Experimental feature. The City Cycling Index is under active development, and scores move as the methodology improves. Tell us what you find: founders@partyonbici.com

Party Onbici

City Cycling Index · Methodology v19

City of Sydney

Open-data cycling-readiness scorecard

Confidence Medium confidence · All 4 infrastructure dimensions assessed · Ridership and Safety not yet assessed
Study area Municipality · 27 km²
Generated 7 Nov 2026, 07:20 AEDT (UTC+11:00)

85/100

Leading infrastructure

Infrastructure Provision

Measures the cycling infrastructure a city has provided — not how much cycling happens, or how safe it feels.

Calm streets beyond the mapped network — descriptive, not scored. 52% of this city's ordinary streets carry no posted speed limit in OpenStreetMap, and a street is never assumed calm — so the figures below are a floor, not a total. Of the streets that could be judged, 167.6 km assess as calm enough for everyday cycling (traffic stress LTS 1–2), beyond the mapped cycle network the score measures. 130.7 km of that rests on a posted speed limit; 36.9 km is calm by structure — car-free and living streets. Whether these streets connect into usable routes is not assessed, and nothing here enters any score.

Strongest asset

Amenities

Primary constraint

Heat resilience

Top screening candidate (local validation required)

Pine Street

Locality: Pine Street

Corridor ID 282449e6-2939-46aa-9cc3-fb2415a1983f

Network composition

Physically protected cycling infrastructure	22 km
Other low-stress / cycling-suitable network — off-road shared paths, painted lanes, mixed traffic	101 km
Total cycling-accessible network modelled	123 km

69% of residents live within 300 m of physically protected infrastructure.

Comparable on-street lane network: 34 km of separated + painted lanes — the like-for-like figure to set beside your city's own lane count. The full 123 km additionally counts shared and off-road paths, so it reads higher.

Four infrastructure dimensions

Coverage 83

22 km physically protected · 78 km shared path · 13 km painted · 11 km mixed traffic — 123 km modelled → 75 effective km ≈ 2.82 km/km² built-up (quality-weighted)

Connectivity 77

77% of the low-stress network is one connected piece · 1,470 candidate network discontinuities detected before screening

Access 95

94% of residents within 300 m of traffic-free cycling infrastructure — an off-street path or a physically protected lane, ITDP's People Near Protected Bikelanes definition · the traffic-free network behind it is 22 km separated cycleway and 78 km path shared with pedestrians (78% shared)

Amenities 100

1,107 parking · 8 repair · 364 water · 246 toilets ≈ 16.52 capped weighted units per km² of built-up area · 90.0 parking per 10 km of network

Ridership and Safety are an activation layer — not yet assessed for this city; this is not a verdict on road safety.

Each dimension scores 100 against a target Party Onbici sets, not a standard set by anyone else. Where every target comes from — and which are calibrated and which are simply chosen — is stated per target in "Where the scoring targets come from" under Data & assumptions.

How confident is each part?

Dimension	Confidence	Why
Boundary	High	Municipality — The scored polygon IS one published administrative feature, cited by its own geoBoundaries shapeID, so its identity rests on that citation rather than on a measurement against a municipal-tier feature.
Infrastructure classification	Medium	76% of network length carries an explicit separation tag · 24% was inferred from route and access attributes · 0% is unclassified.
Population access	Medium	Residents within 300 m of traffic-free infrastructure — an off-street path or a physically protected lane (ITDP's definition) — from WorldPop gridded population. Composition: the traffic-free network behind it is 22 km separated cycleway and 78 km path shared with pedestrians (78% shared). Capped at the confidence of its weakest essential input (Infrastructure classification).
Amenities	Medium	Counts reliably represent amenities mapped in OpenStreetMap, but mapping completeness has not been independently validated for this city.
Corridor topology	Low	Largest-connected-component analysis of the low-stress network. 9 of 17 prioritised corridors are stored as multi-part geometries (up to 5 separate pieces), so they are not continuous on the ground and the corridor geometry on this page cannot be treated as validated.
Economic benefit	Scenario estimate	A modelled scenario (conservative to ambitious uptake), not a measured outcome — see ROI assumptions.

Study area

Boundary source

geoBoundaries administrative footprint

Administrative level

City / Council

Boundary type

Municipality

Study boundary ID

25037944B98854570895907

Enclosed area

27 km²

Built-up area

27 km²

Population density

8446/km²

The scored polygon IS one published administrative feature, cited by its own geoBoundaries shapeID, so its identity rests on that citation rather than on a measurement against a municipal-tier feature.

Peer comparison

Nearby cities

#	City	Index
23	City of Sydney · this city	85
121	North Sydney (NSW)	50
142	Inner West (NSW)	45
170	Waverley (NSW)	40
182	Woollahra (NSW)	38

City of Sydney's rank among the 393 comparably scored study areas in this assessment set: #23 of 393

Automated screening shortlist

These are the highest-ranked areas an automated screen of open data identified for local validation. Passing the screen is not a recommendation to build: nothing here has been costed, designed or checked on the ground.

7 of the 20 corridor candidates in this report pass the automated screening gate. Their combined overlap-adjusted modelled health-benefit range is AUD 828,287 – AUD 4,978,329/year (WHO HEAT). 10 of them carry a modelled health figure.

1,470 candidate network discontinuities detected before screening · 203 consolidated corridor candidates created from them · 12 consolidated candidates cleared the automated screening gate city-wide · 20 are carried into this report, 7 of them passing

What the automated screen checks

Every constituent gap it states resolves to a real row
One continuous piece of geometry on the ground
A plausible set of distinct network edges behind it
Calculated, member and drawn lengths reconcile
Structural network-gain proxy passed

1. Pine Street

Locality: Pine Street

Location -33.88619, 151.19645

Corridor ID 282449e6-2939-46aa-9cc3-fb2415a1983f

✓ Automated screening: passed 5 of 5 checks.

Structural network-gain proxy: the distinct existing ways the build would join, the destinations ALREADY MAPPED inside its catchment (not destinations this build would newly connect), and a minimum build length. Routed before/after connectivity gain: not assessed. No routed connectivity model exists in this pipeline, so connectivity before, connectivity after and the residents who would newly gain access are reported as unavailable rather than estimated from the catchment.

This area ranks highly because approximately 36 school features, 7 transport features, 61 workplace features, 100 shop & service features, 113 other mapped features are already mapped within a 2 km cycling catchment of it, and it addresses a 278 m gap in the existing network. Estimated mapped destinations in the 2 km catchment: this corridor's category breakdown is reconciled across overlapping catchments, so the figures are approximate counts of mapped features rather than exact ones.

Residents in catchment: 14,339Health benefit / year: AUD 155,911 – AUD 937,646Fuel & running-cost saving / year: AUD 6,371 – AUD 38,316Modelled additional cyclists at sustained uptake: 143 – 860Destinations mapped in catchment: 317CO₂ saved / year: 7.0 t – 42.1 t

2. Liverpool Street

Locality: Liverpool Street

Location -33.87644, 151.21064

Corridor ID ed18c7cf-8aee-416a-882b-ff497bd3cea1

This area ranks highly because 74 school features, 51 transport features, 548 workplace features, 425 shop & service features are already mapped within a 2 km cycling catchment of it, and it addresses a 2.5 km gap in the existing network.

Residents in catchment: 13,121Health benefit / year: AUD 142,827 – AUD 858,055Fuel & running-cost saving / year: AUD 5,837 – AUD 35,064Modelled additional cyclists at sustained uptake: 131 – 787Destinations mapped in catchment: 1,415CO₂ saved / year: 6.4 t – 38.6 t

3. Kepos Street

Locality: Kepos Street

Location -33.89628, 151.21247

Corridor ID c7052733-2b98-4ca3-8707-4b224c54b88d

✓ Automated screening: passed 5 of 5 checks.

This area ranks highly because approximately 12 school features, 20 workplace features, 56 shop & service features, 86 other mapped features are already mapped within a 2 km cycling catchment of it, and it addresses a 276 m gap in the existing network. Estimated mapped destinations in the 2 km catchment: this corridor's category breakdown is reconciled across overlapping catchments, so the figures are approximate counts of mapped features rather than exact ones.

Residents in catchment: 11,753Health benefit / year: AUD 128,654 – AUD 768,651Fuel & running-cost saving / year: AUD 5,257 – AUD 31,410Modelled additional cyclists at sustained uptake: 118 – 705Destinations mapped in catchment: 174CO₂ saved / year: 5.8 t – 34.6 t

Its most exposed stretch would need about 9 more percentage points of tree canopy to stay usable in extreme heat.

4. Chalmers Street

Locality: Chalmers Street

Location -33.89475, 151.20509

Corridor ID d7ae0d8a-888c-4ac8-994b-9a4b347a8d26

✓ Automated screening: passed 5 of 5 checks.

This area ranks highly because approximately 65 school features, 9 transport features, 243 workplace features, 255 shop & service features, 278 other mapped features are already mapped within a 2 km cycling catchment of it, and it addresses a 249 m gap in the existing network. Estimated mapped destinations in the 2 km catchment: this corridor's category breakdown is reconciled across overlapping catchments, so the figures are approximate counts of mapped features rather than exact ones.

Residents in catchment: 8,234Health benefit / year: AUD 89,540 – AUD 538,913Fuel & running-cost saving / year: AUD 3,659 – AUD 22,022Modelled additional cyclists at sustained uptake: 82 – 494Destinations mapped in catchment: 850CO₂ saved / year: 4.0 t – 24.2 t

Overlap-adjusted: 8,234 residents counted for this corridor. 23% of its catchment is already served by a higher-ranked candidate on this shortlist and is not counted twice.

Before overlap adjustment

Residents in catchment: 10,728Health benefit / year: AUD 116,661 – AUD 702,144Fuel & running-cost saving / year: AUD 4,767 – AUD 28,693Modelled additional cyclists at sustained uptake: 107 – 644Destinations mapped in catchment: 850CO₂ saved / year: 5.2 t – 31.6 t

5. Pitt Street

Locality: Pitt Street

Location -33.89458, 151.20357

Corridor ID f951e8e1-f389-49e1-b9ee-914485564356

✓ Automated screening: passed 5 of 5 checks.

This area ranks highly because approximately 67 school features, 11 transport features, 248 workplace features, 258 shop & service features, 274 other mapped features are already mapped within a 2 km cycling catchment of it, and it addresses a 258 m gap in the existing network. Estimated mapped destinations in the 2 km catchment: this corridor's category breakdown is reconciled across overlapping catchments, so the figures are approximate counts of mapped features rather than exact ones.

Residents in catchment: 1,476Health benefit / year: AUD 16,074 – AUD 96,598Fuel & running-cost saving / year: AUD 657 – AUD 3,947Modelled additional cyclists at sustained uptake: 15 – 89Destinations mapped in catchment: 858CO₂ saved / year: 723 kg – 4.3 t

Overlap-adjusted: 1,476 residents counted for this corridor. 86% of its catchment is already served by a higher-ranked candidate on this shortlist and is not counted twice.

Before overlap adjustment

Residents in catchment: 10,612Health benefit / year: AUD 115,570 – AUD 694,512Fuel & running-cost saving / year: AUD 4,723 – AUD 28,381Modelled additional cyclists at sustained uptake: 106 – 637Destinations mapped in catchment: 858CO₂ saved / year: 5.2 t – 31.2 t

These are candidate areas identified from open data for local validation — not costed or validated recommendations.

Resident catchments are estimated from the population and network analysis; uptake, health, transport-cost and carbon results are scenario estimates (conservative–ambitious uptake).

Every per-corridor figure above is the overlap-adjusted (incremental) one — the same figures the combined total is the sum of.

Figures are in AUD (2026 prices). Cross-city monetary comparisons are indicative only — each city is valued with its own jurisdiction-specific parameters, not converted to a common currency.

Economic parameters: AUS — National appraisal guidance.

15 further candidates are not shown here (5 ranked below the top 5, 10 did not pass the automated screening). Each is published in full, with the verdict on it, in the downloadable corridor GeoJSON.

https://eu.partyonbici.com/city-index/ea9e434f-4975-4b85-a43e-ce5fada73588/data.geojson

Terrain

Average network grade 2.0%. Over 3%: 19.7% · over 5%: 8.5% · over 8%: 3.7%. Contextual — terrain does not change the index score. © Commonwealth of Australia (Geoscience Australia) (CC BY 4.0) © Commonwealth of Australia (Geoscience Australia) (CC BY 4.0) © Commonwealth of Australia (Geoscience Australia) (CC BY 4.0) © Commonwealth of Australia (Geoscience Australia) (CC BY 4.0)

Heat resilience

76.9% of the residents who can reach a bike route today can still reach one that stays usable in the heat. Measured across 92.1% of the qualifying network. Contextual — heat resilience does not change the index score.

Tree canopy here is checked against New South Wales's 2022 Greater Sydney canopy survey. Along streets — the blocks with scattered trees rather than parkland — the two agree to within about 2 percentage points.

Nighttime illumination

34.1% of the cycling network has confirmed or inferred nighttime illumination. For 57.7% the evidence is inconclusive, and for 8.2% there is none either way. Contextual — nighttime illumination is shown as evidence and does not change the index score.

Nighttime satellite radiance indicates artificial illumination in the surrounding area. It does not necessarily mean that dedicated street lighting is present on the road itself.

Satellite evidence was gathered but is not yet calibrated for this city, so it is recorded without drawing a conclusion. Confirmed shares come from OpenStreetMap lighting tags and mapped lamp posts.

Local data that would validate this

Open-data baseline (this report) → locally-validated diagnostic → measured pilot.

Dataset	Validates	Status
Official cycling-network GIS	Coverage & comfort classification	Needed
Census cycling mode share	External outcome comparison	Needed
Cycling counts	Ridership (activation layer)	Needed
Crash / casualty records	Safety (activation layer)	Needed
Traffic speeds & volumes	Comfort / traffic-stress classification	Needed
Planned / funded projects	Priority corridors	Needed
Local demographic / equity data	Access equity overlay	Needed

Data & assumptions

OpenStreetMap (infrastructure)

Extract

Not recorded on this snapshot

Extract published

Not recorded on this snapshot

Artifact built

Not recorded on this snapshot

Build run

Not recorded on this snapshot

Extract loaded

2026-11-06

Source

Not recorded on this snapshot

Query area

geoBoundaries administrative footprint

Facility classifier version

Not recorded on this snapshot

Methodology version

v19

Licence

ODbL — © OpenStreetMap contributors

Why fields are blank

Several loads of this dataset exist in this deployment and this city has no load of its own, so the specific one behind these figures cannot be identified. Re-provision the city to record it.

WorldPop (population)

Product

aus_pop_2024_CN_100m_R2025A_v1

Edition / year

2024

Release

R2025A

Modelling basis

Constrained (residents placed only on built-up settlements)

Adjustment

Unadjusted (the product's own modelled totals)

Source

https://data.worldpop.org/GIS/Population/Global_2015_2030/R2025A/2024/AUS/v1/100m/constrained/aus_pop_2024_CN_100m_R2025A_v1.tif

Layer identifier (internal)

worldpop_city-of-sydney @ 100 m

Layer selection

The load built for this city — the only one counted.

Layer synced

2026-08-02

Resolution

100 m

Licence

CC BY 4.0 — © WorldPop (worldpop.org)

Road lighting (nighttime illumination evidence)

Radiance product

VNL_npp_2025_global_vcmslcfg_v2_median_cog

Composite year

2025

Layer identifier (internal)

viirs_glen-eira

Layer loaded

2026-09-05

Nominal resolution

463 m per pixel — coarser than any single street

Street lamps (OpenStreetMap)

127 mapped lamp nodes in the study area

Satellite calibration

Not calibrated — radiance is recorded as evidence but states no direction. Confirmed shares rest on OpenStreetMap lighting tags and mapped lamp posts.

Used for

A contextual view of what is known about the network after dark. It is an activation-layer dimension: displayed, never scored, and it changes no part of the Infrastructure Provision result.

Lighting model version

Licence

Radiance: CC BY 4.0 — © Earth Observation Group, Payne Institute for Public Policy, Colorado School of Mines · Lighting tags and lamp nodes: ODbL — © OpenStreetMap contributors

geoBoundaries (the scored boundary IS this published feature)

Boundary source

geoBoundaries administrative footprint

Administrative level

City / Council

Country (ISO3)

AUS

Release

geoBoundaries (synced 2026-07-07)

Licence

CC BY 4.0 — © geoBoundaries

Methodology

Version

v19

Infrastructure Provision

The four infrastructure dimensions, renormalised to 100. Ridership & Safety are reported separately (activation layer) and do not change the infrastructure result.

Dimension weights

access=0.27223 · safety=0.1 · coverage=0.19446 · amenities=0 · ridership=0.1 · connectivity=0.23331 · intersection_delay=0.1

Provision thresholds (basic / strong / leading)

Coverage 1 / 2.5 / 5 · Access 50 / 80 / 100 · Amenities 2 / 10 / 40. These are FIXED provision criteria, not positions among other cities: 50 means basic but incomplete provision, 80 strong citywide provision, and 100 near-complete performance, interpolated in between. They do not change as cities are added to the board, so a city's score moves only when its own infrastructure or data does. Connected network share — identity scale, no threshold set: the percentage IS the score, so 62% of the network in one connected component scores 62. No published source states a normative target for this measure, and borrowing one written for a different measure would claim more than the evidence supports.

Contextual reference (not scored)

gap density 0.59 gaps/network-km (a diagnostic shown when connectivity abstains) · safety failure threshold 20 events/100k km (activation layer)

Scoring

Higher-is-better dimensions (coverage, access, amenities) are interpolated along fixed provision thresholds: 0 at zero, 50 at basic provision, 80 at strong, 100 at leading, straight lines between, clamped at each end. Access and Connectivity are already percentages, so their score IS the percentage. Gap density is contextual, not scored (v13). Safety, if scored, is lower-is-better against a FAILURE THRESHOLD: 100 - min(100, rate / threshold x 100), so zero events scores 100 and a rate at or above the threshold scores zero. See the calculation trace below.

Where the scoring targets come from

Coverage target

Percentile-derived, computed by us: the 90th percentile of the 40 cities on Party Onbici's own board with a population of 100,000 or more that held a snapshot on 2026-07-06, using the read-only calibrate_index_targets command. It is not a policy target and no standards body set it.

Access target

Percentile-derived, computed by us: the 90th percentile of the same 40-city board on 2026-07-06. What is measured — residents within 300 m of traffic-free infrastructure, an off-street path or a physically protected lane — follows ITDP's People Near Protected Bikelanes definition, but the level at which it scores 100 is ours, not ITDP's: ITDP publishes no such threshold.

Amenities target

Percentile-derived, computed by us: the 90th percentile of the same 40-city board on 2026-07-06. The per-category weights that turn facilities into units (parking 1.0 · repair station 4.0 · drinking water 2.0 · public toilet 0.5) are internally selected reference values — our own judgement of what each is worth to a rider, not calibrated and not taken from a published source.

Gap-density reference

Percentile-derived, computed by us: the 10th percentile of the same 40-city board on 2026-07-06 — the opposite tail, because fewer gaps is better. Contextual only since methodology v13: it is shown when connectivity abstains and scores nothing.

Ridership and safety

Internally selected reference values, not calibrated against any cohort and not taken from a published source — they were chosen to give the activation layer a scale. That layer is not yet assessed for any city, so neither value affects any published score.

The cohort itself

The cohort is the set of cities this platform had already assessed — a convenience sample of our own coverage, not a probability sample, not an international register, and not endorsed by any standards body. Its membership was not recorded at the time; only its size (40 cities) and the population floor (100,000) are on record. A target derived this way says 'the highest level we have measured', not 'the level a city ought to reach'.

Where the economic parameters come from

Economics basis

AUS — National appraisal guidance

Economic parameters

The economic parameters behind this city's monetary figures come from its own country's official appraisal guidance.

Inputs we chose ourselves

These economic inputs trace to no published document — they are our own reference values, not citations: Fleet fuel consumption, Retail petrol price, Fuel excise, Adult all-cause mortality rate, Gross hourly wage, Protected-lane build cost per km, Carbon price per tonne.

How each score is calculated

Coverage

21.6·1.0 + 12.7·0.5 + 88.7·0.8 = 98.9 effective km ÷ 26.6 km² = 3.71/km² → against fixed thresholds 1 (basic) / 2.5 (strong) / 5 (leading) → 83

Access

94% of residents near traffic-free infra against fixed thresholds 0.5 (basic) / 0.8 (strong) / 1 (leading) → 95

Connected network share

77% of low-stress network in its largest component ×100 → 77

Amenities

capped weighted units 440.0 ÷ 26.6 km² = 16.52/km² → against fixed thresholds 2 (basic) / 10 (strong) / 40 (leading) → 100 (each category capped at 50% of target)

WHO HEAT scenario inputs

Value of statistical life

AUD 5,300,000

All-cause mortality rate

400 per 100,000/yr

HEAT reference dose

100 min/week (~1213 km/yr)

Mortality reduction at reference dose

10%

Party Onbici transport & cost assumptions

Uptake — conservative

Uptake — ambitious

Trips per new cyclist

3 / week

Average trip distance

4 km

Car trips replaced

40%

Benefit basis

Annual, steady-state (per year once uptake is sustained; no multi-year ramp modelled)

Modelled additional cyclists

A steady-state stock at sustained uptake, not an annual intake; mode-shift of catchment residents, with existing cyclists not separately excluded. Each corridor publishes the population its riders were modelled on, its corridor adjustment factor and the final effective uptake rate that implies

Catchment & overlap

Residents within the corridor buffer (WorldPop); portfolio counts each resident once (a corridor's buffer minus the union of higher-ranked corridors' buffers)

Crashes & air pollution

Not separately assessed

Currency & valuation year

AUD, 2026 prices — local currency, not converted; cross-city monetary comparisons are indicative only

Serious injury cost

AUD 260,000

Discount rate

Appraisal horizon

10 years

Casualty reduction from facility

30%

Protected-lane build cost

AUD 250,000/km

Social cost of carbon

AUD 75/tonne

Value of time

AUD 40/hr × 50%

Time saved per trip

2 min

Fuel levy

AUD 0.50/L

Consumption tax (VAT/GST)

10%

This report

Generated

2026-11-06 20:20 UTC

Methodology version

v19

Analysis run

b6ac5d62-5c09-470a-b5b4-f1836d3fe69c

Code revision

b80b800a4512c029739bbd55352d626cb510adee

Scoring config digest

1949a2fcba81cfcc

Software

Party Onbici City Cycling Index

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

Snapshot sha256:37fd09606b6d · Computed 7 Nov 2026, 07:20 AEDT (UTC+11:00)