Cities have really been embracing biking in a big way the past 10 years or so. Seems like it has gone from being a recreation hobby to a small but growing part of a city's transportation infrastructure.
These lists are obviously imperfect, but this is at least somewhat credible in that it is based on objective criteria.
It is based on:
1) Bike Lanes
2) Hills
3) Destinations and road connections
4) Bike commuting scores
Somewhat surprisingly Minneapolis came out on top. Makes sense in that it is liberal yuppie "smart growth" hub, but I'm still a little surprised given the climate.
1. Minneapolis, MN - 81.3
2. San Francisco, CA - 75.1
3. Portland, OR - 72.0
4. Denver, CO - 71.3
5. Boston, MA - 70.3
6. Chicago, IL - 70.2
7. Washington, D.C. - 69.5
8. Sacramento, CA - 68.9
9. Tucson, AZ - 67.9
10. Philadelphia, PA - 67.5
11. Long Beach, CA - 66.4
12. New York, NY - 65.1
13. Seattle, WA - 63.0
14. Oakland, CA - 60.9
15. Aurora, CO - 60.8
16. New Orleans, LA - 60.1
17. Miami, FL - 59.7
18. Albuquerque, NM - 59.6
19. Mesa, AZ 58.5
20. Santa Ana, CA - 57.1
__________________ "Missing middle" housing can be a great middle ground for many middle class families.
Somewhat surprisingly Minneapolis came out on top. Makes sense in that it is liberal yuppie "smart growth" hub, but I'm still a little surprised given the climate.
snow and cold must not have factored very significantly into the rankings as denver, boston, and chicago also finished in the top 10.
__________________ "Missing middle" housing can be a great middle ground for many middle class families.
Anecdotes notwithstanding, Denver is a very flat city! Honestly, given the stated criteria, that has to be one of the key factors in Denver's ranking. Its bike lane system is pretty average, and last I checked its mode share was above average but not the upper echelon like that.
I'm not knocking Denver. It belongs on the list. I'm just saying that its flatness must have been a pretty big positive factor for it.
Keep in mind, this is an international forum. I changed the name of thread to reflect list solely listing American cities otherwise Amsterdam and Copenhagen would be at the top of the list.
Denver's not that flat. It has broad hills, not necessarily steep ones.
I rode my bike from downtown to the Highlands neighborhood Sunday... that's a bit of a hill.
Arvada's elevation is 5,344 while Denver's is 5,280. That's a 64 foot difference.
Golden's is 5,675... hence why I always ride to Denver.
I'm sorry, but even 130 feet isn't much gain over a long distance when we are talking about 'hilly' bicycle cities where the topography significantly affects how and where cyclists can and do ride.
__________________
"You need both a public and a private position." --Hillary Clinton, speaking behind closed doors to the National Multi-Family Housing Council, 2013
I'm sorry, but even 130 feet isn't much gain over a long distance when we are talking about 'hilly' bicycle cities where the topography significantly affects how and where cyclists can and do ride.
Yes, but the average elevation here is 5280+... San Francisco has steeper hills but you're basically at sea level.
__________________
"I am literally grasping at straws." - Bob Belcher
I'm sorry, but even 130 feet isn't much gain over a long distance when we are talking about 'hilly' bicycle cities where the topography significantly affects how and where cyclists can and do ride.
in chicago, an elevation gain of 130 inches is considered a nearly insurmountable alpine height differential.
im surprised LA isnt on that list. its giant grid. you dont have to have dedicated infrastructure to have good cycling, just low traffic speeds and back neighborhoods. LA has tons of those. discuss.....
__________________
Portland!! Where young people formerly went to retire.
Steely, are those snow-capped mountains on the horizon?
pdxtex, I found riding a bicycle in Los Angeles harrowing everywhere except on the beachfront bike paths. Most cyclists I saw would ride on the sidewalks, because car traffic is both thick and swift on most through-streets in LA.
__________________
"You need both a public and a private position." --Hillary Clinton, speaking behind closed doors to the National Multi-Family Housing Council, 2013
portlands the same way. we have bike lanes all over the place but lots are on 40 mph plus arterial streets. portland best urban cycling is in back neighborhoods. they didnt do anything special, just signed a few low traffic routes and installed some sharrows. otherwise its just a normal street. seems like LA has lots of those. but its got urban mass, portland doesnt, so maybe all those extra people make a difference.
__________________
Portland!! Where young people formerly went to retire.
Actual infrastructure is only a portion of what makes a place bikeable IMO. You can have all the bike lanes in the world but if drivers are not accustomed to cyclists it's gonna suck. I have no issue biking anywhere in central Toronto despite the relative lack of bike lanes (which is slowly changing) because drivers are generally aware and used to cyclists. In some cases I actually prefer to bike on streets without bike lanes because the volume of cyclists on certain routes is getting to the point I spend most of the time in the traffic lane passing. I did a lot of biking in Chicago last summer (and will again this summer) and found their infrastructure to be quite good, however the drivers were a bit harrowing at times. Especially off the main biking corridors. Loved that flatness though!
That being said, installing infrastructure is probably a good way to encourage a cycling culture.
Steely, are those snow-capped mountains on the horizon?
pdxtex, I found riding a bicycle in Los Angeles harrowing everywhere except on the beachfront bike paths. Most cyclists I saw would ride on the sidewalks, because car traffic is both thick and swift on most through-streets in LA.
your impression of LA sounds like my pedestrian experience in your city tho. people haul ass in SF. im scared for my life crossing some of those streets. where do people ride so lackadaisically? and central SF is like all hills! im sure its got the mindset but you need some steel lungs to get around some parts of town i bet. concerning infrastructure, i agree, its a good indicator of a mindful city hall and useful for some routes but not necessary for a good cycling experience. the prudent urban cyclist is like the one legged man, he probably knows all the best and shortest routes.
__________________
Portland!! Where young people formerly went to retire.
These lists are obviously imperfect, but this is at least somewhat credible in that it is based on objective criteria.
It is based on:
1) Bike Lanes
2) Hills
3) Destinations and road connections
4) Bike commuting scores
Somewhat surprisingly Minneapolis came out on top. Makes sense in that it is liberal yuppie "smart growth" hub, but I'm still a little surprised given the climate.
I agree with this sentiment 100%. If they're going to include "Hills" as a criterion, then shouldn't "Climate" also be factored in? Unlike topography (and climate!), governments have some control over the other three criteria.
Either include topography AND climate or just look at the stuff that cities can control, e.g., infrastructure and bike policies.
Sorry to be "one of those people" but the methodology of this ranking is not sound.
I'm always surprised when I see San Francisco rank high on bike lists. I know the city favors that mode of transportation, but it seems impossibly hilly - even for me in Austin. I also assumed that's one reason Austin didn't make the list, but I know San Francisco is much hillier. We could use more bike lanes on our main arteries, but the ones that don't have them in our neighborhood are hilly anyway. Plus there's almost always an alternative "neighborhood" route you can go to avoid the arteries. Our neighborhood is about 7 miles from downtown, and it's 200 feet higher than downtown. It's mostly downhill the whole way, but the hills go up and down on the way. The ride back can be pretty bad after a long day. Whenever I ride in a place that is flatter than Austin I end up feeling spoiled.
About Minneapolis, I notice St. Paul isn't on the list. Isn't it possible to ride from Minneapolis to St. Paul? Aren't the cities pretty well connected with a few arteries between them with good public/non-car oriented transportation alternatives?
Of course there are specific hills in San Francisco that would totally suck to ride, like Russian Hill, and in those specific places bike traffic is scarce. But the vast majority of San Franciscans live in flatter, more navigable neighborhoods and so, relative to most US cities, SF has high bike ridership.
Crosstown traffic collects on very specific routes that feature decent-to-great bike facilities and which explicitly avoid as much hillside as physically possible. For example, a cyclist can travel between the Bay shore and Ocean Beach with only about a 300 foot gain over the entire 7-mile route via the bike facilities on Market Street (mixed, bike lanes, cycle tracks), "The Wiggle" (side streets and cycle tracks) and Golden Gate Park (bike lanes and cycle tracks). The shoreline paths and primary north-south route also avoid the worst of the hills and offer various configurations. One of the great benefits of having the city's bike traffic concentrated on certain routes, rather than spread all over like I've seen in Portland, is safety in numbers. The roughly 3-mile stretch of Market Street east of 9th Street hosts more than 8,000 bike trips each workday, so motorists and pedestrians are all keenly aware they need to look for us.
The topography here is more challenging than that of Chicago (although it helps we never get ice, snow or sub-freezing temperatures), but you really don't have to be a triathlete to regularly ride a bike for transportation in SF, trust me.
__________________
"You need both a public and a private position." --Hillary Clinton, speaking behind closed doors to the National Multi-Family Housing Council, 2013
Prev
Linear Mode
