Prague lacks dedicated cycling infrastructure. The cycling community requests separated paths, but far fewer are being built than should—and could—be. I believe we lack, on one hand, an acknowledgment of the public interest in separated infrastructure from experts and political representatives and, on the other hand, an understanding of the limits of divided infrastructure on the part of the public.
Therefore, I want to address the issue of separating pedestrians and cyclists in a series of three articles. My goal is to clarify the real possibilities for creating divided infrastructure, its technical and practical limits, and the consequences that a shift from integration toward protected measures in inner Prague might have.
The first article in this series focuses on the methods of separating pedestrians and cyclists and the widths of divided infrastructure according to current technical regulations.
Please note that this article aims to introduce the topic to the general public. Compared to valid technical conditions and ČSN (Czech State Standards), things are often simplified here. For specific conditions and situations, always consult ČSN 73-6110 (Design of Local Roads), TP 179 (Designing Infrastructure for Cyclists), Prague’s Active Mobility Standards, and other methodological materials directly.
The actual separation of pedestrians and cyclists can be achieved in several ways, with varying demands on space, types of separation, color schemes, and surfaces:
Let’s look at them one by one.
This corresponds to the principle from the model sheets for one-way lanes (Cach for ODO, 2025). It is not expected that pedestrians or cyclists would move into each other’s space, except for transverse crossings (e.g., pedestrians crossing the street, walking to parked vehicles, or cyclists turning into driveways). It is essential that pedestrians perceive these lanes as part of the roadway and that cyclists feel no need to enter the pedestrian section.
In this case, the separation should be clearly distinct and not easily permeable. Curbs do not need to be easy to cross. Cyclists are practically „enclosed“ in their lane, except for, say, turning toward bike racks or driveways. However, such an approach requires that slow and fast cyclists be able to overtake one another; thus, the standard involves one-way lanes with a width of around 2.5 meters, reaching nearly 3 meters with safety clearances, which is a significant amount of space. Nevertheless, the solution can also be two-way within this width (setting aside intersections for now).
Psychologically lanes and paths separated this way should be distinct from the sidewalk in both color and texture, to clearly represent a roadway. Cycle lanes and completely separated paths should, as a standard, have the same surface as the roadway; specifically, asphalt on the road should mean asphalt on the cycle lane, albeit perhaps in a different color.
To jump ahead slightly: the appropriate use of this mode is on high-traffic routes where the priority of bicycle transport demands the necessary space.
The second mode is what can be called „classic“ separation under the C 10 path designation. It is expected that pedestrians and cyclists will enter each other’s space if they need to avoid an obstacle. Cyclists can use the sidewalk portion to pass one another or overtake, provided they do not endanger other traffic participants. Pedestrians do not necessarily have to perceive the cycling space as part of the roadway, but at the same time, it must be evident that it is not a sidewalk.
The advantage is that one-way solutions can be narrower; however, overtaking will occur somewhat atypically from the right. The physical separation must be distinct but simultaneously permeable to allow for safe avoidance and overtaking. A level tactile strip flush is suitable for this purpose, whereas slanted or low vertical curbs are not appropriate.
It is preferable to align the surface of the cycling part of the path with the roadway. If paving is used, it must be clearly distinguished from the adjacent sidewalk by color.
The recommended space for cycling is defined only informally—by a horizontal line, pictograms, a different surface color, or paving patterns. The goal is to guide cyclists through a clearly defined corridor (within a sidewalk, path, or narrow street) away from conflict points (such as building entrances or blind corners). For pedestrians, it should be clear that 1) cyclists may move along this sidewalk or pedestrian zone and 2) in which corridor they should primarily expect them—without, however, being restricted from moving there themselves.
This mode corresponds to marking horizontal lines with a C 9 or C 7 + E 13 designation. Because the space in this situation is linear, the movement of pedestrians and cyclists occurs almost exclusively along this line or directly across it; therefore, the separation can be less distinct. The cycling corridor must be defined in a way that is clear to pedestrians but should not psychologically feel as if it is reserved exclusively for cyclists.
Suitable locations for this mode are extra-urban paths where we want to define safer areas for pedestrians (on one or both sides). Recommended separation also makes sense on the protected halves of „dual“ infrastructure in built-up areas, where we need to keep cyclists away from collision points, such as house entrances.
Within the line of travel, it is sufficient to define the space suitable for cyclists with a line on the asphalt or by paving a border within the Prague mosaic, along with pictograms. A different surface color is no longer desirable, as it strongly evokes a strict reservation of both parts of the space.
Although this formally operates under the same conditions as the corridor—for example, with a C 7 + E 13 designation—the fundamental difference lies in the fact that the primarily linear movement of cyclists intersects with the multi-directional, area-wide movement of pedestrians. In such spaces, pedestrians cannot easily predict the lines of travel for cyclists. Therefore, the corridor recommended for cycling must be defined more clearly and unambiguously for pedestrians.
Unlike linear separation, the surface of the recommended corridor here should be rendered in a different color than the surrounding areas because pedestrians are not moving parallel to it but are crossing it from all directions. The surface texture may be slightly smoother. However, if the passage through the area is addressed only with a smoother surface, we end up with so-called „invisible infrastructure.“ Keeping cyclists within specific corridors without this being apparent to pedestrians crossing randomly is a potential source of conflict.
Separated cycling infrastructure generally requires greater widths than shared infrastructure. The minimum width requirements for shared and divided paths are specified in ČSN 73 6110.
Adapted from: https://mestemnakole.cz/2024/10/scitame-dopravu-pro-cykloopatreni/
.
For sidewalks, the width is defined in multiples of 0.75 m, where a reasonable minimum is 2 + 1 lanes, totaling 2.25 m. Including a safety clearance (which can be shared with the cyclists‘), a sidewalk width of approximately 2.50 meters makes sense.
A separated path (C 10) is thus easily feasible from roughly 5.0 m (2.50 + 2.50 m), unless there is a specific reason for a shared path or there is higher pedestrian traffic. The cycle lane can be reduced down to 1.5 m (one-way, low intensity), or the sidewalk down to 1.5 m (very low intensity). Therefore, we can fit within 4.0 meters if we choose whether to restrict cyclists (direction, intensity) or pedestrians (intensity). Theoretically, a separated path could exist at 3.0 meters, but that would require such low intensities for both groups that it would clearly function better as a shared space.
Requirements for one-way lanes are defined by the 2025 cycle design model solutions. A one-way two-lane track typically requires 2.75 m (including a 0.25 m strip for bollards and 0.25 m for a slanted or vertical curb). A single-lane track typically requires 2.0 m. There isn’t much room to reduce these requirements because the separation is absolute; even a single-lane track means you have made it impossible for fast and slow cyclists to overtake one another.
Width requirements increase further at crossings. Generally, larger widths are required: 3 meters for a pedestrian crossing, 4 meters for a shared pedestrian and cycle crossing, and 5 meters for a signalized shared crossing. A one-way separate cycle crossing should be at least 1.8 meters wide, or 1.5 meters when adjacent (according to TP 179).
The Prague Active Mobility Standards (SAMP) are stricter (see the table below). Originally, the goal was to set infrastructure widths based on projected traffic intensities so that the results wouldn’t be on the edge of usability. However, the actual result is often that shared infrastructure is chosen—citing a failure to meet standards—even in places where a divided path would fit according to the ČSN (Czech State Standards).
This issue was thoroughly discussed at a working group meeting on April 10, 2026. The conclusions from that meeting were reflected in a subsequent resolution by the Cycling Commission on April 13, which essentially states: When applying standards, prioritize the type of measure in the decision table (where separated paths often have priority) over the requirements for above-standard width parameters in the measure description. Meeting ČSN requirements is sufficient.
The path profile itself away from intersections is, however, only the first necessary prerequisite for establishing separated infrastructure. If we want to have high-quality divided paths, we must be able to design high-quality separation along entire routes. To achieve this, we must be able to satisfactorily resolve five types of problem areas:
We will look at these issues in more detail in the next part of this article.
This is an adjusted machine translation using Gemini of this article: https://mestemnakole.cz/2026/05/zpusoby-oddeleni-chodcu-a-cyklistu-a-limity-delene-infrastruktury/
Líbil se Vám článek? Chcete v Česku lepší podmínky pro cyklodopravu?
Podpořte nás, stačí i 100 korun. 💙🚲
Vyberte prosím částku, poté budete přesmerováni na darujme.cz
komentář