City Cycling Index
A live 0–100 cycling-readiness score for your city
Computed from live OpenStreetMap, population and ride data — not a once-a-year survey. Every point on the score maps to a concrete, buildable action.
Ask us for your city's reportSix dimensions, one score
Every city is scored on six dimensions, blended into a single index. A city with no ride data yet still scores on the rest.
Coverage
How much separated bike infrastructure exists, per resident.
Connectivity
How joined-up the network is — the density of gaps and abrupt path ends.
Access
Share of residents and key destinations within reach of bike infrastructure.
Ridership
Actual usage — the dimension a city can move fastest by getting people riding.
Safety
How safe riding is — crash and near-miss rates per distance ridden.
Amenities
Supporting facilities — bike parking, repair stations and drinking water.
What a score means
The composite lands your city in one of five bands.
World-class · 80+
Strong · 65+
Developing · 50+
Emerging · 35+
Early · 0+
Example — Sydney
A real scorecard, built from live data
Sydney scores 58.7 / 100 (Developing) on today's data — ride sub-scores excluded.
🚲 Sydney — City Cycling Index
Live open data · Party Onbici telemetry shown separately as the activation layer
This scorecard is a planning diagnostic, not a definitive city ranking.
Infrastructure Index
47
Emerging
open data only
of 100
Medium confidence
Scored on 4 of 6 dimensions
Coverage
38
Connectivity provisional
54
Access
46
Ridership
—
Safety
—
Amenities
58
Ridership & Safety — Party Onbici activation layer (app telemetry, a non-representative sample). It is kept out of the Infrastructure Index so the benchmark rests on open data alone; it greys out until enough ride data exists.
Sub-scores & evidence
| Dimension | Score | How it's measured | Lever to improve |
|---|---|---|---|
| Infrastructure (open data) | |||
| Coverage | 38 | 1,391 km protected · 214 km painted · 604 km shared — 2,294 km ≈ 3.01 km/km² built-up | Build protected lanes / paths |
| Connectivity | 54 | 5,504 missing links over 2,294 km of network ≈ 2.40/km — provisional (network-graph analysis not available for this snapshot) | Close the highest-severity missing links |
| Access | 46 | 37% of residents within 300 m of physically protected infrastructure (ITDP-style measure) | Fill accessibility-lane gaps where people live |
| Amenities | 58 | 6,110 parking · 214 repair · 913 water · 556 toilets ≈ 11.90 weighted units per km² of built-up area | Add parking / repair / water at hubs |
| Party Onbici activation layer | |||
| Pending — Ridership and Safety activate once representative Party Onbici or city-supplied ride data lands. They will join the full composite; the Infrastructure Index is unaffected either way. | |||
Benchmark lenses
| Lens | Headline | Detail |
|---|---|---|
| BNA-style low-stress connectivity | — insufficient data | Not assessed for this snapshot — the clustering abstains when the network is too large for its compute budget or too small to analyse. Abstentions never lower the composite scores. |
| Bike Score-style partial estimate | — insufficient data | 0 of 4 components (infrastructure, destinations); hills and commute mode share excluded — not comparable to an official Bike Score |
| CROW-style quality profile | — insufficient data | Cohesion · directness · safety · comfort · attractiveness diagnostic |
| Can-BICS-style comfort split | — insufficient data | Comfort-classified kilometres from the facility classifier |
| Data quality (BikeDNA-style) | — insufficient data | OSM completeness signals (surface tags, classification, data age) |
| Broad catchment (any cycleway) | — insufficient data | Residents within 800 m of any cycle infrastructure — a generous upper bound |
Benchmark lenses are unofficial estimates computed by Party Onbici from open data, inspired by the named frameworks. They are not official ITDP, PeopleForBikes, Bike Score, CROW or Can-BICS results.
Grey tiles and “not assessed” chips are deliberate abstentions, not errors: each lens declines to estimate where open data cannot support an honest number — a network too large or too small to cluster, too few routable junctions for a detour sample, or lighting tags on under 30% of ways (an unmapped city must never read as an unlit one). Abstentions never lower a city’s scores.
Priority actions
- Coverage (38) — Build protected lanes / paths.
- Access (46) — Extend separated infrastructure into residential areas — only 37% of residents live within 300 m of a physically protected lane.
- Connectivity (54) — Close the 10 highest-severity of the 5,504 mapped network gaps — ranked with rationale on the suggestions map.
Each action maps to a live map layer; the Pilot/ROI simulator then quantifies the payoff (index points + new cyclists per year).
Want your city's scorecard?
We'll build a live City Cycling Index report for your city and walk you through exactly what would move the needle.
Ask us for your city's report