Methodology for the Assessment and Improvement of Urban Cycling Networks

2. Objectives of the Assessment

The objective of a cycling network assessment is to provide an objective evaluation of the performance of infrastructure dedicated to active mobility, identifying its strengths, weaknesses, and opportunities for improvement. Beyond simply inventorying cycle lanes or cycling routes, this type of study seeks to understand how the network actually performs from the perspective of its different users and to determine the extent to which it satisfies the fundamental principles of safety, continuity, accessibility, connectivity, and operational efficiency.

To achieve this, the assessment must address a broad range of technical aspects that characterise not only the physical condition of the infrastructure but also its operational performance and its integration within the surrounding urban environment.

A comprehensive cycling network assessment should be capable of answering several key questions, including:

• Does the cycling network function as a continuous system, or are there discontinuities that hinder user movements?
• Are the different infrastructure typologies consistent and appropriate for the characteristics of each street or corridor?
• Do the cycling facilities provide adequate levels of safety for cyclists, Personal Mobility Vehicle (PMV) users, and pedestrians?
• Are there significant conflicts between different transport modes, and what are their underlying causes?
• Does the infrastructure provide an appropriate level of comfort, legibility, and overall quality for users?
• Does the network effectively connect the city's main trip generators and attractors, such as residential areas, educational facilities, public transport stations, commercial centres, and other key urban destinations?
• What is the actual level of use of each cycling corridor, and how are mobility flows distributed throughout the network?
• Which physical or operational factors limit accessibility or reduce the functionality of specific routes?
• Which interventions would deliver the greatest improvements in safety, continuity, and network efficiency while maximising the return on public investment?

Answering these questions provides a detailed understanding of how the cycling network performs in practice and establishes the technical basis for defining objective intervention strategies. These strategies can then be prioritised according to criteria such as effectiveness, safety, economic efficiency, feasibility, and social benefit.



From this perspective, a cycling network assessment goes beyond being a purely descriptive exercise. Instead, it becomes a decision-support tool that enables public authorities and planners to optimise active mobility planning and ensure that future investments are directed towards real, measurable, and technically justified needs.

3. Cycling Network Assessment Methodology

The assessment of a cycling network should be undertaken using a structured methodology that enables an objective evaluation of the existing infrastructure, assesses its performance from both functional and operational perspectives, and identifies the interventions with the greatest potential to improve cycling and pedestrian mobility.



The methodology proposed in this article consists of twelve consecutive phases, ranging from the initial inventory of the cycling infrastructure to the definition and prioritisation of improvement measures. Each phase generates the information required to support the next stage of the process, allowing the development of a comprehensive diagnosis of the network and the establishment of an evidence-based programme of interventions founded on objective technical criteria.

3.1. Phase 1. Cycling Infrastructure Inventory

The first stage consists of compiling a comprehensive inventory of the existing cycling infrastructure. This inventory forms the foundation of the assessment, providing a consistent and homogeneous characterisation of all the elements that make up the cycling network.

Each infrastructure segment should be incorporated into a georeferenced database containing, among others, the following parameters:

• Length;
• Infrastructure typology (segregated cycle track, on-road cycle lane, shared-use path, shared street, bicycle street, etc.);
• Direction of travel;
• Effective width;
• Separation from motorised traffic;
• Type of physical segregation;
• Pavement condition;
• Horizontal and vertical signage;
• Lighting;
• Drainage;
• Overall state of maintenance;
• Speed limit of the adjacent roadway;
• Average Daily Traffic (ADT), where available.

This information provides the basis for developing a digital inventory of the cycling network, which will support all subsequent stages of the assessment.

3.2. Phase 2. Functional Classification of the Network

Once the infrastructure has been inventoried, the next step is to understand the functional role that each route plays within the urban mobility system.

Not all cycling facilities have the same strategic importance or accommodate the same types of journeys. Consequently, the network should be classified according to the function performed by each corridor within the overall urban transport system.

The main classification criteria may include:

• Primary cycling corridors;
• Secondary distribution network;
• Local cycling routes;
• School routes;
• Connections to railway and metro stations;
• Connections to public transport interchanges;
• Connections to universities and educational facilities;
• Connections to healthcare facilities;
• Connections to commercial areas;
• Connections to industrial and business districts;
• Connections to urban parks and recreational areas.

This functional classification provides a clear understanding of the strategic importance of each corridor and facilitates the subsequent prioritisation of improvement measures.

3.3. Phase 3. Network Continuity Assessment

Continuity is one of the key factors influencing the attractiveness and usability of a cycling network.

A cycling facility may meet high geometric and construction standards while still performing poorly if users are repeatedly forced to leave the route or undertake complex manoeuvres in order to continue their journey.

This phase identifies the functional discontinuities present within the network, including:

• Interruptions of cycle lanes or cycle tracks;
• Changes in infrastructure typology;
• Missing links in the network;
• Complex intersections;
• Merges into motorised traffic;
• Abrupt changes in cross-section;
• Narrow sections;
• Bottlenecks;
• Shared-use sections with high pedestrian volumes;
• Routes lacking directional continuity.

Each discontinuity should be georeferenced and classified according to its impact on the functionality and continuity of the cycling route.

3.4. Phase 4. Road Safety Assessment

Safety is one of the most influential factors affecting the everyday use of cycling infrastructure.

The assessment should identify both potential conflicts and hazardous situations resulting from the geometric design of the infrastructure or from interactions between different transport modes.

Among other aspects, the analysis should consider:

• Conflicts between pedestrians and cyclists;
• Conflicts between bicycles and Personal Mobility Vehicles (PMVs);
• Conflicts between cyclists and motorised traffic;
• Merge points with vehicular traffic;
• Signalised intersections;
• Roundabouts;
• Complex junctions;
• Inadequate turning radii;
• Visibility constraints;
• Encroachment onto cycling facilities by parked vehicles or loading and unloading activities;
• Vehicle access points to private garages;
• Public transport stops;
• Areas with high pedestrian activity.



Where data are available, this assessment should be complemented by an analysis of historical crash records in order to identify high-risk locations and recurring collision patterns.

3.5. Phase 5. Accessibility Assessment

Accessibility should be evaluated from two complementary perspectives: universal accessibility and accessibility for cycling mobility.

The objective of this phase is to identify the physical elements that reduce the comfort, safety, or continuity of cycling and pedestrian movements.

The main aspects to be assessed include:

• Longitudinal gradients;
• Cross slopes;
• Effective clear widths;
• Permanent obstacles;
• Street furniture;
• Waste collection containers;
• Outdoor café terraces;
• Utility poles and street lighting columns;
• Vegetation;
• Poorly located traffic signs;
• Deteriorated pavement surfaces;
• Pedestrian crossings;
• Dropped kerbs;
• Accessibility for people with reduced mobility.

This assessment makes it possible to identify numerous issues which, although individually minor, may collectively have a significant impact on users' perceived comfort and the overall quality of the cycling environment.

3.6. Phase 6. Demand Analysis

Understanding the actual use of the cycling network is essential for evaluating its performance.

To achieve this, traffic count campaigns should be carried out to quantify mobility flows and analyse the interactions between the different transport modes.

Traffic surveys may include counts of:

• Pedestrians;
• Cyclists;
• Personal Mobility Vehicles (PMVs);
• Motorised vehicles;
• Public transport vehicles.

In addition, several operational indicators may be calculated, including:

• Hourly traffic volumes;
• Modal split;
• Pedestrian–cyclist interaction rates;
• Cyclist–vehicle interaction rates;
• Time-of-day usage patterns;
• Variation according to day type (weekday, weekend, holidays);
• Traffic volumes at identified conflict points.

The information obtained provides an objective basis for the subsequent prioritisation of improvement measures.

3.7. Phase 7. Spatial Analysis Using Geographic Information Systems (GIS)

Geographic Information Systems (GIS) provide powerful tools for analysing cycling networks from a spatial perspective, enabling the identification of opportunities for improvement that are often difficult to detect through field inspections alone.

Among other applications, GIS can be used to analyse:

• Network connectivity;
• Territorial accessibility;
• Spatial coverage;
• Population served;
• Accessibility to key facilities;
• Connectivity with educational centres;
• Connectivity with railway stations and public transport interchanges;
• Cycling travel times;
• Infrastructure density;
• Identification of underserved areas.

This phase is particularly valuable for supporting strategic planning and identifying priority areas for future expansion of the cycling network.

3.8. Phase 8. Functional Hierarchy of the Cycling Network

Based on the information gathered during the previous phases, the cycling network can be classified according to the functional importance of each corridor.

As a general framework, three hierarchical levels may be defined:

• Primary Network, comprising the main cycling corridors that provide high-capacity, continuous connections across the city.
• Secondary Network, responsible for distributing cycling movements between neighbourhoods, local centres, and key urban destinations.
• Local Network, designed to provide local accessibility and ensure effective connections to the primary and secondary networks.



Establishing a functional hierarchy facilitates the development of differentiated design standards for each network level and provides a robust framework for prioritising future investments and guiding the long-term development of the cycling network.

3.9. Phase 9. Assessment Using a Cycling Infrastructure Quality Index

To provide an objective and comparable assessment framework applicable across different cities, it is proposed that each infrastructure segment be evaluated using a composite Cycling Infrastructure Quality Index.

Each segment may be assessed according to a series of performance indicators, including:

• Continuity;
• Safety;
• User comfort;
• Accessibility;
• State of maintenance;
• Signage quality;
• Connectivity;
• Intermodality.

The weighted combination of these indicators produces an overall quality score for each segment, facilitating comparisons between corridors and supporting the identification of investment priorities.

3.10. Phase 10. Prioritisation of Improvement Measures

Identifying infrastructure deficiencies alone is not sufficient unless an objective procedure is established to determine the order in which improvement measures should be implemented.

To achieve this, a multi-criteria assessment methodology may be applied, considering factors such as:

• Potential improvement in road safety;
• Number of users benefiting from the intervention;
• Functional importance of the corridor;
• Contribution to network continuity;
• Improvement of accessibility;
• Technical feasibility;
• Implementation cost;
• Environmental impact;
• Contribution to sustainable mobility objectives.

The weighted combination of these criteria enables the development of a transparent and technically justified investment programme.

3.11. Phase 11. Definition of Improvement Measures

The proposed interventions may be classified according to their complexity and implementation timeframe.

Immediate Actions

These measures can generally be implemented quickly and at relatively low cost, including:

• Renewal of horizontal and vertical signage;
• Improvement of physical delineation and protective devices;
• Pavement rehabilitation;
• Removal of physical obstacles;
• Enhancement of user information and wayfinding.

Medium-Term Actions

These interventions typically require more extensive engineering design and construction works, such as:

• Widening of cycle lanes or cycle tracks;
• Reallocation of road space;
• Elimination of conflict points;
• Improvement of intersections;
• Creation of new local cycling connections.

Structural Interventions

These measures involve major infrastructure projects intended to transform the cycling network over the long term, including:

• Development of new cycling corridors;
• Creation of new metropolitan cycling connections;
• Comprehensive street redesign and urban regeneration projects;
• Construction of grade-separated crossings (bridges or underpasses);
• Complete transformation of major urban corridors.

3.12. Phase 12. Implementation Programme

Finally, the proposed measures should be organised within an implementation programme that enables their progressive delivery over time.

As a general approach, the programme may be structured into three implementation horizons:

• Short-term, comprising actions that can be implemented rapidly and deliver immediate benefits.
• Medium-term, focusing on improving the functionality and performance of the existing cycling network.
• Long-term, including strategic and structural projects requiring greater investment, more complex engineering solutions, or coordination with broader urban development initiatives.



The implementation programme should be supported by a preliminary cost estimate, an implementation schedule, and a set of monitoring indicators that enable periodic evaluation of both the progress of the proposed measures and their effectiveness in improving cycling and pedestrian mobility.

4. Assessment Tools

The assessment of a cycling network requires the integration of a range of analytical tools capable of characterising the existing infrastructure, quantifying travel demand, analysing network connectivity, and objectively evaluating the interaction between different transport modes.

The selection of these tools will depend on the scale of the study, the availability of data, and the objectives of the assessment. Nevertheless, a modern cycling network assessment should combine field surveys with spatial analysis techniques, modelling tools, and advanced data processing methods.

The principal tools commonly employed are described below.

4.1. Geographic Information Systems (GIS)

Geographic Information Systems (GIS) provide the fundamental platform for developing the cycling network inventory and performing spatial analyses.

GIS enables the integration of information from multiple data sources and allows all elements of the study to be represented within a georeferenced environment.

Typical applications include:

• Development of a digital inventory of the cycling network;
• Analysis of network connectivity;
• Assessment of spatial coverage;
• Delineation of service areas;
• Accessibility analysis for key destinations;
• Identification of network discontinuities;
• Spatial representation of performance indicators;
• Production of thematic maps to support decision-making.

Software packages such as QGIS provide a highly flexible environment for these analyses, incorporating network modelling capabilities, spatial analysis tools, and comprehensive geospatial database management.

4.2. Computer-Aided Design (CAD) Tools

Computer-Aided Design (CAD) applications enable the accurate documentation of proposed interventions and the development of geometric designs tailored to each specific location.

Their main applications include:

• Surveying and documentation of existing infrastructure;
• Design of standard cross-sections;
• Geometric design of intersections;
• Design of cycling facilities;
• Preparation of horizontal and vertical traffic signage layouts;
• Production of construction drawings.

Software such as AutoCAD and Building Information Modelling (BIM) platforms are widely used for this type of engineering work.

4.3. Field Data Collection

Field surveys remain an essential component of any cycling network assessment.

Data collection may include:

• Visual inspections;
• Georeferenced infrastructure inventories;
• Photographic surveys;
• Continuous video recording of routes;
• GNSS-based positioning surveys;
• Geometric measurements;
• Topographic surveys, where required.

These data are essential for validating cartographic information and accurately documenting the existing condition of the infrastructure.

4.4. Traffic Counts and Demand Assessment

Quantifying the actual use of the cycling network is one of the most valuable elements for prioritising future interventions.

Traffic count campaigns may be carried out using:

• Direct observation;
• Video recordings;
• Automatic traffic counters;
• Computer vision systems;
• Permanent counting stations.

These surveys provide information on:

• Cycling volumes;
• Pedestrian flows;
• Personal Mobility Vehicle (PMV) volumes;
• Motor vehicle traffic volumes;
• Modal composition;
• Temporal distribution of demand;
• User interaction and conflict patterns.

4.5. Artificial Intelligence and Computer Vision

Recent advances in Artificial Intelligence (AI) have enabled a substantial degree of automation within the assessment process.

Current applications include:

• Automatic detection of bicycles and Personal Mobility Vehicles (PMVs);
• Automatic classification of road users;
• Video-based traffic counting;
• Detection of traffic conflicts;
• Pavement condition assessment;
• Automated inventory of traffic signs;
• Detection of physical obstacles;
• Large-scale image analysis.

These technologies significantly reduce data processing time while improving the consistency and objectivity of the assessment.

4.6. Traffic and Mobility Microsimulation

Where operational conditions are particularly complex, microsimulation provides a powerful tool for evaluating proposed interventions before implementation.

Its use is especially recommended for:

• Complex intersections;
• Major urban corridors;
• School environments;
• Public transport stations;
• Transport interchanges;
• Areas with significant interaction between pedestrians, cyclists, and motorised traffic.

Microsimulation enables the assessment of alternative operational scenarios, the quantification of delays, the identification of potential conflicts, and the comparison of different design solutions prior to construction.

4.7. Accessibility Models

Accessibility models enable the evaluation of the network's ability to connect residents with the city's principal destinations.

Typical analyses include:

• Cycling travel times;
• Population coverage;
• Accessibility to educational facilities;
• Accessibility to railway and metro stations;
• Accessibility to hospitals;
• Accessibility to sports and recreational facilities;
• Integration with public transport services.



These analyses help identify underserved areas and provide valuable guidance for the future expansion and optimisation of the cycling network.

5. Indicators for Cycling Network Assessment

An objective assessment of a cycling network requires the definition of a set of performance indicators that enable its condition to be measured, different corridors to be compared, and the effectiveness of implemented measures to be monitored over time.

These indicators should be quantifiable, reproducible, and consistent, providing a robust basis for decision-making and investment prioritisation.

The following set of indicators is proposed:

• Total length of the cycling network (km).
• Percentage of segregated cycling infrastructure.
• Network continuity index (%).
• Cycling network density (km/km²).
• Population served by the cycling network.
• Number of educational facilities connected to the network.
• Number of public transport stations and interchanges connected to the network.
• Crash rate (crashes/km).
• Conflict index (conflicts/km).
• Bicycle parking occupancy rate.
• Average Daily Cycling Traffic (ADCT).

This set of indicators provides a comprehensive understanding of network performance and facilitates comparisons between different urban areas as well as between different assessment periods.

Furthermore, these indicators provide the basis for the development of performance dashboards that enable continuous monitoring of cycling mobility policies and the evaluation of their effectiveness over the medium and long term.

6. Conclusions

The development of cycling infrastructure is one of the most effective strategies for promoting a more sustainable, healthier, and efficient urban mobility system. However, simply increasing the number of kilometres of cycle lanes does not, by itself, guarantee a significant improvement in active mobility or a substantial increase in cycling demand.

Cycling networks should be conceived as fully integrated components of the urban transport system, where route continuity, road safety, universal accessibility, territorial connectivity, and integration with public transport are essential factors determining their overall performance.

Within this context, cycling network assessment studies play a strategic role by providing an objective evaluation of existing infrastructure, identifying its principal functional deficiencies, and establishing sound technical criteria for planning future improvements.

The methodology presented in this article proposes a comprehensive approach based on twelve sequential phases, ranging from the initial inventory of the infrastructure to the definition and prioritisation of improvement measures. This methodology combines field surveys, Geographic Information System (GIS) analysis, traffic counting campaigns, functional assessment, road safety evaluation, simulation techniques, and advanced data analysis methods, providing a holistic understanding of cycling network performance.

The use of objective performance indicators and standardised assessment methodologies transforms the diagnostic process into an effective decision-support tool, facilitating the comparison of different corridors, the evaluation of alternative solutions, and the optimisation of public investment.

Ultimately, the assessment of a cycling network should extend well beyond a simple inventory of existing infrastructure. It should provide a comprehensive evaluation of active mobility from functional, operational, and spatial perspectives. Only through such an integrated approach is it possible to design cycling networks that are continuous, safe, accessible, and fully integrated with the wider transport system, enabling them to meet both current and future mobility needs while contributing to the development of more sustainable, resilient, and liveable cities.