Plzeňská after its reconstruction: criticism of the bike lanes misses the point. The result is still a missed opportunity

New traffic layout on Plzeňská Street in Prague 5 has sparked heated debate. Some critics argue that the new bike lanes have taken traffic lanes away from cars. But a comparison of the old and new layouts tells a different story: the number of lanes for cars was reduced along less than 300 metres in total, and in every one of these locations, space was simultaneously added for parking or deliveries. The outcome for cyclists, however, is hardly cause for celebration either: the measures are fragmented, unprotected, and on the higher-priority A8 cycle route they fall well short of the required standard.

Following the completion of another stage of road and underground infrastructure works, a new traffic layout was introduced on Plzeňská Street. The section in question runs from the city centre, from Mozartova Street to Pod Kotlářkou, and is almost 2.7 kilometres long. The lowest section, between Mozartova and Na Čečeličce, where only bike markings were added, was completed during the previous stage.

What preceded the current layout and what changes we managed to secure

This year, Prague City Hall issued the draft public measure governing the local traffic layout twice: first in January and then again at the end of April. AutoMat submitted comments on both proposals. We opened our comments with the following:

“We see the significant fragmentation of the proposed measures as a general problem with the entire scheme from the perspective of safe and comfortable cycling (i.e. the frequent alternation of different types of integrated cycling measures, generally of lower quality: V 20 markings and advisory cycle lanes), which ultimately do little or nothing to improve the safety of cycling compared with the current situation. This is particularly problematic given that, under Prague’s citywide cycle route network, this is the A8 primary cycle route. The highest standards of cycling infrastructure set out in the Prague Active Mobility Standards should therefore be applied here — namely, a cycle track or a so-called Danish cycle lane (with the latter appearing to us to be the more suitable option for this area).”

The full text is available here: comments on the first proposal and comments on the second proposal. In summary, unfortunately, we were only able to secure a few limited changes between the first and second versions. Most notably, bollards were added to areas of restricted visibility around some intersections. These can help prevent illegal parking, improve sightlines and stop cars from entering areas intended to provide a safer passage for cyclists. We had already raised concerns in May about the contradiction between adding parking spaces and the city’s stated commitment to supporting active mobility in our article Parking as a Tool for Sustainable Transport? Prague’s Plzeňská Paradox.

The dangerous and substandard-width section of the advisory cycle lane near the Kavalírka bus stop, which is used for bus manoeuvring, was also changed. The advisory cycle lane was replaced with V 20 cycle markings. This does not represent an upgrade in infrastructure standards, but at least removes an element that could have created a false sense of safety in a location where there was not enough space for a safe advisory cycle lane.

A significantly different and higher-quality design was also recommended by the Prague City Council’s Cycling Transport Commission. The solution that was ultimately adopted was therefore not the only option under consideration.

What changed this summer, in 2026?

A recurring claim in the public debate is that the new cycle lanes have taken away a car lane along a large part of Plzeňská Street. A comparison of the original and implemented layouts does not bear this out. The change from two car lanes to one occurred in four sections.

In total, the number of traffic lanes (TL) was reduced along less than 300 metres. Specifically:

Na Čečeličce – U Paliárky: reduced from 2 TL to 1 TL (approx. 50 m);
U Paliárky – Erbenova: reduced from 2 TL to 1 TL (approx. 25 m);
Mahenova – U Tyrše: reduced from 2 TL to 1 TL (approx. 150 m);
U Tyrše – Holečkova: reduced from 2 TL to 1 TL (approx. 60 m).

n total, this amounts to around 285 metres — roughly one tenth of the almost 2.7-kilometre-long section in question. On the following stretches, from Holečkova to Pod Kotlářkou, two through lanes for cars remain, along with the corresponding turning and merging lanes.

Importantly, in all four sections, the reduction in the number of lanes is accompanied by the creation of new parking or loading spaces. It is therefore not accurate to claim that a car lane was simply “taken away by a cycle lane”. The street’s design reflects the decision to maintain car traffic, parking, deliveries and tram services; the cycling measures were fitted into the space left over after these priorities had been accommodated.

This does not mean that local lane reductions cannot affect traffic merging or the length of queues. But the mere number of marked lanes does not demonstrate that the capacity of the entire Plzeňská corridor has been cut in half. Such a conclusion would require a traffic model or a comparison of actual traffic volumes, journey times and queue lengths before and after the changes.

Plzeňská after reconstruction. Photo: Alena Rybičková

If we look at the situation more closely, this “cycling infrastructure” may actually have done more for drivers than for people cycling. A cycle pictogram marking does not create a separate space — it simply signals that cyclists are expected to use the route and indicates their intended line of travel.

A typical example is the area around the U Zvonu tram stop. The original road layout was approximately 4.35 metres wide, making it virtually impossible to overtake a cyclist safely while maintaining the required 1.5-metre passing distance. With the new parallel lanes, however, differences in vehicle speeds between adjacent lanes are not legally treated in the same way as conventional overtaking. In practice, this means a car can pass a cyclist with very little clearance.

The reality on the ground is even worse than the design

The most serious problem only became apparent after the parking spaces were marked out. The design envisaged vehicles parking partially on the pavement. In the final layout, however, the extent to which vehicles are supposed to encroach onto the pavement is not clearly marked, and the kerb has not been adapted in a way that would make the intended parking arrangement intuitive and safe for drivers. As a result, cars often remain entirely in the roadway and encroach into the advisory cycle lane.

Simply running a cycle lane alongside parked cars already requires an adequate safety buffer because of the risk of doors suddenly being opened into the cyclist’s path — known as dooring. When parked cars also extend directly into the cycle lane, the available safe space is reduced even further, forcing cyclists to move closer to passing traffic. What was intended to at least make cycling movements more predictable thus becomes, in places, a buffer zone for people getting out of cars.

AutoMat’s short explainer video explains more about the risks of car doors opening into a cyclist’s path.

Why the result is a missed opportunity

A Novinky article made the misleading claim that the new cycle lane had taken up half of Plzeňská Street in the direction out of the city centre. Setting the record straight, however, does not mean that we consider the current layout of the street a good solution. Compared with the previous situation, with no cycling markings at all, it is a modest improvement — but it remains a very weak compromise.

• Advisory cycle lanes repeatedly give way to cycle pictogram markings and then start again, so there is no continuous, intuitive route.
• People cycling are separated from heavy motor traffic by nothing more than road markings, with no physical protection.
• Some sections run immediately alongside parked vehicles and their door zones.
• The new markings may help only the most experienced cyclists, who are accustomed to riding in heavy urban traffic. Even for them, however, the benefits are questionable. The cycle lane provides no physical protection, and cars can pass them in the adjacent lane without being subject to the mandatory 1.5-metre passing distance. This is particularly problematic when cycling uphill at a slower speed.
• On the higher-priority A8 route, the infrastructure does not meet the standard of a cycle track or Danish-style cycle lane envisaged by the [Prague Active Mobility Standards].

Moreover, a January 2026 record of the Prague 5 Transport Commission describes the current layout as provisional. Further changes are expected within the next few years in connection with a trolleybus or electric bus route and potentially wider pavements. All the more reason, then, to ensure that today’s compromise is not treated as a permanent solution.

What should happen next?

The solution adopted on Plzeňská is, to put it euphemistically, unfortunate. Cars and parking were given priority, while cycling measures were squeezed into whatever space was left. In all four sections where the number of traffic lanes for cars was reduced, new parking or loading spaces were created at the same time. It is therefore not true that a car lane was simply “taken away by a cycle lane”.

At the same time, however, we cannot overlook the fundamental imbalance involved: a person in a car is protected by the vehicle’s structure, while a person on a bicycle faces a vastly greater risk of serious injury in the event of a collision. The safety of more vulnerable road users should therefore be one of the fundamental starting points of street design — not something addressed only in whatever space remains.

The result is a route that is usable primarily by experienced cyclists, while children, older people and those who feel less confident cycling will continue to avoid it.

Do you like what we do at AutoMat? Support us and feed AutoMat with any amount. Thank you!