Living Car Free - Walk Score

I know this topic has been brought up before, however, I saw this article in the WSJ and found it interesting that even the "upper class" see it as a boon to housing values. One factor I don't think is taken into account in the Walkability score is crime/safety. I may have a variety of amenities with walking distance but if I fear I am to be mugged getting there it's not very walkable.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB100014240527487039641045753351641366

Sorry the link is no longer there. If the people in charge wish to delete the topic it's fine with me.

ndbiker, I live in a very walkable area; score of 86. The thing about crime is, if you're out walking, doing business, visiting friends on their front porches, etc, you're (in a sense taking) back the streets. Your presence as a citizen negates the bad guys, to a degree. Does that make sense? If a critical mass of like-minded citizens are out and about using their own neighborhoods, patronizing the sidewalk cafes, buying from local shops, you and other law-abiders are owning your streets. And you're showing others that by being out there and visible is the best way to do it, rather than being huddled around the blue light of the television indoors, watching CSI.

/side rant/
When the husband-unit and I take walks in the neighborhood, and we see tellys blaring in livingrooms, we yell "turn that damn thing off!"

a critical mass of like-minded citizens are out and about using their own neighborhoods

Now there's an idea. I always figure when the pedestrians get half as organized as the cyclists, city council will quiver in its boots. Suddenly, sidewalks will be plowed in winter. Policemen will patrol on foot. Kids will start walking to school. You can say hello to your neighbor...

Now there's an idea. I always figure when the pedestrians get half as organized as the cyclists, city council will quiver in its boots. Suddenly, sidewalks will be plowed in winter. Policemen will patrol on foot. Kids will start walking to school. You can say hello to your neighbor...

Truthfully I like the concept. I can remember walking a lot more when I was a kid. I used to feel safe riding my bike for miles to all parts of our town pretty much anytime of the day.

That being said it seems as if there are more people walking in the streets of any major big city like Detroit or Chicago and yet the crime rate is higher than most small townships or suburbs where the streets roll up at night. Maybe during the daylight more people on the streets will equate to a safer neighborhood but I am not so sure from the national crime statistics that after dark walking doesn't lead to a feeding frenzy to the preditory nature of the muggers and petty thieves.

Perhaps if you expand on why places like Chicago, Detroit, LA, San Francisco and Seattle have a higher person on person crime rate despite more people walking on the street. I only use those cities because I have been there and experienced the agressive nature of some of my fellow citizens. Only in terms of minor theft of property and hard core pan-handeling.

PS: and it isn't just Megga cities. I grew up at the Home of Disneyland. And even the streets of that city have seen a large increase in street crime. Drugs, Prostitution, and Mugging.

Truthfully I like the concept. I can remember walking a lot more when I was a kid. I used to feel safe riding my bike for miles to all parts of our town pretty much anytime of the day.

That being said it seems as if there are more people walking in the streets of any major big city like Detroit or Chicago and yet the crime rate is higher than most small townships or suburbs where the streets roll up at night. Maybe during the daylight more people on the streets will equate to a safer neighborhood but I am not so sure from the national crime statistics that after dark walking doesn't lead to a feeding frenzy to the preditory nature of the muggers and petty thieves.

Perhaps if you expand on why places like Chicago, Detroit, LA, San Francisco and Seattle have a higher person on person crime rate despite more people walking on the street. I only use those cities because I have been there and experienced the agressive nature of some of my fellow citizens. Only in terms of minor theft of property and hard core pan-handeling.

PS: and it isn't just Megga cities. I grew up at the Home of Disneyland. And even the streets of that city have seen a large increase in street crime. Drugs, Prostitution, and Mugging.

I think you're about 15 years behind the times. Crime rates have been steadily dropping since the early 1990s and continue to decline. This is probably the safest time to walk city streets in an entire generation, if not longer. Certainly it's safer to walk now than it was in the imagined golden era of your childhood.

I think you're about 15 years behind the times. Crime rates have been steadily dropping since the early 1990s and continue to decline. This is probably the safest time to walk city streets in an entire generation, if not longer. Certainly it's safer to walk now than it was in the imagined golden era of your childhood.


Let me be a bit more specific.
Maybe they are falling but in LA even after being listed as walk able you are close to twice as likely to be murdered as the national average, a little less likely to be raped, twice as likely to be robbed, twice as likely to be assaulted and twice as likely to suffer some form of violent crime as the national average. But you are correct you are less likely to suffer property crime than the national average. The other cities I mentioned?
Chicago, In the same order: Compared to the national average, Murder almost 3 times, **** much less than average, Robbed almost 3 times. Assault 2 times. All Violent crime, a bit more than twice the national average.
Detroit: Murder 5 times the national average, **** 2.5 times the national average, Robbery a bit less than 3 times, Assault a bitless than 3.5 times and all violent crime close to 3.4 times the national average. And unlike the other two cities property crime is higher than average in Detroit.
Seattle: You are correct violent crime is about average across the board in Seattle, but then Property crime is almost twice the national average there as well.

This was simply to question the idea that people on the street deter crime simply by being on the street walking. So the question stands, why would there be higher crime in places were more people walk then in Lake Forrest California where hardly anyone walks? That is if walking has as big of an impact as suggested?

This was simply to question the idea that people on the street deter crime simply by being on the street walking. So the question stands, why would there be higher crime in places were more people walk then in Lake Forrest California where hardly anyone walks? That is if walking has as big of an impact as suggested?

Robert... most of what I can find seems to agree with what Roody has said. The decline is most evident in larger cities, like NY and LA.Example:
http://politics.usnews.com/news/national/articles/2008/06/11/crime-rates-shown-to-be-falling.html


Take, for instance, the overall drop in homicides. Nationally, the decline was 2.7 percent, but most of that decrease came from major cities like New York (down 20 percent, to 496 homicides) and Los Angeles (down 19 percent, to 380 homicides). Among cities with populations over 1 million, murder rates dropped 9.8 percent. That is a stark contrast to medium-size cities. Those with populations of 100,000 to 249,999 saw a 1.9 percent rise in murder rates. For cities with 50,000 to 99,999 residents, the increase was even greater: 3.7 percent.


It's very difficult to assign cause-and-effect to a phenomenon like this. Some claim it's because there more sophisticated policework. Others wish to praise walkable streets (LA?) Some say it's because of the large chunk of the population that are kept in jail.

Sometimes the nearest you'll get to a cause and effect will seem pretty odd. Malcolm Gladwell wrote a book called The Tipping Point. In it, he discusses how New York managed to clean up crime in the subways in the 1970s. It was shown that when the city underwent a strong program of dealing with filth and graffiti at a subway stop, crime seemed to decrease... This may not have been the real reason or the only reason. It's probably more the result of a number of events... of which graffiti removal (in the 1970s) and more walkable streets (nowadays) are both the most visible cause and result.

Robert... most of what I can find seems to agree with what Roody has said. The decline is most evident in larger cities, like NY and LA.Example:
http://politics.usnews.com/news/national/articles/2008/06/11/crime-rates-shown-to-be-falling.html


It's very difficult to assign cause-and-effect to a phenomenon like this. Some claim it's because there more sophisticated policework. Others wish to praise walkable streets (LA?) Some say it's because of the large chunk of the population that are kept in jail.

Sometimes the nearest you'll get to a cause and effect will seem pretty odd. Malcolm Gladwell wrote a book called The Tipping Point. In it, he discusses how New York managed to clean up crime in the subways in the 1970s. It was shown that when the city underwent a strong program of dealing with filth and graffiti at a subway stop, crime seemed to decrease... This may not have been the real reason or the only reason. It's probably more the result of a number of events... of which graffiti removal (in the 1970s) and more walkable streets (nowadays) are both the most visible cause and result.

I don't dispute the fact that cities are getting better. I am pointing out that even being more walkable it seems as if stronger enforcement rather than people walking in the streets make for good neighbors. But I guess that was a bit off topic anyway.

My neighborhood only had a waking score of 52 and it is very safe to walk in. I wondered why the walking score was so low considering just about all the services listed were less than a mile away.

I don't dispute the fact that cities are getting better. I am pointing out that even being more walkable it seems as if stronger enforcement rather than people walking in the streets make for good neighbors. But I guess that was a bit off topic anyway.

My neighborhood only had a waking score of 52 and it is very safe to walk in. I wondered why the walking score was so low considering just about all the services listed were less than a mile away.

With most walk score calculators, other factors are included besides nearness of destinations. These factors include presence and conditions of sidewalks, crosswalks and other facilities, speed of car traffic, one-way streets, and even whether there are trees along the sidewalks.

I don't have the figures handy, but pedestrians suffer a LOT of injuries and fatalities from cars---much much much higher than the number of casualties from crime. IMO, law enforcement should focus more on traffic than on crime.

Are trees a plus or a minus? Cars might be a problem for pedestrians but wouldn't thugs on the street be a problem as well? So if the enforcement moves from violent crime to traffic violations wouldn't that make it harder on people walking on the street?

I wonder what the walk score of many of the forum members are. Like I said I know mine is 52. I wonder what the OP ndbiker has as a walk score? I wonder if walkable cities are safer cities?

My neighborhood -- 5 miles from city center -- is 52 and downtown Des Moines is 71. Although downtown Des Moines doesn't have a grocery store, while my neighborhood does.

My neighborhood -- 5 miles from city center -- is 52 and downtown Des Moines is 71. Although downtown Des Moines doesn't have a grocery store, while my neighborhood does.

Then I wonder what they base it on? It must be different from sustainable or what a green site would base it on. But then I have discovered that many green sites have a political bent as well as an informative one. It would seem if the places like stores, medical, government would have a lot to do with people walking if they all had easy access.

Ha, ha, this is pretty funny. My neighborhood is given a 43 which makes it very car dependent by their system. Anyway, the town of Kailua, with lots of restaurants, stores, a library, and one of the best beaches in the world, is 1.4 miles from my house and there is a road with a bike lane the entire way. Maybe 1.4 miles is a bit of a walk for the average American but it is certainly easy to bike, so they are showing their own bias by calling it Car-Dependent. They could just as easily call it bicycle dependent although I don't think 1.4 miles is a difficult walk. The difference in time to ride in versus drive is negligible because it is only five minutes by bike. I do almost all my domestic errands with the Big Dummy, at this distance even carrying 200 lbs. of groceries is no big deal. And did I mention, 325 days a year the weather is perfect for riding.

One funny thing, they list the Youth Correctional Facility as a school with a 4:1 student teacher ratio as a school within walking distance ... Also, I don't get any credit at all for the medical center and hospital being only 0.2 miles away. Hey, I crawled to the ER once ...

I am still in a 2 range at the farm, which is really about right when you consider that there is no place to walk except in the ditch to get to and from the stores. My in town location has a walk score of 72 which isn't too bad, but they consider the stop and robs ("convenience" stores) grocery stores, which they most definitely are not unless you live on energy drinks, beer, cigarettes, beanie weenies and lottery tickets.

About taking back the streets...community policing, which includes neighbors looking out for neighbors and being visible, as well as strong enforcement of building codes and property maintenance is proven to make a community more people friendly and keep crime down. Unfortunately when you have a large number of absentee/slum lords owning houses in a given area it is very difficult to make headway, quite often the owners are the local politicians. I fought this battle for several years in one neighborhood I lived in.

Aaron :)

I am still in a 2 range at the farm, which is really about right when you consider that there is no place to walk except in the ditch to get to and from the stores. My in town location has a walk score of 72 which isn't too bad, but they consider the stop and robs ("convenience" stores) grocery stores, which they most definitely are not unless you live on energy drinks, beer, cigarettes, beanie weenies and lottery tickets.

About taking back the streets...community policing, which includes neighbors looking out for neighbors and being visible, as well as strong enforcement of building codes and property maintenance is proven to make a community more people friendly and keep crime down. Unfortunately when you have a large number of absentee/slum lords owning houses in a given area it is very difficult to make headway, quite often the owners are the local politicians. I fought this battle for several years in one neighborhood I lived in.

Aaron :)

Once we start talking about common experience like your post we see a gap between reality and theory. Your concerns and observations sound much like the major thrust of the last Green Goalition meeting I attended. One pet peave one of the attendees had was shopping carts and truck parking on side streets.

But I still feel that being able to walk to the places you normally go should hold more weight than if there are cars on the road. But then maybe they are saying a neighborhood is walkable simply because people walk there and like akohekohe's area even if they could walk many don't?

That being said it seems as if there are more people walking in the streets of any major big city like Detroit or Chicago and yet the crime rate is higher than most small townships or suburbs where the streets roll up at night.

There are so many more people in a metropolis, that the higher count of criminals gets diluted; you aren't likely to run into one because there are too many other people you'll run into first. This of course depends on a lot of things ... you've lived in Seattle, so you know that the unseemly element is more concentrated in Pioneer Square than Madison Park. On the average, though, I live in Eastlake and commute to south of Northgate, passing through the University and several residential neighborhoods along the way. Speaking of crime, I'm still upset that someone cut two of my lily plants on the 4th of July. :mad:


PS: and it isn't just Megga cities. I grew up at the Home of Disneyland. And even the streets of that city have seen a large increase in street crime. Drugs, Prostitution, and Mugging.

Speaking of drugs, especially, I think that's a problem everywhere. I don't know how much truth there is to the conventional wisdom that meth is big in the middle of nowhere, or that people in suburbs are more heavily medicated than in the city. I think a lot of this is people seeing what they want to believe. If you don't like cities, then any spot in one that isn't well lit seems like a crime den, and vice versa.

I think the real answer is to seek out what's good for you, and enjoy that.

There are so many more people in a metropolis, that the higher count of criminals gets diluted; you aren't likely to run into one because there are too many other people you'll run into first. This of course depends on a lot of things ... you've lived in Seattle, so you know that the unseemly element is more concentrated in Pioneer Square than Madison Park. On the average, though, I live in Eastlake and commute to south of Northgate, passing through the University and several residential neighborhoods along the way. Speaking of crime, I'm still upset that someone cut two of my lily plants on the 4th of July. :mad:



Speaking of drugs, especially, I think that's a problem everywhere. I don't know how much truth there is to the conventional wisdom that meth is big in the middle of nowhere, or that people in suburbs are more heavily medicated than in the city. I think a lot of this is people seeing what they want to believe. If you don't like cities, then any spot in one that isn't well lit seems like a crime den, and vice versa.

I think the real answer is to seek out what's good for you, and enjoy that.

In my youth I worked for the PI for a while. I used to commute by motorcycle of all things to Bellevue. I know what getting wet is all about. I also can remember what the streets of south Seattle were like after dark and people walking didn't make it any nicer.

My reference to big cities in this case was simply to point out that increased walking on the streets by citizens doesn't seem to clean up a neighborhood. But that turned into a topic drift. Even if it was related to the OPs first post.
But there seems to be a disconnect between what is a good walking/bike riding area and what isn't. I have lived in small communities with horrid walking scores yet if you rode your bike to the local store and simply locked it up with a small cable lock your chances of getting it back were pretty good. Here in these forums we hear how great it is to live in places like New York and what a good walking score it might have yet no one would think about leaving a nice bike on the street without a case hardened U-lock that weighs 10 pounds.

I am not a big city person I freely admit. I like my space and the quietness of the evening far too much. But like I said I have lived in big cities, small towns and medium sized suburbs and I have had more things taken from my car including tires in larger cities than I ever had in the burbs or townships. Where I live now they actually seem to fight grafitti when I was in Chicago it looked like they didn't much care. My question would be if foot traffic had any effect on crime why would places with more foot traffic have so much grafitti? I know we don't have the answer and I know most people don't really care it is just that when you hear statements that if more people were walking there would be less crime it makes one wonder why someone would think that?

Crime is one important factor in walkability--but one of several. I think it's a great topic, and Robert has lots of interesting things to say; it deserves it's own thread.

'Walkability' is about way more than just people out walking... it affects WHO is walking, and WHERE they're going.

If all the people out walking are miscreants with nothing to do and nowhere to go, then yes.... crime will be high.

On the other hand, if everyone is out walking, socializing, living life, then crime will most likely be pretty low... the majority of the people out will be law abiding citizens going about their lives... which means more eyes to see if someone is breaking into a car, mugging someone, or whatever, and thus a greater likelihood that the police will be notified or other action taken to intervene.

'Walkability' is about way more than just people out walking... it affects WHO is walking, and WHERE they're going.

If all the people out walking are miscreants with nothing to do and nowhere to go, then yes.... crime will be high.

On the other hand, if everyone is out walking, socializing, living life, then crime will most likely be pretty low... the majority of the people out will be law abiding citizens going about their lives... which means more eyes to see if someone is breaking into a car, mugging someone, or whatever, and thus a greater likelihood that the police will be notified or other action taken to intervene.

That is great in theory but I have seen studies where they have a person fall down on a busy street and people will walk around them for many minutes before anyone takes notice. (I know I watch too much real TV as well) I happened to be on a bus in San Francisco once I watched as this very thing happened.

I will grant you the people walking in the street weren't socializing so there might not be a direct connection. They were busy not making eye contact and rushing to or from where ever they were going.

That is great in theory but I have seen studies where they have a person fall down on a busy street and people will walk around them for many minutes before anyone takes notice. (I know I watch too much real TV as well) I happened to be on a bus in San Francisco once I watched as this very thing happened.

I will grant you the people walking in the street weren't socializing so there might not be a direct connection. They were busy not making eye contact and rushing to or from where ever they were going.

From what little bit I have observed that seems to be a phenomenon reserved primarily for larger cities. I have observed similar situations in many small and medium sized towns around the country and it seems that the opposite occurs.

Aaron :)

I have a walk score of 98 :)

Unfortunately, I can understand why you would avoid someone who fell down on the street. I walk everywhere and I can't tell you how many stories I have heard to try and get money out of me. Way too many people are trying to scam the honest, hard working people that those of us in cities quickly learn to ignore people asking for help.

Yeah it is a little calloused, but if I stopped and helped everyone who asked, all of my paychecks would be doing nothing but fund people's drug habits.

I have a walk score of 98 :)

Unfortunately, I can understand why you would avoid someone who fell down on the street. I walk everywhere and I can't tell you how many stories I have heard to try and get money out of me. Way too many people are trying to scam the honest, hard working people that those of us in cities quickly learn to ignore people asking for help.

Yeah it is a little calloused, but if I stopped and helped everyone who asked, all of my paychecks would be doing nothing but fund people's drug habits.

It seems as if you have the high of 98 with the low being 2 someone posted earlier. Are you accosted often while out walking? I was in New York once and a pan handler followed a woman for at least two blocks till she walked into a hotel with a doorman. They he waited outside to see if she was coming back out. I talked to a local about it and he said it was almost a matter of pride to some of them that they had to get something, no matter how small, out of everyone they walked up to. I don't know how true that is because I haven't had that problem very often except for the rare parking lot or airport contact.

It seems as if you have the high of 98 with the low being 2 someone posted earlier. Are you accosted often while out walking? I was in New York once and a pan handler followed a woman for at least two blocks till she walked into a hotel with a doorman. They he waited outside to see if she was coming back out. I talked to a local about it and he said it was almost a matter of pride to some of them that they had to get something, no matter how small, out of everyone they walked up to. I don't know how true that is because I haven't had that problem very often except for the rare parking lot or airport contact.

I have never had a problem. Honestly, it really has to do with how you present yourself when walking. As harsh as it sounds, you get accosted/harassed when you show any sympathy for panhandlers. When I am approached I either ignore the person completely or say "I will buy you a sandwich but I won't give you money, take your pick". If they try to come up with an excuse why they should get money, I turn and walk away. Having a no-nonsense/I don't have time for this attitude keeps panhandlers at bay for me. I have friends who stop and actually listen to people's stories and show sympathy for their situations and more often than not they are the people who are hounded and harassed for money.

Again - I know it sounds cold to give the advice of not showing sympathy, but those who are truly in need will immediately take the fast food/slice of pizza/sub I offer to buy and those who are just scamming immediately have a backup story to get cash. Also - the same people are on the street asking for money every day. They really don't ask locals for money as much. If a guy sees me walking by every day and I have NEVER given him anything, he learns to stop asking. I think tourist/visitors/people in for dinner/etc. are accosted a lot more than locals because of this.

I don't know if that answered your question, but I hope it did...

Again - I know it sounds cold to give the advice of not showing sympathy, but those who are truly in need will immediately take the fast food/slice of pizza/sub I offer to buy and those who are just scamming immediately have a backup story to get cash. Also - the same people are on the street asking for money every day. They really don't ask locals for money as much. If a guy sees me walking by every day and I have NEVER given him anything, he learns to stop asking. I think tourist/visitors/people in for dinner/etc. are accosted a lot more than locals because of this.

I don't know if that answered your question, but I hope it did...

Yes, I guess you have a good point. People that don't pass by every day would seem like new ground and more than likely get asked more often. It might be why most of my experience with it takes place when I am in new towns.

And in a related question how is the grafitti in the town of steel? Or should I ask how does the city deal with it and do you find it to be an indiction of the safety of a neighborhood?

Yes, I guess you have a good point. People that don't pass by every day would seem like new ground and more than likely get asked more often. It might be why most of my experience with it takes place when I am in new towns.

And in a related question how is the grafitti in the town of steel? Or should I ask how does the city deal with it and do you find it to be an indiction of the safety of a neighborhood?

There are two types of graffiti (in my mind)

Traditional 'tagging' and what I call 'street art'.

I get nervous in neighborhoods with traditional 'tagging' as that is usually an indication of gangs, but the more creative/artsy/hipster type of graffiti is (in my mind) usually an indication that a neighborhood is turning around. The neighborhood where I live has a lot of graffiti, but it is cool/artsy stuff like this, which I personally love.

The city doesn't do much about the actual graffiti itself. They do a pretty good job of charging the artist when they are caught, but it usually comes down to the neighborhood to clean it up/repaint. The city just doesn't have the resources to deal with it. There are very strong neighborhood groups in Pittsburgh, so neighborhood cleanup days are fairly common. The city tries to clean up the crime itself, and the rest is on the neighborhood itself.

Personally, I would never paint over stuff like the picture below. (taken a block from my house) I hope this one lasts forever!

http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3594/3367090957_651be83a1c.jpg

Yes, I guess you have a good point. People that don't pass by every day would seem like new ground and more than likely get asked more often. It might be why most of my experience with it takes place when I am in new towns.

And in a related question how is the grafitti in the town of steel? Or should I ask how does the city deal with it and do you find it to be an indiction of the safety of a neighborhood?

In my city they paint over grafitti very quickly. There's a hotline you can call to report it. Private property owners are also required to paint over it, and the police help them out if asked to. I see this as a very important issue. For example, in my town we have a beautiful trail system, but if people see grafitti and vandalism they'll be frightened off from using the trails. Eventually decay and neglect set in, and a downward spiral has started. Gang grafitti is meant to be intimidating. Since it's almost impossible to catch these bullies in the act, covering their "art" promptly is the best weapon against them.

Roody,

We are in the same boat as you. If the art wasn't commissioned by the owner it is grafitti and is removed.

There are two types of graffiti (in my mind)

Traditional 'tagging' and what I call 'street art'.

I get nervous in neighborhoods with traditional 'tagging' as that is usually an indication of gangs, but the more creative/artsy/hipster type of graffiti is (in my mind) usually an indication that a neighborhood is turning around. The neighborhood where I live has a lot of graffiti, but it is cool/artsy stuff like this, which I personally love.

The city doesn't do much about the actual graffiti itself. They do a pretty good job of charging the artist when they are caught, but it usually comes down to the neighborhood to clean it up/repaint. The city just doesn't have the resources to deal with it. There are very strong neighborhood groups in Pittsburgh, so neighborhood cleanup days are fairly common. The city tries to clean up the crime itself, and the rest is on the neighborhood itself.

Personally, I would never paint over stuff like the picture below. (taken a block from my house) I hope this one lasts forever!
I agree that a tiny portion of graffiti is creative and expressive, and should be counted as "art". But on a legal basis, how do you distinguish between what is art, and what is territory marking by narcissistic bullies who think they have a right to alter private property and the public landscape?

There's a an old mill next to a trail and in a certain section of the mill it has some fantastic graffiti art. The bad part about this old mill is that it's basically used as a homeless encampment, which leaves me with less than secure feeling when the wife and I go there to take pictures. The last time we were there, someone started shooting off blank Airsoft rounds toward our direction, giving me second thoughts about going there again.

Are trees a plus or a minus? Cars might be a problem for pedestrians but wouldn't thugs on the street be a problem as well? So if the enforcement moves from violent crime to traffic violations wouldn't that make it harder on people walking on the street?

I wonder what the walk score of many of the forum members are. Like I said I know mine is 52. I wonder what the OP ndbiker has as a walk score? I wonder if walkable cities are safer cities?

Last time I checked (the numbers change with new inputs) it was 72. I've been incommunicado for about a week and since the link didn't work I figured the thread was dead so I never posted it. Walkability scores do not necessarily translate into more people walking other than for a stroll. I think larger cities with more congestion and a higher usage of public transportation inspires walking more. I live in a suburban neighborhood which just happens to have a lot of amenities within 1/2 mile of my home. I see a few people walking to the grocery store or to the coffee house or the library but most drive. Another thing very few people do in my neighborhood is bike or take public transportation to work. I do, however, think that it helps my home value. People are pretty good at valuing things that they never use. They value SUVs that will never see dirt, they value sports cars that will rarely see more than 90 mph and never a race track. I think walkability scores will become more important as people assign value to it (partially because it's measured) even if they initially don't walk much. I dream of a day when my vehicle is superfluous, until then I'll be a member of the CUA (Car Users Anonymous) branch of this forum and will have to say "My name is ndbiker and I drive a car".

On a legal basis it is all vandalism. I wish Pittsburgh was able to paint over/wash off ALL graffiti, but realistically I know there are bigger problems the city is facing than that.

Right now the city is spending money converting all old rail lines into bike trails, which (in my mind) is a better use of money than getting rid of graffiti.

If it is just some idiot kid I don't care too much about graffiti, but when it is territorial (as well as other territorial markings like shoes over power lines, etc) then it needs to be dealt with. Some graffiti adds to the allure of being in a city, but steps need to be taken by city governments to break up gang zones. I think Pittsburgh does a decent job at making that distinction. They focus their efforts on neighborhoods with high gang activity more than neighborhoods without. That means the city will leave graffiti up in a neighborhood like mine, since gangs stay out of it, for the most part.

Neighborhood watch groups help a lot as well. Most neighborhoods in Pittsburgh are fairly close-knit, and I know where I live there is a fairly low crime rate simply because regular citizens help neighbors out and don't really tolerate crime. I live in Pittsburgh's 'little italy' and there is still that old school feel of actually sticking your neck out for your neighbor. That (in pittsburgh at least) helps prevent a lot of crime. Then again, bigger cities like NYC or Philly or DC might not operate that way.

Right now the city is spending money converting all old rail lines into bike trails, which (in my mind) is a better use of money than getting rid of graffiti.
Except that a lot of people won't use those trails if there's gang graffiti on the bridges and embankments. I won't, at least not for walking (I feel a little safer on my bike).

On another topic, How useful are those new rail-trails in Pittsburgh for the needs of everyday cyclists? Do they actually go in a relatively straight line to popular locations? Are they totally separated fom car traffic, or do you have to cross streets?

I currently live in the suburbs and we're thinking about moving. Walk Scores are a big issue for us. We went to an Open House for this house (http://dallasnews.sawbuck.com/property/Dallas_Metro/Fort_Worth/Southside/2967647-1516-Washington-Avenue) yesterday. As someone mentioned upthread... it has a big, liveable front porch which is good for getting to know the neighbors.

It's in a transitional neighborhood that 10 years ago was full of drug houses and stuff, but is slowly climbing back into respectability, and is close to the center of bike culture in Fort Worth. If we were a little further along with our rennovations in our current house, I would have seriously considered putting a bid in on this house. Its Walk Score is 75 which is about the best you'll see in Fort Worth. It's about 3 blocks from a row of trendy-quirky restaurants.

Last time I checked (the numbers change with new inputs) it was 72. I've been incommunicado for about a week and since the link didn't work I figured the thread was dead so I never posted it. Walkability scores do not necessarily translate into more people walking other than for a stroll. I think larger cities with more congestion and a higher usage of public transportation inspires walking more. I live in a suburban neighborhood which just happens to have a lot of amenities within 1/2 mile of my home. I see a few people walking to the grocery store or to the coffee house or the library but most drive. Another thing very few people do in my neighborhood is bike or take public transportation to work. I do, however, think that it helps my home value. People are pretty good at valuing things that they never use. They value SUVs that will never see dirt, they value sports cars that will rarely see more than 90 mph and never a race track. I think walkability scores will become more important as people assign value to it (partially because it's measured) even if they initially don't walk much. I dream of a day when my vehicle is superfluous, until then I'll be a member of the CUA (Car Users Anonymous) branch of this forum and will have to say "My name is ndbiker and I drive a car".

That sounds like a description of my brother's neighborhood in Highlands Ranch, CO (Denver, CO) there is just about anything you want within a couple of miles bike ride, including access to mass transit (buses and light rail) but most people seem to drive to where they are going, then walk on the trails. My son and I stood out, he was walking and using mass transit to get around, I was biking...

What was interesting/idiotic to me was the bike lanes painted on the streets in the neighborhoods. The street was the main through street with a 25mph posted, and heavily enforced from what I observed. But it had a full blown bike lane. The faster feeder roads also had painted bike lanes. I would be interested to see if those are cleared and maintained in the winter time.

Aaron :)

Except that a lot of people won't use those trails if there's gang graffiti on the bridges and embankments. I won't, at least not for walking (I feel a little safer on my bike).

On another topic, How useful are those new rail-trails in Pittsburgh for the needs of everyday cyclists? Do they actually go in a relatively straight line to popular locations? Are they totally separated fom car traffic, or do you have to cross streets?

They are surprisingly in good locations. The majority of them follow one of the three rivers, and since downtown is at the intersection of all three rivers all of the paths end up downtown. I don't go out of my way to jump on a bike path and find myself actually saving time by using them instead of only staying on roads. Pittsburgh has a 'bicycle tzar', who is a city employee responsible for nothing but coordinate bike and pedestrian usage in the city. Since they created that position, the positioning of paths/bike lanes has become much more practical. Here is the article I saved about it from 2008 http://www.post-gazette.com/pg/08225/903577-53.stm

When I worked downtown (I was transferred to work in the suburbs now) I took a bike path to work every day. It was actually shorter in distance than it would have been to stay on the roads.

Fort Worth has the Trinity River Trail. The most popular segment runs from the bedroom community of Benbrook to Downtown Fort Worth (http://maps.google.com/maps?f=d&source=s_d&saddr=32.662356,-97.458515&daddr=W+5th+St&hl=en&geocode=%3BFQrH8wEd2tUy-g&gl=us&mra=dme&mrcr=0&mrsp=0&sz=13&dirflg=b&sll=32.661344,-97.442551&sspn=0.065611,0.110378&ie=UTF8&ll=32.712778,-97.407188&spn=0.131146,0.220757&t=h&z=12&lci=bike) on a slightly meandering route. I hop on it for a couple miles going in the opposite direction and see lots of bike commuters using it to get home in the afternoon. From Benbrook to Downtown is about 12 miles on the trail with almost no stops on the trail (all intersections use bridges to cross the major roads); if you take the most direct surface streets, it's 11 miles with plenty of stops due to traffic.

It's a paved path with a packed stone path running next to it for most of its length, to dog walkers, pedestrians, etc., are not a problem.

http://i42.photobucket.com/albums/e341/Doohickie/10LMRAFWCats/0613101252-00.jpg

They are surprisingly in good locations. The majority of them follow one of the three rivers, and since downtown is at the intersection of all three rivers all of the paths end up downtown. I don't go out of my way to jump on a bike path and find myself actually saving time by using them instead of only staying on roads. Pittsburgh has a 'bicycle tzar', who is a city employee responsible for nothing but coordinate bike and pedestrian usage in the city. Since they created that position, the positioning of paths/bike lanes has become much more practical. Here is the article I saved about it from 2008 http://www.post-gazette.com/pg/08225/903577-53.stm

When I worked downtown (I was transferred to work in the suburbs now) I took a bike path to work every day. It was actually shorter in distance than it would have been to stay on the roads.
Our Rivertrail is likewise surprisingly useful. Although designed for recreation, it goes to some popular destinations like downtown Lansing, the university and community college, East Lansing and others. It's completely segregated from car traffic. It does have the common problem that it's a multi-use trail, so the joggers, toddlers, skaters. and dogs are all out there. I like the Rivertrail best in the winter, when it's less crowded.

Since the trail is only a block from my house, I think it makes my neighborhood much more walkable. Unfortunately, the walk score web site doesn't take the trail into account and I only get a walk score of 62.

That Walk Score really is a work in progress, isn't it?

With no official trails close by my house, my only means of travel is to use the public roads to get to most places. Recently, I checked my walk score, and it came in at 29. My score said I was car dependent, which is hard for me to imagine since I only drove a car once in the past 3 months.

With no official trails close by my house, my only means of travel is to use the public roads to get to most places. Recently, I checked my walk score, and it came in at 29. My score said I was car dependent, which is hard for me to imagine since I only drove a car once in the past 3 months.

But do you walk, or mostly ride your bike? I think a lot of neighborhoods that have low walk scores are pretty good if you use a bike. At least that's the case for the last 3 or 4 neighborhoods I lived in. In fact, the city as a whole is mostly mediocre for walking, but pretty decent for riding.

Our Rivertrail is likewise surprisingly useful. Although designed for recreation, it goes to some popular destinations like downtown Lansing, the university and community college, East Lansing and others. It's completely segregated from car traffic. It does have the common problem that it's a multi-use trail, so the joggers, toddlers, skaters. and dogs are all out there. I like the Rivertrail best in the winter, when it's less crowded.

Since the trail is only a block from my house, I think it makes my neighborhood much more walkable. Unfortunately, the walk score web site doesn't take the trail into account and I only get a walk score of 62.

That Walk Score really is a work in progress, isn't it?

Yeah...Walk Score only really works in the traditional sense...I am in a townhouse with two grocerias, a full sized grocery store, at least 10 restaurants, a barber, a drug store and a city park (to name a few) within a 7 block radius. Walk Score really accounts for those kind of things, not necessarily what you can get to via paths and stuff like that.

My neighborhood was built in the early 1900s, and so everything was actually built around walking instead of cars.

But do you walk, or mostly ride your bike? I think a lot of neighborhoods that have low walk scores are pretty good if you use a bike. At least that's the case for the last 3 or 4 neighborhoods I lived in. In fact, the city as a whole is mostly mediocre for walking, but pretty decent for riding.

My travels are done mostly by bike, and little by walking. There are some stores nearby, but the bulk of them are a few miles away. If only counting walking as the means to get around, I can see why I have a low score.

Ha, ha, this is pretty funny. My neighborhood is given a 43 which makes it very car dependent by their system.

Went back to the site to show my wife and now my address yields 57! Somewhat Walkable. I have no idea why it changed that much in just a few weeks.

Truthfully I like the concept. I can remember walking a lot more when I was a kid. I used to feel safe riding my bike for miles to all parts of our town pretty much anytime of the day.

That being said it seems as if there are more people walking in the streets of any major big city like Detroit or Chicago and yet the crime rate is higher than most small townships or suburbs where the streets roll up at night. Maybe during the daylight more people on the streets will equate to a safer neighborhood but I am not so sure from the national crime statistics that after dark walking doesn't lead to a feeding frenzy to the preditory nature of the muggers and petty thieves.

Most of the killings are people who know each other, not random people on the street.

Went back to the site to show my wife and now my address yields 57! Somewhat Walkable. I have no idea why it changed that much in just a few weeks.

Maybe the walk score site is like one of those Magic Eight ball things with the widow to ask a question and an answer pops up in the window??

Most of the killings are people who knwo each other, not random people on the street.


And of we assume that is true that makes it better just how? :eek: Do muggers only mug people they know? :D The assertion was made, more people walk crime goes down. The statistics show more people walk in high density cities and yet personal violent crime is higher on average than in smaller less compact areas where people aren't walking as much.

I could contend that is is the same efect we see in wild life. The predators go where the prey is. ;) But I won't do that I'll just say I am skeptical that more people walking will make a place safer.

And of we assume that is true that makes it better just how?it means that you have to disconnect the two kinds of crime. Having lots of people on the street reduces the chance you will be mugged by a stranger, even if it doesn't stop two drug dealers from shooting each other. Furthermore, crime is multifactorial, so Detroit may be more dangerous than Pleasantville, but Detroit with pedestrians is safer than Detroit without pedestrians.

it means that you have to disconnect the two kinds of crime. Having lots of people on the street reduces the chance you will be mugged by a stranger, even if it doesn't stop two drug dealers from shooting each other. Furthermore, crime is multifactorial, so Detroit may be more dangerous than Pleasantville, but Detroit with pedestrians is safer than Detroit without pedestrians.

You have statistics or studies to prove this supposition? If person on person crime in a place like Detroit is X times higher than the national average and that is a statistical fact and if more people are walking in the street than a place like Lake Forrest, Ca. where very few people are on the street with a person on person rate X times less than the national average from where do you draw you conclusions?

Or is this simply a theory?

Are you telling me more people walk the streets in Vancouver and Montreal than Toronto because they have a lower crime rate per 100,000?

You have statistics or studies to prove this supposition?

Here's one example: http://www.spacesyntax.tudelft.nl/media/Long%20papers%20I/hilliersahbaz.pdf
Some specific research data is found in section 5, p456-457