walkable city scores

[jjw]

Listed below is the amount of people for various cities that live in an area with a Walkscore of at least 80. It doesn't necessarily double as a list of the most walkable cities and there are various factors that effect the numbers, but the numbers are interesting to see nonetheless.


1. New York – 5,220,375
2. Chicago - 1,141,468
3. Los Angeles – 599,567
4. San Francisco – 515,839
5. Philadelphia – 376,556
6. Boston – 321,233
7. Jersey City – 234,565
8. Washington – 204,004
9. Seattle – 178,171
10. Baltimore – 136,500
11. Minneapolis – 120,771
12. Portland, OR – 98,028
13. Honolulu – 85,739
14. Miami – 78,089
15. Newark – 75,736
16. Pittsburgh – 71,176
17. San Diego – 62,716
18. Milwaukee – 59,955
19. Denver – 59,480
20. Columbus – 52,099
21. Houston – 44,957
22. Madison – 44,447
23. New Orleans – 43,880
24. Arlington – 40,897
25. Austin – 38,968
26. Atlanta – 39,944
27. Providence – 35,246
28. Hartford – 35,139
29. Rochester – 30,531
30. St. Paul – 30,510
31. Sacramento – 29,480
32. Richmond – 28,461
33. Kansas City – 26,987
34. Louisville – 26,251
35. Portland, ME - 23,154
36. New Haven – 22,056
37. St. Louis – 17,602
38. Cincinnati – 16,187
39. Detroit – 15,274
40. Cleveland – 15,187
41. Buffalo – 15,045
42. Wilmington – 14,003
43. Charleston – 10,718
44. Salt Lake City – 12,261
45. Albuquerque – 9,226
46. Omaha – 6,442
47. Indianapolis – 6,202
48. Grand Rapids – 5,770
49. Fort Worth – 5,274
50. Charlotte – 4,978
51. Des Moines – 4,867
52. Anchorage – 4,298
53. Birmingham – 3,954
54. San Antonio – 2,938
55. Jacksonville – 3,358
56. Oklahoma City – 2,802
57. Tampa – 2,755
58. Tucson – 2,609
59. Dallas – 2,022
60. Orlando – 1,492


How does Detroit get it's score a bit higher to allow for greater development in it's core?

[ghettopalmetto]

Caveat emptor!

Walkscore's methodology only considers "how much stuff" is within a certain distance of residences. It doesn't consider anything like scale of buildings, speed limits on streets and roads, presence of sidewalks, building density, or any other factor that makes a given environment "friendly" to pedestrians. Proximity is the ONLY factor it uses. In other words, you could live across a 10-lane highway from a shopping mall, with no sidewalks, and your neighborhood will have a high Walkscore.

[DetroitPlanner]

I question the methodology too. I live in Warrendale about 150 feet from 2 bus lines. Within a block from my home are about a dozen thriving businesses. My Walkscore? 68. My office is smack dab in the middle of downtown. It don't get more dense than being surrounded by 30-50 story buildings that take up the whole block. The Walkscore there? 25. It lists my nearest grocery as the Tunnel Barbque and the nearest coffee places as Tim Horton's in Windsor! Nearest Bar? Cheetahs of Windsor.

Nearly every street in Detroit has sidewalks on it with ramps on both sides of the street. Every signal has a wal/don't walk phase, many have countdowns. Detroit has pedestrian HAWK signals in places where there is a great deal of pedestrians. For the most part, major intersections are clearly marked with pederstrain boxes. I don't think you can get more walkable if you tried.

[mwilbert]

I like the idea of the Walkscore, but the actual calculations seem flawed. The methods they use to find nearby businesses don't seem to find them reliably.

For example see http://www.detroityes.com/mb/showthread.php?t=6341

[Ray1936]

Hey, I aced statistics. It's all bullshit.

[Hermod]

Hey, I aced statistics. It's all bullshit.

The scores also don't indicate the possibility of encountering hostile orcs along your path.

[mwilbert]

That is an excellent point, although I think there tend to be fewer orcs in walkable areas.

[DetroitPlanner]

Maybe Detroit's walkscore is hurt by the grizzled little guy with the twisted glasses who bugs people with his 'Sir! Sir!' and 'You hate the homeless' acts.

[iheartthed]

Caveat emptor!

Walkscore's methodology only considers "how much stuff" is within a certain distance of residences. It doesn't consider anything like scale of buildings, speed limits on streets and roads, presence of sidewalks, building density, or any other factor that makes a given environment "friendly" to pedestrians. Proximity is the ONLY factor it uses. In other words, you could live across a 10-lane highway from a shopping mall, with no sidewalks, and your neighborhood will have a high Walkscore.

But wouldn't this only be relevant to explain specific scores outliers? Like how say... Houston or Atlanta significantly outscore Detroit and Cleveland, even though the latter cities were clearly built to be more walkable than the former?

I think it's interesting that the rank of a central city on this list roughly [[I stress roughly) correlates to how well the region it is located in is performing economically. Is it a coincidence that St. Louis, Cincy, Detroit, Cleveland and Buffalo end up being listed contiguously on the list?

[ghettopalmetto]

But wouldn't this only be relevant to explain specific scores outliers? Like how say... Houston or Atlanta significantly outscore Detroit and Cleveland, even though the latter cities were clearly built to be more walkable than the former?

I think it's interesting that the rank of a central city on this list roughly [[I stress roughly) correlates to how well the region it is located in is performing economically. Is it a coincidence that St. Louis, Cincy, Detroit, Cleveland and Buffalo end up being listed contiguously on the list?

I think you answered your own question, in part. Walkscore.com also does not consider disinvestment. In other words, if a business within a short walk of your home goes under, then that business no longer "counts" toward your walkscore. Take this scenario, multiply it hundreds if not thousands of times over in cities that have seen disinvestment, and you get a lower walkscore even if the streetscape itself is inherently more walkable than in a place like freeways-on-steroids Atlanta.