Vltava Philharmonic: The transport solution does not correspond to the 21st century

AutoMat filed a statement on the EIA investigative procedure for the Vltava Philharmonic project in Prague. In our opinion, the complicated transport solution favors cars. On the contrary, conditions will worsen significantly when moving on foot or by bicycle, and everything else will be very expensive. That is why we are asking for an environmental impact assessment and proposing a redesign.

FAQ for the Vltava Philharmonic

It’s as if someone designed a building concept and then by sheer force fit it onto a vacant lot. This is how the documentation for the Vltava Philharmonic project affects us, which, according to Prague’s leadership, should be built near Bubenské nábřeží and Hlávka bridge.

It is certainly appropriate to use the strategically located free land, created during the construction of the North-South Main Line and later Metro C. However, the proposal from the Danish architectural studio Bjarke Ingels ignores several natural routes and links and brings a transport solution that does not correspond to the 21st century. In addition, the price of the project is estimated at 12.6 billion (the transport solution itself is expected to cost 3 billion), with some talking about as much as 19 billion crowns without VAT.

Would you expect such costs to ensure sustainable and reasonable development of the site? Unfortunately, we have serious doubts about that. The size of the building and above all the tunnel ramp, crossing another tunnel, creates a barrier in movement from the center to the planned square and the overall inhospitable environment of the forecourt of Hlávk bridge for the passage, passage, and stay of people (see picture). The intention to hide as much as possible and at the same time not restrict car traffic and to formally connect the building to the riverbank brings a solution that, compared to assumptions, will make the conditions for active mobility more difficult and will probably generate more cars in the locality.

Husák’s silence 2.0

The tunneling of part of the Bubenské nábřeží evokes the construction of the Těšnovský tunnel on the opposite bank of the river in the era of communism, which was nicknamed Husák’s silence due to its unfoundedness. That is, a tunnel for cars only, which will cover the previously freely accessible embankment directly connected to the river. In addition, due to the canceled exit from the Hlávka bridge, the designers had to invent a complex tunnel crossing, which significantly increases the cost of the construction.

Communications with multiple lanes and turn lanes complicate and lengthen crossing them, if at all possible. One will be forced to wait for the green light on the islands in the middle of the road in the unpleasant conditions of the mouth of the tunnel. Two tunnels and the entrance to the garages next to each other compress the space for pedestrians by the Vltava in the form of narrow sidewalks descending along deaf walls. Instead of a pleasant residential promenade, such long ramps will become a corridor of conflicts between pedestrians and cyclists.

All this worsens the competitiveness of active mobility compared to more emission-intensive forms of transport. Unlike now, but also the original specification of the competition, a complicated, barrier-free and empty place on the embankment is thus created.

In addition, the overall concept does not provide space for any future changes that would limit the dominance of automobile traffic in such an important space. This fixes a situation that further complicates the city’s plans for the humanization of the North-South highway, which is addressed in subsequent sections by the Concept of the transformation of the North-South highway into a city street from 2016, according to which progress is being made in Prague 1 and 2. Our current call is also related to it.

You can find the full text of AutoMat’s statement HERE. A short summary here:

• This is the intersection of three superior city-wide cycle routes (A 1, A 4, and A 6) in various stages of implementation. The proposed solution does not comply with the Active Mobility Standards, approved by the HMP Council, for superior routes and pedestrian links.
• Spinal cycle routes are the basis for the competitiveness of active mobility, as well as sufficiently high-quality pedestrian and barrier-free links in the entire surrounding area. It is necessary to assess whether it is possible to rework the transport solution.
• Any future modifications will be extremely demanding due to the tunnel solution, and it can thus be assumed that the not-very-urban concept of public spaces will be fixed. Improving the permeability of the territory will thus be practically impossible for the next decades.
• We consider the proposed transport solution to be extremely demanding both in terms of finances and the carbon footprint (embodied carbon) of the building itself during its implementation.
• Given that the effects of the solution on the traffic intensity have not been examined, we are concerned that the proposed solution increases the capacity of the North-South highway. This is contrary to assumptions about the reduction of traffic intensity on SJM. Any increase in capacity can have a clear effect on the overall intensity of car traffic in inner Prague due to traffic induction.
• As part of the EIA assessment, we propose to check the concept of the transport solution in variants that we consider to be clearly more considerate in terms of the accessibility of the territory and for the future healthy development of the city. In variants that enable urban solutions in the form of urban street spaces.

FAQ for the Vltava Philharmonic

Q: Does AutoMat want to stop the construction of the Vltava Philharmonic? Are you bothered by everything new and modern?

A: We are not trying to prevent the construction of the Philharmonic, we are bothered by the overall transport solution, which does not comply with the Active Mobility Standards, approved by the HMP Council, for superior routes and pedestrian links. We have nothing against modern architecture, on the contrary. In the 21st century, buildings are created that not only do not harm the environment but also benefit it, for example, Berlin’s The Cube.

Q: Who could submit a statement in the investigation procedure for the EIA and what is it for?

A: Anyone (citizen, association, municipality, authority…) who believes that the plan will have a significant negative impact on the environment can submit a statement. The competent authority (in this case the City Hall of Prague) will then decide whether or not to initiate an EIA environmental impact assessment.

Q: Will EIA be at the Vltava Philharmonic?

A: From August 6, 2024, an investigative procedure is underway, which must be completed within 45 days of the publication of information about its initiation. The competent authority (in this case the Environmental Impact Assessment Department of the Prague City Hall), if it concludes that the project is subject to an environmental impact assessment (EIA), will issue a written conclusion to that effect. It includes recommendations for the processing of documents for the application for a unified environmental opinion.

Q: Does AutoMat want people to cycle to the Philharmonic?

A: We are primarily concerned with the accessibility of the territory for active mobility. Spinal cycle routes are the basis for the competitiveness of active mobility, as well as sufficiently comfortable pedestrian and barrier-free connections within the entire surroundings. Therefore, we believe that the transport solution in the area needs to be changed. Due to the impacts on sustainable transport, we believe an EIA should be initiated. For transportation to the concert, let everyone choose the mode of transportation that suits them. We prefer and recommend sustainable transport, e.g. public transport – in this case tram, metro or even train.

Q: How specifically will conditions for pedestrians and cyclists worsen?

A: Communications with multiple lanes and turn lanes make crossing them complicated and time-consuming, if at all possible. One will be forced to wait for the green light on the islands in the middle of the road in the unpleasant conditions of the mouth of the tunnel. Two tunnels and the entrance to the garages next to each other compress the space for pedestrians by the Vltava in the form of narrow sidewalks descending along deaf walls. Instead of a pleasant residential promenade, such long ramps will become a corridor of conflicts between pedestrians and cyclists.

All this worsens the competitiveness of active mobility compared to more emission-intensive forms of transport. In contrast to the present, but also to the original specification of the competition, a complicated, barrier-free and empty space is created on the embankment and square crossed by a highway and a tunnel ramp.

Q: How is the traffic solution around the philharmonic related to the planned reconstruction of the highway?

A: The overall concept does not provide room for any future changes that would limit the dominance of automobile traffic in such an important space. This fixes a situation that further complicates the city’s plans for the humanization of the North-South highway, which is addressed in subsequent sections by the Concept of the transformation of the North-South highway into a city street from 2016, according to which progress is being made in Prague 1 and 2. Our current call is also related to it.

Q: How much will it all cost and how much of the budget will go to transport solutions?

A: According to representatives of the city, the cost of the project is now estimated at 12.6 billion CZK (the transport solution itself is expected to cost 3 billion), although some are talking about up to 19 billion crowns.  From the above, it is clear that this is an important project that deserves attention and high-quality processing not only of the building itself, but also of the surroundings. That is why we prefer to subject the plan to an evaluation of the transport solution and possible alternatives in terms of costs and impacts on the environment and public health not only at the construction site but also in the immediate vicinity.

Q: Should municipal subsidies be tied to the “obedience” of supported associations?

A: Subsidies for specific projects (AutoMat) have nothing to do with the topic of the Vltava Philharmonic. The capital city’s subsidy procedures are open to all entities and expertly assess the quality of projects and their contribution to the city. The projects are subsequently evaluated, and repeated support indicates the successful fulfillment of obligations and conditions of support. The highest amount for AutoMat goes to the Prague-wide cultural and social project Zažít město jinak, which is in no way related to this topic, other support is directed, for example, to educational projects or research focused on sustainable transport, without which the capital city will not be able to fulfill its climate obligations. Making the allocation of subsidies conditional on the fact that the subject may not criticize the city’s decision or propose a better solution is completely contrary to the rules of a civil, democratic society. Even if the alleged complication would have preemptively solved the problems to which our comments relate, subjectively the project will improve it and objectively it will save the city several orders of magnitude higher expenses than additional correction would cost.

Do you like what we do at AutoMat? Support us and donate to AutoMat any amount. Thank you.