no1mad 

Note: I did a search and there is a thread that talks about this, but it is 4 years old, some of the people in it are no longer around and I'd rather start fresh than somebody quoting an old post asking a question they may not get an answer to.

Been toying with the idea of possibly moving and I stumbled upon the Walk Score site once again. For shins and grins, I plugged my current address in and got a score of 22- almost all errands require a car. I call BS on that.

It has been my experience that most errands don't require a car- post office, dentist, medical doctor, movie rental, library, Walgreens, ACE Hardware, restaurants... pretty much everything but the bowling alley, movie theater, and skating rink I've either walked to or from- if not there and back.

I'm also questioning their little "Time Travel" interactive map. It takes your location and then gives you a radius of how much ground you can cover at any given time by whatever mode of transport. I'm not the fastest walker (average 3.2 mph), but I know I can cover a greater distance than what their tool suggests.

It would be interesting to see if y'all agree with your own Walk Scores- Find Apartments for Rent and Rentals - Get Your Walk Score

Machka 

It appears that 100 is perfect ... a person could walk anywhere, and the lower the score the greater the likelihood a person would need a vehicle.


A couple weeks ago, I checked the "Walk Score" of our current place (38) and our new place (40).

Regarding our current place ... the write-up correctly lists the nearby schools (not that they matter to us), but most of the rest of the stuff they list would not be within easy walking distance ... restaurants 5+ km away, for example. However, I know there are walking-distance options not listed. I suspect that if a place has registered with google maps or something they are included, but if a place has not registered, they are not included.

There's a whole "village" 2.2 km away in one direction with just about everything a person would want ... we've walked that several times, including last night just for fun. And another "village" including a large shopping centre/area about 2 km in another direction. That second one requires some climbing so it's a bit more challenging to get to, but nevertheless it is within walking distance. I've walked it.

Personally I'd put the score over 60.


Regarding our new place ... the write-up is a bit more accurate, I think. They list more of the places quite nearby ... but I don't understand why the score is so low. Again, from the little bit we've explored the area, I'd put it closer to 60 as well.



However both write ups only list schools, grocery stores, and restaurants ... but nothing else. They don't list the post office, medical centres, library, hardware stores, movie theatres, churches, parks, the beach, fitness centres, or most of the other things we go to. Our lives aren't just school and food.

And I haven't been able to get their Time Travel map to work, but that might just be my computer.

cvskates

I agree with our walk score, and the Canadian Multiple Listing website actually uses it.

Remember, its for "normal" people - not active, bike riding people.

Machka 

In addition to this, I think they should also include the walk to public transportation. That was one of the main issues we had to take into consideration when we looked for a new place. There were some nice options in a particular area, but it would have been a 15+ minute walk to public transportation.

If public transportation (bus stop, train station, etc.) is within about a 5 minutes walk, I think the place should have a higher score because the walkability part is good (less than 5 mn walk), and being able to access public transportation opens up a whole realm of other possibilities.

Machka 

True ... but do they list criteria somewhere? I seem to be having some difficulty with the site (and especially the interactive time travel map) so I can't tell, but one useful feature would be to allow the user to type in both the location and the distance the user is willing to walk.

So one person might indicate that he/she is willing to walk 1 km round trip ... but another might indicate that he/she is willing to walk 5 km round trip. And then do the calculation with that information. It would mean that the same location would have a lower walkability score for the first person than for the second.

Roody

I get a walk score of 66 and a bike score of 80. I would lower the walk score a bit because the nearby supermarkets are either poor quality or very difficult to walk to. But other amenities are close and convenient, and it's an attractive area to walk and cycle in (except the route to the supermarket).

wipekitty

The last five places I've lived are currently rated 97, 83, 65, 71, and (current place) 86. (I moved around the US for work in the last four years...a lot.)

The first one (97) really was/is a walkers paradise. The only issue when I lived there was a bit of mild gang activity at night, which made it less walker friendly after dark. Never had issues on my bike, though

For our current place, the write-up is a little bit off. For grocery stores, they list the food co-op (which is a legit grocery store - though it's a natural foods store, not a regular old supermarket), a place called Earl's Grocery and Saloon, which is a bar that sells beer, and an olive oil shop that sells...fancy olive oil. Still, I think the score is about right: schools, hospitals, universities, pharmacy, coffee, bars, restaurants, etc. are all extremely close, and the pedestrian infrastructure is mostly good.

Surprisingly, our place in Southern California (the 83) was probably the easiest place to accomplish everything except getting to work on foot. It was really weird because we never saw anybody else walking!

Roody

Doesn't anybody else get bike scores? I'd like to find out about those!

BTW, the time travel map worked well for me, except for transit times. Walk, bike and drive times all worked.

Machka 

Nope. No bike scores. No transit scores.

But where I work is a walkers paradise.
Hobart Hobart Apartments for Rent and Rentals - Walk Score

Machka 

I'm on a different computer now, and can see more ... and the Time Travel thing works.

But I really don't know why they give such a low score to our new place ... just 40 ... when there are so many things within walking distance. I had a look at the Time Travel thing, and just about everything a person would want is within either walking or cycling distance. I knew that already ... it was a factor in our decision. In fact, the closest shopping area (including restaurants, a bakery, a grocery store, a newsagency, a post office, and several other shops) is 300 metres away. Surely that's walkable for even the inactive.

Walter S

For my address "most errands require a car". Score 40. And here, I've been living there for years car free and didn't even know I needed a car!

harshbarj

Where I live I get a walkscore of 40 and a bike score of 32. I find this funny as I do all errands on bike and some on foot and am not a fit person. Though it lists the area as being "Flat as a pancake" when I live on the side of a LARGE hill. In 2 blocks you rise about the height of your average 6 story office building.

I will admit it's not as walkable as when I was a kid as the business that were just blocks away were removed to make way for a freeway (the irony here).