Liverpool GB vs Münster DE
| Metric | Unit | Liverpool GB | Münster DE |
|---|---|---|---|
| Annual Rainfall | mm/year | 824.3 | 758.0 |
| Avg Rainfall Per Rain Day | mm/day | 4.7 | 3.9 |
| Wind Exposure | index | 9.0 | 5.0 |
| Snow Cover | days/year | 16.0 | 20.0 |
| Average Daily Sunshine | hours/day | 7.1 | 4.2 |
| Winter Daylight | hours | 8.5 | 8.0 |
| Average Trip Distance | km | 11.8 | 11.8 |
| Average Urban Gradient | % | 1.2 | 0.4 |
No physical or environmental constraint explains this gap.
The difference can only be explained by policy, governance, and a lack of infrastructure investment.
What each city invested in
Counts physically separated cycle infrastructure, including greenways and off-road routes formally designated for cycling. As figures come from OpenStreetMap, some primarily recreational routes may be included.
Liverpool
264.7 km
cycle paths & tracks
across 665 km²
(0.40 km/km²)
Münster
50.5 km
cycle paths & tracks
across 687 km²
(0.07 km/km²)
Network density guide (km/km²)
< 0.5
Token infrastructure. Patchy. Bikes as transport stays niche.
0.5 - 1.0
Some corridors exist. Still disconnected. Modal share struggles to exceed 10-15%.
1.5 - 2.0
Continuous networks in many neighbourhoods. Bikes as transport can reach 20-30% if quality is high.
2.0 - 4.0
Dense, fine-grained, low-stress network. Bikes as transport becomes normalised and default for short trips.