I've noticed that a lot of cities in the Southeast have concentric rings of development and road construction built over the years, yielding different qualities of cycling at different distances out.

The innermost "downtown" areas have a nice dense grid of urban streets built before 1950. Most have slow speed limits; the most convenient roads will have higher traffic volumes while others will be very light and make great alternate routes; I'm comfortable cycling on all of them. Land uses are often mixed and useful non-residential destinations are near the residents they serve. These areas are ideal for a car-lite utility cycling lifestyle.

A little farther out, where most of the development dates from the 1950s and 1960s, the street density drops considerably, and a larger percentage of the useful through roads are higher speed arterials. However, there are often still nice 2-lane collector streets that connect neighborhoods together and provide alternatives to the arterials. These roads are often signed as bike routes due to their wide pavement and lower traffic speeds and volumes compared to the main arterials. Land uses are more separated and everyday trip distances are longer. I find these roads enjoyable for exercise and utility cycling, although stop signs are frequent.

As one moves farther out, one usually encounters a limited-access ring arterial or ring freeway depending on the population. Because not many roads may cross the ring, it may be difficult to find a pleasant low-traffic or low-speed street to cross it. A ring road that isn't a freeway may have at-grade intersections with collectors directly across from one another on both sides, but in some cases cross-traffic has been prohibited with barriers and right-in-right-out restrictions. Freeways may have severed local street connectivity, with only the most important, busy roads crossing at bridges. Sometimes a greenway or rail-trail will cross the freeway, but it will be closed to the public after dark.

Farther out, one encounters neighborhoods built in the late 1980s and early 1990s, where some of the worst pod-style cul-de-sac development took place. The only useful through streets connecting residential to non-residential land uses are 50 mph arterials. All trips leaving a residential single-use subdivision must use the arterial. Commercial destinations such as grocery stores are in large activity centers located on the busiest arterials. Most cycling not done in small loop within one's neighborhood requires the confidence to ride the 45mph 4-lane arterials. Most novice cyclists ride on the sidewalks.

One may have to cross another ring road to go farther out.

As one reaches developments built near 2000 and later, some developments incorporate Traditional Neighborhood Development elements, with higher street connectivity and residential uses adjacent to or even mixed with commercial destinations. Some of these developments weave into more typical 2000s era suburbia with good connectivity of collector streets, while others are isolated islands. Some of the other more common single use residential subdivisions now have better collector street networks and the collectors often interface with the activity centers allowing direct trips without use of arterials. Streets vary considerably in how pleasant or useful they are for cycling.

A bit farther out, one encounters very low density semi-agricultural residential on a very sparse network of narrow state highways, posted 45-55 mph, with no paved shoulder, and heavy traffic traveling between adjacent cities and new exurban subdivisions. Most cyclists find these areas unpleasant for cycling.

Even farther out, the isolated subdivisions are less common, and traffic volumes are lower. This is what most roadies consider truly "rural" roads that can be quite pleasant for cycling.

In summary, I often encounter a "band" of varying width around a city where cycling is unpleasant or inconvenient. There may also be patches inside or outside that band where the enjoyment of cycling wil vary.