Here is my post at Bicycling.com It relates to an article that named Portland the number one cycling city and put NY, Chicago, Minneapolis, Seattle and others in the top ten. Its a stupid fluff piece that is poorly researched by an obvious non cyclist and non traveler who likely has not tried to ride in any of the cities listed.
NY, Chicago, seriously??
Does the person who wrote this article actually know anything about these cities or did they just call around?? I am not sure what the criteria are but if the person who wrote this had ever tried to ride in NY City it would have been near the bottom because they have virtually no bike lanes, the cabs go down the ones they have and NY drivers could care less about the riders. I did the MS 150 there and was scared to death riding the around the city before and after the ride, and I am not easily intimidated.
There is absolutely no way that an intelligent person who had actually been to these cities woud rank NY, Chicago, Minneapolis, Portland and Seattle ahead of Denver. Check the weather in those cities. It snows here but not like Minn. and it doesn’t rain every day like Portland, Seattle, and Eugene. No humidity like NY and Chicago either.
Denver is the home of the US Pro Cycling Challenge that generated 250,000 people watching last year just in Denver, has extensive bike paths that allow riding out of traffic, boasts dozens of the most popular charity rides in the country, plus we have Ride the Rockies and the Triple Bypass that sell out every yr.
This article seems to be giving credit to the cities that are way behind and trying harder rather than the cities that actually have riders and paths in place. This is an acticle I would have expected to see in a non cycling magazine. At least you got Boulder right.