Major cities with few walkable neighborhoods

[Doady]

I think we shouldn't think about walkability in terms of grid or not grid, but rather in terms of the street density, or the intersection density. Of course, density of population and jobs is very important too. Density is the key. It all about the reducing the distance from origin to destination.

Aside from Walkscore, transit ridership is also a good measure of walkability. The success of transit heavily depending on walkability. People have to walk to an from transit stop. High or low transit usage can also shape cities and neighbourhoods and impact walkability.

[Ant131531]

Originally Posted by Crawford

No, we're car-oriented because we subsidized sprawl and autotopia for 70 years.

Our most prosperous areas are the most transit-oriented. Has nothing to do with for-hire vehicles, which account for a tiny proportion of trips.

And recessions don't drive transit growth, at least not in recent times. Recessions mean fewer job and leisure trips.

Recessions do drive transit growth. Just about every metro is experiencing transit riderhip losses since the Great Recession. Gas prices were also really high during the recession which further drove transit ridership growth at the time.

[SIGSEGV]

Is Sun Belt a parody account? It sure sounds like one...

[SIGSEGV]

Originally Posted by Ant131531

Recessions do drive transit growth. Just about every metro is experiencing transit riderhip losses since the Great Recession. Gas prices were also really high during the recession which further drove transit ridership growth at the time.

Gas prices are likely the key. And also Uber/Lyft. My car-less peers are quick to call a car over, even when the bus or subway would be faster.

[Crawford]

Originally Posted by Ant131531

Recessions do drive transit growth. Just about every metro is experiencing transit riderhip losses since the Great Recession.

How do you conclude that "recessions drive transit growth"? Be specific, because official APTA stats don't support your contention.

And you're wrong re. transit numbers post-recession. Numbers were climbing until two years ago, so seven years into economic expansion.

[MonkeyRonin]

It's great to hear OKC is building rail transit now, but I put it on the list because it has seemingly one of the most decimated, parking lot-strewn downtowns in the country. And a cohesive, walkable downtown is pretty integral to having a walkable city.

Originally Posted by Sun Belt

Vegas and Phoenix are much more dense and growing urban environments compared to the other cities you mentioned and Detroit will begin to fill in.

Phoenix and Vegas have a fairly high average density because they lack the type of leafy, sprawling exurbia that's so common in the east; but they're not dense enough to support walkable neighbourhoods either (or at least, lack the peak density necessary for that). The harsh climate and lack of shade doesn't help either, and will hinder the growth of more pedestrian-friendly neighbourhoods going forward.

Atlanta, Nashville, and Charlotte are some of the lowest density urban areas in the world, but Atlanta and Nashville still have fairly solid downtowns - and Atlanta at least has a decent transit system that helps to enable a walkable lifestyle. And now this is where personal preference comes in, but to me at least, their lush, tranquil streetscapes make for a more pleasant walking experience than the parched landscapes of the southwest; or the urban prairie and parking lots of decayed cities; or the megablocks and wide streets of somewhere like Salt Lake City.

Originally Posted by Sun Belt

We own cars because we should. We are the most prosperous nation in the history of mankind. Once we become less wealthy [a recession] what happens? Transit passenger numbers increase.

The US in 2018 is not the most prosperous nation in the history of the world by any measure. And regardless, your promise is wrong - there isn't a negative correlation with wealth and a country having urban, transit-oriented cities - the US is more the exception here. Poor nations aren't exactly known for their robust transit systems either.

Even just within the US - as Crawford already pointed out - the wealthiest and most economically and socially successful regions tend to be the ones with the most urban, walkable cities and comprehensive transit systems.

[Doady]

Originally Posted by Crawford

How do you conclude that "recessions drive transit growth"? Be specific, because official APTA stats don't support your contention.

And you're wrong re. transit numbers post-recession. Numbers were climbing until two years ago, so seven years into economic expansion.

I agree, almost all transit systems in North America suffered major ridership losses in 2009. People are unemployed, they stay at home, they don't use transit.

[Sun Belt]

Originally Posted by SIGSEGV

And also Uber/Lyft. My car-less peers are quick to call a car over, even when the bus or subway would be faster.

Uhhhh

You call me a parody account when we're saying the same thing here.

Cars will continue to dominate over public transportation with the evolution of technology because public transportation will continue to suck here.

[SIGSEGV]

Originally Posted by Sun Belt

Uhhhh

You call me a parody account when we're saying the same thing here.

Cars will continue to dominate over public transportation with the evolution of technology because public transportation will continue to suck here.

What can I say... your "cars are the second coming" stance is just too Sun Beltian.

Anyway Uber/Lyft are a form of public transit, albeit extremely inefficient. Whatever, more room for me on the bus...

[Sun Belt]

Originally Posted by SIGSEGV

What can I say... your "cars are the second coming" stance is just too Sun Beltian.

Anyway Uber/Lyft are a form of public transit, albeit extremely inefficient. Whatever, more room for me on the bus...

A private company [Uber] is public transportation now?

[SIGSEGV]

Originally Posted by Sun Belt

A private company [Uber] is public transportation now?

Yes... just like the MTR in Hong Kong is also public transportation.

[badrunner]

Originally Posted by Crawford

Our most prosperous areas are the most transit-oriented.

Take a more granular look. Within those prosperous regions, the wealthiest neighborhoods tend to be car oriented suburbs. The wealthiest people in the US do not ride the bus or the subway, unless there is no other option.

[Sun Belt]

Originally Posted by Doady

I agree, almost all transit systems in North America suffered major ridership losses in 2009. People are unemployed, they stay at home, they don't use transit.

When was Uber born? During the Great Recession! This is why there is an Uber today and it has since morphed into something else.

2010:
"I'm unemployed can't afford anything, not commuting to work anymore" thing going. Then you had the recovery and boom that followed and Uber was there to capitalize on that.

Post 2011--today:
"I'm a nobody, but now I can afford a cheap taxi to drive my drunk ass around town" thing.

And you also have the:
"I'm employed, but public transit sucks, and I'd rather pay a little extra to get home an hour earlier"

And that's where we currently stand and that's because public transportation sucks and people prefer the luxuries that cars bring and are willing to pay extra and that's why PT numbers have dropped.

If things get really bad, people will go back to the $2.25 bus and not the $7 Lyft and public transportation might seem like it's growing again.

[SIGSEGV]

Originally Posted by badrunner

Take a more granular look. Within those prosperous regions, the wealthiest neighborhoods tend to be car oriented suburbs. The wealthiest people in the US do not ride the bus or the subway, unless there is no other option.

That's not always the case. Take Kenilworth, IL, one of the wealthiest places in the US. It has a transit mode share similar to the city of Chicago: https://censusreporter.org/profiles/...kenilworth-il/

I'm not sure what the wealthiest census tract is within city limits, but it might be this one in Gold Coast (this is where JB Pritzker lives, anyway):

https://censusreporter.org/profiles/...t-801-cook-il/
Only 25% drive alone to work in that tract.

[Doady]

Originally Posted by Sun Belt

When was Uber born? During the Great Recession! This is why there is an Uber today and it has since morphed into something else.

2010:
"I'm unemployed can't afford anything, not commuting to work anymore" thing going. Then you had the recovery and boom that followed and Uber was there to capitalize on that.

Post 2011--today:
"I'm a nobody, but now I can afford a cheap taxi to drive my drunk ass around town" thing.

And you also have the:
"I'm employed, but public transit sucks, and I'd rather pay a little extra to get home an hour earlier"

And that's where we currently stand and that's because public transportation sucks and people prefer the luxuries that cars bring and are willing to pay extra and that's why PT numbers have dropped.

If things get really bad, people will go back to the $2.25 bus and not the $7 Lyft and public transportation might seem like it's growing again.

The bus is $3.75 where I live. And the bus ridership has soared, a 28% increase, since 2010.

If $3.75 public transit can grow alongside Uber in a sprawling, car-oriented suburb, it shouldn't be a problem in a real city. And somehow I also doubt poverty is the reason why Mississauga's bus system has more than twice the ridership of Detroit's, for example.

Such poor transit ridership is a uniquely U.S. thing. It has nothing to do with wealth or Uber.

[The North One]

Originally Posted by badrunner

Take a more granular look. Within those prosperous regions, the wealthiest neighborhoods tend to be car oriented suburbs. The wealthiest people in the US do not ride the bus or the subway, unless there is no other option.

No even the wealthiest people in New York ride the subway, they have personal drivers.

[jd3189]

Originally Posted by pj3000

I'd like to know the "number of walkable neighborhoods" in Miami, Charlotte and Tampa that you're talking about. Or your definition of walkable is probably the better question?

I'll give you what I consider to be Miami's walkable neighborhoods:

Coconut Grove
Downtown/Brickell

That's really about it.

Unless you want to consider downtown Coral Gables and South Beach... which are not technically part of Miami. Still, that would be a total of 4 neighborhoods in a huge city.

Little Havana is pretty walkable, along with Overtown, Edgewater, and Wynnwood. Much of the area between Brickell and Coral Gables is suburban but still decent.

[Khantilever]

Originally Posted by jtown,man

Here is my definition of a walkable area...

Do people feel sorry for you if they see you walking? Yes or no?

I spent a summer once living in Albuquerque for an internship, and I didn’t have a car. I got a lot of pitiful looks, and sometimes surprise, from drivers who saw me walking around (often on grassy embankments). My coworkers were in disbelief that I came to ABQ without a car.

One day after work I waiting at a bus stop for a bus running over an hour late, while it was raining (in the desert!). A lady stops her car at the intersection and says to me through her window “Oh honey, you’re not from around here, are you?” I asked her how she knew, to which she responded, “because nobody takes the bus around here!”

[jd3189]

Originally Posted by pj3000

Right. Sure, if you're at a beach location, you're not really going to need a car; and places like South Beach and yeah, Hollywood Beach and others are definitely walkable.

But the actual mainland city of Miami is a majorly designed for the automobile first and foremost.

It's funny to me when people visit Miami for the first time and think Little Havana is going to be some quaint neighborhood in the city with tons of side street shopping and cafes... and then they see Calle Ocho is three one-way traffic lanes with two lanes of curbside parking, and while there's some street front retail, most of the stretch is strip plazas with parking lots, gas stations, CVS/Walgreens, fast food, etc.

Coconut Grove is probably the only Miami neighborhood that has a commercial district integrated into the residential neighborhood and is pedestrian friendly (to an extent).

I guess, but still, everything a resident would need is within walking distance. There's much structural density in terms of the small apartment buildings scattered about with SFHs on small lots with small strip malls. Yes, it's not walkable in the traditional urban sense, but it's on a grid and has something going on. If Miami keeps adding more people within its city limits, Little Havana could easily get better. Along with the CBD and Wynnwood/ Edgewater.


Yes, Miami is mainly built for the car. But unlike many Sunbelt cities, aside from LA and New Orleans, you don't necessarily need a car to live there. It's actually a pain to get around the city by car unless you're going to the beach or some extremely car-centric area. Out of all the cities I've been to in the South, it has the most potential of urbanizing beyond its downtown area if the sea levels don't rise too much by then.

[BnaBreaker]

.