Go Back  Bike Forums > Bike Forums > Living Car Free
Reload this Page >

CNN article on walkable neighborhoods

Notices
Living Car Free Do you live car free or car light? Do you prefer to use alternative transportation (bicycles, walking, other human-powered or public transportation) for everyday activities whenever possible? Discuss your lifestyle here.

CNN article on walkable neighborhoods

Old 08-23-09, 10:36 AM
  #1  
Senior Member
Thread Starter
 
Robert C's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Kansas
Posts: 2,248

Bikes: This list got too long: several ‘bents, an urban utility e-bike, and a dahon D7 that my daughter has absconded with.

Mentioned: 5 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 363 Post(s)
Liked 66 Times in 48 Posts
CNN article on walkable neighborhoods

I just happened to notice this article, on CNN, about walkable neighborhoods. Of course, I see it from two sides. The first is that if people are willing to pay more for it then it shows that there is a market demand and producers will try to make more of it. However, it also means that car free will remain out of the financial reach of the people who need the savings that it can bring.

Putting a price on walkability

How much is walkability worth? An intriguing new study suggests that people are willing to pay considerable premiums for houses in neighborhoods that are highly walkable — that is, where you can actually get to nearby stores, schools, and parks without having to hop in the car.

The study, conducted by a group called CEOs for Cities, looked at 90,000 homes in 15 different markets in the US, mashing up home sales data with “walkability” scores from WalkScore.com. (See the press release describing the study here, or download the study itself, in pdf form, here.) In 13 of the 15 areas studied, homes in highly walkable neighborhoods sold on average for $4000 to $34,000 more than homes in neighborhoods of average walkability. The pattern held in locations as diverse as Chicago, Tucson, and Jacksonville, Florida; only in Las Vegas were more-walkable neighborhoods less desirable than less-walkable ones. To the author of the study, Joseph Cortright, this suggests that neighborhood walkability is “more than just a pleasant amenity,” and deserves far more attention from politicians and other urban leaders.

Is this study simply saying that people pay more for homes in high-density metropolitan areas? Well, no; the study controls for this effect, as well as for a host of other factors (like home size, neighborhood income levels, and access to jobs) that might have affected the results.

Still, the results should be seen as only preliminary, in part because the walkability scores they use are crude at best. The idea behind the WalkScore.com website is ingenious: you plug in your address, and the site uses Google Maps data on the locations of various businesses, schools, libraries and so on to calculate a personalized walkability score.

The problem is that this Google data is incomplete: many businesses aren’t in the database and those that are can be mischaracterized. When I punched in the address of my Chicago apartment, I got a walkability score of 97 out of 100 (”Walkers Paradise”), which seems about right; my neighborhood is lousy with restaurants, grocery stores, and all sorts of little shops. When I used the address of my parents’ suburban home, WalkScore declared their neighborhood “car dependent,” which is also correct.

The results I got all seemed more or less accurate. But the way WalkScore generates these results is still somewhat problematic. Looking into the data they used for my neighborhood, I noticed that it omitted countless restaurants, including most of my favorites, and miscategorized a bunch of different performance venues as “movie theaters.”

The authors of the study are well aware that WalkScore has what they call “both conceptual and technical limitations.” But it is still pretty good as a rough-and-ready guide to walkability, and as Google’s data gets better, so will WalkScore’s results.

The implications of the report? In the broadest sense, as Cortright notes, the results seem to confirm that many urban residents agree with urban guru Jane Jacobs that dense, mixed use neighborhoods are more vibrant and interesting than soulless planned developments or suburban sprawl.

In more practical terms, CEOs for Cities head Carol Coletta argues in her group’s press release, the study’s results “tell us that if urban leaders are intentional about developing and redeveloping their cities to make them more walkable, it will not only enhance the local tax base but will also contribute to individual wealth by increasing the value of what is, for most people, their biggest asset.”

For more discussion of the report, see here and here.

So how walkable is your neighborhood? How much is walkability worth to you?
Robert C is offline  
Old 08-24-09, 06:26 AM
  #2  
Senior Member
 
GodsBassist's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Odenton, MD
Posts: 660
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times in 0 Posts
If the neighborhood layout lets you live with one less car, I'd say it's worth the extra 4~34k dollars.
GodsBassist is offline  
Old 08-24-09, 06:52 AM
  #3  
Senior Member
 
bhkyte's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: York UK
Posts: 3,027

Bikes: 2X dualdrive Mezzo folder,plus others

Mentioned: 4 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 107 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 3 Times in 3 Posts
Is it not a crazy situation when walking to locations becomes impossible or difficult! Many new house estates are being built with no pavement and offen some hotels do not have pavements either.

Walkability ? the worlds gone mad!
bhkyte is offline  
Old 08-24-09, 07:24 AM
  #4  
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 187
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times in 0 Posts
I live a suburban area with a walkability score of 50 (Zillow gives it a 72). I do like walking/riding my bike to the grocer (very upmarket so I won't do the vast majority of my shopping there, it's great for staples, bread, wine and the special occasion $20/lb meat or seafood), the library, the elementry school, parks, coffee shop etc. It is not the inner city or a small town so it doesn't have that ambience. It is safe with great schools and it's easy to get around whether by foot, bike or car. Does walkability add to housing value here? I'm not sure. I'm sure it does not hurt, but I'm betting more people will be interested in the safety of the neighborhood and the quality of the schools than whether or not they can walk to a restaurant or grocer. That would merely be a lagniappe.
ndbiker is offline  
Old 08-24-09, 12:53 PM
  #5  
gwd
Biker
 
gwd's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: DC
Posts: 1,917

Bikes: one Recumbent and one Utility Bike

Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times in 0 Posts
Originally Posted by Robert C
The first is that if people are willing to pay more for it then it shows that there is a market demand and producers will try to make more of it. However, it also means that car free will remain out of the financial reach of the people who need the savings that it can bring.
The second side doesn't automatically follow especially with a bike you can extend the area where you can be car free. As bike facilities are extended the area where it is feasible to be car-free grows.
gwd is offline  
Old 08-24-09, 01:00 PM
  #6  
Formerly Known as Newbie
 
Juha's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Helsinki, Finland
Posts: 6,250
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 2 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 4 Times in 3 Posts
"Walkable"? What's next, special premium for breathable suburbs?

(I've got to go check this walkscore.com out)

--J
__________________
To err is human. To moo is bovine.

Who is this General Failure anyway, and why is he reading my drive?


Become a Registered Member in Bike Forums
Community guidelines
Juha is offline  
Old 08-25-09, 05:59 AM
  #7  
gwd
Biker
 
gwd's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: DC
Posts: 1,917

Bikes: one Recumbent and one Utility Bike

Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times in 0 Posts
Originally Posted by Juha
"Walkable"? What's next, special premium for breathable suburbs?

(I've got to go check this walkscore.com out)

--J
I think places with clean air have commanded a premium over equivalent homes in areas with bad air for decades. Here in the US I had neighbors who moved from Pittsburgh because of the air. They said that in the early '60s or late '50s they couldn't hang washing outside to dry because it would get dirty from the soot and crap in the air.
gwd is offline  
Old 08-25-09, 08:58 AM
  #8  
put our Heads Together
 
cerewa's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: southeast pennsylvania
Posts: 3,155

Bikes: a mountain bike with a cargo box on the back and aero bars on the front. an old well-worn dahon folding bike

Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times in 0 Posts
"Walkable"? What's next, special premium for breathable suburbs?
It wouldn't surprise me if out there in Finland you have breathable air in every community. But I'll bet there are many people who live with no easy walking access to certain services (hardware store, restaurant, library, food store, clothing store).

Short-distance walking access to essential services is by no means a necessity, even for car free people - I've met folks who live 10 miles from any kind of store and still only travel by walking,* and I've met folks who shop at locations 10 miles away and travel by bike, bus, or car.

*this is because they can't afford to travel by bike or public transit
cerewa is offline  
Old 08-25-09, 09:57 AM
  #9  
Sophomoric Member
 
Roody's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Dancing in Lansing
Posts: 24,221
Mentioned: 7 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 711 Post(s)
Liked 13 Times in 13 Posts
I bet that a lot of affluent people do buy homes because they're in walkable areas. And I bet that a lot of them never walk once they move in. Car habits die hard for many people.
__________________

"Think Outside the Cage"
Roody is offline  
Old 08-25-09, 01:22 PM
  #10  
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 187
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times in 0 Posts
Originally Posted by Roody
I bet that a lot of affluent people do buy homes because they're in walkable areas. And I bet that a lot of them never walk once they move in. Car habits die hard for many people.
I agree with you. I live in a reasonably walkable suburb (a 72, I did not wait long enough the first time I viewed the sight and thought it was 50). While I take advantage of it occasionally, if it rains, snows, I'm in a hurry etc. I still jump in the car. I am working on an attitude adjustment to get me out of the car and on to my feet or bike more.
ndbiker is offline  
Old 08-25-09, 02:42 PM
  #11  
Senior Member
 
rbrian's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: Aberdeen, Scotland
Posts: 482

Bikes: '07 Brompton S6L; '10 Brompton M6R

Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times in 0 Posts
Originally Posted by ndbiker
I am working on an attitude adjustment to get me out of the car and on to my feet or bike more.
That's very difficult - I tried with only moderate success, before finally removing the option by selling the car. Now I walk, cycle, or take the bus.
rbrian is offline  
Old 08-26-09, 12:34 AM
  #12  
Formerly Known as Newbie
 
Juha's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Helsinki, Finland
Posts: 6,250
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 2 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 4 Times in 3 Posts
Originally Posted by cerewa
It wouldn't surprise me if out there in Finland you have breathable air in every community. But I'll bet there are many people who live with no easy walking access to certain services (hardware store, restaurant, library, food store, clothing store).
True enough. I have to admit that after re-reading the article and visiting the scoring web site I understand a bit better what is meant by "walkable" in this context. I was thinking more in the lines of whether there's infrastructure to support safe walking - sidewalks, zebra crossings, under/overpasses, traffic lights and such. Stuff we take for granted around here (city planners have to take pedestrian and bike traffic into account).

And I agree with the article about Google Maps not necessarily being up to date. My home area scored abysmally low - because the stores, restaurants, libraries and cinemas we have seem to be missing from the Google database.

--J
__________________
To err is human. To moo is bovine.

Who is this General Failure anyway, and why is he reading my drive?


Become a Registered Member in Bike Forums
Community guidelines

Last edited by Juha; 08-26-09 at 01:54 AM.
Juha is offline  
Old 08-26-09, 12:24 PM
  #13  
Sophomoric Member
 
Roody's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Dancing in Lansing
Posts: 24,221
Mentioned: 7 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 711 Post(s)
Liked 13 Times in 13 Posts
I would take the crime rate into account. There are parts of Lansing that I wouldn't want to walk through at night, even though they're real convenient for stores and such.
__________________

"Think Outside the Cage"
Roody is offline  
Old 08-26-09, 06:11 PM
  #14  
In the right lane
 
gerv's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: Des Moines
Posts: 9,565

Bikes: 1974 Huffy 3 speed

Mentioned: 4 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 44 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 7 Times in 6 Posts
The idea that you could buy a house in an area that is not at all walkable is a frightening thought. What has this world come to if we lives in neighbourhoods where we can't easily walk (or there's nothing to walk to...).

I think if you showed this thread to someone living 100 years ago, they'd probably think the human race was doomed.

Luckily no one living 100 years ago has access to the Internet.
gerv is offline  
Old 08-27-09, 06:35 AM
  #15  
pedalphile
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: ellington, ct
Posts: 1,034

Bikes: trek 1200, 520, Giant ATX 970, Raleigh Talon

Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 5 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times in 0 Posts
I can give you my personal experience over the last decade.

10 years ago I moved into a neighborhood which was quite walkable. My daughter walked to school. She had friends to play with that were on the same dead end street we lived on. There was a convenience store that was a 5 minute walk. A supermarket that was a 5 minute bike ride.

You know how they say you don't realize what you have, till you loose it? Well, 2 years after moving to that house, we found a really good deal on a fixer upper house the next town over. It was a "better" town, with "a good school system". This is basically a nice way of saying it is a richer, whiter town, IMO.

So, we sold the house in the perfect neighborhood and moved 5 miles away to Ellington which is a less developed, more rural town than Vernon.

It is a nice town. The schools are excellent, but, if I had it to do over again, no way in hell would I move. Not for me, but, for my kids.

Kids should not need a chauffeur to play with friends. They should be able to walk/ride a bike to do so.

The road I live on now is a typical country 2 lane. Not quite busy enough for the town to put the money into decent shoulders. And even though it has a posted 35 mph, there are some less busy straight stretches where it's really easy to find yourself doing 50-60 mph.

I ride it all the time on my bike, but, I'm not big on the idea of my 11 year old son doing the same. Another thing about this town that bugs the hell out of me is the fact that almost every single kid rides the bus. Apparently there is some law stating that if there are not sidewalks from the kids front door to the school, he must be bussed. He has a friend that lives about a half mile from school and he rides a bus!!!! This is ridiculous and one of the reasons you see a pretty fair number of fat kids.

So, I agree completely that walkability is worth a considerable amount of money.

It's too bad that most places have been layed out for auto dependence for the better part of a century. Maybe cities which have suffered from the exodus of the middle class, can use the walkability/cyclability angle to attract some back.
trekker pete is offline  
Old 08-27-09, 08:25 AM
  #16  
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 187
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times in 0 Posts
Originally Posted by gerv
The idea that you could buy a house in an area that is not at all walkable is a frightening thought. What has this world come to if we lives in neighbourhoods where we can't easily walk (or there's nothing to walk to...).

I think if you showed this thread to someone living 100 years ago, they'd probably think the human race was doomed.

Luckily no one living 100 years ago has access to the Internet.
Most likely until they knew all the details they would probably consider that our society had gotten considerably richer (they would be right). In 1909 people either didn't travel or were fairly wealthy. The wealthy were able to afford the trains, riverboats, horses, carriages, servants, and the newly emerging form of transportation automobiles that allowed them to live away from the masses. They would probably think that America was as close to a paradise as they could imagine. Even the poor have vehicles and can get just about anywhere in the country in days. We don't see the sewage, we have lights whenever we need them, everyone has education etc. The amazing thing about this is that it is ubiquitous, (nearly) everyone has this not just the rich. Around the turn of the 20C someone had said that science had invented nearly everything that could be invented. A hundred years later that scientist would be left speechless. Living in walkable neighborhoods is a good thing but I doubt our ancestors given the opportunity would decline our current mobility.
ndbiker is offline  
Old 08-27-09, 10:45 AM
  #17  
Sophomoric Member
 
Roody's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Dancing in Lansing
Posts: 24,221
Mentioned: 7 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 711 Post(s)
Liked 13 Times in 13 Posts
Originally Posted by ndbiker
Most likely until they knew all the details they would probably consider that our society had gotten considerably richer (they would be right). In 1909 people either didn't travel or were fairly wealthy. The wealthy were able to afford the trains, riverboats, horses, carriages, servants, and the newly emerging form of transportation automobiles that allowed them to live away from the masses. They would probably think that America was as close to a paradise as they could imagine. Even the poor have vehicles and can get just about anywhere in the country in days. We don't see the sewage, we have lights whenever we need them, everyone has education etc. The amazing thing about this is that it is ubiquitous, (nearly) everyone has this not just the rich. Around the turn of the 20C someone had said that science had invented nearly everything that could be invented. A hundred years later that scientist would be left speechless. Living in walkable neighborhoods is a good thing but I doubt our ancestors given the opportunity would decline our current mobility.
You may not realize it, but this is a unique viewpoint, although it's certainly common in our local time and place.

But equating mobility with dirty and dangerous machines that require an enormously expensive infrastructure is not a universally held value. Throughout history, and in much of the world today, people have had a different idea of mobility all together. Thank goodness many people are now beginning to rethink the (temporarily) popular notion that automobiles can be equated with mobility.
__________________

"Think Outside the Cage"
Roody is offline  
Old 08-27-09, 02:15 PM
  #18  
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 187
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times in 0 Posts
Originally Posted by Roody
You may not realize it, but this is a unique viewpoint, although it's certainly common in our local time and place.

But equating mobility with dirty and dangerous machines that require an enormously expensive infrastructure is not a universally held value. Throughout history, and in much of the world today, people have had a different idea of mobility all together. Thank goodness many people are now beginning to rethink the (temporarily) popular notion that automobiles can be equated with mobility.
I am not sure what you mean by "a unique viewpoint"? You fear the pollution from China because of the 100's of millions of Chinese who will want cars when they prosper. If living in cramped spaces and being able to walk everywhere was a universal value the Chinese aught to be the happiest society on the face of the earth. Most people in the world without cars are without them because they can't afford them and do not have the infrastructure not because they loath a mobile society. The fact is that mobility means freedom. The easier and less expensive it is the more free people are. When cars become a hindrance to that mobility (driving in NYC, London etc.) or are inherently slower then some people choose alternatives. Those habits can be changed by putting limits on peoples freedoms either indirectly such as very high taxes on energy or directly by limiting choices. I would be curious to see what the enlightened people of Europe would do in about 10-20 years if gas were the equivalent of $2.50/gallon.

We in the modern west have a very different idea of what "dirty" means than those at the turn of the century. Granted cars may have been few, but they nearly denuded our forests and hillsides cutting down trees and digging for coal to heat their homes. Horses, piled tons of manure up and down the streets and they were muddy and smelly. Sewage systems were rare and out houses which drew flies, rats and other diseases were much more common. Most people lived either in the country or in crowded cities. They could walk everywhere but lived in cramped homes with little light and lots and lots of dirt. The people of these times did not live in these conditions because they wanted to but rather they had to. It's the same with most second and third world countries today. Given the opportunity they will better their lives and one of the first ways they will do it is to improve their mobility. The idea of choosing to not be mobile when you have the capacity to do so is the "unique viewpoint".
ndbiker is offline  
Old 08-27-09, 03:22 PM
  #19  
put our Heads Together
 
cerewa's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: southeast pennsylvania
Posts: 3,155

Bikes: a mountain bike with a cargo box on the back and aero bars on the front. an old well-worn dahon folding bike

Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times in 0 Posts
I am not sure what you mean by "a unique viewpoint"? You fear the pollution from China because of the 100's of millions of Chinese who will want cars when they prosper.
I take it you are not afraid of what would happen if China managed to raise per-person greenhouse gas emissions to the level of the USA?

Do you also argue that there's nothing unique, when looking at the worldwide, millenia-long history of humanity, about the viewpoint that "it is hard to live well without a car"?

I would be curious to see what the enlightened people of Europe would do in about 10-20 years if gas were the equivalent of $2.50/gallon.
If Europe is so unenlightened, then why do they do well on surveys of health and happiness?
cerewa is offline  
Old 08-27-09, 03:46 PM
  #20  
Que CERA, CERA
 
jefferee's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Kitchener, ON
Posts: 873
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times in 0 Posts
I live in an early 1960s suburb. Sidewalks on both sides of every street, and a large park visible from the backyard. My house is a 5-minute walk from two different transit routes, and about one mile from a major commercial district that includes a large mall.

My address has a walkscore.com score of 30.
jefferee is offline  
Old 08-27-09, 05:09 PM
  #21  
In the right lane
 
gerv's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: Des Moines
Posts: 9,565

Bikes: 1974 Huffy 3 speed

Mentioned: 4 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 44 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 7 Times in 6 Posts
Originally Posted by ndbiker
Most people lived either in the country or in crowded cities. They could walk everywhere but lived in cramped homes with little light and lots and lots of dirt. The people of these times did not live in these conditions because they wanted to but rather they had to.
I'm a little unclear as to how this is different from current times. Many people who live in suburbs have not "chosen" to do so, but have ended up there as a matter of it being the default place to live. Many of them live in spacious homes that they can't afford to heat or cool (homes far too large for their real needs...). Many of them don't walk because it's genuinely too far to the grocery store (which is probably not that accessible by foot even if it is within a mile.)

It's the same with most second and third world countries today. Given the opportunity they will better their lives and one of the first ways they will do it is to improve their mobility. The idea of choosing to not be mobile when you have the capacity to do so is the "unique viewpoint".
Strangely all of this "first world" mobility of which you speak is probably not what these folks are seeking. They might want a car (perhaps for a trip to a distant relative...) but they would truly not like to be miles and miles away from family and friends. They would certainly think the inability to walk to a grocer or a coffee shop would be an inconvenience.

I'm also confused by what you term "better their lives". For me (and for a lot of people...) my life would be better if I could take a stroll after a meal in a safe neighbourhood where I wasn't always looking out for car traffic.
gerv is offline  
Old 08-27-09, 05:57 PM
  #22  
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Spur TX
Posts: 1,991

Bikes: Schwinn folder; SixThreeZero EvryJourney

Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times in 0 Posts
I want a living environment that's pleasant, convenient, safe, economical and where driving is essentially optional. When enough people want this, it may become a reality.

Right now we're stuck trying to figure out how to keep the existing car-dependent suburban/consumer system going. We (as a society) haven't reached the point where we're willing to consider a different kind of living arrangement.
Platy is offline  
Old 08-27-09, 08:15 PM
  #23  
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: West Philly, PA
Posts: 595
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times in 0 Posts
Where I grew up in West Philadelphia was pretty much perfect. My parents hate cars and don't have one, but the neighborhood has most things you'd need on a regular basis within a mile or so, and so they walk everywhere. Then the trolley stop is half a block from our house, which connects you to all the public transit you need.

I really wish cities would start to be maximized in efficiency by building more high-rises instead of having everybody want to own their own little homestead and generate endless miles of sprawl everywhere. EVENTUALLY we'll run out of space, but not before there's no nature left.
Jude is offline  
Old 08-27-09, 08:23 PM
  #24  
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Halle, Germany
Posts: 483

Bikes: Surly Troll

Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times in 0 Posts
My suburban location in Orange County, CA has a walk score of 68. Hey, that's good for a suburb. I've lived in the same place for the past decade because it's reasonable bike distance to work (shortest route about 7 miles) and within about half a mile walk I can find all sorts of stores, restaurants, public library, park and other services. It's just a quarter mile walk to a Wally Mart and a grocery store / strip mall. Bus stop is just 1 block away.
zephyr is offline  
Old 08-28-09, 06:26 AM
  #25  
Senior Member
 
bhkyte's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: York UK
Posts: 3,027

Bikes: 2X dualdrive Mezzo folder,plus others

Mentioned: 4 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 107 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 3 Times in 3 Posts
I have moved to a smaller town,that is bike friendly.

I rode with my 7 year old to the centre of town yesterday. Drivers would have thought I was unreasonable doing this in most other cities. The attitude of drivers has a big influence on the walk ability of a city not just the layout. Also buses in may preivious city tend to disreguard cyclists and they often have to take evasive action. One I had a Bus ride so close to me that I felt I needed to stop, and got off the bike to pulled on to the pavement.I am a very experienced cyclist. I spoke to the driver about his lack of "duty of care" and one of the passengers called me an idiot. Presumably all cyclists in his view have their safety rightly disregarded if they ride a bike?

another bus driver beeped his horn at me for using the road where there is a cylce path. I was doing 25MPH,the department of transport (UK) recommend using the road above 18MPH. I spoke to the bus driver and suggested he concentrated on keeping his own passengers safe by keeping both hands on the wheel, and not using the horn unnessasserly.

we can all quote situations of urban bad driving ,poor road use eduaction, and poor awareness, but the interesting thing in my mind is that the raods were generally wider,less busy and faster than my current situation where few driver/cyclist problems occur.

ALot is the attitude of driver, padisetrans, and cyclists, not just town planners.
bhkyte is offline  

Thread Tools
Search this Thread

Contact Us - Archive - Advertising - Cookie Policy - Privacy Statement - Terms of Service -

Copyright © 2024 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.