I had a thought yesterday, as I was struggling to haul myself up the Fremont Avenue hill at the end of an otherwise-enjoyable 10 mile ride.
(Not that the hill really detracted from the whole experience once I made it up, but as I’m still dragging around 40 or so extra pounds and haven’t yet gotten my bike fitness to the point where any rise doesn’t lead to burning thighs and overwhelmed lungs, uphill climbs are still an issue. )
The thought, or question, really, was this: If you’re biking in Seattle, would you prefer to live at the top of a hill, or at the bottom?
Living at sea level means any rise you tackle during a ride you get to lose somewhere near the end. You’re not finishing by struggling up a slope which cruelly appears as you’ve already expended a good deal of energy. In many cases, you can avoid hills altogether by winding along the water. There are pleasant trails and many destinations there for the taking, without ever casting your eyes upward.
On the other hand, living on the top of a hill means it’s easy to motivate myself to get out and bike – every trip starts with a down – or at least level – slope. I’m not thinking of the hill at the end, but of the trip waiting for me. By the time I return and have to make my way back up, the motivation of getting home makes it worth it.
For the out-of-shape starting biker like me, the bottom of the hill seems attractive. But I think I’d miss out on most of the city, as I’d try to avoid making my way up the hills and ridges, instead staying on the periphery.
Of course, the question might be moot for most of you, such as the dozen or so cyclists – including that 60-year-old – who blew past me as I made my way up Fremont. And any route around this city will have far more than one rise to navigate. Still, all in all, I’ll take my spot up on top.
