London 4th least walkable city in Canada
 

https://www.walkscore.com/cities-and-neighborhoods/

London’s low ranking is beat only by Toronto suburbs Vaughan and Markham, and by Gatineau, Quebec.

London also had the 5th worst score for transit, and is the largest city in the bottom 5. The worst one is Windsor.

Not surprisingly, our best score is the Bike Score. Although we’re 15th in Canada, we’re over 50 points there.

With all the time I’ve spent in Vancouver and Toronto in recent years, I must admit I feel some culture shock whenever I’m back in London. It feels so weird having to drive everywhere.

Not particularly useful or of value considering this appears to be nothing more then a proxy of urban density. Doesn't speak to many other factors that make a place attractive to live. :shrug:

An odd survey, it seems to me. What makes Toronto more walkable than London? Just because it's a megalopolis and has more stuff within a short walk? Obviously it has better transit, most large cities have good transit compared to small cities. Yes we have a nice bike trail system along the river. If we were trying to pack millions of people into this space like Toronto does, maybe the trail system would be a little different.

Yeah, like who cares. If you want to live downtown and walk a lot that's fine. And more tall residential buildings will support that.

If you want to live in suburbia and drive everywhere, that's fine too. The layout of London means that is the most practical way to get around for most people. If that's not your choice, that's fine.

Do not give me any Climate Emergency crap as justification for walkability. The Climate Emergency is a fad among municipalities so they can use it as an excuse for whatever pet project.

You are denying science if you think any city can make ANY significant difference in CO2 ppm levels. If Canada disappeared we cut 1.6% of Anthropogenic CO2 contribution, which moves no needle.

I'm getting sick of city politician's woke virtual signalling exercises that have have NO effect on anything, at the expense of dealing with real issues that are their natural per view.

Funny how London is a bad place to walk, despite not having any wide-boy roads or freeways.

It's also a bad place to drive or take transit.

Basically don't move around in this city much and you'll be all right :P

-----

Although the city recently approved funding for better street lighting. Maybe that will help things a bit?

Burnaby and Surrey both rate higher than London on thew walk score which shows how ridiculous this ranking is. Burnaby has one single street with any kind of urban continuity and it's not a very nice one and only a few blocks. The rest is an urban wasteland except because it has condos at it's Skytrain so it does well as people walk to the station. Surrey has some nice walkable areas in South Surrey and Cloverdale but outside that the only "walkable" areas are the ones were you have continual strip malls attached to each other so technically they qualify as walkable.

It's also flawed by what they consider the city. The rank Vancouver individually and not the metro. That means Vancouver does well because short of the downtown condos, nearly the whole city was built out pre-1950. If you were to do the same for London and it's pre-1950 areas only, it actually would do VERY well.