Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Walk ability needs to be measured in small chunks and not averaged out across a city. It might be as simple as 1 mile radiuses and the density of business, sidewalks, block size, road speed, residences and infrastructure.
I guess my thoughts on "walkability" are less global than some on here.
My definition is "if you can walk there safely" it's walkable, and I'm thinking more of getting from Point A to Point B rather than- is this city, neighborhood, metro area, etc walkable? In my definition, walkability generally (take note of that word) includes sidewalks and crosswalks plus crossing lights on roads with heavy traffic. Distance is an issue, something located much more than a mile away is probably not walkable on a regular basis, but may be so in some circumstances. I do not include transit in walkability unless talking about walking to/from transit. If your destination is 5 miles away, and you walk to the bus stop and then take the bus, that's not walking.
If the destination isn't walkable then it is not a walkable neighborhood. If you are able to walk to the bus stop, or able to walk to a number of things you need on a daily basis easily, then that is a walkable neighborhood.
If the destination isn't walkable then it is not a walkable neighborhood. If you are able to walk to the bus stop, or able to walk to a number of things you need on a daily basis easily, then that is a walkable neighborhood.
So because I do not consider my job, 4 1/2 miles away, walkable from my house, I don't live in a walkable neighborhood?
I guess my thoughts on "walkability" are less global than some on here.
My definition is "if you can walk there safely" it's walkable, and I'm thinking more of getting from Point A to Point B rather than- is this city, neighborhood, metro area, etc walkable? In my definition, walkability generally (take note of that word) includes sidewalks and crosswalks plus crossing lights on roads with heavy traffic. Distance is an issue, something located much more than a mile away is probably not walkable on a regular basis, but may be so in some circumstances. I do not include transit in walkability unless talking about walking to/from transit. If your destination is 5 miles away, and you walk to the bus stop and then take the bus, that's not walking.
I would count transit as a separate issue as well [one thing at a time]. I can think of many towns in the Northeast outside metropolitan areas where you can easily walk to everything "in town" (and there's not much out of town) but limited transit to get out. I'd call it walkable, just car dependent for most who want to leave town.
I'd change one mile to something closer to 1/2 mile, definitely most wouldn't want to do multiple walks one mile each way every day. For a commute that's fine, but otherwise I'd feel: "I wish I had a car". Or bicycle. Except for when I was high school-aged, I generally didn't do mile long trips except walking for fun. Well, maybe sometimes in college. Otherwise, I'd bicycle instead.
Me? Chicago. I lived in the city growing up, but moved to the north suburbs after that. I'm guessing you asked to point out there are sidewalk-less places everywhere. I could be wrong on that, though. I have been thinking about it and I don't recall ever seeing that anywhere I've been in the Chicago area.
Not really, I was just curious where you're from since you had never seen sidewalkless places. Sidewalk-less places are a regional thing, they sound scarcest in the West, most common in the South. And more common in the Northeast than the Midwest. I think Chicago had some, a regular poster from Chicago (chirack) has mentioned a lack of sidewalks in some suburbs multiple times. Small residential suburban streets in the Northeast often lack them, the worst offenders are formerly rural areas that have suburbanized but think they're still rural and treat their roads as if they're country roads. Here's one big road in my area without sidewalks:
a rather empty section, but there are two walking in the streetview. Some parts have a lot of shops and still lack sidewalks. It's between two towns that are pedestrian friendly (and have sidewalks) and with a big state university in one, gets pedestrians and frequent bus service. A sidewalk really needs to be added, in the wintertime it looked nasty to walk there as the grass was covered by deep snow piles.
The San Francisco suburb I passed through had sidewalks in the more built up flat portions. But in the hills, no sidewalks. Not much space, roads are narrow. Traffic is light, but it's not empty either.
The aesthetic dimension of this discussion is interesting to me - I now live in (what I consider) a less walkable part of Los Angeles (Pasadena) than I did before (Hollywood). However, my current neighborhood is much more pedestrian-oriented from an aesthetic perspective than the last. On the other hand, Hollywood has a lot more pedestrians walking around at all times (perhaps because it is 2x as dense?), so in some ways it felt like a place I should be walking more than Pasadena does despite the presence of strip malls and wider streets.
I guess this experience shows me that there really is no great "formula" for identifying what is walkable.
And I think number of people that walk to work is a poor way to quantify how walkable a neighborhood is.
I am curious to hear what other think the number of people is enough to feel like it is busy with pedestrians?
And I think number of people that walk to work is a poor way to quantify how walkable a neighborhood is.
I agree. My father was a Chicago cop while I was growing up. He was previously in the military and thought nothing of running miles per day. He didn't technically walk to work, but he would jog 50 miles, take a shower and report for duty. Unlike me, he was hardly worried about sidewalks, paved roads or traffic.
I would count transit as a separate issue as well [one thing at a time]. I can think of many towns in the Northeast outside metropolitan areas where you can easily walk to everything "in town" (and there's not much out of town) but limited transit to get out. I'd call it walkable, just car dependent for most who want to leave town.
I'd change one mile to something closer to 1/2 mile, definitely most wouldn't want to do multiple walks one mile each way every day. For a commute that's fine, but otherwise I'd feel: "I wish I had a car". Or bicycle. Except for when I was high school-aged, I generally didn't do mile long trips except walking for fun. Well, maybe sometimes in college. Otherwise, I'd bicycle instead.
Agreed, I wouldn't want to do multiple >1 mile walks (>2 miles round trip), but it might be OK for work or a weekly shopping trip.
DH used to walk the 5miles to HS rather than take the city bus. To be young again!
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
