the standards

Instructions for determining the level of standards at the location of interest can be found on page 42 of the Standards, where three levels are defined: the first, called the highest; the second, called higher (in the article, I will use the term increased); and the third, labeled basic. To determine the standard level for a given street, we primarily need to know what the citywide cycling route system proposes for it. This can be easily fund in the Atlas of Prague application on the website of the Institute of Planning and Development (IPR), by turning on the „Citywide Cycling Route System“ layer in the „Transport“ menu.

From the description of the cycling route hierarchy in the Standards, we see that the highest standard applies to superior cycling routes, which are numbers A0 – A9. This will not be our case. However, a primary route, A24, runs through the street, to which the increased standards apply.

In the part of the street towards Vinohradská, we only have the main route A422. The Standards require an increased standard for significant inter-district connections, which the main route may or may not be. The rules for applying the increased standards are further described on page 43 of the Standards. We can designate the section outside the primary route as part of the network with increased standards due to other connections or for continuity reasons, or we can settle for the basic standards. Let’s assume that the connection to Vinohradská will be considered local, and we will decide on the basic standards, which—as we will soon see—is not so low after all.

Step 2: Possible measures based on the character of the place

The second step is to find acceptable cycling measures based on the character of the place and the determined standards. This is aided by the tables on pages 46 – 50. There are three tables:

  • For streets with a fixed street shape (historic center, block development, family houses) on pages 46-47.
  • For streets with the character of a modernist city (housing estates) on pages 48 – 49.
  • For extra-urban, i.e., outside built-up areas, on page 50.

Počernická Street has a fixed street shape (villas with fences) between Na Palouku and Hostýnská streets, while in other sections it has a modernist character (housing estates or new houses behind service roads or green belts).

Each table then has several columns for different types of streets from residential to heavily trafficked. We will look at the sections one by one.

Section 1: Vinohradská – Na Palouku: In the table for the modernist city, it corresponds to a road with motor traffic:

The table indicates that a dual approach is applied, which means designated or protected bike lanes plus a parallel sidewalk with permitted cycling. Dedicated bike lanes are listed first, so they should be implemented rather than advisory bike lanes. The preference for measures listed higher in the table applies to other tables as well. Our design is also, of course, not prohibited from applying higher standards.

Similarly, for the section Na Palouku – Hostýnská, we use the table on pages 46 and 47, where for the increased standard, a cycle path (i.e., separated from pedestrians) or a Danish strip is required. Alternatively, the route can be led to a nearby parallel corridor in accordance with increased standards: this would mean using a parallel street like Nad vodovodem, but to meet the standards, it should be adjusted as a bicycle street, a 30 km/h zone with protected bike lanes, or a residential zone. And, of course, make it two-way for bicycles.

Routing through another corridor is also permitted by the definition of citywide routes, which allows for different routing as long as the realized route continues to fulfill its function. However, in such a case, at least the basic standard should be applied to the Počernická Street corridor, which should be implemented everywhere.

For the section Hostýnská – Dřevčická, we return to the table for the modernist city, where the increased standard requires a cycle path in the associated space, a pedestrian and cycle path, or a Danish strip, in that order of preference.

Step 3: Details of the measures

The Standards generally give us a choice of several measures with some preference. In addition, the Standards specify the nature of some measures beyond the Czech State Standard (Česká státní norma – ČSN, ed.) or Technical Conditions (Technické podmínky – TP, ed.). Therefore, before proceeding with the design (or project evaluation), it is desirable to check the specific requirements for the considered measures. An overview can be found in Chapter 4, which describes measures for pedestrians and cyclists, sometimes including model profiles and images.

In our hypothetical case, the following information would  likely be relevant:

  • A pedestrian path with permitted bicycle entry should be 3.5 meters wide in sections without house entrances and 4.5 meters in sections adjacent to buildings (p. 71).
  • For a Danish strip, the basic width should be 2.25 meters to allow cyclists to overtake each other, and the minimum width of 1.75 meters should not be acceptable for a primary route (A24). The same width is recommended for a one-way separated cycle lane.
  • A cycle path should have a standard width of 3.5 meters (p. 73-74). A sidewalk along the path should be 3 meters wide (p. 61).

However, Chapter 4 also contains additional requirements for many other measures, so we recommend at least briefly reviewing and comparing them with the requirements of ČSN and TP.

Another issue is interpreting what we have gathered from the Standards. The devil will be in the details, such as the specific design of intersections (crossings, integration in lane arrangement, waiting times). For the basic standard, we might speculate on how to handle pictogram corridors, which the basic standard does not allow. Questions arise about whether the Standards permit using pictogram corridors, for example, in turning lane arrangements or where width allows for a protected cycle lane. In my opinion, it is desirable to proceed in a way that does not reduce comfort for cyclists.

Step 4: What to use?

This brings us to the practical part of proposing specific measures for the given section. The limits set by the Standards are, of course, advisory, but under specific conditions of street profile design, they can help us choose feasible measures or assess the degree of deviation from the standard when compliance is not possible.

In the hypothetically addressed section, we should deal with the fact that the Standards impose slightly different requirements for individual sections, while we should apply as homogeneous a solution as possible over the greatest length and resolve connections (route A24 continues to the center via Nad Vodovodem Street).

Specific proposals can thus have very different characters. We could have Danish strips along the entire length or a two-way separated path on one side of the street. We could have a dual solution west of Hostýnská and a bicycle street in Nad Vodovodem Street, and a separated path on the eastern end.

There are always several ways to „fit“ into the standards. Limits will naturally also include other requirements: Here, it would obviously concern the construction of the tram line itself, the task to take other networks and blue-green infrastructure into account, to satisfy the requirements of heritage protection in the innercity, and we cannot neglect the formally last but politically always demanded parking requirements.

Step 5: Checking compliance with the Standards

The final step in designing cycling measures according to the Active Mobility Standards should be to retrospectively assess the resulting solution for compliance with the Standards. If the procedure for a specific project to be in accordance with the Standards was set by the local government or TSK, it should also be checked and enforced by that client. To check compliance with the Standards, it is basically sufficient to verify the designed or implemented measures according to steps 1 – 3.

Cheat sheet for cycling measures

Tips on how to recognize at first glance whether the proposed measure is in line with the Standards:

  1. On busy streets, the absolute minimum is dual, i.e., the combination of integration into traffic and legal riding on the sidewalk. Both continuously and simultaneously.
  2. Significant routes are always separated from uncalmed traffic.
  3. Significant routes in built-up areas outside major public spaces should always be separated from pedestrians.
  4. In quieter streets, the basis is a 30 km/h zone, for significant routes, a bicycle street.

If compliance with the Standards was not part of the assignment, it is only possible to point out identified non-compliance and try to bring the prepared projects as close to the Standards as possible within the limits of possibility. It can be recommended to:

  • Strive to maintain at least the basic standard in places requiring a higher standard.
  • Even if the recommended measures according to the Standards are not used, try to implement the technical execution of what is being prepared (widths, continuity) according to the description of measures in Chapter 4 of the Standards.

Standards as support

Our experience in commenting on measures of a general nature shows that even within the limits of non-structural adjustments, it is possible to request improvements to the proposed measures, and the Standards are a very good support in this, as they inform us of what should be correctly implemented in a particular place.

The Standards offer a solid idea of what the optimal cycling measure would be in a given place. And even if the proposal of a specific measure or project does not have the ambition to comply with the Standards, awareness of the ideal form of cycling measures in the given place during the discussion will help understand the actual requirements for cycling measures.

If we know the degree of „decline“ in the quality of cycling measures compared to the desired state during the preparation of projects, it will lead to the gradual increased application of the Standards. This is similar to how the adaptation to concepts in the ten-year-old Public Space Design Manual took several years.

This is an adjusted machine translation using Automat’s CycleLingo Translator (ChatGPT) of this article: https://mestemnakole.cz/2024/07/cykloopatreni-podle-prazskych-standardu-aktivni-mobility/

Přidej komentář

komentář

Pravidla diskuze, Ochrana osobních údajů

Líbil se Vám článek? Podpořte náš další obsah!
Stačí 100 Kč a minuta Vašeho času.

Vyberte prosím částku, poté budete přesmerováni na darujme.cz

Mohlo by vás zajímat english