Live Scorecard · refreshed weekly from open data
City Cycling Index · Methodology v6

Greater Sydney

A live, open-data readiness scorecard for cycling in your city — built from OpenStreetMap and WorldPop, scored the same way for every city on Earth, and refreshed as the map changes.

Book a 30-min briefing See how it's scored
check_circleFree briefing check_circleNo data needed from your city check_circleNo procurement to start

Updated 6 Jul 2026, 19:58  ·  Confidence Medium confidence — scored on 4 of 6 dimensions

Infrastructure Index
22/100
Early
Open data only
3851 km
Cycle network mapped
2,340 km fully separated
47%
Residents near protected infra
within 300 m (ITDP-style)
1.2
Weighted amenities / km²
parking · repair · water · toilets
Built on open, verifiable sources

Numbers you can stand behind in a council chamber

No proprietary black box. Every score derives from public datasets your own analysts can verify — computed the same way for cities worldwide.

map

OpenStreetMap

Every lane, path and amenity — the same map your GIS team already uses, refreshed weekly.

ODbL · open data
groups

WorldPop

Gridded population counts, so "residents served" means actual people — not land area.

CC BY 4.0
select_all

geoBoundaries

Your study area is derived automatically from open administrative boundaries, and validated with your city before final reporting.

CC BY 4.0
balance

ITDP-aligned access

Access follows the ITDP framing: residents within 300 m of physically protected infrastructure.

Published methodology
Coverage19Connectivity0Access49Amenities12
How Greater Sydney scores

Four infrastructure dimensions, one transparent index

The Infrastructure Index rests on open data alone. Ride telemetry — Ridership and Safety — is held out as a separate activation layer so the benchmark can never be flattered by who happens to use our app.

Coverage
19
Connectivity
0
Access
49
Ridership
—
Safety
—
Amenities
12
bolt Activation layer pending. Ridership and Safety switch on once representative Party Onbici or city-supplied ride data lands. They join the full composite; the Infrastructure Index is unaffected either way.
Infrastructure Index — weekly trend
Sub-scores & evidence

What sits behind the number

Every dimension shows exactly how it's measured and the single lever that would move it. Nothing hidden.

Coverage 19

2,340 km protected · 477 km painted · 1,034 km shared — 3,851 km ≈ 0.55 km/km² built-up

Lever to improveBuild protected lanes / paths
Connectivity 0

5,425 missing links over 3,851 km of network ≈ 1.41/km — provisional (network-graph analysis not available for this snapshot)

Lever to improveClose the highest-severity missing links
Access 49

47% of residents within 300 m of physically protected infrastructure (ITDP-style measure)

Lever to improveFill accessibility-lane gaps where people live
Amenities 12

2,737 parking · 43 repair · 2,429 water · 1,766 toilets ≈ 1.23 weighted units per km² of built-up area

Lever to improveAdd parking / repair / water at hubs

Network comfort mix

Classified by separation
High — separated 2340 km Medium — shared 1034 km Low — painted 477 km

Comparable on-street lane network: 2817 km of separated + painted lanes — the like-for-like figure to set beside your city's own lane count. The full 3851 km above additionally counts shared and off-road paths, so it reads higher.

Benchmark lenses

Greater Sydney seen through the world's cycling frameworks

Unofficial estimates computed from open data, inspired by ITDP, PeopleForBikes, CROW, Can-BICS and BikeDNA. Each lens abstains where the data can't support a reliable number — abstentions never lower the score.

BNA-style low-stress connectivity —

Insufficient data — this lens declines rather than guess.

Bike Score-style partial estimate 30

2 of 4 components (infrastructure, destinations); hills and commute mode share excluded — not comparable to an official Bike Score

CROW-style quality profile partial diagnostic — 3 of 5 axes
Cohesion: OSM network too smallDirectness: goodSafety: poorComfort: fairAttractiveness: OSM tags too sparse
Can-BICS-style comfort split 2,340 km high-comfort

2,340 km high (separated) · 1,034 km medium (shared) · 477 km low (painted)

Data quality (BikeDNA-style) 82% surface-tagged

25,227 mapped ways · 100% classified · OSM data 1 days old

Broad catchment (any cycleway) 91%

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 a reliable number. Abstentions never lower a city's scores.

flag Priority actions. Connectivity (0) · Amenities (12) · Coverage (19)
What we'd build for Greater Sydney

The highest-impact corridors, ranked by residents served

Drawn from OpenStreetMap and WorldPop via our ROI model. Each corridor closes a real gap in today's network and leads with its yearly payoff — indicative health benefit and running-cost savings; new-cyclist and CO₂ figures span a conservative to an ambitious uptake scenario.

Bike lane Missing link Existing network

Estimates from OpenStreetMap & WorldPop via the Party Onbici ROI model — indicative figures for prioritisation, not a substitute for detailed design. "People served" counts residents within the corridor catchment.

  1. 1
    directions_bikeBike lane

    This area ranks highly because it connects schools (26), rail/ferry (51), workplaces (409), shops & services (363) within a 2 km cycling catchment, addressing a 212 m gap in the existing network.

    People served
    13,550
    Fuel & running-cost saving / year
    $6,015 – $36,222
    conservative–ambitious uptake
    New cyclists / year
    135 – 813
    conservative–ambitious uptake
    Destinations connected
    849
    CO₂ saved / year
    6.6 t – 39.8 t
    conservative–ambitious uptake
  2. 2
    directions_bikeMissing link · 17 m

    This area ranks highly because it connects workplaces (1), shops & services (3) within a 2 km cycling catchment, addressing a 17 m gap in the existing network.

    People served
    12,250
    Fuel & running-cost saving / year
    $5,436 – $32,747
    conservative–ambitious uptake
    New cyclists / year
    122 – 735
    conservative–ambitious uptake
    Destinations connected
    4
    CO₂ saved / year
    6.0 t – 36.0 t
    conservative–ambitious uptake
  3. 3
    directions_bikeMissing link · 17 m

    This area ranks highly because it connects workplaces (1), shops & services (3) within a 2 km cycling catchment, addressing a 17 m gap in the existing network.

    People served
    11,950
    Fuel & running-cost saving / year
    $5,346 – $31,945
    conservative–ambitious uptake
    New cyclists / year
    120 – 717
    conservative–ambitious uptake
    Destinations connected
    4
    CO₂ saved / year
    5.9 t – 35.1 t
    conservative–ambitious uptake
  4. 4
    directions_bikeMissing link · 18 m

    This area ranks highly because it connects schools (15), rail/ferry (26), workplaces (237), shops & services (297) within a 2 km cycling catchment, addressing a 18 m gap in the existing network.

    People served
    11,869
    Fuel & running-cost saving / year
    $5,302 – $31,722
    conservative–ambitious uptake
    New cyclists / year
    119 – 712
    conservative–ambitious uptake
    Destinations connected
    575
    CO₂ saved / year
    5.8 t – 34.9 t
    conservative–ambitious uptake
  5. 5
    directions_bikeBike lane

    This area ranks highly because it connects workplaces (1), shops & services (6) within a 2 km cycling catchment, addressing a 157 m gap in the existing network.

    People served
    11,650
    Fuel & running-cost saving / year
    $5,168 – $31,143
    conservative–ambitious uptake
    New cyclists / year
    116 – 699
    conservative–ambitious uptake
    Destinations connected
    7
    CO₂ saved / year
    5.7 t – 34.3 t
    conservative–ambitious uptake
  6. 6
    directions_bikeMissing link · 17 m

    This area ranks highly because it connects schools (15), rail/ferry (10), workplaces (170), shops & services (267) within a 2 km cycling catchment, addressing a 17 m gap in the existing network.

    People served
    10,771
    Fuel & running-cost saving / year
    $4,812 – $28,782
    conservative–ambitious uptake
    New cyclists / year
    108 – 646
    conservative–ambitious uptake
    Destinations connected
    462
    CO₂ saved / year
    5.3 t – 31.7 t
    conservative–ambitious uptake
  7. 7
    directions_bikeBike lane

    This area ranks highly because it connects schools (13), rail/ferry (10), workplaces (210), shops & services (281) within a 2 km cycling catchment, addressing a 212 m gap in the existing network.

    People served
    9,602
    Fuel & running-cost saving / year
    $4,277 – $25,663
    conservative–ambitious uptake
    New cyclists / year
    96 – 576
    conservative–ambitious uptake
    Destinations connected
    514
    CO₂ saved / year
    4.7 t – 28.2 t
    conservative–ambitious uptake
  8. 8
    directions_bikeBike lane

    This area ranks highly because it connects workplaces (1), shops & services (3) within a 2 km cycling catchment, addressing a 241 m gap in the existing network.

    People served
    9,550
    Fuel & running-cost saving / year
    $4,277 – $25,529
    conservative–ambitious uptake
    New cyclists / year
    96 – 573
    conservative–ambitious uptake
    Destinations connected
    4
    CO₂ saved / year
    4.7 t – 28.1 t
    conservative–ambitious uptake
  9. 9
    directions_bikeMissing link · 16 m

    This area ranks highly because it connects schools (28), rail/ferry (53), workplaces (399), shops & services (352) within a 2 km cycling catchment, addressing a 16 m gap in the existing network.

    People served
    9,386
    Fuel & running-cost saving / year
    $4,188 – $25,084
    conservative–ambitious uptake
    New cyclists / year
    94 – 563
    conservative–ambitious uptake
    Destinations connected
    832
    CO₂ saved / year
    4.6 t – 27.6 t
    conservative–ambitious uptake
  10. 10
    directions_bikeMissing link · 15 m

    This area ranks highly because it connects schools (28), rail/ferry (40), workplaces (393), shops & services (343) within a 2 km cycling catchment, addressing a 15 m gap in the existing network.

    People served
    9,330
    Fuel & running-cost saving / year
    $4,143 – $24,950
    conservative–ambitious uptake
    New cyclists / year
    93 – 560
    conservative–ambitious uptake
    Destinations connected
    804
    CO₂ saved / year
    4.6 t – 27.4 t
    conservative–ambitious uptake
Your city, scored

From first call to council-ready in three steps

Nothing is required from your team to begin — the open data already exists.

1

We score your boundary

We run the index on an open-data study area for your city — no data requests, no integration work — then validate the exact boundary with you before final reporting.

2

You get the live scorecard

A permanent link like this page: six dimensions, benchmark lenses, and ranked build corridors — refreshed weekly.

3

You brief your council

Sourced figures, peer rankings and impact-ranked corridors — ready to drop into a budget case or transport strategy.

Common questions

What transport teams ask us first

Something else on your mind? Bring it to the briefing — or email hello@partyonbici.com.

Will the methodology hold up if it's challenged?expand_more
Yes — that's the design goal. Every score traces to published open data, the methodology is versioned and public, targets and weights are documented, and each benchmark lens abstains rather than guesses when the data can't support a well-founded number. Your own analysts can reproduce any figure.
Nothing. The scorecard is computed entirely from open data on your official geoBoundaries footprint. If you later share ride or count data, it activates the Ridership and Safety dimensions — but the Infrastructure Index never depends on it.
The underlying map refreshes weekly; each scorecard shows its exact computation timestamp and the age of its OSM extract. When your city builds a new protected lane and it lands on the map, your score moves.
No. The Infrastructure Index uses only open geographic data — no personal information. Population figures are WorldPop statistical grids. Any future ride telemetry is aggregate, held in-region, and kept strictly outside the open-data benchmark.
The briefing and this preview scorecard are free — no procurement needed. Ongoing plans (live scorecard, corridor planning tools, consultation mapping) are an annual subscription scaled to your city's size — in the range of standard municipal GIS and analytics tooling, not a capital project. The exact figure is scoped at the briefing, but it's a line item a team can plan around, not a tender.
For city & transport teams

Put your city's cycling readiness on the record

Book a 30-minute briefing and we'll walk your team through this scorecard, then stand up a live index for your own boundary — same method, same open data, comparable worldwide.

  • check_circleA live scorecard for your admin boundary, refreshed weekly
  • check_circleImpact-ranked corridors mapped to your network gaps
  • check_circleVersioned, documented methodology you can reproduce

Book a briefing

We'll reply within one business day.

verified Free · 30 minutes · no procurement required

  • arrow_forward We score your boundary from open data
  • arrow_forward You get a live scorecard like this one
  • arrow_forward You brief your council with the numbers
Request a briefing

Prefer email? hello@partyonbici.com

Methodology v6 — versioned and documented targets and weights. Scores are 0–100 against published targets. Each composite blends available sub-scores, renormalising weights so excluded dimensions don't distort the total. Area uses the populated bounding box pending the geoBoundaries admin footprint. Network length is OSM-classified route-kilometres (separated + painted + shared paths) and may exceed a city's own lane-only total, which typically counts painted and separated lanes only.

Boundaries © geoBoundaries (CC BY 4.0) · infrastructure © OpenStreetMap contributors · population: WorldPop.  ·  This scorecard is a planning diagnostic, not a definitive city ranking.  ·  Party Onbici · shared scorecard