Study Reveals World’s Most Walkable Cities

[M II A II R II K]

Study Reveals World’s Most Walkable Cities


15 Oct 2020

By Damian Carrington

Read More: https://www.theguardian.com/cities/2...alkable-cities

Study: https://pedestriansfirst.itdp.org

The world’s most walkable cities include London, Paris, Bogotá and Hong Kong, according to a report. The UK capital outranks almost 1,000 cities around the world on citizens’ proximity to car-free spaces, schools and healthcare, and the overall shortness of journeys. Researchers at the Institute for Transportation and Development Policy (ITDP) said making cities walkable was vital to improve health, cut climate-heating transport emissions and build stronger local communities and economies. However, they said very few cities overall gave pedestrians priority and were dominated by cars.

- “In order to provide safe and inviting walking conditions, it is essential to shift the balance of space in our cities away from cars,” said Heather Thompson, the head of ITDP, which is based in New York. The IDTP said the need was particularly urgent as the coronavirus pandemic was driving people away from walking and public transport and into private cars. --- “Our city streets across the planet are already full of cars,” said Taylor Reich, an ITDP researcher. “If you really want to see the worst for walkability, it is the really sprawling cities of the US. They might have great sidewalks, but everything is so far apart that it’s impossible to practically walk to the grocery store or the school.” --- Indianapolis was the lowest ranked US city, with just 4% of people close to education and healthcare and 9% next to a car-free area. Reich said policymakers everywhere needed to plan dense mixes of housing, shops and businesses and equip streets with benches, wide pavements and shade.

- Among other cities scoring highly for closeness to car-free spaces are Berlin and Barcelona in Europe, Melbourne and Sydney in Australia, while Washington DC is ranked 25th in the world. For closeness to healthcare and schools, Kathmandu in Nepal and Athens in Greece are both high, while Toronto in Canada is ranked at 35 and New York City at 50. --- The report cites examples of developments that have made cities more walkable, such as in Pune, India, where a road redesign prioritised pedestrians and cyclists by building wide sidewalks and creating areas for children to play and vendors to sell. In Bogotá, there was a concerted effort at the turn of the century to create a city “with more public space for children than for motor vehicles”, by focusing on buses, cycling and walking. --- Alexandra Gomes, at the London School of Economic cities centre, praised the report and said: “Walking is crucial for liveable cities and a basic right for any city dweller. However, for a long-time walkability has been a planning afterthought in many parts of the world.

.....

[Bob Belcher]

Why is weather never taken into account when discussing walkability? Surely San Francisco is more walkable than New York in summer and winter.

[badrunner]

Originally Posted by Bob Belcher

Why is weather never taken into account when discussing walkability? Surely San Francisco is more walkable than New York in summer and winter.

Or tree cover, scenery, landscaping, colorful and diverse architecture. All of these make walking a lot more pleasant.

I am told that places like South Philly are a walker's paradise but the visual monotony kills it for me. Is there a more depressing visual combo than red brick and gray skies? People here like to count curb cuts and measure setbacks to determine walkability, like any of that means anything to the average person.

[MonkeyRonin]

Originally Posted by badrunner

I am told that places like South Philly are a walker's paradise but the visual monotony kills it for me. Is there a more depressing visual combo than red brick and gray skies?

What?! You crazy for that one. What better antitode to the gloom than a cozy red brick (or yellow or brown or any other earthen hue)?


https://www.pinterest.ca/pin/543035667554624477/

[Steely Dan]

Originally Posted by MonkeyRonin

What?! You crazy for that one. What better antitode to the gloom than a cozy red brick (or yellow or brown or any other earthen hue)?


https://www.pinterest.ca/pin/543035667554624477/

×1,000,000

There's something very reassuringly inevitable about a brick city under a heavy november sky. One of my favorite looks.

[isaidso]

Originally Posted by badrunner

Or tree cover, scenery, landscaping, colorful and diverse architecture. All of these make walking a lot more pleasant.

How flat the terrain is matters too. Who wants to walk up and down steep hills all day? And then there are the locals. Some are more pleasant than others.

[isaidso]

Originally Posted by badrunner

Is there a more depressing visual combo than red brick and gray skies?

Wait what? Very little beats red brick. A neighbourhood instantly gets extra points if it has red brick buildings in it.

[CaliNative]

Originally Posted by isaidso

Wait what? Very little beats red brick. A neighbourhood instantly gets extra points if it has red brick buildings in it.

Brick buildings are a no no in earthquake prone cities like SF and LA. I like brick buildings, but I don't like bricks hitting my noggin.

[iheartthed]

Originally Posted by badrunner

Or tree cover, scenery, landscaping, colorful and diverse architecture. All of these make walking a lot more pleasant.

I am told that places like South Philly are a walker's paradise but the visual monotony kills it for me. Is there a more depressing visual combo than red brick and gray skies? People here like to count curb cuts and measure setbacks to determine walkability, like any of that means anything to the average person.

Because it does, lol. Go spend a month without a car in South Philly then do the same in L.A. I think it will become very obvious why those things matter.

[Easy]

Originally Posted by iheartthed

Because it does, lol. Go spend a month without a car in South Philly then do the same in L.A. I think it will become very obvious why those things matter.

I walk a lot in LA. A lot a lot. LA is very walkable in the literal sense. It has sidewalks pretty much everywhere. I say that only because that's not always the case in sunbelt cities and that can't necessarily be taken for granted. That said, the quality of the walking can very often leave a lot to be desired.

LA's pattern is parallel major streets lined with business separated by blocks of dense residential. Cars may be driving fast on the major streets depending on the area and that's more unpleasant than curb cuts to me. But if you're without a car and you walk 3 blocks from your residential neighborhood to the bus on the major street, I don't think that part is that bad because you spend most of your walk in a quiet residential neighborhood.

[Crawford]

Originally Posted by badrunner

People here like to count curb cuts and measure setbacks to determine walkability, like any of that means anything to the average person.

Curb cuts are a huge factor in relative walkability. Every curb cut requires one to pause and potentially defer to vehicles. They also mess up walking with strollers, carts and disabilities.

Also, this study is stupid. Venice is the most walkable city, period. Bogota is super autocentric, except in the small historic core.

[Handro]

Originally Posted by badrunner

Or tree cover, scenery, landscaping, colorful and diverse architecture. All of these make walking a lot more pleasant.

I am told that places like South Philly are a walker's paradise but the visual monotony kills it for me. Is there a more depressing visual combo than red brick and gray skies? People here like to count curb cuts and measure setbacks to determine walkability, like any of that means anything to the average person.

Agree with the importance of weather and aesthetics, disagree that the average person doesn't care about setbacks and curb cuts. They may not consciously know they care, but it is innately more comfortable and enjoyable to walk down a street designed for pedestrians and not cars.

I think most people would rather walk down a street in London on a chilly, cloudy day in early November than on a four lane highway past strip malls in Houston on a pleasant day in April, all else being equal.

[badrunner]

Originally Posted by Handro

Agree with the importance of weather and aesthetics, disagree that the average person doesn't care about setbacks and curb cuts. They may not consciously know they care, but it is innately more comfortable and enjoyable to walk down a street designed for pedestrians and not cars.

I think most people would rather walk down a street in London on a chilly, cloudy day in early November than on a four lane highway past strip malls in Houston on a pleasant day in April, all else being equal.

Oh come on. You can't pick two extreme examples like Houston and London and try to pass it off as an "all else being equal" comparison. And I was talking about residential areas in any case.

A more sensible comparison would be a typical soulless sunbelt suburb like this:
https://goo.gl/maps/GUggvv9ochhHAg6TA

versus a typical soulless rowhouse neighborhood like this:
https://goo.gl/maps/7XkY38Fu2YpXULqU8

I have a strong preference for one over the other and it has nothing to do with setbacks or curb cuts.

[Stay Stoked Brah]

Originally Posted by badrunner

Oh come on. You can't pick two extreme examples like Houston and London and try to pass it off as an "all else being equal" comparison. And I was talking about residential areas in any case.

A more sensible comparison would be a typical soulless sunbelt suburb like this:
https://goo.gl/maps/GUggvv9ochhHAg6TA

versus a typical soulless rowhouse neighborhood like this:
https://goo.gl/maps/7XkY38Fu2YpXULqU8

I have a strong preference for one over the other and it has nothing to do with setbacks or curb cuts.

in that Philadelphia street view image as a pedestrian you would have to walk in the street because the sidewalk is full of garbage cans, a contractor, a parked car and other obstacles.

[iheartthed]

Originally Posted by badrunner

Oh come on. You can't pick two extreme examples like Houston and London and try to pass it off as an "all else being equal" comparison. And I was talking about residential areas in any case.

A more sensible comparison would be a typical soulless sunbelt suburb like this:
https://goo.gl/maps/GUggvv9ochhHAg6TA

versus a typical soulless rowhouse neighborhood like this:
https://goo.gl/maps/7XkY38Fu2YpXULqU8

I have a strong preference for one over the other and it has nothing to do with setbacks or curb cuts.

I'm not sure what you're getting at. One of those neighborhoods is clearly built for people to live without cars. The other neighborhood is clearly built to be auto centric.

[edale]

Originally Posted by badrunner

Oh come on. You can't pick two extreme examples like Houston and London and try to pass it off as an "all else being equal" comparison. And I was talking about residential areas in any case.

A more sensible comparison would be a typical soulless sunbelt suburb like this:
https://goo.gl/maps/GUggvv9ochhHAg6TA

versus a typical soulless rowhouse neighborhood like this:
https://goo.gl/maps/7XkY38Fu2YpXULqU8

I have a strong preference for one over the other and it has nothing to do with setbacks or curb cuts.

How is this any less of an "extreme example"? The suburban subdivision and urban Philadelphia couldn't be more dissimilar. The pedestrian experience is totally different- if people are walking in that Aurora example, it's for leisure or exercise. In the Philadelphia example, people walk as a form of transportation.

Curb cuts and setbacks might not matter when you're walking through a suburban subdivision, but they definitely matter to urban pedestrians.

To use two LA examples, it's much, much nicer to walk along this stretch of Melrose, than this stretch of Vermont. Why? Because one has a consistent streetwall and zero curb cuts. You don't have to worry about crossing driveways or cars turning in ahead of you. There's no wasted dead space between the building and the sidewalk. In areas like the Vermont example, the pedestrian is an afterthought.

Melrose:
https://www.google.com/maps/@34.0836...7i16384!8i8192

Vermont:
https://www.google.com/maps/@34.0711...7i16384!8i8192

[Handro]

Originally Posted by badrunner

Oh come on. You can't pick two extreme examples like Houston and London and try to pass it off as an "all else being equal" comparison. And I was talking about residential areas in any case.

A more sensible comparison would be a typical soulless sunbelt suburb like this:
https://goo.gl/maps/GUggvv9ochhHAg6TA

versus a typical soulless rowhouse neighborhood like this:
https://goo.gl/maps/7XkY38Fu2YpXULqU8

I have a strong preference for one over the other and it has nothing to do with setbacks or curb cuts.

Where exactly would you be walking in that suburban neighborhood? To your neighbors house to carpool to a mall?

The entire concept of "walkability" in the context to which this forum is dedicated assumes there are places to which one can walk, i.e. a person leaves their home and walks to work, school, the grocery store, etc. Choosing a subdivision in the suburban hinterlands devoid of any human activity completely misses the point and changes the conversation to "a quiet place to take a walk." If you want to go that route, I can beat your "walkable" subdivision: https://www.google.com/maps/@40.7777...7i13312!8i6656

Supreme walkability!

[Steely Dan]

Originally Posted by badrunner

A more sensible comparison would be a typical soulless sunbelt suburb like this:
https://goo.gl/maps/GUggvv9ochhHAg6TA

versus a typical soulless rowhouse neighborhood like this:
https://goo.gl/maps/7XkY38Fu2YpXULqU8

for residential side streets, i prefer a creamy middle for walking:

https://www.google.com/maps/@41.9596...8i8192!5m1!1e2

[Pedestrian]

Originally Posted by Bob Belcher

Why is weather never taken into account when discussing walkability? Surely San Francisco is more walkable than New York in summer and winter.

Maybe it depends where you live in San Francisco but my neighborhood has a "walk score" of 99, a major hospital 3 blocks up the street, numerous corner markets within several blocks and supermarkets about 5 blocks away, opera, ballet, symphony, central library and major art museum within 3 blocks:


https://www.walkscore.com/score/sanfrancisco-ca

I don't feel the need to move to Bogata.

[Easy]

Originally Posted by Bob Belcher

Why is weather never taken into account when discussing walkability? Surely San Francisco is more walkable than New York in summer and winter.

Agreed. There's no denying that NYC is supremely walkable, but there's also no denying that it has more bad weather days that make walking unpleasant. I can usually deal with the colder weather as NYC isn't usually "that" cold, but the sweltering summer days are a real drag.

SF does have those hills though. I can't ignore those either. I don't mind them as a visitor, but I think that they might get old if I lived there. But it would be worth it.