The League of American Bicyclists says the state of Oregon is third best when it comes to bike friendliness. The national nonprofit based in Washington D.C. released its Bicycle Friendly State rankings today and Oregon nabbed the #3 spot behind Washington and Massachusetts. Washington moved up from its third place in 2022 back to the top spot it has held every since the rankings launched in 2008.
It was a very close battle for second place, with Oregon missing out on second place by only one point (image above).
Oregon’s third place marks the fourth time we’ve finished top three since then. Our lowest ranking ever was an embarrassing eighth place in 2011 and we the grabbed the second spot in 2022, which was the last time the rankings were released.
While these rankings should be taken with a grain of salt, it’s worth noting that unlike other clickbait rankings that pop up each year, the League is a legitimate source that puts significant rigor and research behind them. And this year the rankings take on an added layer of importance for Oregon because of the forthcoming conversation in Salem about what is expected to be a multi-billion transportation funding package.
The Street Trust, a Portland nonprofit recognized by the league as Oregon’s statewide bike advocacy group, said the slippage to third is a sign that “Oregon’s progress is at risk” and that a looming $1.75 billion budget shortfall “threatens bicycling and safety programs.” The Street Trust has called an online press conference for later this morning. “Oregon’s leadership in active transportation is at a crossroads,” a media advisory about the press conference reads. “The state’s drop in cycling rankings is due to a lack of investments in maintaining infrastructure and safety programs.”
The Street Trust is clearly using the release of this year’s ranking to frame a particular narrative ahead of the 2025 Oregon Legislative session where lawmakers will debate a massive transportation spending package. In her budget released last week, Governor Tina Kotek said the Oregon Department of Transportation needs to raise a minimum of $1.75 billion just to make ends meet. ODOT meanwhile has calculated their annual funding gap at $4 billion.
“Unfortunately, Oregon is number 3 because of an increase in bicyclist deaths. Oregon experienced one of the 10 largest increases in the rate of bicyclist deaths per bike commuter and in the last several years.”
– Ken McLeod
In their report card for Oregon, the League said the 2025 session, “Provides an opportunity to pass a once-in-a-decade transportation package focused.” The League also pointed out that Oregon’s statewide bicycle commute rate is the best in America at 1.4% (note this number is based on a U.S. Census survey and doesn’t reflect total ridership and is even less relevant with the massive shift to work-from-home).
When it comes to safety, the League’s analysis reveals that Oregon is the sixth safest for bike riders with 4.1 fatal collisions per 10,000 bike commuters. UPDATE: In the press conference this morning, League Policy Director Ken McLeod said “Unfortunately, Oregon is number 3 because of an increase in bicyclist deaths. Oregon experienced one of the 10 largest increases in the rate of bicyclist deaths per bike commuter and in the last several years.”
Spending-wise, Oregon ranks a respectable 3rd out of 50 states with $8.56 per capita of federal funding spent on biking and walking.
Of the seven categories the League uses to score states, Oregon received 80% or more of total available points for all but two: safety and counting data (knowing how many people are riding statewide), where we netted just 63% and 66% of the total points available respectively.
Read the full report card, see all 50 state rankings, and learn more about the program at BikeLeague.org. And stay tuned for a recap of The Street Trust press conference happening later this morning.
Go deeper:
— Bicycle Friendly States Report & Ranking (PDF)
Thanks for reading.
BikePortland has served this community with independent community journalism since 2005. We rely on subscriptions from readers like you to survive. Your financial support is vital in keeping this valuable resource alive and well.
Please subscribe today to strengthen and expand our work.
One of the usual (tiresome, lazy, incorrect) complaints about cycling infrastructure or excuses for not riding is related to how much it rains or is cold. “Yeah you’re all doing Pedalpalooza now, but in a few months you’ll all be back in your cars and not a bike on the road” the comment might go. Obviously this is false, and the bikes have been out in good numbers every day so far this year while I’m commuting (save for a couple really bad stormy days).
But it just has me thinking, why is it that the top three cycling states are northern, cold, and wet places? Add in places like New York or Minneapolis. Is it that the other end – hot, possibly humid – states have even more hostile weather than our cold and wet winters? Or maybe it’s the political leanings of states in more bike friendly climates? How I would love to have the weather of LA but with amazing cycling infrastructure (and throw in high density for fun). As it is here, I think the rain and cold are highly exaggerated, but it is pretty cold and often wet. You can prepare but it’s not nearly so care free as the days of summer where you just stroll out in whatever you were already wearing and hop on a bike.
Mostly just thinking out loud. When I get frustrated with the cost of living or just wondering about trying out living somewhere else, I try to think of where would be the perfect place to go for cycling and other things I like, and I come up only with places that are like Portland (or worse) weather wise.
When I see a ranking that puts Florida as #8 and NC as #17 in bike safety, and not in the bottom 10, naturally I wonder what garbage they are basing it on.
Then I see this on each state report:
Ah yes, that elusive species, the “honest state bureaucrat” answering a survey from a nonprofit based in Washington DC, it explains everything, doesn’t it? GIGO.
That makes sense, great point. Also I suppose “state” is probably too course of a thing to rank. Oregon is big, very few tiny parts of it are bike friendly.
Florida is not ranked #8 for bike safety. It’s number 8 for all their metrics. It’s safety score is 46/50 by the feds and 28/50 by this analysis overall. You can see their individual card here. Their good scores on infrastructure, capacity and ride counting is what’s bringing up their total.
LOL Florida is so weird. It’s hard to generalize with the standard American Hwy/Stroad phenomenon vs the golf cart based retirement communities that abound. Would I ever want to ride a bike in Jacksonville? Heeellll no. Would I have a good time at gammy’s retirement town where everyone has an electric geriatric scooter? You bet I would.
I too did research before I moved out of Portland, looking for a nice cheap place to live that has great bicycling facilities and mild weather. Generally, the worse the local weather, the more friendly I’ve found the locals to be, to a point. Southerners I’ve found are very friendly as are many Midwesterners. The Midwest is justly famous for cold winters; the South varies from warm to sauna-hot. Southern coastal cities are mild the whole year round, but they are also expensive and somewhat prone to storms and hurricanes; cities and towns in the “mountains” are likewise expensive. Both places are prone to tourists trying to escape the heat and humidity of interior cities, where most folks live and work.
I had thought of places like Bellingham WA, Charlottesville VA, even Dublin and towns in England, but I ended up in Greensboro NC as it was much cheaper than nearly anywhere else yet has excellent Amtrak connections, regional inter-city public bus transit, relatively close to DC and Atlanta (both are 6-8 hours away by train), some interesting local history, yet isn’t likely to gentrify anytime soon and see rents soar (at least compared to nearby cities.) The people here are very friendly. The weather however is hot and humid.
The nicer bike cities are Charlotte NC, Raleigh NC, Greenville SC, and various smaller college towns like Athens GA, Clemson SC, Chapel Hill NC, & Charlottesville VA, but all are kinda expensive. If good train connections aren’t important to you, check out Roanoke and Richmond VA, Birmingham Alabama, or Nashville and Chattanooga TN, they are relatively mild. The DC area has lots of good biking communities, but it’s a bit pricey.
Athens isn’t a bike city. They have a couple of MUPs and like one bike lane, barely. It’s hilly and not safe, easy or convenient to ride a bike to get places in Athens GA.
Thank you. I’m train-dependent, so I’ve never been there yet. I have biked in Charlottesville (OK), Chapel Hill (yuck), and Clemson (pleasant). Tuscaloosa, home of the U of Alabama, was excellent. Durham NC (Duke) is a mixed bag.
When my coworkers act surprised that I ride on really rainy days, I tell that that the rain isn’t a problem. A rain drop has never run a red light and tried to kill me.
Hey dw. There is a lot of cultural assumptions regarding cycling vis a vis weather and the relationship between the two. There is quite an interesting lit review that sheds some light on how weather affects various cultural perceptions about cycling around the world.
One interesting finding was the affect on cyclists differed between dense and less dense areas. “They show that the effects of temperature, wind, and precipitation on cycling in less-dense peripheral areas are much more significant than in denser urban areas.”
In the lit review they stated the data is limited regarding the effect of weather given separated cycling infra. It is difficult to disentangle the effect on weather given improved cycling infrastructure.“There is consistent evidence that improved cycling infrastructure, including separated bike paths or lanes, more generally increases the rate of cycling.”
Interesting findings from, “Glasgow indicate that improved infrastructure initially attracts newer and more casual cyclists who are more sensitive to the rain. This makes the entire composition of cyclists relatively more sensitive to certain aspects of the weather – perhaps only temporarily.”
One of the most interesting findings concerned what was “normal” in different places:
“Perceptions that weather is normal, or close to the historical mean for a given time (month) and geographic location, were shown to correspond to feelings of indifference in individuals in Stockholm”
This might be why we see extremely high cycling rates throughout the year even in small towns in Finland where separated networks abound and winter plows are consistent, but rather abysmal numbers in Canada, where cycling infrastructure and bike lane maintenance is almost entirely absent.
Even cultures that are very similar geographically may hold differing attitudes about weather. “Dutch people do not seem to conceive of or talk about cycling as a seasonal activity as pervasively as German people do, and that this may contribute to the differences observed.” Because when you have a separated place to bike nearly everywhere you go, you don’t really need to think about the compounding effects of weather and stress.
One consistent finding in the review dealt with consistent commuters: “Evidence shows that in nearly all study locations commutes were much less sensitive to the weather than other trip types. Presumably, this is because such trips are on a strict schedule and are likely not optional.”
Lastly and more in the interest of illustrating how extreme weather can even be a force to encourage cycling LOL: “We Kriehen Sturm!”
Can’t speak for all of Portland, but my downtown work office had a handful of cyclists spring and summer. As soon as the rains started they went back to driving.
So no, not completely incorrect.
I get why they did this on a state level but it’s funny to see states like Arkansas be 15th for infrastructure all because the Walton’s made a biking mecca in one town in the whole state.
Mississippi’s safety ranking is horrifying.105 fatalities per 10k riders. That’s 25 times higher than Oregon. Could you imagine having 25 times the cycling deaths each year? We’d be at 125 this year in the city alone. Every 3 days we’d be reading about another cyclist being killed. Based on the census they have about 1,300 bicycle commuters that means they had around 14 cyclist killed the year in question. Horrifying.
I think I read somewhere that Mississippi is the only state with an elected transportation commission – all the others are like Oregon, appointed by the governor usually.
That’s a great point about cycling deaths in Mississippi, since the number must be based on a much smaller pool of cyclists than Oregon has. When I cycled in MS, many years ago, I was the only cyclist on the road, 99% of the time.
Also you are right about NW Arkansas, which has WONDERFUL cycling paths that go all over. Their approach to cycling infra is the opposite of Portland’s: instead of putting bike lanes on the busiest streets, the burgers of NW Ark put NO bike lanes anywhere and instead have focused on building what I’d call “bike highways” that go over and under major roads and highways. There’s much to be said for this approach, though I haven’t stayed there long enough to know if I could still do errands via the network of paths. It would be great for commuting, though.
Had to laugh at this:
If you’re implying that Portland’s approach is to put bike lanes on the busiest streets, I’d like to direct you to MLK, Hawthorne, Powell, 82nd, Belmont, Cesar Chavez, Sandy, Mississippi, Alberta, 11th/12th, W Burnside, Macadam, NW 23rd, NW 21st, Holgate, Milwaukie, Fremont, Knott, NE 15th, NE 33rd, or NE 41st/42nd. Where the do exist, they’re mostly just repurposed shoulders.
This is what I’d call the deluxe version of bike planning. Boulder, Colorado has a similar approach. It’s definitely nice for riding, but it involves way more property acquisition and such.
So I’m not a big fan of it as a holistic approach. It’s cheaper (by a lot) and better to directly serve major routes, as most major routes already represent the flattest and most direct way around a city. As anyone who has ever used the SE Salmon/Taylor Greenway can attest, it’s hillier and much less direct than Hawthorne or Belmont would be. The issue with doing this is that we insist on building bad stuff 99% of the time, not that the idea isn’t sound.
Yep, spot on Blum. Got a little belly chuckle from that one even. I would say if Portland is known for anything it’s a religious focus on residential streets that have been branded quite successfully as an alternative to ya know, putting physically separated space for bikes/wheelchairs/scooters etc. on commercial streets, where people on bikes actually need to go (and where business profit would skyrocket).
Incidentally, Minneapolis was fortunate enough to have had a series of abandoned freight lines that were quite easy to convert into “bike highways.” It’s great. I love them. They’re fun. But they tend to be also more of a recreational/regional thing, not that they can’t be tied into a functional network with actual destinations.
So I personally don’t knock the idea of high speed roadie trails. But for having an effect on modal share, practicality and safety nothing beats removing space from a road and putting in a safe network so families with babies, grandmas and even “avid cyclists” can get to where they need to go without risking their lives.
Hi blum and wrist: I get what you’re saying here – and I did write that line about “putting bike lanes everywhere” with my tongue firmly planted in my cheek. I suppose the problem is the “everywhere” qualification, but I think it is correct to say that CoP at some point had a strategy of creating bike lanes on so-called arterial routes, such as SW Multnomah Blvd, SW Capitol Hwy (at least the part south of Barbur til the recent sidewalk project north of Taylors Ferry), and SW B-H Hwy (examples from my part of town). Also SW Barbur is an example, though that was probably an ODOT project. All of these projects pre-date my arrival in Portland, and yes – there have been many notable failures to put bike lanes on arterials since (SE Hawthorne is a painful example).
And yes – these bike lanes mostly suck (incomplete linkage, rough surfaces, storm drains, nonexistent maintenance etc etc). However, if you had grown up in, say, the 1960s or 1970s in a part of the country that had NOTHING for cycling at all, you would think these crappy bike lanes were wondrous. I remember when a new highway was built in 1973 near my house. It had 6-foot shoulders on either side – enough to bike on safely. It seemed like a miracle.
I agree that building bike infra alongside existing streets and highways makes a lot of sense and we should do it where we can. But CoP seems to have lost the ability to do it. In places that never did it to begin with, there is much wisdom in maximizing the opposite approach.
Thanks Fred. Great perspective. I shudder to think how different my life would have been if I had not had access to Powell Butte as a kid, via sidewalks and the Springwater, which incidentally was certainly not the first, but fairly ahead of the game as it pertains to rail to trail conversions. Here’s an interesting historical perspective blip on that.
Maybe the “strategy” you are referring to was the 2030 bike plan adopted in 2010 if I’m not mistaken? I’m sure many others who were directly involved can speak with much more substance than I regarding its contents. But in general this was a very, how do you say it nicely, almost faith based belief that providing a massive amount of information on cycling and its benefits (258 pages worth ooof), would magically be the catalyst of sorts to improving Portland.
Fast forward to 2022 and the commissioner of PBOT, the person who makes decisions about priorities in transportation had no idea what the 2030 plan was. So that gives you some perspective on how bad it has gotten in Portland. You already mentioned Hawthorne, which was a depressing and honestly idiotic series of mistakes by PBOT.
I get it man. I wasn’t around in the 60s and wasn’t entirely sentient in the late 70s, but I’ve seen the crazy backlash in Manhattan’s first crap bike lane torn out in 1981. So be grateful for what we got I guess.
The more pertinent question here is how can we kickstart PBOT to create a project that is based on evidence, has a fixed funding source, and generally gets the best bang for the buck (e.g., increases modal share, reduces crashes). I have my fingers crossed that the new form of government and new counsel members might be open to that idea finally after a couple decades of stagnation.
The first step of that, probably, would be to demonstrate there is strong community support for such projects.
Golden, Co has (or had anyway) a great network of detached MUPs and I loved walking or biking them to run errands or just get downtown and hang out.
How would we build a new “bike highway” in inner-NE Portland, or North Portland?
You are comparing apples to oranges here. NW Arkansas is not a city. They have the fortune of having wide open spaces and many abandoned railroad corridors that are conducive to MUP construction.
Take a look at the town of Bentonville, for example. How would you bike from the western suburbs to downtown? Vacationing in a place and living there and actually having to ride every day are two different things.
It’s not unimportant to make a quick note that, while the league does provide an interesting snapshot, with anecdotal changes in laws as well as “tips” for improvement, its methodology would clearly benefit from some scrutiny. It goes without saying that as The League of American Bicyclists it is comparing states in the US, which is an incredibly low bar when it comes to cycling policy and infrastructure when compared to other countries worldwide.
Here’s what I really like:
“The Benchmarking Report is intended to promote data collection, measure progress, and support efforts to increase bicycling and walking. Historically, the Benchmarking Report has included extensive reporting of survey data. The focus is on providing a basis for comparison between states and over time.”
The issue with aggregating data from an entire state is that, in states like Oregon you run the risk of getting skewed data when you compare areas such as Multnomah Co and say Morrow County (no beef with Morrow). Fred and idlebyte’s points below concerning the, let’s say, “Walmart effect” (or maybe yeah whisper it weird like “The Sam’s Club Effect,” which sounds more ominous), is a very good example of this.
This leads me to my next point about their methodology. The bikepacking/mountain bike industry is primarily recreational as is the long haul touring industry (e.g., casual trail biking the GAP C&O). Those two industries are pretty lucrative, but they have very little effect on commuting to work, safety of infrastructure etc. They’re just really different beasts compared to, for example, the typical urban commuter. By and large people don’t die on mountain bikes because they’re hit by a car. People die on mtn bikes because they’re baby heading the gnar like YOLOs 😉 baby (that’d be my preferred way to go). In any case people die mostly from being hit by a cars while on roads as we all know.
The League needs to grapple with this dichotomy which is really skewing the appearance of their reports. I’d actually love to go to Arkansas for a mtn bike trip, but would I ever want to actually live there and commute to work? Hell no. I suppose this gets to a difficulty with comparing and ignoring rural vs urban data and I don’t really have a solution to that problem, unless the league simply compares urban centers and rural areas respectively instead.
My instinct is few to none of the bike related deaths in Oregon occurred without the involvement of an automobile. I would assume a few were due to a bicyclist doing something dangerous or illegal. But my bias is the majority of bike deaths result from auto/bike conflicts and dangerous driving – at least in Portland Metros.
PBOT is facing a funding crunch. More bike/ pedestrian infrastructure certainly should be prioritized, but without increased traffic police enforcement – again particularly in Portland Metro – we are unlikely to see a material decrease in bike/ pedestrian casualties.
Maryland being rank 9 is incredible to me, but then again cycling in the United States is just dire in general
Hey Mercet, I hear you. But think about all the trails outside DC in PG county, and the Capital Crescent trail and the other ones kind of sprinkled around the state. The C&O is one of the most popular touring routes in the country with around 3 million cycling trips/year. I’ve always wanted to ride the Torrey C. Brown Rail Trail outside Balmore. So yeah I get it, MD sucks for biking if you’re comparing it to pretty much any European country, but in the US it’s okish.
An Update from WSDoT posted here:
https://www.tiktok.com/@washingtonstatedot/video/7455720475470253358