AutoMat has submitted objections to the Metropolitan Plan again

Thanks to our objections, the latest version of Prague’s new zoning plan has significantly improved provisions for public transport and cycling. On the other hand, the plan’s conservative support for cars, along with gaps in the protection of green spaces and existing buildings, forced AutoMat to resubmit many of the objections we initially filed in 2022.

The repeated review of the Metropolitan Plan – Prague’s new zoning plan – came after three years. It was possible to submit comments or objections to the revised version until December 3, 2025. At the same time, this was an opportunity to check how the previous objections had been addressed.

Unfortunately, like other associations, we were not provided with the official responses to our 2022 objections, which made our work more challenging. AutoMat resubmitted most of the objections, often updated to reflect the changes that had taken place.

Non-Motorized Transport

The most successful objections supported by public signatures were in the area of non-motorized transport, specifically cycling. We covered these in more detail in a separate commentary on the Městem na kole website. Previous versions of the plan did not sufficiently treat cycling infrastructure as part of the transport network. In the new version, this has improved: major cycle routes have been added, some even classified as public-benefit projects.

Compared to the previous version, the current Metropolitan Plan appropriately combines transport and recreational purposes for infrastructure. The plan now includes the most important cycle routes in central Prague, a long-standing request of both the Prague Cycling Commission and AutoMat. Additionally, new constructions classified as public-benefit projects have been added, such as a footbridge from Císařská louka.

A remaining shortcoming is that corridors for city-wide cycle routes in so-called development and transformation areas are often designated only as “pedestrian permeability,” which does not guarantee that cycling will always be possible in these corridors. And since the network of major cycle routes in the plan is still relatively sparse compared to the city-wide system, a large portion of the city-wide cycle route network remains insufficiently addressed in the Metropolitan Plan.

Infrastructure for Motorized Transport

In contrast to cycling, AutoMat’s objections regarding motorized transport largely went unheeded. We commented on a total of 29 construction projects and submitted one general comment regarding the phasing of projects. The city authorities partially accepted one objection (changing the Čiklova–Otakarova connection from a motorized road to a major cycle route) and, regarding the humanization of the magistral road (which we have long supported through a supportive objection), removed the proposed modifications to the grade-separated intersection with Na Strži Street.

We have long supported the revitalization of the magistral road

The crucial request regarding the phasing of individual projects was not heeded. In our view, it still holds that some plans for automobile infrastructure need to be conditional on the completion of higher-priority projects. Similarly, certain automobile projects or the construction of new neighborhoods should be contingent on the completion of public transport projects (for example, Metro D or new tram lines). Only in this way can we prevent new roads from becoming overloaded while simultaneously strengthening the competitiveness of public transport, particularly in developing areas.

In our view, significantly problematic projects such as the Radlická, Vysočanská, or Břevnovská radials remain in the Metropolitní plán.

Public Transport Infrastructure

The planned public transport infrastructure has improved in the current version of the Metroplan. We particularly welcome the recognition of public interest in several new tram lines (e.g., Budějovická–Dvorce, Nádraží Podbaba–Suchdol, and Vinohradská–Hlavní nádraží–Bolzanova), which should facilitate their implementation. Some lines have also been moved from “territorial reserve” status into the proposal stage in line with our objections (e.g., the Sídliště Řepy–Zličín line).

Newly, the plan includes a territorial reserve for Metro Line C toward the Petrovice housing estate and its continuation to Nádraží Uhříněves, where a high-quality transfer hub could be established connecting to suburban train lines. We also appreciate the inclusion of second vestibules for the Roztyly, Opatov, and Strašnická metro stations.

We still have concerns about some connections to the Nové spojení II railway. In particular, this concerns potential transfers to Metro D in Nusle, where, according to the Rail Administration’s concept, no direct transfer would be created, which we consider a significant deterioration of the project. Likewise, we continue to request that certain planned tram lines on the outskirts of Prague be included in the territorial reserve or proposal stage.

Urbanism and Land Use

The final and highly sensitive area of our objections in 2022, and now again, concerns comprehensive land-use planning conditions for construction.

At the start of these objections, we included the following paragraph: “We are concerned that in the revisions, legal continuity of private owners’ interests has been prioritized over public interests and those of city districts. We would therefore like repeated public discussions to primarily consider public interests, especially in light of challenges posed by climate change, the housing crisis, and deteriorating urban living conditions.”

Like other associations and members of the public, we have focused heavily on the development of so-called modernist structures, mainly housing estates. The possibility of construction within newly designated “parks in open development” (green spaces around housing blocks) has changed significantly, and the responses to our queries have not been sufficiently convincing.

Specifically, the plan now allows certain buildings for transport and technical infrastructure to be placed in these open-development parks (Article 94, Section 4). We miss a clear specification of what types of buildings are meant. The Metroplan does not provide any height or spatial regulations for them. As a result, it will not be clear what can be constructed in these areas, leaving some discretion to the building authority regarding the size of allowed structures.

Compared to the 2022 version, the plan also allows these projects to reduce unpaved areas. According to our inquiries, multi-story parking garages are considered desirable in housing estates by residents. However, does this excessive flexibility risk undermining genuine public interests that are critical for the future of Prague? Similarly, the protection of existing gardens within block housing remains ambiguous.

Protection of green spaces within housing blocks is essential
 
 
 

Transformační a rozvojové plochy s otazníkem

Žádáme rovněž o stanovení jednoznačného požadavku na zpracování územního plánu vymezené části Prahy (ÚPčP) či územní studie jako podkladu pro rozhodování pro transformační a rozvojové plochy stanovené v Metropolitním plánu. Na příkladech z poslední doby (Nákladové nádraží Žižkov, Bubny-Zátory) se ukazuje, že využití podrobnějšího podkladu, jakými ÚPčP či územní studie jsou, do nichž může vstupovat jak státní správa, tak samospráva, jednoznačně snižuje rizika nakládání developerů s těmito lokalitami.

Toto neupravuje dostatečně ani nově zavedená podmíněnost plánovacími smlouvami, protože se netýká všech transformačních a rozvojových ploch a zároveň nevyžadují zpracování detailnějšího plánu projednaného se všemi významnými subjekty včetně veřejnosti. Systém požadavků pro nakládání s transformačními a rozvojovými plochami vč. tzv. parametrické regulace pak naopak může znevýhodňovat stavebníky a vlastníky menších pozemků.

Nejednoznačný výklad některých textových částí Metropolitního plánu může mít kromě ohrožení udržitelného rozvoje Prahy ve výsledku podobný efekt. Jsme zvědaví, jak se pražský magistrát nejen s našimi připomínkami, resp. námitkami vypořádá. Finální podoba významného dokumentu by měla být schvalována někdy před létem příštího roku zastupitelstvem. Dění kolem něj budeme i nadále sledovat.

Líbí se vám, co v AutoMatu děláme? Podpořte nás a nakrmte AutoMat jakoukoliv částkou. Děkujeme! 

Transformational and Development Areas – a Question Mark

We also request a clear requirement for the preparation of a local urban plan (ÚPčP) or an urban study as a basis for decision-making for transformational and development areas designated in the Metropolitan Plan. Recent examples (Nákladové nádraží Žižkov, Bubny-Zátory) show that using more detailed materials, such as ÚPčP or urban studies—which can involve both state authorities and local government—significantly reduces the risks of developers’ handling of these areas.

This is not sufficiently addressed by the newly introduced conditionality via planning agreements, as it does not apply to all transformational and development areas and does not require the preparation of a detailed plan discussed with all relevant stakeholders, including the public. The system of requirements for managing transformational and development areas, including so-called parametric regulation, may, on the contrary, disadvantage smaller landowners and developers.

Ambiguous interpretation of certain textual parts of the Metropolitan Plan could, besides threatening sustainable development in Prague, have a similar negative effect in practice. We are curious to see how the Prague City Hall will handle not only our comments but also our objections. The final form of this important document is expected to be approved by the city council sometime before next summer. We will continue to monitor developments around it.

If you like what we do at AutoMat, support us and feed AutoMat with any contribution. Thank you!