Three Thousand Kilometres of Lost Paths: IPR Maps What Prague Could Simply Reopen

There are more than 3,000 kilometres of vanished historical paths in Prague and its metropolitan area, and a new study from the Institute of Planning and Development says a large share of them could be brought back cheaply. IPR published the Cesty (Paths) study on 20 August. It examines the scope for restoring lost and historical routes in the peri-urban landscape around Prague, and their potential as green infrastructure and as a network for getting about without a car.

The number that makes the study actionable is not the 3,000 kilometres. It is the ownership: more than 50 per cent of the vanished paths are still owned by municipalities today, with a further share belonging to the state or the region.

Why ownership is the whole argument

Land assembly is normally the thing that kills a new route through open country. IPR's framing is that these particular routes escape that problem, because they never legally disappeared — they are still entered in the cadastre.

"Land in Prague and the surrounding area is owned by many owners, which complicates the delivery of any new paths or greenery. Our aim was first and foremost to map and examine the potential for restoring vanished paths that are still recorded in the cadastre and often still in municipal ownership, and which are therefore relatively easy to restore. That is why in June we presented the material at a meeting with the mayors of municipalities and city districts, including examples of completed schemes, with the aim of prompting further projects."

— Marek Zděradička, Director of the Infrastructure Section, IPR Praha

That June presentation matters more than the publication date. The study is not a plan the city will build; it is a catalogue handed to the people who would have to build it. Its concrete output is a shortlist of priority sections suitable for restoration or adjustment.

What a restored path is supposed to do

IPR describes the peri-urban landscape around Prague as suffering from fragmentation, a shortage of vegetation and a gradual loss of the identity that the old paths carry. The study's case is that low-cost measures against all three exist and are being under-used, even though some municipalities and city districts are already restoring vanished paths on their own.

The claimed benefits are split between people and landscape. For people: better permeability of the countryside, new recreational options, and links between the region and Prague for those who would rather not drive. For the landscape: the vegetation along a path — tree alleys, shrubs, grass strips — supports biodiversity, limits erosion, catches dust, damps noise and creates habitat.

IPR also puts the paths in the frame of climate change, growing traffic and continuing urbanisation, which is a broader claim than the study's own mapping supports on its own, and is presented as context rather than as a finding.

The historical argument

Prague's position made it a trade and transport hub of European significance, and a network of pilgrimage routes grew up around it — some heading for Prague Castle, others feeding the Way of St James. The study notes that more than half of the original trading routes now coincide with the present-day motorway network, because the historical paths took the ideal line through the terrain.

That is a neat observation with a sharp implication: the routes that were not absorbed into the motorway network are exactly the ones still available. They are the candidates for recreation, walking and cycling, and for making the landscape passable again.

What would have to happen next

Zděradička's second point is about status rather than construction.

"As already completed cases show, restoring paths need not be complicated — from mowing a strip of the path through surface treatment to planting an alley, you can gradually arrive at new paths in the landscape and a place for recreation. They must be seen as fully-fledged public infrastructure. They therefore need to be entered into plans, signage and street furniture added, and they need to be taken into account in area development and in transport projects."

— Marek Zděradička, IPR Praha

Read together, the two quotes describe a gap rather than a project. The physical work is graded from trivial (cut a strip) to modest (plant trees). The institutional work — getting a path into a plan, onto a sign, and into the assumptions of a transport project — is the part nobody currently owns. IPR has now given the municipalities a map and a priority list. Whether anything is cleared depends on the mayors who sat in that room in June.