Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit. Curabitur eleifend tortor nec augue pretium
Visit Copenhagen, Amsterdam or Utrecht and it is clear that cycling is normalised, with extensive cycling infrastructure such as segregated cycleways and abundant bicycle parking. Copenhagen has the most segregated cycleways, with 52km for every 100km of road; cycling around the city is so safe and quick that well over 60% of residents cycle to work or school, while its modal share for all journeys is at least 30%.
While not a cycling city on the same scale, London is becoming one. By the end of 2025, 1.5 million journeys a day were taking place by bicycle, up more than 40% in five years thanks to an expanding cycling network, safer streets and bicycle parking. During rush hour, around 20% of vehicles crossing some Thames bridges are bicycles. However, bicycle use only averages 5%.
About 100km north, Milton Keynes has the same proportion of cycleways as Utrecht, but cars still dominate journeys and the modal share for cycling is just 3%. Moreover, Copenhagen was dominated by traffic when Milton Keynes was a new town developed with cycling infrastructure – so which factors make a city transform, even if it has the necessary infrastructure?
“Infrastructure is the most important element, but not the only one,” says Adam Coffman, project manager for the UK’s All Party Parliamentary Group for Cycling and Walking (APPGCW). “There needs to be the political will and strong leadership to enable cycling. You can have all the money needed for infrastructure, but without the political will and leadership, nothing will happen.”
The APPGCW is a cross-party group of parliamentarians that works with other politicians to promote active transport and influence the government on walking and cycling policies.
“Active travel is not universally seen as important,” says Coffman. “In London, some boroughs are pro-cycling and others aren’t, so implementation is patchy. It is really about political will.” During his 18 years at the APPGCW, he has seen London transform, witnessing what determines whether a city becomes a Copenhagen or a Milton Keynes. So what factors are important? Understanding them requires a detailed analysis.
There is no official definition of a ‘cycling city’, but the most widely used system for characterising them is the Copenhagenize Index, by planning consultancy Copenhagenize. Originating in Denmark’s capital but now headquartered in Paris, it is backed by the European Institute of Innovation and Technology’s Urban Mobility programme.
“As an urban planner, I am fascinated by how bicycles can be used as a tool to completely transform cities and towns,” says Clotilde Imbert, Copenhagenize director since 2021. “It’s a tool not only related to mobility, but impacting health, local economy, environment, quality of life.”
Imbert studied urban planning in Paris and Copenhagen, joining Copenhagenize after working as an urban project manager. “Copenhagen is a city that can inspire others,” she says. “The city administration is very good at urban design, from the micro to the macro level. This model can be exported and adapted to other contexts.”
Copenhagenize’s assessment tools, metrics and training courses have enabled many municipalities to become cycling towns and cities. Its index uses a systematic analysis of three pillars and 13 indicators (see facing page), resulting in an overall score from an
analysis of 100 cities from 44 countries around the world. The index began in 2011 and is published every two years; its current top five are Utrecht, Copenhagen, Ghent, Amsterdam and Paris.
The top 10 cities have a cycling modal share of at least 25%, and the top 30 all have a bicycle plan or a plan for sustainable urban mobility, as well as a team for cycling policy. Top-placed Utrecht leads the world in safe bicycle parking, with 494 spaces per 1,000 inhabitants, and aims to transform 1% of its car parking spaces into bicycle parking each year. It has 30,000 bicycle parking spaces near the central station and the world’s largest bicycle park, with 12,500 spaces.
While Copenhagen, Utrecht and Amsterdam are well established cycling cities, Ghent and Paris have made significant and rapid progress. Coffman and Imbert each emphasise that political will and strong leadership are crucial in making this happen.
“When developing a cycling city, you need both political will and a public that is willing to respond,” says Imbert. “You need a structured plan and finance, too.”
Coffman, meanwhile, notes that “a cycling town or city needs a strong political leader who is willing to take risks and make difficult decisions”. In simple terms, make it easier to cycle and harder to drive.
Some decisions, such as making room for bicycles at cars’ expense, are controversial. This is evident in Paris, which Anne Hidalgo, mayor from 2014 to 2026, vowed to transform into a top-five cycling city by 2026. Among other actions, she led the creation of hundreds of kilometres of cycle routes and reclaimed car parks for active transport and pedestrians.
Fear can constrain action, too. Imbert observes that some politicians are afraid of losing elections, so resist making contentious decisions. Yet in recent elections in Paris, Lyon and Montpellier, leadership teams that had made ambitious cycling investments were re-elected. “The mayor of Montpellier invested €150m in cycling, or €33 per person – one of the highest rates in France – despite some opposition related to removing space for cars to dedicate it to cyclists,” says Imbert. The evidence is that voters notice the benefits of cycling cities, and that prioritising cycling wins votes.
“Ghent is also a very inspiring city,” Imbert adds. “The planners saw that about half the traffic in the city was through-traffic, so they made it harder to go across the city by car but easy for active transport.”
Cycling in cities, especially combined with other measures such as ultra-low emission zones and boosted public transport, leads to better air quality and human health. Cycling infrastructure is also cheaper than building roads, while Copenhagen, for example, has found that every kilometre of cycleway is directly or indirectly paid off within five years owing to the positive effects.
“A cycling city is also a way to develop a local economy because cyclists spend more money locally,” says Imbert. “They use local bicycle shops more frequently.” For example, cities that foster cycling typically have much higher per-capita numbers of bicycle shops.
A challenge for mature cycling cities is continuity in public engagement; Copenhagen runs surveys to see why people ride bicycles. “People say it is practical and fast,” says Imbert. “A human being is the same everywhere – they want to get to their destination quickly, efficiently and safely.” With the number of cycling cities worldwide growing, whether more will join them is a question of political will.
Rick Gould MISEP CEnv is an environmental scientist and writer
