As noted in the introduction, this planning memo synthesizes findings gathered from desk research as well as discussions among Nordic cycling practitioners. During the workshop, the practitioners described several ongoing challenges related to collecting and using data, including the usual suspects of lack of budgeting and obstacles for smooth coordination. However, the practitioners also noted things like time constraints and lack of capacity for analysing the data collected or making use of it in the most effective ways. Planners in Nordic countries already collect a substantial amount (and multiple kinds) of cycling data—ranging from cyclists’ demographics, travel purpose, perceptions of cycling design and safety, number of bicycle parking spaces, accident data, types of bicycles used, and infrastructure data (like length of the network and status of the pathways). However, sorting and making use of it remains a planning as well as a human resources challenge, and planners face difficulties with prioritising between which data is necessary versus “nice to have”.
While cycling data is collected through a wide range of methods such as trackers, manual counting, police records, national or regional surveys, observations, and ethnographic interviews, some methodologies for data collection can pose a challenge both with regards to technical constraints (e.g., tracker malfunctions or ill-placement) and with procuring new counting methods that accurately collect the data required.
At least one Nordic practitioner also noted some limitations with regards to aggregated data at the city level, when mobility patterns need to be assessed at a more detailed level to represent, for example, specific city districts. There are also remaining challenges with regards to merging data sources so that comparisons can be made across regions.
When it comes to communication around cycling and cycling projects, planners often face some form of “bikelash” among politicians or the community. In Helsinki, media reports after infrastructure projects highlighted that few people were using new cycle paths and that modal share at the city level had not increased after improvements had been made. However, the city did measure and find significant increases in the number of cyclists that used the upgraded cycle routes, even if the increase was not reflected in the city-wide modal share numbers. Furthermore, the planners discussed the importance of taking stock after more time has passed. One example of this outside of the Nordics comes from several Australian researchers who studied community perceptions of a cycling path in Sydney ten years after it was implemented. While perceptions at the time of changing the street seemed extremely critical, Harris and colleagues (2025) conducted a survey and interviews showing that the majority (more than 80%) of both car owners and cyclists viewed the cycleway positively ten years later (Harris et al., 2025). Transformation is not always immediate, but the infrastructure is a major step in the process of increasing cycling, and it has to be in place before expecting longer-term changes in mobility patterns. Once the investments to improve cycling have been made, then the city can focus on campaigns and attracting more people to utilise the infrastructure.
Cities and regions also reported that negative voices are often the loudest ones, and this loud minority is what media frequently highlights. However, the quiet majority often support cycling efforts, and communicating the benefit of cycling infrastructure to all residents can have an impact. The Nordic practitioners note that it is important not to become too distracted by the noise. However, making convincing arguments about the wider benefits of cycling for the whole of the city’s or region’s residents continues to be an obstacle.