Helsinki’s cycling traffic trend in 2018–2024: Overall decline but growth in one cycling highway

Abstract

Urban mobility researchers have talked of cycling renaissance for more than a decade. Some of us even considered the COVID pandemic as an opportunity for pro-cycling behaviour and policy changes. But not all cities boosted their cycling policies during COVID, and infrastructure improvement does not necessarily result in sustained cycling traffic growth. This article responds to the tension between these optimistic messages and unfulfilled expectations with a case-study about Helsinki. The capital of Finland has a pro-cycling strategy, but it does not follow a conventional cycling renaissance path: it did not leverage the pandemic opportunity, and its cycling modal share is stable despite sustained investment in infrastructure. To understand its cycling dynamics across the COVID pandemic period (2018–2024), data from sixteen cycling counters are analysed, showing that in this period overall cycling trips declined (-15,7 %), with the exception of one route: a high-quality cycling highway with significant traffic growth since its expansion in 2018 (+50 %). Cycling counter data is complemented with in-situ observations (N = 7050) to quantify the levels of women participation and electrification in this route. While electrification appears to be stable at around 20 % of bicycles, women participation increased during the studied period and approaches gender-balance among e-bike users. The results indicate that a cycling highway can support cycling traffic increase beyond what can be explained by the introduction of e-bikes, population growth, or rerouting of previously existing bike trips. The discussion considers how in this context of overall cycling decline, seven specific characteristics associated with Helsinki’s North Cycling Highway may have contributed to its success, and require further research to determine their effects. This study also points out that the spatial polarization of cycling within a city poses a difficult question for policy: whether to distribute investments to avoid increasing polarization, or to further support the growing route(s) to further leverage the few successful cycling infrastructure policy cases.