The Opening of Dvorecký Bridge Is Approaching. Its Cycling Infrastructure Could Have Been Better

AutoMat has submitted comments on the traffic signage planned for Prague’s Dvorecký Bridge and its approaches. The aim is to improve an important infrastructure project which, due to its limited width, ultimately failed to provide space for the safe separation of cycling traffic. The case also serves as another example of the insufficient prioritisation of sustainable active mobility in Prague.

As Městem na kole noted last year, the original design included separated cycle tracks or cycle lanes running alongside the tram tracks. However, the visualisations differed from reality in one crucial respect: complete separation of cyclists would not be possible because of the bridge’s structural design. The bridge does not allow for different height levels between pedestrian walkways and cycling facilities.

During the years-long planning process, no one representing the city appears to have noticed this “detail” — or at least considered it important. Nor did anyone address the fact that the bridge’s width is insufficient to comfortably accommodate active mobility. As a result, Prague 4 ultimately recommended replacing the planned segregated facility with a shared-use path for both cyclists and pedestrians.

At that stage, both options had their advantages and disadvantages. The City Hall’s Cycling Commission sided with the district’s recommendation. However, we believe that the chosen solution will create unnecessary conflicts and potentially dangerous situations, similar to those already observed on the Štvanice Footbridge. For this reason, in our comments we asked the City of Prague to reconsider the option of one-way segregated cycle tracks on both sides of the bridge, marked with the C 10a traffic sign.

Photo: Prague 4

Better solution of intersections and the bike pictogram corridor

We also see as problematic the connection of the Dvorecký Bridge to the higher-order cycling route A 1, which is one of the most important cycling routes in the city. The current solution, where cyclists (and pedestrians as well) have to cross two busy streets (Nádražní and Strakonická), is, from the perspective of comfortable and barrier-free (cycling) infrastructure, a missed opportunity. If a ramp leading to the eastern edge of Strakonická (directly onto A 1) were added to the bridge, conditions for cyclists and pedestrians would immediately become significantly better. Unfortunately, however, this is now too late, just as with the segregated shared path.

In our comments, we requested the preservation of cycle pictogram corridors (V 20 – pictogram corridor for cyclists) at the bridge ramp on Na Zlíchově Street, which would alert others to a potentially increased presence of cyclists.

We also requested consideration of creating a cyclist-adjacent crossing linked to the pedestrian crossing instead of a combined pedestrian-and-cycle crossing on the eastern side of the bridge (Podolí). This would more clearly define space and increase comfort for cyclists traveling straight along route A 2 (the busiest cycling route in Prague), and it would also be more pleasant for pedestrians.

However, none of our comments were ultimately reflected.

Despite the shortcomings and missed opportunities described above, we are pleased with the new connection for public transport, cyclists, and pedestrians between Prague 5 and Prague 4.
 
Cover photo: Facebook: Strabag Česko