Living Car Free - Auto-Free Livable Cities Guide

Anybody a math wiz, is this a real methodology? In any case very hard reading...
http://lewyn.tripod.com/livablecities/

Well my city only got a 74.5. This stung a little because we're just down the road from one of the top five cities (Ann Arbor-84.5). We did well on crime and lousy on transit.

a couple things to notice. They use walkability and public transit, not bicycle use, so the ratings are not quite as applicable to us. Another thing I question is the use of the murder rate. Most murders are either by acquaintances or they are related to drug sales, so the murder category is not applicable to most of us (I hope). If there was any way to factor out somethng like "violence commited by strangers" or something like that, I think it would have been more relevant.

Why such an emphasis on crime rates? That has nothing in particular to do with going carless. What about carjacking?

Tripod: your source for accurate news.

Just move to pretty much anywhere in Europe.

I took a look at the methodology, and, while it's an heroic effort, it's clearly the work of a crazy person. Okay, I just didn't get it. But I'm an algebra and physics teacher, and have a decent general knowledge of statistics and the scientific method, and it just seemed sort of random to me. However, the cities that received the highest scores weren't surprises at all, so maybe there's a rationality here that I'm simply too stupid to recognize... BTW, I was pleased that Seattle got a high score, but it's probably higher than deserved. Seattle's a very good climate for biking, no question, but I used to live in Denver, which received a lower score than Seattle, and I'm pretty sure Denver is a much better town to be car-free.

So here's a question for everybody:

What factors would you put in a similar carlite-bikeheavy-livability index?

Like this author, i would leave climate out, because that's subjective. Same thing with hills. Maybe I would put in:


Bike shops per capita.
Presence of grid street system for lots of alternate routes.
Low number of big box stores per capita.

So here's a question for everybody:

What factors would you put in a similar carlite-bikeheavy-livability index?

Like this author, i would leave climate out, because that's subjective. Same thing with hills. Maybe I would put in:


Bike shops per capita.
Presence of grid street system for lots of alternate routes.
Low number of big box stores per capita.



Other suggestions:
1. total mileage of bike lanes/paths (Yeah I know some people don't like these things, but places that have a LOT of miles of bike paths, like Boulder, CO, also have a lot more people per capita on bikes, and I personally enjoy not having to worry about whether or not an electric bus is sneaking up on me....)
2. number of accidents per mile riden (This one would be tough, I know).
3. percentage of total population who are car-free, broken down by socio-economic background.
4. total mileage of bus/light-rail/subway routes, adjusted for total area.

I don't think you could count how many people are car-free.
I would like a functioning urban city index. A compilation of viable merchants that exclude tourist $ (t-shirts vs. grocery stores), downtown population of families (sorry S.F.), and pre WW2 city layout (sorry southern cities).
Yeah I know move to Europe.

I don't understand the emphasis on violent crime vs. property crime. It seems to me that bike theft is probably the main relevant crime category, but since such theft is often unreported, property crimes (like car break ins) would probably be a good proxy. I wouldn't rate it as 50% of my index though, maybe 25%, since bike theft can be reasonably controlled with a good set of locks and secure parking facilities. Those should definitely be part of the index.

As to the bikeability index, cars per capita, corrected for poverty rates might do the trick, but then how do you control for the lower cost of living in a city that has little use for cars? You might not be poor if you have great facilities available to you for a low/zero transportation cost.

^A couple co-workers have told me that one reason they dont ride or walk to work is that they feel more protected from crime in their cars. It sounds pretty reasonable to me. of course, as more people do walk or bike, it will become safer for everybody.