Interesting that they rank New York 5th, but omit the apparent rank order metric, % of commuters.
Minneapolis may be lower, but if we're considering other metrics that commuter %, then it should rank higher by sheer mileage of dedicated off-street paved bike paths. That number nearly doubles if you count the paths that are also double-lane, but are maintained packed sand, instead of paving. And it triples if you start including streets with bike lanes.
Because political jurisdictions are completely arbitrary. The Bay Area is largely one continuous conglomeration of cities. It makes sense when you’re examining the whole country to lump similar areas together.
Political jurisdictions aren’t arbitrary if you’re considering things like bike lanes, street repair, etc. (And having lived in several locations around the area, there’s also a lot of variation in terrain, weather, traffic behavior, and number and kinds of cyclists.)
It might still make sense to group cities into metropolitan areas in spite of those factors, but then why didn’t they do it for any of the other cities?