The Price of the Ride: Why Cycling Events are Getting More Expensive

It’s a familiar feeling for many dedicated cyclists: browsing registration for a favorite Gran Fondo, a challenging gravel race, or an iconic mountain bike event, only to be met with a number that induces a sharp intake of breath. Compared to just five or ten years ago, the cost of participating in organized cycling events seems to have shifted into a higher gear, leaving many wondering if their passion is becoming prohibitively expensive. This isn't just anecdotal grumbling at the coffee stop; the trend is real.

Cycling event fees have indeed experienced significant increases, often outpacing general economic inflation. This phenomenon isn't driven by a single factor but rather a complex interplay of rising operational costs, evolving participant expectations demanding more elaborate experiences, powerful market forces shaped by different types of event organizers, and the sheer logistics of putting on a safe and engaging ride. This article delves into the escalating costs of cycling events, dissects the underlying reasons for this trend, examines the rate at which prices have climbed, explores more affordable alternatives, and considers potential strategies to ensure the joy of organized cycling remains accessible for years to come.

Pedaling Through Time: The Escalating Cost of Entry

The evidence is clear: signing up for organized cycling events costs substantially more today than it did a decade or two ago. This trend cuts across disciplines, affecting road cyclists lining up for Gran Fondos, gravel enthusiasts tackling remote routes, and mountain bikers testing their limits in marathon races.

Consider some high-profile examples. The Leadville Trail 100 MTB race, an iconic fixture on the endurance calendar, saw its entry fee climb from approximately $275 in 2011 to over $525 by 2023. Similarly, the Belgian Waffle Ride (BWR), a popular and demanding mixed-surface event series, has experienced significant price increases as its profile has grown. Anecdotal evidence and broader observations suggest that fees for many popular Gran Fondos have effectively doubled or even tripled over the past 10 to 15 years. What might have cost $100-$150 a decade ago can now easily command $250-$400 or more, especially for well-established events.

This pattern holds true across various event types, though the magnitude can vary. Premier gravel races and iconic mountain bike challenges often show the steepest increases, while local club-run road races might see more moderate, albeit still noticeable, hikes. The following table provides a snapshot of this trend:

While some level of price increase is naturally expected due to inflation affecting general goods and services, the scale of fee hikes observed in many signature cycling events appears disproportionately large. This suggests factors beyond simple inflation are at play.

Furthermore, the perception of rising costs within the cycling community may be amplified by the increasing visibility and aspirational status of these high-cost, premium events. Races like BWR and Leadville attract significant media coverage and generate substantial buzz on social media platforms. Their prominent, often multi-hundred-dollar price tags become reference points, shaping the narrative around event expenses. Even though more affordable local or club-level events continue to exist, the overall feeling that participation is becoming excessively costly is heavily influenced by the normalization of these $300-$500+ entry fees for the most sought-after experiences.

It's also worth noting that the rapid growth of gravel cycling as a distinct discipline over the last 10-15 years coincided with a period marked by increasing event professionalization and evolving cost structures. This timing meant that many prominent gravel events entered the market reflecting contemporary cost realities and higher participant expectations from the outset. Unlike established road or mountain bike races that might have gradually increased fees from a lower historical base set in a less expensive era, new gravel events often launched with higher production values and associated costs baked in. This potentially established a higher baseline cost expectation specifically within the gravel segment.

What's Under the Hood? Deconstructing Event Operational Costs

Behind the registration fee lies a complex and often surprisingly expensive array of operational costs that event organizers must cover. Many of these costs are non-negotiable requirements for staging a safe and legal event, and several key components have seen significant inflation in recent years, directly contributing to higher entry fees.

Insurance: This is frequently cited as a primary and escalating cost driver for event organizers. Securing adequate liability insurance is almost always a prerequisite for obtaining permits to use public roads or land. Premiums have been rising steadily, driven by a perception of increased risk associated with cycling events, the potential for large claims, and sometimes a shrinking pool of insurers willing to cover mass participation cycling. Organizers have little choice but to pay these higher premiums, a cost inevitably passed on to participants.

Permitting & Agency Fees: Staging an event, especially one covering significant distances or multiple jurisdictions, involves navigating a complex web of permits from municipal, county, state, and sometimes federal agencies (like the US Forest Service or Bureau of Land Management for off-road events). The process can be time-consuming and administratively burdensome. Furthermore, the fees charged by these agencies for road closures, park access, special use permits, and administrative processing have generally increased. Each layer of government adds another potential cost center.

Police & Traffic Management: Ensuring rider safety, particularly for events using open roads, often necessitates significant police presence for traffic control, managing intersections, and implementing rolling or full road closures. Municipalities and police departments increasingly bill organizers for these services, often at overtime rates for officers. This can represent one of the single largest line items in an event budget, especially for large road races or fondos traversing populated areas.

Timing & Technology: Modern events rely on sophisticated technology. Professional chip timing systems provide accurate results but come with rental or purchase costs and require skilled operators. Online registration platforms streamline sign-ups but typically charge a per-participant fee or percentage, adding to the cost as an event grows. Additional technologies like GPS tracking for lead riders or remote participants, event-specific apps, and robust communication systems for staff and safety personnel also contribute to the budget.

Venue & Course Logistics: Costs associated with the physical event footprint add up quickly. This includes rental fees for start/finish areas, expo spaces, or post-race festival grounds. Marking the course requires materials and labor. Aid stations need to be stocked with food, hydration products, and basic mechanical support supplies. Essential facilities like portable toilets and waste management services must be provided, scaled to the number of participants. Events using private land may also incur access or rental fees.

Staffing & Medical Support: While many events rely heavily on volunteers, there are still significant staffing costs. Paid staff often include the race director, event coordinators, setup and teardown crews, and specialized personnel. Managing a large volunteer workforce also requires resources for recruitment, training, communication, and support (like providing food and t-shirts). Critically, professional medical support, including ambulances, EMTs, and medical communication systems, is a mandatory safety requirement and a substantial expense.

The cumulative effect of these rising operational costs creates significant financial pressure. One important consequence is that the increasing regulatory burden, particularly the complexity and cost associated with permits and mandatory traffic control, acts as a considerable barrier to entry for new or smaller event organizers. Navigating the bureaucracy of multiple agencies demands specific expertise, significant administrative time, and upfront capital that smaller clubs or first-time organizers may lack. Larger, often for-profit event companies develop specialized knowledge, relationships, and economies of scale to manage this process more effectively. This dynamic can create a competitive disadvantage for grassroots efforts, potentially leading to market consolidation where larger players, better equipped to handle these hurdles, dominate. This consolidation, in turn, can contribute to higher average prices across the board.

Furthermore, the non-negotiable nature of safety-related costs establishes a high baseline expense for almost any organized event. Insurance, police services (where required), and medical support represent substantial fixed costs that exist regardless of whether the event offers elaborate swag or gourmet aid stations. This means that even organizers aiming for a "bare-bones" event face significant upfront financial commitments related purely to safety and regulatory compliance. This inherent cost floor limits how low entry fees can realistically be set, particularly for events requiring road closures or extensive medical coverage, pushing organizers towards needing higher participation numbers or higher fees simply to break even. Truly low-cost events become increasingly difficult to stage, especially on public roads.

The Experience Economy Hits the Trail: Bigger Events, Bigger Budgets

Beyond the fundamental operational costs, another major factor driving up entry fees is the evolution of cycling events from simple races or rides into comprehensive "experiences." Participant expectations have shifted, and organizers increasingly compete by offering more amenities, higher production values, and a festival-like atmosphere, all of which add layers of expense.

This "experience factor" manifests in numerous ways. Aid stations are often no longer just water and bananas; they might feature a wide array of snacks, energy products, specialty foods, and even hot options. Simple finisher certificates have given way to high-quality, custom-designed medals, and participant swag often includes technical t-shirts, cycling jerseys, musette bags, water bottles, and other branded merchandise. The finish line frequently transforms into a post-race festival complete with food vendors, beer gardens, live music, expo booths, and family activities. Professional photographers and videographers capture the action, providing participants with lasting memories (often at an additional cost, but the infrastructure itself is part of the event budget). Extensive online engagement, including slick websites, active social media promotion, and pre- and post-race communications, further adds to the production overhead.

The scale and complexity of events also play a crucial role. While larger participant numbers might seem to offer economies of scale, they often necessitate significantly more infrastructure, thereby increasing overall costs. More participants mean more portable toilets, larger venue footprints, more aid stations spread over the course, increased quantities of food and water, more waste generated, and, critically, a greater need for safety personnel, medical support, and traffic management. Longer courses or routes that are logistically complex (e.g., point-to-point races requiring transportation, events in remote locations with difficult access) also naturally incur higher operational expenses.

Crucially, these enhanced amenities and production values are increasingly expected by participants, particularly those paying premium registration fees. Organizers feel pressure to deliver a high-value "package" that justifies the cost and allows their event to stand out in a crowded marketplace. This creates a feedback loop: participants become accustomed to higher levels of service and more elaborate offerings, which reinforces the need for organizers to provide them. Organizers then price the event accordingly to cover these extras, and the higher price point further solidifies the expectation of a premium experience.

This focus on delivering a comprehensive "experience" can, however, have unintended consequences. It may inadvertently exclude or alienate riders whose primary motivation is the competitive challenge or the personal satisfaction of completing the course, rather than the surrounding festivities and merchandise. These cyclists might prefer a lower-cost, less amenity-heavy option if it were readily available, but find themselves forced to pay for features they don't particularly value. The market prevalence of high-amenity, high-cost events potentially leaves this segment underserved, pushing them towards the diminishing number of truly basic events or away from organized participation altogether.

Moreover, the pervasive influence of social media and the desire for the "Instagrammable moment" subtly shapes event planning and adds to costs. Organizers recognize that participants sharing photos and experiences online serves as powerful, organic marketing. This incentivizes investment in visually appealing elements – elaborate start/finish arches, unique and photogenic medal designs, branded backdrops for podium shots, scenic viewpoints designated as photo opportunities – that enhance the event's shareability. While these elements contribute to the perceived value and atmosphere for many attendees, this focus on aesthetics represents another layer of expense ultimately factored into the entry fee, further fueling the experience economy cycle.

For Love or Money? How Organizer Type Influences Price

The entity organizing a cycling event – whether it's a large corporation driven by profit motives or a local club focused on community – significantly influences its cost structure and pricing strategy. Understanding these differences sheds light on why some events carry premium price tags while others remain more accessible.

The For-Profit Model: A growing number of high-profile cycling events are owned and operated by large, for-profit companies. Examples include Life Time (which owns iconic events like the Leadville Trail 100 MTB race and Unbound Gravel) and organizations running series like Haute Route. For these entities, events are business ventures aimed at generating revenue and delivering returns to shareholders or owners. They typically invest heavily in professional marketing, sophisticated branding, high production values, and creating premium experiences that command high entry fees. These companies often achieve operational efficiencies due to their scale and expertise, but their pricing structure must cover not only the substantial operational costs but also incorporate profit margins. A common strategy involves acquiring successful independent events and integrating them into their larger portfolio.

The Non-Profit/Club Model: At the other end of the spectrum are events organized by traditional cycling clubs or local non-profit organizations. Their primary objectives are often centered around promoting cycling within the community, providing racing or riding opportunities for members, fostering camaraderie, or raising funds for a charitable cause, rather than maximizing profit. These events typically operate with much lower overhead costs. They rely heavily on volunteer labor drawn from club membership or the local community to fill roles ranging from registration and course marshalling to aid station support. Amenities are often simpler – basic aid stations, perhaps a modest finisher prize instead of an expensive medal, and less elaborate post-race activities. Consequently, entry fees for club-run events are usually significantly lower than their for-profit counterparts. However, these smaller organizations can find it increasingly challenging to absorb the rising baseline operational costs (like insurance and permits) and navigate the complex administrative requirements discussed earlier.

Hybrid Models: It's also worth noting that some events occupy a middle ground. A non-profit organization might hire a professional race director or contract out specific services like timing or medical support. This can bring a higher level of execution but also introduces costs beyond a purely volunteer-run effort, resulting in mid-range pricing.

The increasing consolidation of popular, formerly independent events under the umbrellas of large for-profit companies carries potential implications for the diversity of the event landscape. As these companies acquire events, they often implement standardized operational procedures, marketing approaches, and pricing tiers across their portfolio to maximize efficiency and ensure brand consistency. While this can bring professionalism and potentially enhance the participant experience in some ways, it may also lead to a homogenization of event styles. Quirky, unique, or historically lower-cost events might be reshaped to fit the parent company's high-amenity, high-cost model. This trend could reduce the range of choices available to cyclists seeking different types of experiences or operating on different budgets, potentially squeezing out mid-tier independent events that struggle to compete.

Furthermore, the sheer success and high visibility of the major for-profit events can exert upward pressure on pricing across the entire market. Even non-profit and club-run events may feel compelled to increase their fees, not necessarily to generate profit, but simply to cover the same rising baseline operational costs (insurance, permits, safety services – see Section 2) faced by all organizers. Additionally, participant expectations, heavily influenced by the high production values showcased by market leaders, might necessitate a certain minimum level of service (e.g., reliable timing, adequately stocked aid stations) even at lower-priced events. This makes it increasingly difficult for non-profits and clubs to maintain their traditional low-cost advantage while still delivering an event that meets contemporary standards and covers unavoidable expenses.

Are Event Fees Outpacing the Economy?

To fully grasp the significance of rising cycling event fees, it's helpful to compare their trajectory against broader economic trends, specifically the general rate of inflation. Has the cost of participating in a Gran Fondo or gravel race simply kept pace with the rising cost of everything else, or is something more specific happening within the event industry?

Evidence suggests that for many prominent cycling events, fee increases have indeed outpaced standard measures of inflation, such as the Consumer Price Index (CPI). While calculating precise comparisons is complex due to variations in event specifics and pricing tiers over time, the dramatic percentage increases noted in Section 1 (e.g., doubling or more over a decade) for many signature events generally exceed the cumulative CPI increase over similar periods. If a $150 event fee from 2013 simply tracked US inflation, it might cost around $200-$210 in 2024, yet fees of $300+ are now common for comparable events. This disparity strongly indicates that factors unique to the event production sphere are driving costs up faster than the general economy.

Comparing cycling event cost trends to other participatory recreational activities provides further context. Data suggests that cycling is not entirely alone in experiencing significant price hikes. Running races, particularly major marathons and popular trail events, have also seen substantial increases in registration fees. This points towards shared underlying cost pressures affecting mass participation endurance sports more broadly. Factors like escalating insurance premiums, rising costs for utilizing public roads and lands (permits, police), increased demand for medical support, and perhaps a similar trend towards offering more elaborate "experiences" likely contribute to rising costs in both running and cycling.

The observation that premier cycling event costs appear to be significantly outpacing inflation reinforces the arguments made earlier: the primary drivers are likely the specific, rapidly escalating operational costs (particularly insurance, permitting, and safety services detailed in Section 2) combined with the financial impact of meeting heightened participant expectations within the "experience economy" (Section 3). General economic inflation plays a role, affecting the cost of goods like food for aid stations or fuel for support vehicles, but it doesn't fully account for the steep trajectory seen in many event fees. The unique cost components inherent in event production, or strategic pricing decisions by organizers (especially for-profit entities adding margins above inflation), seem to be the more dominant forces.

While the comparison with running indicates shared challenges across mass participation sports, cycling events may face amplified versions of certain cost pressures. For instance, road cycling events often require more extensive and costly traffic management and road closures compared to typical running races held on closed courses or park paths. The logistical support needed over longer distances common in cycling (e.g., multiple remote aid stations, mechanical support) can also be more complex and expensive. These cycling-specific factors might contribute to some of the particularly sharp fee increases observed in the sport, even when viewed against the backdrop of generally rising costs in recreational events.

Back to Basics: Lessons from Grassroots and Low-Cost Events

Despite the prevailing trend of rising costs, particularly at the premium end of the market, affordable cycling events do still exist. These grassroots, often community-focused rides and races demonstrate that lower price points are achievable, typically by adopting a different philosophy and operational model. Examining how these events keep costs down offers valuable lessons.

Examples include traditional club-organized time trials or road races, "no-frills" gravel events prioritizing the ride over amenities, community bike-a-thons focused on participation, and certain types of unsupported long-distance rides. Their success in maintaining affordability usually stems from a combination of key strategies:

• Volunteer Labor: This is perhaps the single most significant cost-saving measure. Low-cost events rely heavily, often exclusively, on volunteer labor drawn from the organizing club's membership or the local cycling community. Volunteers handle tasks like registration, course setup, marshalling, driving support vehicles, and staffing aid stations, drastically reducing or eliminating payroll expenses.
• Simplified Courses & Logistics: Organizers often choose routes that minimize complexity and cost. This might involve using courses that require few or no road closures (e.g., loops within a park, routes on quiet rural roads with minimal traffic control needs), utilizing public lands with simpler or less expensive permitting requirements, or designing events that are largely self-supported, reducing the need for numerous aid stations and extensive course marking.
• Reduced Amenities: A core principle of low-cost events is minimizing expenditure on non-essential extras. Aid stations might offer basic necessities like water and bananas, rather than a wide buffet. Finisher medals, technical apparel, and elaborate swag bags are often foregone in favor of keeping the entry fee low. Post-race festivities, if they exist, are typically simple and low-key. Timing might be manual or use simpler, less expensive electronic systems.
• Non-Profit/Community Focus: Many affordable events are run by established cycling clubs or community non-profits. Their fundamental goal is service to the cycling community or a charitable cause, not profit generation. Revenue is primarily used to cover direct event costs, with any surplus often reinvested into the club or donated. They may also be adept at securing local sponsorships or in-kind donations (e.g., food from a local grocery store) to further defray costs.
• Alternative Formats: The cycling world also includes formats that inherently minimize organizational overhead. Self-supported long-distance events like randonneuring brevets or bikepacking routes rely on rider self-sufficiency, eliminating the need for extensive support infrastructure. Virtual challenges offer participation without the costs of a physical event. Even informal, non-permitted group rides organized through clubs or social media provide a zero-cost way for cyclists to ride together.

The viability of these lower-cost models often depends critically on strong community engagement and a shared ethos among participants. These events thrive when there's a robust volunteer base willing to contribute time and effort, stemming from an active club or local cycling scene. Equally important is participant acceptance of the "no-frills" approach. Riders must understand and accept that the lower entry fee comes with fewer amenities and potentially requires greater self-reliance (e.g., carrying more supplies, basic navigation skills). This represents a different kind of value proposition compared to premium events – the value lies in the shared activity, the challenge, the community spirit, rather than an elaborate service package. The long-term success of these models hinges on cultivating and sustaining this community buy-in.

However, it's also important to recognize the limitations of the purely grassroots model. While essential for accessibility, it faces challenges with scalability and the types of experiences it can realistically offer. The very strategies that keep costs low – reliance on volunteers, simple courses, minimal infrastructure – make it extremely difficult, if not impossible, to stage certain kinds of events using this model. For example, organizing a large-scale Gran Fondo with full road closures through a major metropolitan area involves immense logistical complexity, significant financial liability, and intensive coordination with multiple agencies. These demands typically exceed the capacity, resources, and risk tolerance of a volunteer-run club. The substantial, unavoidable costs associated with insurance, permits, and police services for such an undertaking (Section 2) create a financial barrier that the low-cost model cannot easily overcome. Therefore, while the grassroots approach is vital for providing affordable options, it cannot serve as a direct replacement for all types of cycling events, particularly those requiring significant public infrastructure or catering to very large fields.

Finding Financial Headwinds: Solutions for More Accessible Events

Given the clear trend of rising costs and the complex factors driving it, what can be done to make participating in cycling events more financially accessible? There are no silver bullets, but several potential strategies and initiatives, involving various stakeholders, could help control costs or provide more affordable options.

• Tiered Pricing Models: Organizers could more widely adopt tiered registration options, allowing participants to choose and pay for the level of service they desire. For example, a basic "ride only" tier could cover entry and essential safety support, while higher tiers could add options like event merchandise, post-race meals, premium start placement, or other amenities. This unbundling allows riders primarily interested in the course and the challenge to opt out of paying for extras they don't value, potentially lowering their entry cost.
• Advocacy & Policy Engagement: Collective action by cycling advocacy groups, event organizers, and potentially national governing bodies could prove effective. Lobbying municipalities, counties, state agencies, and federal land managers for more reasonable, predictable, and standardized permit fee structures could yield significant savings. Advocating for reduced or subsidized rates for essential public services like police traffic control, particularly for non-profit or community-focused events, could also alleviate a major cost burden. Building relationships with permitting agencies to streamline processes might also reduce administrative overhead.
• Promoting and Supporting Simpler Formats: Fostering greater appreciation and acceptance within the cycling community for more minimalist event styles is crucial. This involves organizers being willing to offer "no-frills" options and participants embracing the value of self-sufficiency and community over elaborate production. Highlighting the enjoyment and challenge found in well-organized but basic events (like those discussed in Section 6) can help shift expectations away from the assumption that every event needs to be an extravagant festival.
• Strengthening Club and Community Events: Supporting the local clubs and non-profit organizations that traditionally offer affordable events is vital. This could involve creating shared resources (e.g., event equipment libraries), exploring options for group insurance purchasing to lower premiums, establishing mentorship programs where experienced organizers can guide smaller clubs, or developing platforms that make volunteer management easier. Strong local clubs are the bedrock of accessible cycling participation.
• Leveraging Technology for Efficiency: While technology adds costs in some areas (like timing systems), it also holds potential for cost reduction. Improved volunteer management software could streamline coordination. Digital platforms might simplify the permit application process if agencies adopt them. Technologies like reliable GPS navigation apps could potentially reduce the need for extensive physical course marking in some contexts (especially off-road). Exploring these efficiencies could help trim operational budgets.
• Greater Organizer Transparency: While potentially sensitive, increased transparency from event organizers about where registration fees are allocated could foster better understanding among participants. Seeing a breakdown (even approximate) of costs related to permits, safety, logistics, amenities, and administration might help cyclists appreciate the complexities involved and adjust their expectations regarding what constitutes a "fair" price.

It becomes clear that effectively controlling the rise in event costs requires a multifaceted strategy. No single solution can address the diverse and interconnected drivers – external pressures like insurance and permit costs, internal decisions about amenities and experience levels, market dynamics influenced by for-profit entities, and regulatory requirements. Meaningful progress likely necessitates collaboration: organizers must innovate and offer varied pricing/service levels, participants need to potentially adjust expectations and support simpler formats, and advocacy groups must engage with policymakers on systemic issues like fees and regulations.

Ultimately, there exists an inherent tension in the world of organized cycling events. On one hand, there is a strong desire for accessibility and affordability, ensuring that the joy of participation is open to as many people as possible. On the other hand, there are non-negotiable demands for safety and risk management (driving up costs for insurance, medical, and traffic control), coupled with the market reality that many participants do value and are willing to pay for high-quality, amenity-rich experiences. Attempting to maximize affordability could compromise safety standards or fail to deliver the experience level many cyclists seek. Conversely, maximizing the experience and implementing extensive safety protocols inevitably drives costs higher. The ongoing challenge for the cycling community – organizers, participants, and governing bodies alike – is to find sustainable models that skillfully navigate this tension, offering a diverse range of events that strike different balances between cost, safety, and experience to cater to the varied preferences and budgets within the sport.

Charting a Course for Sustainable Cycling Events

The journey through the landscape of cycling event costs reveals a clear picture: participation fees have undeniably climbed, often significantly outpacing general inflation. This isn't arbitrary price gouging but rather the result of a confluence of powerful forces. Non-negotiable operational costs, particularly insurance, multi-jurisdictional permitting, and mandatory safety services like police and medical support, have escalated, forming a higher cost baseline for all organizers. Simultaneously, the market has shifted towards events as comprehensive "experiences," with participant expectations and organizer competition driving investment in elaborate amenities, high production values, and festival atmospheres – all adding further expense. The structure of the organizing entity, whether a profit-driven corporation or a community-focused club, also plays a critical role in shaping pricing strategies and the types of events offered.

Navigating the future requires acknowledging the complex balance between ensuring events are safe, engaging, and logistically sound, while also striving to maintain financial accessibility for a broad spectrum of cyclists. There are no easy fixes. Solutions likely lie in a combination of approaches: innovative pricing models offering choice, collective advocacy to address systemic costs like permitting fees, a renewed appreciation for simpler event formats, robust support for grassroots and club initiatives, and leveraging technology for efficiency gains.

Ultimately, the future of cycling events rests on the choices made by the entire community. As participants, being mindful of the type of value sought – whether it's a premium, all-inclusive experience or a challenging ride with basic support – and supporting events that align with those priorities is crucial. For organizers, transparency about costs and a willingness to offer diverse formats and pricing tiers will be key. Continued dialogue and collaboration between organizers, participants, advocacy groups, and public authorities are essential to foster a sustainable ecosystem. The goal must be to ensure that the fundamental joy, challenge, and camaraderie found in participating in organized cycling events remain attainable, allowing future generations of riders to discover the unique rewards of pushing their pedals together. The critical question we must collectively address is: What kind of cycling event future do we want to build and support?