Google sponsored links
I hope Sheldon Brown and Pete Clark weigh in on this discussion. Bicycling magazine has selected Portland OR, San Diego CA, and Davis CA as exceptionally bicycle-friendly cities. No argument or surprise there. However, they also ranked Boston MA and Atlanta GA near the bottom, a distinction I would have thought belonged to Miami.
This is an archived thread, you can find the full version of this thread, with images, links and more content
here.
Ready to buy? Check out these two online bike stores:
-
http://www.nashbar.com (you can find the latest bike nashbar coupons in
this thread)
-
http://www.performancebike.com (you can find the latest performance bike coupons in
this thread)
Cya on the forums,
- The BikeForums Team
-
http://www.bikeforums.net
Pretty much all of South Florida should rank at the bottom of the list.
You can do your own research by going to raiglist and gauging the bike sections of different cities(and surrounding areas).
Compare San Diego: http://sandiego.craigslist.org/bik/ to Miami: http://miami.craigslist.org/bik/
It should give you a rough picture of the state of cycling in that city. Of course, I did not factor in population levels so that might make this method moot.
I’ve got to stick up for the City of Atlanta – Bicycling singled out the City not Metro Atlanta as one of the worst. They made that distinction clear by sub-heading their “Worst Cities” list as: “It’s Still a Jungle in These 3 Urban Centers” – and they list the population of the City not Metro Atlanta.
Background: the City of Atlanta is very small both geographically (it’s a tiny patch in the middle of a huge metro area) and population-wise (it has only about 10% of metro’s population.) Most of the roads in the city pre-date the automobile, so they tend to be narrow.
Most of Bicycling’s criticisms apply pretty well to Metro Atlanta as a whole – I wouldn’t bother with this post if they had cited Atlanta as a metro area.
A quote from the article:
“… more and more two-lane roads are being converted into four-lane speedways…”
I can’t think of any city streets that have been modified like that – that’s common in the suburbs but not true at all in the city.
They also cite “aggressive auto traffic” – I find city drivers very polite – I’d rank them among the best I’ve encountered – they’re always yacking on their cell phones – but that’s a problem almost everywhere.
The article also cites the lack of bike lanes and no “bike coordinator”. I don’t believe painting lines on the pavement does much to enhance safety – it can actually make things worse – but let’s not get into that debate again. And if they hired a “bike coordinator” it would be just one more way to fill a job with a political crony and increase the burden on the taxpayers.
Is there a link to the article in Bicycling Magazine? What is the criteria for bicycle friendly? Is it related to the developing of lane areas and traffic routes for bicycles? Or is it related to the interaction between cyclists and motorized vehicles?
I don't have a problem with Atlanta drivers on my route.
Little five points > Highland Ave > Piedmont Park > The Prado > Peachtree Street > West Peachtree
On some streets in the city with no bike lane during rush hour things get a little pushy. My bike route purposely avoids those.
The only time I had a automobile driver get angry and attempted to push me off the road was in a non-congested area.
I have to say that the outlying areas with the exception of Decatur and Peachtree City are far worse that Atlanta proper. But one problem all of Atlanta suffers from is excessive speed in residential neighborhoods. I see someone going 60 in a 35 everyday.
well if weather has anything to do with it, I can see why San Deigo ranks above Boston. Everyday in feburary as i rode up the coast I used to thank God that i went to UCSD instead of BC. and then somehow I ended up in northern europe...
I'd love to see the criteria used for the articles. SD certainly has a lot of riders and a lot of bike lanes, but is quite designed for cyclists the way Davis or Portland is. Of course Davis has a population of something like 65,000 half of them students. SD has 1.3 million spread over a gigantic area. Thye are kind of hard to compare.
Here is Bicycling Magazine's criteria for the 2003 most bicycling friendly city Portland Oregon:
Portland, Ore.
Voted No. 1 Best Overall city for cycling by Bicycling Magazine, Portland has close to 230 miles of bikeways, with 400 more on the way. Recently, it invested $34 million to build a bikeway on the new Eastside Esplanade, the longest floating walkway in the United States.
Portland's Create-a-Commuter program is the first project in the United States that provides low-income adults with commuter bicycles as well as a session on commuter safety. The bikes come outfitted with lights, a lock, a helmet, a pump, tool kits, maps and rainwear.
Portland has set six criteria for a bicycle-friendly community, five of which are targeted at curbing automobile use and traffic. The criteria include good facilities for bicycling, an urban design oriented to people and not automobiles, traffic restrictions in residential neighborhoods, stricter enforcement of traffic regulations, better traffic education for motorists and nonmotorists, and restrictions on automobile use.
"There is less congestion [and] traffic, and there are no vast parking lots," said Jen Fox of the Community Design Center of Pittsburgh, who lived in Portland for a year and a half before moving back to Pittsburgh. "Portland is a role model."
http://www.post-gazette.com/lifestyle/20030518bikesidelifestyle6p6.asp
I know all the Atlantans hate it when I say this, but I visited Atlanta recently because my SO had a job interview. We drove around Murrieta and Roswell and points in between. The only thing I could think was if I lived there I'd never ride my bikes again.
Maybe if you live there you get used to it, but LA traffic is Mayberry compared to what I saw in suburban Atlanta. I knew if I moved there I'd never ride my recumbents ever again unless on a bike path, and if I ever did ride my mountain bike it would be on the sidewalk most places because streets with any kind of outer edge were few and far between and the place was hilly and traffic was fast and furious. I'm just not comfortable on such narrow roads holding up 50mph traffic while I chug away at 9mph up a hill that seems to go on forever.
I know all the Atlantans hate it when I say this, but I visited Atlanta recently because my SO had a job interview. We drove around Murrieta and Roswell and points in between. The only thing I could think was if I lived there I'd never ride my bikes again.
Maybe if you live there you get used to it, but LA traffic is Mayberry compared to what I saw in suburban Atlanta. I knew if I moved there I'd never ride my recumbents ever again unless on a bike path, and if I ever did ride my mountain bike it would be on the sidewalk most places because streets with any kind of outer edge were few and far between and the place was hilly and traffic was fast and furious. I'm just not comfortable on such narrow roads holding up 50mph traffic while I chug away at 9mph up a hill that seems to go on forever.
Yeah, we've got a lot of hills here as for the traffic most of the time you have to just take the lane and hold your ground. As soon as I get a helmet cam setup I think I'll make a video to show some of Atlanta's qualities.
I'll have to read the article to get a better idea of their criteria but as a long time resident of the Boston area I can definitely see why it ranks low.
Despite the liberal political track record of this area it suffers a kind of hypocrisy when it comes to issues like racism and common courtesy. The drivers are extremely aggressive, many of the urban streets are poorly designed thoroughfares mostly because they were designed for horse and buggy traffic of the 1800's and modified to be used by today's urban motorized traffic. Parking is extremely limited and much of the traffic are cars circling seeking an open parking space and they'll kill, literally, to get that spot. Double parking is rampant for both delivery and private vehicles. The city has been under massive reconstruction for the last 12 years with a huge and costly federal project called the Big Dig, which has created traffic nightmares and tremendous heavy equipment traffic used for construction.
The MDC bike paths, while relatively well conceived as far back as the early 60's by Dr. Paul Dudley White and early cycling advocates and capitalizing on the genious of Frederick Law Olmstead's brilliant "jeweled necklace" of city parks, are a lesson in wasted potential, poor maintenance and neglect.
Since Boston's eastern border is the Boston Harbor and the Atlantic Ocean commuting cyclists come in primarily from the western suburbs and the roads they must use, like Beacon Street or Commonwealth Avenue, are lined with parked cars, have dangerous intersections every 500 feet or so, old style above ground trolley cars and tracks and are filled with jaywalking students and other pedestrians for the several miles they cover on their way into the city. Add to that the tough New England winters and it all adds up to a challenging place to ride a bike. All things considered it's amazing there are so many of us here that do so.
Here is Bicycling Magazine's criteria for the 2003 most bicycling friendly city Portland Oregon:
"There is less congestion [and] traffic, and there are no vast parking lots," said Jen Fox of the Community Design Center of Pittsburgh, who lived in Portland for a year and a half before moving back to Pittsburgh. "Portland is a role model." [/I]
http://www.post-gazette.com/lifestyle/20030518bikesidelifestyle6p6.asp
I grew up in the Portland area, and just moved to Pittsburgh. The comparison for biking is interesting to me, because Portland definitely has many, many more bikers, better bike lanes and bike paths, better quality roads, etc. I really enjoyed biking there, and I still miss it. However, I've found that all that infrastructure seems to make many Portland drivers behave worse towards bicyclists. The cars seem to feel like the bikes belong in certain, designated areas, and if they're not there than they're taking the risk of being honked at, or sideswiped. In Pittsburgh, there are a few annoyed drivers, but more of them seem to not know exactly what to do about bikers, so they give me a wide berth, and are generally (I've found) more polite.
I still miss Portland, though. The marine drive trail and the esplanade were really nice. So was Mt. Tabor.
Pretty much all of South Florida should rank at the bottom of the list.
I have heard from a friend of mine who visits the Sanabell (sp) island area once a year that, that area of Florida is great for riding bike. So is it really fair to say all of south Florida is the worst place to ride bike? Can some of the Floridians here shed some light on the Sanabell Island area of Florida?
I think the whole concept is crap. If you can't have fun riding a bike, it's your fault, not the city's.
Boston made the list for the same reasons it always does:
Mostly narrow roads that are poorly maintained. The areas where cyclists are "expected" to ride are peppered with potholes and pavement rifts, broken glass, and small shards of twisted metal. These are the remains of countless fender-benders.
Drivers that in constant attack/kill mode. It is extremely difficult for a motorist to lose his/her driver's license in Massachsetts. Most motorists who do lose their licenses simply drive anyway, and double dog dare anyone to try and stop them. A quick read through the Boston area yellow pages reveals an awful lot of lawyers whose primary practice is "getting your license back!" (This, in big bold letters.) The license testing process here is laughable, as it is in many states. They might as well just give the things away.
Talk radio hosts who encourage assaults on cyclists. One even stated on the air, "I don't care what the law says, you don't belong on the road." He should be careful with how he uses that logic, lest someone use it against him. Yes, I realize that these brain stems are not to be taken seriously, and that their entire purpose it to entertain, but it seems an awful lot of people do take them seriously.
A total lack of support from the city and most state political people. No surprises there. On occasion, political folks will throw cyclists a table scrap or two, (A bike coordinator was hired for the city, but laid off two years later.) but don't expect anything real. Politicians listen to money, that's about it.
Winters that can make you think you live on the dark side of the moon. (I'm not a winter person. I don't apologize for this. If you can ride in a Boston winter, more power to you. Winter this year has been mild thus far. Last year, winter conditions rivaled anything you might encounter in the Yukon.)
On Florida: I have heard from many that the southeastern chunk of the state, (Miami area) as well as the entire Orlando area, are to be avoided if you are a cyclist. I have heard that the gulf coast, and most other areas are quite nice. Anyone have information to share on that?
If this list of good/bad towns is open to overseas I vote for Windhoek, Namibia for worst city. Centerlines are gone over if cars in front of you are stopped. If a driver sees a good parking space on the opposite side of the road they will drive into it dodging on-coming traffic. For nice city try Sausalito, California on a weekend. There are so many cyclists coming over the Golden Gate Bridge It seems like a non-stop Critical Mass Rally. The only hazard seems to be the groups on bikes from rental agencies. No situational awareness.
I know all the Atlantans hate it when I say this, but I visited Atlanta recently because my SO had a job interview. We drove around Murrieta and Roswell and points in between. The only thing I could think was if I lived there I'd never ride my bikes again.
Maybe if you live there you get used to it, but LA traffic is Mayberry compared to what I saw in suburban Atlanta. I knew if I moved there I'd never ride my recumbents ever again unless on a bike path, and if I ever did ride my mountain bike it would be on the sidewalk most places because streets with any kind of outer edge were few and far between and the place was hilly and traffic was fast and furious. I'm just not comfortable on such narrow roads holding up 50mph traffic while I chug away at 9mph up a hill that seems to go on forever.
This description of certain suburbs north of the City of Atlanta applies to most of Metro Atlanta. My beef with Bicycling is that they accurately described the suburbs and then applied it to the City of Atlanta – where it’s not at all accurate. I live in an older neighborhood where there aren’t any roads fitting that description.
I have to admit that the traffic can be very fast. It was a few years ago and I can’t cite the source but a survey found that the interstate highways of metro Atlanta had the fastest traffic in the world. But again, they simply can’t drive that fast on the narrow city streets.
Tucson, AZ is listed as #2 for cities its size.
Yup, as #2 we try harder!
I would say my area is bike friendly..............it is voted as one of the top riding locations in the US. We have I know of 4 LBS' in the city of Asheville and there may be more that I don't know of. Alot of scenic areas to ride as well.
Oddly enough, I have just noticed a buch of bike lane stripes have been repainted in this city... even though there are still a bunch of poorly paved roads.
Gee I wonder why they suddenly decided to hit the bike lanes first?
Of course any later road repairs will obscure the new paint here in San Diego.
My inlaws live in the greater Boston area and so we go there from Vermont regularly. I don't have any real experience with the other "worst" cities in the list, but my observation is that, in general, the things that make a place bad for cyclists also make it bad for drivers. Greater Boston is a continual traffic jam. You can barely move and even a little trip to the grocery store becomes a darwinian struggle where even the most mild mannered driver becomes a psychopath in order to move forward, park, and return to the blessed sanctuary of yout home. How anyone can cope with that every day of their lives is beyond me.
Portland has set six criteria for a bicycle-friendly community, five of which are targeted at curbing automobile use and traffic. The criteria include good facilities for bicycling, an urban design oriented to people and not automobiles, traffic restrictions in residential neighborhoods, stricter enforcement of traffic regulations, better traffic education for motorists and nonmotorists, and restrictions on automobile use
...my observation is that, in general, the things that make a place bad for cyclists also make it bad for drivers.
That's what I thought too. A good city for transportation is good for all of us.
What is the criteria for bicycle friendly? ... is it related to the interaction between cyclists and motorized vehicles?
I would also have hoped criteria would include a thought towards the relative amount of cyclists in a city (isn't that the ulitmate criteria for a good city?) and the attitude of people who are not cyclists towards cyclists. (although, admittently, how would that be measured?) Further, what is the collision rate of cyclists in traffic? Isn't half the collision rate better than twice the collision rate of bikes to cars?
Old Miami, and Old Fort Lauderdale generally sux for bike riding.
Only a few bike lanes here and there, and they generally suck anyway...
A few of the newer suburbs have bike-friendly lanes but they are typically empty ... people who live out in Weston just ride their bikes on the weekends ! LOL they live so far away from anything that they can't live without their SUV's !
Anyway... I live on the east coast... there are zero bike lanes here, I have to ride on the road and take the typical road rage abuse, I don't care and I'll keep riding... I just hope that I don't get run over by someone who is too busy talking on their cell phone to watch the road !
My inlaws live in the greater Boston area and so we go there from Vermont regularly. I don't have any real experience with the other "worst" cities in the list, but my observation is that, in general, the things that make a place bad for cyclists also make it bad for drivers. Greater Boston is a continual traffic jam. You can barely move and even a little trip to the grocery store becomes a darwinian struggle where even the most mild mannered driver becomes a psychopath in order to move forward, park, and return to the blessed sanctuary of yout home. How anyone can cope with that every day of their lives is beyond me.
Seattle is interesting--a lot of how Boston is being described sounds like the Emerald City. It's a perfectly rotten place to drive a car but an excellent place to ride a bike. Sometimes riding there I feel like Dorothy and a tribe of Munchkins are going to be greeting me with a song around the next corner.
Roody,
This is some truth in what you say. I live in a supposedly bike unfriendly place, but still manage to ride all around... 3500 miles last year.
I think the whole concept is crap. If you can't have fun riding a bike, it's your fault, not the city's.
I'll have to read the article to get a better idea of their criteria but as a long time resident of the Boston area I can definitely see why it ranks low.
Despite the liberal political track record of this area it suffers a kind of hypocrisy when it comes to issues like racism and common courtesy. The drivers are extremely aggressive, many of the urban streets are poorly designed thoroughfares mostly because they were designed for horse and buggy traffic of the 1800's and modified to be used by today's urban motorized traffic. Parking is extremely limited and much of the traffic are cars circling seeking an open parking space and they'll kill, literally, to get that spot. Double parking is rampant for both delivery and private vehicles. The city has been under massive reconstruction for the last 12 years with a huge and costly federal project called the Big Dig, which has created traffic nightmares and tremendous heavy equipment traffic used for construction.
The MDC bike paths, while relatively well conceived as far back as the early 60's by Dr. Paul Dudley White and early cycling advocates and capitalizing on the genious of Frederick Law Olmstead's brilliant "jeweled necklace" of city parks, are a lesson in wasted potential, poor maintenance and neglect.
Since Boston's eastern border is the Boston Harbor and the Atlantic Ocean commuting cyclists come in primarily from the western suburbs and the roads they must use, like Beacon Street or Commonwealth Avenue, are lined with parked cars, have dangerous intersections every 500 feet or so, old style above ground trolley cars and tracks and are filled with jaywalking students and other pedestrians for the several miles they cover on their way into the city. Add to that the tough New England winters and it all adds up to a challenging place to ride a bike. All things considered it's amazing there are so many of us here that do so.
I definitely agree. The thing that gets me about Boston is the level of nastiness and just plain rudeness especially if you are considered 'different' and that translates into how people drive. Everyone seems to be in a real pissy mood.
I think that the Bicycling article may have been talking about Boston proper because Cambridge got honorable mention. I live in Somerville, work in Cambridge and ride only to work or away from Boston (Arlington, Concord etc) and it is pretty good. However, I used to work in Boston and riding to work mucho sucked (especially when I had to go over the Longfellow Bridge).
I think that the age of a city determines how many accomodations can be made for cyclists. Older cities, (with the exception of New York) have narrower streets. I don't know where Cincinnati placed on the list, but it is difficult to cycle here, because narrow, winding streets make competition for space more strenuous- or at least that's what this article (http://www.citybeat.com/archives/1999/ISSUE550/NEWSARTI.HTM) says.
I think that the age of a city determines how many accomodations can be made for cyclists. Older cities, (with the exception of New York) have narrower streets. I don't know where Cincinnati placed on the list, but it is difficult to cycle here, because narrow, winding streets make competition for space more strenuous- or at least that's what this article (http://www.citybeat.com/archives/1999/ISSUE550/NEWSARTI.HTM) says.
The minute one sees the problem as "competition for space", he's doomed.
Football players compete for space. In traffic, the space is mine, until I choose to give it up. That's what right-of-way rules are for...
Once you accept that a narrow lane means using the full lane, and often requiring faster traffic behind you to have to be held up a bit, the "problem" vanishes.
My city isn't bad at all, but then again it has a population of 90,000. I've never been honked at or yelled at, and it's rare for a car to gun its engines when it passes. I guess I should feal really lucky!
When I visited Ottawa this past summer, I was impressed by the pro-bike culture there. Heck, they even close the walking paths and some streets for the exclusive use of cyclists on Sunday mornings.
Winnipeg is the worst cycling city. We have way too many aggressive drivers, most of whom are in a hurry, and most can't drive properly to save their lives. They never use turn signals and a lot of people are talking on cell phones when they should be watching the road.
This thread seems to have brought Atlantan cyclists out of the woodwork.
"Atlanta" is a very diversified region. You'll find a great variety of cycling environments throughout it. There is great, good, satisfactory, poor and horrible. But I don't think anyone can characterize the entire region with a single rating for "cycling friendliness." Also, I can't honestly compare Atlanta with anywhere else, since I don't ride anywhere else. I speak only of what I know.
I ride regularly between downtown Atlanta and Stone Mountain, which is about 14 miles east of the city. I'm familiar with much of Atlanta on the East, Northeast and Southeast sides, most of Dekalb County and parts of Fulton County. Considering that the Atlanta metro region encompasses as many as 19 counties, that's not nearly the whole picture.
If you rate "Atlanta" for cycling based on how car-oriented it is, it might get very low marks. Atlanta's economy is based on it's location as a transportation hub, whether road, rail or air. It thrives on traffic.
But maybe it's best to rate Atlanta for cycling by asking it's cyclists. As for me, I'm happy as a clam. I always find it humorous when others tell me how unhappy I should be. :D
There are some good recreational places to ride, such as Stone Mountain Park (though that's for the seasoned cyclists) and the Silver Comet Trail, which when completed will stretch uninterrupted into Alabama, among others.
For transportation, there are plenty of interconnected neighborhoods and small towns to ride through, and most are very pleasant, if not beautiful. MARTA, our mass transit system, allows bikes on all its trains, and all its buses are equipped to carry two bicycles. Downtown, there are plenty of one-way streets, which can make it easier to take a whole lane to yourself. There are lots of alternate routes if you want to avoid the busier ones. Even the newer, redesigned arteries (four lanes and a grass median) are wide enough to allow sharing the lane, though speed limits are sinfully ignored, which is probably my biggest complaint.
In summary, I'll leave the inter-city comparisons to the experts. Like Kf5nd said, "I live in a supposedly bike unfriendly place, but still manage to ride all around... 3500 miles last year."
(Thanks John, for starting this discussion. --Pete Clark :) )
EDIT: Remember, Bicycling magazine is funded by sponsors who sell bicycles and related accessories. They have a vested interest in increasing bicycle sales, and what better way than to build more bicycle facilities? This is not necessarily a bad thing, but it does not mean the cities they say are bad for bicycling really are.
If you rate "Atlanta" for cycling based on how car-oriented it is, it might get very low marks. Atlanta's economy is based on it's location as a transportation hub, whether road, rail or air. It thrives on traffic.
. . . .
But maybe it's best to rate Atlanta for cycling by asking it's cyclists. As for me, I'm happy as a clam. I always find it humorous when others tell me how unhappy I should be. :D
. . . .
EDIT: Remember, Bicycling magazine is funded by sponsors who sell bicycles and related accessories. They have a vested interest in increasing bicycle sales, and what better way than to build more bicycle facilities? This is not necessarily a bad thing, but it does not mean the cities they say are bad for bicycling really are.
Some good points that nobody else thought of. My city builds more cars than any other North American city (At least it used to until a few monhs ago :rolleyes: ) You couldn't get much more car centered than Lansing. But I love riding here. Almost no bike lanes--GM doesn't want them because they might slow down parts deliveries to the plants. But drivers are cool and I don't have many problems at all, and I have even less use for bike lanes han GM does.
That's why I don't pay much attention to these places rated gimmicks. I know a guy who's reading them all the time and dreaming about where he wants to move next. The funny thing is, he is never satisfied, even though he's lived in a dozen cities or more by age 45. He's always worried about the next place he's going to live, and can't take the time to try and enjoy where he is right now.
The source of most dissatisfaction is inside you, not outside.
I read Bicycling magazine pretty often; they do have some good content at times. But they sure do make a lot of mistakes! I read it at the library or get used copies--it isn't usually worth paying for. They are understandably very prejudiced in favor of expensive gear and bikes, and they don't have a clue about how to ride in traffic.
Didn't Bicycling get knocked a year or two ago, for putting Austin on their best cities list? I have heard and read that Lance's home town is very bicycle hostile, complete with redneck bully drivers, and cops who tell them to stay off the road if they know what's good for them. Some state legislators wanted to force cyclists to wear "slow moving vehicle" signs across their backs while riding. (that was defeated) And yet, Bicycling rated Austin highly again.
In this latest issue, Bicycling rated Alburqueque NM very highly. So, any forum members in alburqueque care to comment, or share information? I've been there on business travel. The climate and overall city layout say "yes", but what about other factors?
I definitely agree. The thing that gets me about Boston is the level of nastiness and just plain rudeness especially if you are considered 'different' and that translates into how people drive. Everyone seems to be in a real pissy mood.
Almost forgot,,,,When you're right, you're right. If you've read the newspapers lately, you know that a lot of people, especially young professionals, are leaving in droves. The most common reason given is the cost of housing, which borders on the absurd. Among the lesser known reasons are "the attitude" you mention. This attitude is present in the ultra-rich suburbs west of the city as well, but it's more concealed. The town of Concord is rapidly getting a reputation as being anti-bike, despite its popularity with cyclists. This is the town that halted planned expansion of the Minuteman rail-trail. Ditto for the town of Weston, which has pretty much doomed the imagined (I don't even think it's right to use the word "planned" any more) Mass Central Rail Trail. When completed, this imagined gem would have run from Waltham, all the way to Northhampton, MA. Weston, Wielding their money and political power like a sledgehammer, pretty much killed the whole thing by saying "Not in my backyard".
The best = almost anywhere in Zimbabwe
no fuel = no vehicles
with good wide roads, glorious sunshine most of the time and a 3rd world economy/exchange rate it's the ideal place to cycle.
--- WORST: Berkeley Springs, WV. There are NO shoulders anywhere. Even cars cannot parallel park; they straddle the edge of the street and shoulder to park.
There was ONE bike shop a few years ago but it folded.
--- WORST: Berkeley Springs, WV. There are NO shoulders anywhere. Even cars cannot parallel park, they straddle the edge of the street and shoulder to park.
How to drivers get their cars to straddle NONexistent shoulders?
:D
Didn't Bicycling get knocked a year or two ago, for putting Austin on their best cities list? I have heard and read that Lance's home town is very bicycle hostile, complete with redneck bully drivers, and cops who tell them to stay off the road if they know what's good for them. Some state legislators wanted to force cyclists to wear "slow moving vehicle" signs across their backs while riding. (that was defeated) And yet, Bicycling rated Austin highly again.
In this latest issue, Bicycling rated Alburqueque NM very highly. So, any forum members in alburqueque care to comment, or share information? I've been there on business travel. The climate and overall city layout say "yes", but what about other factors?
The whole concept of rating cities for cycling "friendliness" is pretty ridiculous.
The factors are almost totally subjective. The result is nonsense, including cities like Portland getting rated high because of all their anti-cyclist rage-inducing "facilities".
You guys are making me really, really glad I live in Wisconsin. This a state that is committed to bicycling.
We have the first rails-to-trails conversion in the nation and a continued aggressive construction of bike trails, literally hundreds of miles of trails that criss cross the state, the best bike shop in the nation, thousands of bikers, lots of rides and Super Week - which is the proving ground for pro racers.
So, I will brag little as I explain.
The 32-mile long Elroy to Sparta trail in the southwestern part of the state was the first conversion of a railway a bike trail. I highly recommend it. It's a great tour of rural Wisconsin and the small towns along the route love cyclists.
There are a bunch of other trails - the Ozaukee County Interurban Trail, which turned an old trolley line into a 30 mile paved trail; the Milwaukee Oak Leak trail, over 80 miles of trails that circle the county and link up with other trails; the 98 mile long Gandy Dancer trail out near the Mississippi, and there are a lot more. It is now possible to ride from Chicago to northwest of Green Bay almost entirely on trails.
Wheel & Sprocket in Milwaukee, Oshkosh and Appleton has been named one of the top 100 bike shops in the nation by bicycleresearch.com
There are probably over a hundred rides and races in the state in the spring, summer and fall. The Miller Lite Ride for the Arts is one of the largest in the country. There are events for both fat tires and roadies.
And, there's Super Week, which is actually three weeks long. It is used as development tool for the top pro racers. A Super Week race was the last place Lance raced before he was diagnosed. And, the races draw spectators. The biggest one, the Downer Ave. races, draw between 8,000 and 10,000 spectators each year.
And, there are those bike companies - Trek and Waterford, also headquartered here.
And of course, Madison is always named one of the best cycling cities in the U.S.
So, get out of Atlanta, c'mon grits cannot be good for you. While I love Boston, and speak fluent New England, if you cannot ride, what's the point of being there?
Yes, we have winter, but it keeps the riff raff out.
The Raleigh NC area is hard to figure out. Mountain biking recieves excellent support with several, county controlled, mountain bike trails. Multi-Use trails have been built and are being expanded with a major MUP planned in the Cary-Apex area. But road cycling does not receive the help it deserves IMHO. Popular routes are narrow, single lane roads with no shoulder. Sometimes I think they are an accident waiting to happen. Bike lanes are needed on the most popular roads to safely accomodate road cycling and encourage cycle commuting. But with budget problems plaguing the road building program, I don't think we will see road cyclists getting much help.
Here's a link to a scanned pdf of the entire article. It might take a while to load, be patient:
http://www.livablestreets.info/files/bicycling.pdf
The whole concept of rating cities for cycling "friendliness" is pretty ridiculous.
Your opinion. Others are free to disagree.
Didn't San Diego rate very highly?
:rolleyes:
<<interstate highways of metro Atlanta had the fastest traffic in the world>>
Is that "World" as in "World Series" or the real World? :)
BTW, no-one has mentioned the excellent Silver Comet Trail which runs out west of Atlanta. Not metro, I know, but a great ride.
I lived 12 yr in ATL, but did very little cycling there because of a) the traffic density, b) inattentive drivers (but they are everywhere in the US) and c) the hills.
Every city I've lived in has good and bad areas that are good for biking. Attitudes towards bikes also vary with neighborhood and with time. Ranking entire metro areas for "friendliness" seems like a useless generalization to me.
Your opinion. Others are free to disagree.
Didn't San Diego rate very highly?
:rolleyes:
You quoted my conclusion as if that was my opinion. Yet I clearly stated it as a logical outcome from another premise.
The whole concept of rating cities for cycling "friendliness" is pretty ridiculous.
The factors are almost totally subjective. The result is nonsense, including cities like Portland getting rated high because of all their anti-cyclist rage-inducing "facilities".
My conclusion is based on the following premise:
"The factors are almost totally subjective". You may disagree with that, but that would pretty much make my point, unless you can actually identify significant factors used in the ratings that were non-subjective.
You may disagree that a rating system based on factors that are almost totally subjective is inherently ridiculous. We would agree to disagree on that. But I would also hasten to point out that rating cities for the nebulous quality of "bike friendliness" in a system that has more in common with how beauty pageant's work than how any other rating system speaks for itself.
Finally, yes, San Diego did get rated best big city (over a million) or something. Somebody wins the Lottery too. It was our turn. Woo hoo!
So, get out of Atlanta, c'mon grits cannot be good for you.
Yes, we have winter, but it keeps the riff raff out.
Move to Wisconsin? Um...thank you, no. :)
But I'll come visit and take a snowball home and put it in the freezer. :D
BTW, no-one has mentioned the excellent Silver Comet Trail which runs out west of Atlanta. Not metro, I know, but a great ride.
Thanks, Art!
(BTW I did mention the Silver Comet Trail :D )
How to drivers get their cars to straddle NONexistent shoulders?
--- OK, try again. In Berkeley Springs WV, the traffic lanes are so narrow there is no outside lane space for bicyclists to ride nor even room for autos to parallel park. So the cars straddle the traffic lane and the grassy shoulder to park.
--- OK, try again. In Berkeley Springs WV, the traffic lanes are so narrow there is no outside lane space for bicyclists to ride nor even room for autos to parallel park. So the cars straddle the traffic lane and the grassy shoulder to park.
OK, that makes more sense. But if people are parking, then the travel speed must be reasonable. Sounds like a good place to take the lane. Is that problematic?
How to drivers get their cars to straddle NONexistent shoulders?
:D
A dirt shoulder is not a road shoulder... folks park this way in Lemon Grove too... where curbs and sidewalks do not exist in much of the burg.
Previous -
Top -
Next
Copyright 1999 - 2007
BikeForums.Net - All rights reserved.
Common bike forum topics in clue bicycles, cycling, mountain biking,
cycling jerseys, shorts, socks, shoes and bike equiptment selection.