This interactive tool brings to life the findings of ECF's research on EU Structural Funds. While the EU invests heavily in active mobility, tracking exactly where and how much money goes to cycling is surprisingly difficult because official reporting categories often aggregate cycling with pedestrian or general public transport projects. You can read ECF's article or download the full report on the topoic. On the map below you can explore the data directly and see what is happening in your own city or region.
For the report, to separate genuine cycling investments from broader infrastructure, a Python script scanned project descriptions for specific keywords. To help you visualise this methodology, the tool below highlights these exact keywords in green, orange, and red within the project details panel. This approximation shows how projects were assigned a "Cycling Score" ranging from 0 (no cycling or pedestrian elements detected) to 4 (exclusively cycling components). The colour of a point on the map is the result of this raw data analysis.
You can use the filters at the top of the map to refine your search. The "Intervention Field" dropdown lets you isolate specific official categories, such as CI 090 for "cycle tracks and footpaths" or CI 083 for "cycling infrastructure". Because the European Regional Development Fund (ERDF) and the Cohesion Fund operate differently across various nations, you can also filter by specific Funds, Programmes, and Co-Financing Rates (from 0% to 100%).
As you explore, you might notice that projects cluster heavily in certain regions while others look quiet. The ERDF was designed to reduce regional economic disparities. Consequently, visible active mobility projects often cluster more strongly in less-developed and transition regions. Wealthier regions often have a lower EU funding share, which can result in fewer standalone "EU-labelled" cycling projects on this map, even if their overall local investment remains high.
Finally, keep in mind that a blank area on the map does not necessarily indicate a lack of investment. Cycling infrastructure might be a part of a broader project or reported in a different category. Furthermore, reporting practices vary across regions, with some areas experiencing vague descriptions, inconsistent formatting, or delayed data uploads. A gap on this map may simply reflect domestic funding, broader project categorisation, or missing published data rather than a lack of progress for cyclists.
The research was conducted by former ECF Policy Intern Andrea Ottone Berselli.
