We summarize the evaluation of the national Concept for Urban and Active Mobility

The development of active and sustainable mobility in the Czech Republic is not progressing as the state committed to before 2021. The assessment of selected indicators is also often not clear-cut. This follows from the mid-term evaluation of the Concept for Urban and Active Mobility for the period 2021–2030.

The Concept for Urban and Active Mobility, the interim evaluation of which (as of 30 September 2025) is available, forms the basis for Sustainable Urban Mobility Plans (SUMP). Their development is currently required in order to access subsidy funding for transport measures. As a result, cities prepare SUMPs even though they are not directly required to do so by law.

However, their evaluation points to frequent systemic shortcomings—especially insufficient use of up-to-date data, a weak link to real financial capacity, limited cooperation between cities and regions, a formalistic approach to public communication, and overall insufficient integration of transport.

What can be praised

The evaluation highlights several positive developments. For example, an amendment to Decree No. 294/2015 Coll. introduced new traffic signs for contraflow cycling streets and dead-end streets accessible to bicycles or other non-motorized transport. Progress in traffic calming is also gradually being supported by new Technical Conditions (TP) 132 – Principles of Traffic Calming on Roadways in Municipalities (e.g., for the creation of shared zones).

Project funding is secured through various sources, and new programmes have also been created, such as the Programme to Support Infrastructure for Cycling Transport under the National Recovery Plan. However, from publicly available information, it is not easy to assess how actively or successfully cities are drawing on these funds.

What needs improvement

On the other hand, there is room for improvement in coordination and planning of activities across different levels (state–region–city). Here, unclear division of responsibilities and roles among stakeholders creates friction.

Regarding SUMPs, the evaluation mentions problematic external preparation of these plans, insufficient integration with other modes of transport (e.g., cycling + public transport), inadequate parking policy solutions, and the absence of a long-term communication strategy.

In terms of cycling legislation, an amendment to Act No. 361/2000 Coll., on road traffic, is still missing, despite ongoing work on basic principles. Systemic improvements could include, for example, introducing priority for cyclists at cycle crossings or formalizing so-called indirect left turns. With all due respect to new traffic signs, such changes would likely have a much greater positive impact on cyclist comfort and safety.

In summary

Despite clear shortcomings in implementation, the interim evaluation shows that some progress is being made. The greatest room for improvement lies in practical implementation—many goals already exist on paper, but now they need to be taken seriously in the streets.

A simplified overview of individual measures and their status is shown in the table.

If you like what we do at AutoMat, support us—any contribution helps. Thank you.