Richard Florida is a co-founder and editor at large of CityLab and a senior editor at The Atlantic. He is a university professor in the University of Toronto’s School of Cities and Rotman School of Management, and a distinguished fellow at New York University’s Schack Institute of Real Estate.
Austin and Pittsburgh don't fare very well in Walk Score's bikeability ranking.
The cities are scored on a 100-point scale based on four factors: bike lanes, hills, destinations and road connectivity, and bike commuting mode share. It was developed in collaboration with researchers at Simon Fraser University and The University of British Columbia. Here's how the scoring breaks down.
|25 U.S. Cities Ranked by Bike Score|
|3||Fort Collins, Colorado||78|
|4||Ann Arbor, Michigan||76|
|7||San Francisco, California||70|
|15||New York, New York||62|
|19||Los Angeles, California||54|
|21||San Diego, California||48|
Table data from Bike Score
Scores from 90-100 are classified as "biker's paradise," where daily errands can be completed by bike. None of these 25 cities fall into this category. The next ranking, with scores from 70-89, are cities that are "very bikeable" where biking is convenient for most trips. Eight of the cities fall under this ranking. The third category, "bikeable," includes scores from 50-69 and means that the city has some bike infrastructure — 11 of the cities are in this category. The lowest category, with scores of 1-49, indicates that the city is "somewhat bikeable" and has minimal biking infrastructure — six cities fall under this final ranking.
Many of the cities that top the list are familiar. And it's clear you don't have to be a warm place to be bikeable, as the high scores for Minneapolis and Ann Arbor attest. There are a few surprises at the bottom of the list — low scores for Austin and San Diego, for example, which are both mild places with large knowledge economies and college populations.