Prague Envy

Cycling development in Prague is going gangbusters compared to Budapest -- or at least it would seem so. A recent article gives a concise but comprehensive picture of the transport cycling scene in the Czech capital.

Official data from Prague City Hall shows cyclists with a 0.5-2 percent modal share, on par with the figures from Budapest. But Budapest's data is more than 10 years old, and the numbers have clearly gone up since then, especially considering the whole Critical Mass phenomenon only got started in 2004. (Tellingly, Prague's most recent Critical Mass drew 4,000 riders, compared to about 15,000 at Budapest's last one and 80,000 during the spring 2007 ride.)

Despite the fact that more people bike in Budapest, Prague seems to be doing a better job at cycling development.

A few tidbits from the article:

• Budapest has about 160 km of paths and routes while Prague has 135 km of bike paths and 360 of signed routes.
  
• Prague's long-term plan calls for the completion of more than 670 km of routes. Budapest is shooting no higher than 500.
  
• Prague has a new bike-share system (see photo). Budapest has none.
  
• Prague City Hall has a monitoring system in place to follow trends in cycling traffic (cycling trips are up 47% over the last three years). Budapest has no such system. And with no data on cycling levels, what rational basis is there for developing infrastructure and other services?
  

How can it be that the city with more demand for cycling improvements is getting less supply?

Go Guerrillas!

A writer for Bicycling Magazine emailed the other day asking about the guerrilla bike lanes in Budapest. From the wording of her query, it seemed she was already acquainted with a guerrilla bike lane movement here. She was just counting on me, as a local cycling blogger with his ear to the ground and feet in the clips, to fill her in on the nitty gritty -- its history here, some specific local examples and a quote about the importance of this particular form of civil disobedience to the larger cycling movement.

But she caught me flat-footed. It wasn't just that I didn't know the nitty gritty -- I'd never heard of guerrilla bike lanes, not in Budapest or anywhere else. In a panic to come up with some authoritative info, I fired off messages to some cycling friends to bail me out. But I got just one reply, and it offered no inside dope, only the contact details of another local cyclist.

My tentative conclusion was: there's no guerrilla bike lane movement here, or at least not one to speak of. However, by some strange coincidence, the next day, there appeared two unauthorised bike signs on the Pest end of Margit bridge -- about a 5 minute ride from our flat. The guerrilla lanes I'd been seeking.

The sign in the photo has a twin on the opposite sidewalk. I assume it's inspired by the current controversy (or more detailed info in Hungarian) about the cycling facilities envisaged for the pending renovation of Margit bridge. According to current plans, the main cycling accommodation would be a single bi-directional path on the north side of the bridge. Many transport cyclists, myself included, favour a solution with wide single-direction paths on both sides of the bridge, and a provision that allows cyclists to continue riding down the körút once off the bridge.

Not long ago, if you wanted to ride straight off the bridge and down the körút, you were confronted with a steel fence. The only open route was to go down the ramp beneath the bridge, and then to the footpath/bike path on the Danube bank. Which, of course, is of no help to those heading toward Nyugati station. But, according to the typical paternalistic philosophy of Budapest traffic planners, cyclists belong on sidewalks and out of the way of cars, regardless of the inconvenience to the former.

Of course, cyclists have always gone around the barriers in order to get to where they're going. And at some point the barriers were removed, as you can see in the picture. The improvised signs are the coup de grâce that give the go-ahead to körút-bound cyclists.

These signs mark out the first example I've seen of guerrilla bike lanes in Budapest. As far as I'm concerned, they're an act worth following.

Same Old Solutions for Margit Bridge

The twin bike lanes envisaged in the impending refurbishment of Margit bridge are under threat, as cycling activists and city officials debate how to best accommodate different types of non-motorised transport on the busiest river crossing in Budapest.

According to the latest reports, the project, scheduled to start in early 2009, would include a bi-directional cycling path on the north side (island-facing) of the bridge. A waist-high guard rail would separate it from from motor traffic while coloured paving tiles would visually distinguish it from the adjacent footpath. However, no physical barrier would separate pedestrians and cyclists. The Hungarian Cycling Club had argued that the path should be 2.5 m wide to safely accommodate two directions of bike traffic, but this has been pared down to 1.8 metres.

On the opposite (south) side of the bridge would be a more basic shared-use path for both cyclists and pedestrians -- basically the same as the existing set up except that it would be signed as one-way for cyclists.

In fact, the whole scheme is sounding quite a lot like the existing set-up, with the main difference being the addition of coloured paving to mark cycling territory on the north side foot/cycling facility. I have to say I'm skeptical whether this is enough to impose order on the current free-for-all on the bridge's two walkways.

From a transport cycling point of view, the best solution would be to have one-way cycling lanes on both shoulders of the bridge, physically separated from the pedestrian traffic. I've extolled the virtues of such solutions before, with the best local example being on Alkotmány utca. It's another question how much they should be separated from motor traffic. Some users would prefer a physical barrier -- like the guard rail now proposed -- while others would just as soon have no barrier and only a marked lane. The latter solution would take up less space, while the former may better serve recreational riders, including children, who use the bridge to access Margit Island.

Including a two-way path on the island-facing side of the bridge was also seen as a way to ease island access, as, under the current set up, the only way to get to the island from the south-side path is to go down through the underpass below the tram stop. I would argue, why not create a level crossing there? The main argument against it, I imagine, would be that this would interrupt the flow of car traffic. This, of course, is the main thing blocking development of non-motorised transport and better traffic safety in Budapest -- the idea that the road system has to be designed everywhere to foster fast-moving, high-volume car traffic.

In Budapest, major cycling infrastructure rarely happens as a stand-along project. It generally can only be justified as part of a larger road reconstruction. The renovation of Margit Bridge, therefore, is a rare opportunity to get things right where cycling is concerned. It could be the first step of a first-class cycling accommodation around the whole körút, one that's modelled on the best examples from Amsterdam, Berlin and Copenhagen. Instead, it's so far looking like business as usual, with a staunch refusal to do anything that would challenge the supremacy of cars.

Prague Makes a Smooth Move

Compared to Budapest, Prague is not much of a cycling city -- this was immediately apparent to me when I took a ride around the Czech capital a couple weekends ago. My guide for the ride was Daniel Mourek, a former Prague city council member and longtime cycling activist. He pointed up a couple reasons for this, one being that, until recently, city burghurs have refused to allow any cycling accomodation in the historic city centre due primarily to aesthetic reasons: cycling paths wouldn't go with the centre's characteristic Old World cobblestones.

There are other reasons that cycling is less popular there . Prague is a big walking town, with about 20% of all intracity trips being by foot. The terrain is a bit hillier than in Budapest and public transport, due to larger subsidies and a more sensible time-based ticketing system, is more affordable. 

But in the coming years, we can expect Prague to close at least part of the cycling gap with Budapest. For one thing, Prague is spending serious money on cycling -- about EUR 2.5 million annually, an amount that has grown steadily over the last seven years, from the time city leaders agreed once and for all that cycling should be a priority. This amount is about double what Budapest is spending, despite the fact there's much greater interest in transport cycling here.

The other thing is that the guardians of Prague's historically protected centre have capitulated on the bike path dispute. After the disastrous floods of August 2002, the pedestrian quay along the east bank of the Vltava River had to be rebuilt, including with new cobblestones. The original reconstruction didn't include a cycling path, but after activists laid on the pressure, City Hall agreed to a solution in which twin tracks of smooth, tan stone were laid down the cobblestone korzó. The tracks are very narrow -- maybe 50 cm -- but they provide bump-free passage through the cobblestones while also blending in with the rest of the stonework. This accomodation demonstrated to the cycling naysayers in the historic district that bike paths needn't detract from the Prague's Medieval charm.

It seems to me that this type of compromise could serve as an example to other European cities that struggle to reconcile historic preservation with modern development. This includes Budapest, with a prime example being the main square at Óbuda. The  north-south cycling route from Budapest to the Danube Bend cuts right across this square, and it's the least pleasant part of the journey because of the cobblestones. Another example is Andrássy út, where the cycling paths on both sides of the street intermittently cross cobblestone bus stops. 

These are examples of when biking accomodation doesn't necessarily have to cost more, but rather just needs to be given some consideration before roads are built.