Which Cities Are Not Considered Top U.S. Cycling Cities?

Defining a Top U.S. Cycling City

A top U.S. cycling city is typically characterized by high bicycle commuting rates, dense networks of protected bike lanes, strong policy support, visible cultural acceptance, and measurable safety outcomes. These cities consistently score well in national and regional bikeability studies that evaluate infrastructure, mode share, funding, and connectivity. Examples often cited include Portland, Seattle, Minneapolis, San Francisco, and Washington, D.C., due to their sustained investments and documented ridership trends. Criteria used by researchers and advocacy groups include low cyclist fatality rates, high trail and lane mileage per capita, and integration of biking into broader transportation planning.

Key Indicators Used to Classify Top Cycling Cities

Why Some Cities Are Not Considered Top Cycling Cities

Cities are not considered top cycling cities when they lack sustained infrastructure investment, exhibit low bicycle mode shares, have high cyclist fatality rates, or fail to integrate cycling into long-range transportation plans. This often reflects lower per-capita spending on bikeways, limited protected infrastructure, and policies that prioritize car travel by default. National studies and advocacy assessments highlight these gaps, showing where risk remains high and progress is incomplete.

Common Characteristics of Cities Not Ranked as Top Cycling Cities

• Low bicycle commuting mode share (often well below 1–2%)
• Sparse or intermittent protected bike lane networks
• High cyclist fatality and severe injury rates relative to mode share
• Limited or outdated bicycle plans without dedicated funding
• Minimal public transit integration with bikes and micromobility

Regional Comparisons and Mode Share Context

Mode share provides a practical baseline for comparison. While many large U.S. cities have mode shares in the 1–3% range, top cycling cities often exceed 3–5% or higher, supported by dense networks and continuous improvements. Regions with sprawling street networks, heavy car dependency, and limited transit tend to rank lower. Context matters: smaller or medium-sized cities can still achieve high utility cycling if they prioritize safe, direct routes, but they are rarely labeled top cycling cities until consistent data and infrastructure investments align over time.

Examples of Cities Typically Not Cited as Top U.S. Cycling Cities

Based on commonly referenced studies and rankings, cities such as Detroit, Memphis, Oklahoma City, and Buffalo are less frequently identified as top cycling cities. These places often report lower bike commuting shares, limited protected infrastructure, and higher cyclist risk metrics. However, it is important to note that this does not mean cycling is absent or unsafe by design; it reflects current infrastructure levels, mode share, and policy maturity relative to recognized leaders. Many of these cities are actively improving their cycling networks, and future assessments may show measurable progress.

Criteria That Would Shift a City Into Top Cycling Status

A city moves toward top cycling status as it demonstrates sustained investment, measurable safety gains, and increased mode share. Key milestones include adoption of protected network plans, completion of major corridors, lower fatality rates over time, and consistent funding. Partnerships with transit agencies for bike parking and micromobility integration also strengthen the case. National rankings evolve as data quality improves, so labels like top cycling city are best treated as directional rather than absolute.

Implications for Cyclists and City Planners

For cyclists, understanding which cities are not considered top cycling cities helps set realistic expectations about infrastructure quality, lane continuity, and safety. For planners and policymakers, these assessments highlight gaps in protected infrastructure, funding needs, and opportunities to align transportation goals with bicycle access. Clear metrics, transparent data, and community engagement can guide investments that change a city’s trajectory over a decade, turning current non-top cycling cities into future leaders.