Yet another walkability city rank - do you agree?

[DCReid]

Here's another recent ranking of cities for walkability. I know there are heated discussions about city density, especially for many sun belt and western cities.

https://smartgrowthamerica.org/wp-co...Ahead-2023.pdf

NYC, Boston and DC are tops. This ranking says Chicago is less walkable than Seattle and Portland, and barely more walkable than LA, which is more walkable than Philly. It does not consider Philly in its top tier (but LA is). And Houston beats Baltimore and is not all than far from Miami and Atlanta, and way better than Dallas. Las Vegas ranks last, in the bottom tier with San Antonio, Phoenix and Tampa.

[Crawford]

Philly is clearly one of the most walkable U.S. geographies. Outside of NYC, probably the best walkability. Even narrower streets, on average, than NYC, and a huge geography of really top-tier urbanism, especially in South Philly.

Boston has much less of this A+ level urbanism, and DC and Chicago, while both have tons of good urbanism over a huge geography, have almost none of this super-granular type common to NYC, Boston and Philly. SF is up there and somewhere between the two typologies, but just feels a tad less walkable.

Seattle and Portland are a tier below, and LA is maybe a half-tier below Seattle. LA is such a different typology it's hard to rank. Does it matter if LA has 50x as much B- urbanism? Is it better to have almost an entire metro quasi-walkable, as opposed to a sprawly metro with a great core?

[bilbao58]

I'm surprised to see Houston in the 2nd tier. I'm not surprised to see San Antonio two tiers below that. Outside of the touristy downtown, it's pretty awful here. Dallas and Fort Worth should be listed separately, as are Baltimore and Washington, DC. D & FW are distinct cities with distinct urban cores separated by more than 30 miles.

[dave8721]

For one thing, these are MSA-wide rankings. Suburban LA is probably less un-walkable than suburban Philly.

Looking at the rankings, some look a bit um...interesting. It has Miami ranked #2 with 30.4% of its retail in "walkable urban settings", 2nd only to NY. Philadelphia has just 7.8% (less than Atlanta or Charlotte).

Another thing, the way the rankings works, having tons of suburban apartment towers will count against you (as opposed to just sparse suburban single family homes). Having a low % of your total multifamily housing being in walkable urban areas counts against you.

[dave8721]

Its interesting to note that on page 19, it lists the social equity index which basically ranks how middle and low income earners have access to urban walkable neighborhoods. All the top 10 are older legacy cities and all the bottom 10 are newer sunbelt cities. In the sunbelt, any walkability is something you are going to have to pay for.

Top 10 for urban social equity:
1. Cleveland (its all equally cheap I guess)
2. NY
3. Kansas City
4. Detroit
5. Philadelphia
6. Pittsburgh
7. Baltimore
8. DC
9. Cincinnati
10. Minneapolis
(Boston #12, Chicago #14 also did well)

Bottom 10:
35. LA
34. Tampa
33. Miami
32. San Diego
31. Nashville
30. Orlando
29. Dallas
28. Austin
27. Atlanta
26. Portland

[dave8721]

Here is their ranking of "combined share" which seams to be the total % of stuff (office, retail, housing) in the MSA that falls in one of their "walkable" areas (Type 1 urban or Type II quasi urban):
1. NY 35.1%
2. Boston 27%
3. Portland 24.1%
4. SF 24%
5. LA 19.6%
6. Chicago 18.7%
7. Seattle 18%
8. Philadelphia 17.2%
9. Miami 16.7%
10. DC 15.5%


At the bottom of the pdf they have rankings by just type 1 (the highest urban ranking) and the top ones are:
1. NY
2. DC
3. SF
4. Seattle
5. Boston

By the way, guess which MSA leads the US in having the highest % of its total for sale housing being in Type 1 areas? Austin, TX (DC, NYC...etc all have high $ of their total rental housing in type 1)

[JManc]

LA has some walkable areas but still shouldn't be listed among the top.

[Shawn]

Originally Posted by Crawford

Philly is clearly one of the most walkable U.S. geographies. Outside of NYC, probably the best walkability. Even narrower streets, on average, than NYC, and a huge geography of really top-tier urbanism, especially in South Philly.

Boston has much less of this A+ level urbanism, and DC and Chicago, while both have tons of good urbanism over a huge geography, have almost none of this super-granular type common to NYC, Boston and Philly. SF is up there and somewhere between the two typologies, but just feels a tad less walkable.

Seattle and Portland are a tier below, and LA is maybe a half-tier below Seattle. LA is such a different typology it's hard to rank. Does it matter if LA has 50x as much B- urbanism? Is it better to have almost an entire metro quasi-walkable, as opposed to a sprawly metro with a great core?

Agreed that Philly should be top tier with NYC and Boston for city proper. But this study is for the whole metro, and I don't think many people will argue that SEPTA is on the MBTA's level, particularly in regards to TOD support in inner-ring suburbs. SEPTA definitely doesn't have the same commuter line coverage, density, or funding and political support that the MBTA does. Or that Philly really has an equal to southern Middlesex and Essex Counties (think Cambridge, Somerville, Malden, Medford, Everett, Chelsea, Lynn . . . all these suburbs with full light/heavy/commuter rail and 30,000+ pp/sq mile census tracts). I'm not sure, but I wouldn't be surprised if this unbroken stretch of urbanity adjacent to Boston is bigger than South Philly's impressive stretch.

I know Philly has the Mainline, but those towns strike me more as Brookline and Newton equivalents: true streetcar suburbs that have managed to keep their "country charm/city living" early 20th century built form and overall vibe. Not 30,000+ pp/sq mile like you have in the Cambridge-Lynn list above. More like Bergen County NJ townships.

[McBane]

Delco?

[SFBruin]

I honestly think that it's really hard to determine walkability for a city as a whole.

Las Vegas, for example, is extremely walkable if you're a tourist, but probably not very walkable for the average resident.

[UrbanRevival]

Originally Posted by Shawn

I don't think many people will argue that SEPTA is on the MBTA's level, particularly in regards to TOD support in inner-ring suburbs. SEPTA definitely doesn't have the same commuter line coverage, density, or funding and political support that the MBTA does. Or that Philly really has an equal to southern Middlesex and Essex Counties (think Cambridge, Somerville, Malden, Medford, Everett, Chelsea, Lynn . . . all these suburbs with full light/heavy/commuter rail and 30,000+ pp/sq mile census tracts). I'm not sure, but I wouldn't be surprised if this unbroken stretch of urbanity adjacent to Boston is bigger than South Philly's impressive stretch.

I know Philly has the Mainline, but those towns strike me more as Brookline and Newton equivalents: true streetcar suburbs that have managed to keep their "country charm/city living" early 20th century built form and overall vibe. Not 30,000+ pp/sq mile like you have in the Cambridge-Lynn list above. More like Bergen County NJ townships.

I really don't think that's accurate at all. SEPTA and MBTA have nearly identical scope in the suburbs (13 commuter lines each, and Philly has 155 active stations versus MBTA's 134). Both agencies' trolley systems also traverse an equal length and intensity in their inner suburbs. And folks so often forget that PATCO serves the South Jersey suburbs with heavy rail, as well. And there's an additional high-speed "tram" spur line between Norristown and the Main Line.

Not trying to make this a Philly v. Boston comparison, because I agree that Boston is a bit more ahead in this regard due to more progressive state-level politics (but not dramatically so, as the area is chock full of some of the fiercest NIMBYism in the US). But I do think you're very much underselling the enormous TOD potential in the Philly area (especially as, in my experience, SEPTA does integrate more commonly within suburban downtown hubs and Main Streets).

There's even more inactive legacy rail infrastructure in more distant suburbs like West Chester, Pottstown and Newtown (this was the region of the legendary Pennsylvania Railroad, after all), that could fairly easily be reactivated with the right funding and liability conditions (the hardest part of the equation).

Philadelphia also has much larger city limits than Boston anyway, so the comparison is not apples-to-apples as far as breaking down technical city versus suburban lines.

What matters more is that the scope of "core" urbanism and infrastructure, taking into consideration the footprint of all its most urban neighborhoods and suburbs (regardless of where the city limits fall). That scope has long been very comparable between both regions.

[iheartthed]

I think there's a strong case for putting both Philadelphia and Pittsburgh ahead of Los Angeles. Other than that, the ordering seems uncontroversial. Here's the full list in case anyone has trouble finding it:

Tier 1

1. New York
2. Boston
3. Washington, DC
4. Seattle
5. Portland
6. San Francisco
7. Chicago
8. Los Angeles
   
   Tier 2
   
9. Pittsburgh
10. Philadelphia
11. Minneapolis-St. Paul
12. Miami
13. Charlotte
14. Austin
15. Atlanta
16. Denver
17. Cleveland
18. Houston
    
    Tier 3
    
19. Columbus
20. Baltimore
21. Kansas City
22. Nashville
23. St. Louis
24. Sacramento
25. Cincinnati
26. Detroit
27. Dallas-Fort Worth
28. San Diego
    
    Tier 4
    
29. Indianapolis
30. Tampa
31. Virginia Beach
32. Phoenix
33. Orlando
34. San Antonio
35. Las Vegas

[EastSideHBG]

The problem with some areas within the Philly metro is that it's walkable despite itself and we walk because A) it's the culture of the area B) we are used to crappy conditions and just deal with it. But it's common to see sidewalks just stop and you are forced to traverse through mud and/or rough terrain, no pedestrian crossing signs on all corners of an intersection, tiny sidewalks along very busy multilane roads, sidewalks on only one side of a street...the list goes on and on. It is getting better in some ways and there is finally starting to be a real focus on this (and biking) but there is still so much work to be done.

We have areas where it can be the worst of both worlds (urban/suburban) and you have the negatives of density but not the positives that should come along with it.

[badrunner]

^
Sidewalks, weather, landscaping, wildlife, air quality, visual interest, these are all things that can enhance walkability but are not normally taken into account on these rankings. This is especially true when you are ranking metro-wide walkability. The suburban built form in some cities is absolutely horrific and actively hostile to pedestrians.

[EastSideHBG]

Originally Posted by badrunner

^
Sidewalks, weather, landscaping, wildlife, air quality, visual interest, these are all things that can enhance walkability but are not normally taken into account on these rankings. This is especially true when you are ranking metro-wide walkability. The suburban built form in some cities is absolutely horrific and actively hostile to pedestrians.

From the report:

“Walkability” and Inclusive Language
This report analyzes the demand for housing and commercial
space in urban areas that can be traversed without a car—a
benefit we believe that everyone should be able to access.
To explain our findings, we often use the terms “walkability”
and “walkable” to describe places that can be conveniently
traveled by those using sidewalks, trails, and paths, whether
one is walking, using assistive devices like wheelchairs or
walkers, pushing strollers, or using some other means to get
around without a car. Much of the data in this report utilizes
information from the U.S. federal government which groups
people using assisted mobility devices in the same category
as those that walk to travel, making it challenging to isolate
access and the impact on people with disabilities. We continue
to look for data that would allow us to better analyze access
that includes people of all ages and abilities who choose to
walk, bike, or use assistive devices like wheelchairs or walkers.

- Public standards that outline specific elements in the public
realm, such as sidewalks, travel lanes, on-street parking, street trees, and furniture.


But again, part of the problem here is that when you look at an area it should be walkable but then in function it's really not.

[homebucket]

Haven’t been to Philly as an adult but I think it probably deserves to move up to the first tier. The rest of the top tier cities I’ve been to and I’d probably move LA down into a 1B tier. It’s definitely a notch below the rest of the Tier 1 cities but also above the tier 2 cities.

I think someone mentioned SJ is included with SF here. If SJ was separated I’d probably place it in Tier 3.

[LA21st]

That sounds fair. I'd put Philly above LA. At least of the city and maybe some inner burbs. The main line town centers are nice, but I don't remember anything else about the burbs there.

Pittsburgh is a weird one to me. I don't know where to place it. It's more walkable than the southern cities for sure though.

[Doady]

The only important thing for walkability is the distance. That not only means reducing the distance from origin to the destination, but also the ability of people to walk in a straight line from the two places.

So what is really important is the density of population and employment, and also the density of sidewalk. For example, a pedestrian walkway from a cul-de-sac to the bus stop on the arterial road, that's a major reduction in distance, and hence a major increase in walkability. That is what TOD is all about, concentrating development along major corridors, increasing the amount of major corridors, and increasing the amount of pedestrian walkways to those corridors. So density, density, and density, that's what's it all about.

Things like wider sidewalks, parallel parking, narrower roadways, weather, they make walking more comfortable and enjoyable, but they don't increase walkability.

The MSA with the highest rate of cycling and walking to work? Ithaca, NY at 17%. Smaller metro, everything closer together, higher walkability. Likewise in Canada, the CMA that has the highest rate of cyclists and pedestrians is Victoria, BC at 16%. As metropolitan areas become bigger, the travel distances increases, and so their walkability decreases, and more people are forced to use cycle or use transit.

But the need to reduce distance to increase walkability the number one reason that transit ridership in US lags behind Canada. Concentrating on rail downtown and ignoring bus service in the suburbs, the walkability to transit stops is much lower in US compared to Canada where full transit service covers the entire metropolitan area. Similar built form, but much lower walkability. And of course, lower transit ridership also means more parking needed downtown, so that reduces the walkability of the core as well.










Walkability being so important to transit ridership, and transit ridership being so important to walkability, it is fair to say that walkability to work combined with walkability to transit can one way to measure and compare of walkability between metropolitan areas especially of difference sizes. The top 15 MSAs in terms of non-car travel are:

1. New York (39.4%)
2. Ithaca (22.9%)
3. San Francisco (22.1%)
4. Washington (19.5%)
5. Boston (18.6%)
6. Champaign (18.3%)
7. Boulder (16.4%)
8. Chicago (16.1%)
9. Iowa City (15.9%)
10. Ann Arbor (15.5%)
11. Honolulu (14.4%)
12. Philadelphia (14.1%)
13. Trenton (13.6%)
14. Seattle (13.4%)
15. Atlantic City (13.2%)

[JManc]

Originally Posted by homebucket

Haven’t been to Philly as an adult but I think it probably deserves to move up to the first tier. The rest of the top tier cities I’ve been to and I’d probably move LA down into a 1B tier. It’s definitely a notch below the rest of the Tier 1 cities but also above the tier 2 cities.

Agreed. There's no reality where LA is more walkable than Philly. Center City is an urban gem that has more charming streets than even NYC.

[Nouvellecosse]

Originally Posted by Doady

The only important thing for walkability is the distance. That not only means reducing the distance from origin to the destination, but also the ability of people to walk in a straight line from the two places.

So what is really important is the density of population and employment, and also the density of sidewalk. For example, a pedestrian walkway from a cul-de-sac to the bus stop on the arterial road, that's a major reduction in distance, and hence a major increase in walkability. That is what TOD is all about, concentrating development along major corridors, increasing the amount of major corridors, and increasing the amount of pedestrian walkways to those corridors. So density, density, and density, that's what's it all about.

Things like wider sidewalks, parallel parking, narrower roadways, weather, they make walking more comfortable and enjoyable, but they don't increase walkability.

It's also important to remember the role of safety because while yes, being safe makes people feel more comfortable, it also has great practical importance. Being injured or killed by traffic, crime, or other threats like falling on an icy surface can physically prevent a person from walking or biking. So the knowledge or perception of such risks is a big deterrent. For instance, a survey conducted in greater Halifax showed that around 60% of people would be interested in biking more if they felt safer which is one of the motivations for the city's AAA (all ages and abilities) bike network plan.

The thing is, safety and other aspects of comfort often correlate.