I didn't see a thread on this subject -- unbelievable! Of all the transportation modes, none are as fuel-efficient, beneficial to human health and, for that matter, to the health of our urban areas as walking. Yet we often make it difficult, if not impossible to walk in some communities, let alone to conduct most of our daily activities within walking distances...

 

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2007/02/070212182617.htm

 

Source: University of Washington

Date: February 13, 2007

 

Habitat Matters: 'Walkable' Communities May Make Elders Healthier

 

Science Daily — Some of a neighborhood's features -- the length of its blocks, how many grocery stores or restaurants are nearby -- may be more than selling points for real estate agents. A new study suggests such factors may work to beat back obesity in older people by increasing a neighborhood's "walkability."

 

 

I am definately a HUGE proponent of walkable communities.  That is why I feel it is sooo important to create mixed use developments, that allow and encourage people to live/work in their neighborhood.  It's got to go further than what it is now though...most mixed use bldgs/projects now are typically housing on upper floors with retail at street level.  Now don't get me wrong thats nice, but many people who live in those units don't work below at the retail jobs.  That is why I think there should be street level retail, with housing above with also a office component throughout part of the development.

It's about time this thread was started.  There is no doubt that an environment that allows citizens to easily and safely walk in their neighborhood will have a beneficial effect on their lives.

 

Planners and developers have to deal with the issues arising from many people these days that constantly ask where they can put their car.  You know, that large piece of depreciating metal that we have to temporarily store for 22 out of every 24 hours?  That's always on people's minds.  Businesses have developed a rather well liked formula that they can point to that says that "if we put parking in the front, people will see that it is inviting and we'll make lots of money."  Making more of these walkable communities available will take a concerted effort on behalf of all of those involved.  Developers, private individuals, public officials, and transportation officials must be made aware that walkability should be embraced.

 

After all, walking to a destination is taking a first step to true independence from Mideast oil.

Let's not forget that the most desirable cities to live in are also very walkable. Here's a list I found from PBS

 

America's Most Walkable Communities

 

Major Metropolitan Areas

Boston, Massachusetts

Chicago, Illinois

Minneapolis, Minnesota

New York, New York

San Francisco, California

Seattle, Washington

Washington, D.C.

 

Medium and Smaller Cities and Towns

Eureka Springs, Arkansas

Clayton, California

Boulder, Colorado

Glenwood Springs, Colorado

Dunedin, Florida

Savannah, Georgia

Naperville, Illinois

Portland, Maine

Annapolis, Maryland

Orion, Michigan

Duluth, Minnesota

Lincoln, Nebraska

Exeter, New Hampshire

Chautauqua, New York

Oakwood, Ohio

Waynesville, Ohio

Xenia, Ohio

Portland, Oregon

Mt. Lebanon, Pennsylvania

Chattanooga, Tennessee

Kingsport, Tennessee

Austin, Texas

Burlington, Vermont

Vancouver, Washington

Madison, Wisconsin

 

http://www.pbs.org/americaswalking/travel/travelmost.html

Waynesville?

 

Enough can't be said aboutthe positives of developing walkable communities. I couldn't imagine living somewhere that wasn't walkable. (Well I can, I grew up in such a place, but having done both, I know what I'll choose from now on.)

Waynesville?

 

I have a feeling someone from the Dayton area worked on that list. In which case, where's Yellow Springs? I did drive through Xenia before, self-proclaimed "Bicycle Capital of the Midwest". Didn't look like there was much to walk or bike to.

Agreed.  Yellow Springs is definately more "walkable" than Xenia.  Oakwood is certainly walkable and Waynesville, I can see the argument for it...but XENIA?!?  The tornado wiped out anything that was walkable.

Once again, Hamtramck is left off a list of walkable communities, leading me to believe these are walkable "vaguely or overtly affluent" communities. If this were the case, however, Birmingham and Royal Oak would've made the list. Maybe the spoiler is access to reliable mass transit. Maybe I should read the fu©king article...

 

By the way: http://www.walkable.org/

 

This is the site of Dan Burden, one of the most respected proponents of the benefits of walkable communities. He actually grew up in Hilltop (Columbus) and Westerville, and has some pretty hard/fast criteria for what constitutes walkabilty. He's a consultant for citites interested in planning for walkability, and commands a pretty penny for it. Good guy. I saw him speak at a healthy cities seminar and e-mailed with him when I was relocating to Columbus, and he was very helpful. He considers the old part of Westerville walkable, though advises one to "avoid Polaris like the plague." Done! I re-hipped him to the virtues of downtown Columbus (he lives in Florida now), and have lobbied him hard for the inclusion of Hamtramck in his database, but I get the sense that you don't make the semi-finals until you retain his services, ensuring Hamtramck's place OFF the list.

As a former resident I agree with Chicago being in the top five.  It was more walkable 20 to 30 years ago, though.

 

My memory of the place was that it was pretty easy to go carless there.  The key is having necessities close at hand, and our neighborhood had my elementary school, the corner store & butcher shop, drug store, bakery, barber, etc...but also banks, and an A&P and IGA within walking distance (though they had small side-lots one could drive too, which we did too).

 

The way one dealt with grocerys was to buy just enough for a few days, that you could fit in yøur cart, and use the corner store and bakery for more frequent things or meats . 

 

One of those two wheeled pull-carts was a necessity.  I did a google search on these and came up with this one....

 

the fold and go shopping cart

 

I guess this is the modern version.  The ones I recall where out of metal, sort of wire (though my grandmother had a real old one out of heavy duty metal mesh). You parked them in front of the store, by the cash registers, and had the bags put right in the cart, then pulled it home.  The whole "superstore" mass grocery purchase would never work with these, though.  I would have no idea where to get one of these in Dayton.

 

For the Ohio examples, suprised to see them.  Oakwood is semi-walkable.  Agree that Yellow Springs would be the most, as they do have basics in town (like a real grocery store) within walking distance of the houses in town, though its not on the list.

^I love that the fold and go shopping care is offered by "The Elder Store." Further proof of the wisdom of the aged. Incidentally, those carts are obtainable in most dollar stores in Hamtramck (again with Kingfish and the Hamtramck), proof also, I suppose, of the wisdom of the poor. I know an 87 year-old Hamtramck lady who still does all her shopping by foot, and she's far from alone. Hamtramck has a bad rap around Detroit as a dangerous place. There is a certain amount of crime, and looking at the crime log you'd think it was open season on old ladies there, but the fact is, there are a LOT of old ladies walking around. One of the many factors working against Hamtramck in the PR department; the typical suburbanite doesn't like to see old people, poor people or ethnic people walking around.  Walking is SO ghetto.

 

  Those folding shopping carts are still seen on buses in Cincinnati, especially during mid-day. I don't know if this is common knowledge or not, but it's the only place I've ever seen them.

Haha :)

 

My mom lives in Hudson and uses one of those folding metal carts when she walks to the grocery store. She also got hers at a thrift store.

I have a granny cart!  That baby comes in very handy when doing laundry, grocery shopping or running multiple errands on foot.

walking is slow and tiring... why would anybody want to walk?

 

My city didn't make that PBS list (although one of our suburbs did... a place where nobody can actually walk to work)... but i can walk across the street to the Starbucks and W.G. Grinders... I can walk across the street to the gas station... I can walk to Whole Foods, Giant Eagle Market District, Foodland, two Italian grocers, a dozen bars, Crazy Mocha CoffeeShop, video rental, University of Pittsburgh, 20 Italian restaurants, dentist, hospital, pharmacy, etc. 

btw, somebody break out that list of highest percentage of population walking to work from the Census... I know Pittsburgh ranked higher than Seattle and Minneapolis.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_U.S._cities_with_most_pedestrian_commuters

 

List of U.S. cities with most pedestrian commuters

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Jump to: navigation, search

The following is a list of United States cities of 100,000+ inhabitants with the 50 highest rates of pedestrian commuting, according to data from the 2000 Census. The Census measured the percentage of commuters who walk to work, as opposed to taking public transit, driving an automobile, bicycle, boat, or some other means. College towns and cities with military bases often rank high on this list, as students and faculty of universities often live very close to their place of employment if on-campus or close to campus. Military employees are often housed at or very near their place of employment.

 

1. Cambridge, Massachusetts 25.76%

2. Ann Arbor, Michigan 16.52%

3. Berkeley, California 15.99%

4. New Haven, Connecticut 14.0%

5. Columbia, South Carolina 13.78%

6. Provo, Utah 13.39%

7. Boston, Massachusetts 13.36%

8. Providence, Rhode Island 12.56%

9. Washington, D.C. 12.27%

10. Madison, Wisconsin 10.99%

11. New York, New York 10.72%

12. Syracuse, New York 10.31%

13. Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania 10.02%

14. San Francisco, California 9.82%

15. Wichita Falls, Texas 9.29%

16. Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 9.22%

17. Jersey City, New Jersey 8.17%

18. Newark, New Jersey 8.03%

19. Seattle, Washington 7.72%

20. Allentown, Pennsylvania 7.55%

21. Baltimore, Maryland 7.28%

22. Worcester, Massachusetts 7.11%

23. Norfolk, Virginia 7.05%

24. Minneapolis, Minnesota 6.85%

25. Honolulu, Hawaii 6.8%

26. Erie, Pennsylvania 6.7%

27. Rochester, New York 6.65%

28. Eugene, Oregon 6.43%

29. Paterson, New Jersey 5.97%

30. Hartford, Connecticut 5.89%

31. Chicago, Illinois 5.8%

32. Arlington, Virginia 5.77%

33. Cincinnati, Ohio 5.61%

34. St. Paul, Minnesota 5.58%

35. Pasadena, California 5.51%

36. Portland, Oregon 5.47%

37. Buffalo, New York 5.43%

38. Dayton, Ohio 5.37%

39. New Orleans, Louisiana 5.35%

40. Augusta, Georgia 5.13%

41. Salt Lake City, Utah 5.07%

42. Irvine, California 5.06%

43. Elizabeth, New Jersey 5.0%

44. Paradise, Nevada 4.8%

45. Milwaukee, Wisconsin 4.79%

46. Columbus, Georgia 4.78%

47. Lowell, Massachusetts 4.63%

48. East Los Angeles, California 4.61%

49. Richmond, Virginia 4.54%

50. Denver, Colorado 4.51%

 

 

 

ok... I bolded Pittsburgh, all Ohio cities and the "Large" cities (plus Portland, OR) that made that PBS list.  Most of the cities at the top are college towns.  The top "real" cities on that list are Boston, Washington, NYC, Pittsburgh and San Francisco.  Cincinnati and Dayton both have over 5%... Cleveland, Columbus, Youngstown, Toledo, etc. didn't make the Top 50.  This statistic represents more of a functional walkability as opposed to "greenways!" and pretty wilderness parks like most of the "Best Walking Cities" lists.  It's walking as a central function of your life... vs. walking as a Sunday afternoon diversion.

walking is slow and tiring... why would anybody want to walk?

 

Sarcasm? If so, the emoticons can be quite handy!  :wink:

...This statistic represents more of a functional walkability as opposed to "greenways!" and pretty wilderness parks like most of the "Best Walking Cities" lists.  It's walking as a central function of your life... vs. walking as a Sunday afternoon diversion.

 

Thank you. I am shocked at how a landscaped strip of asphalt next to an easement raises the walkability cred of a city, and cities (like Hamtramck) where you can truly live without an automobile don't even get a blink. Population seems to have little to do with the cities on the list--Clayton, CA (on the first list) has a population of around 11,000.

 

I think there's a persistent misconception that an urban neighborhood can't be walkable because of crime fears. Ironic, considering the eyes-on-the-street value of pedestrians.

 

If I were a mugger, I'd wait in the bushes along one of the pretty/safe suburban trails.

 

But I am not, and I did not rob those people.

Columbia SC in the top 5? that has to be USC and USC alone.

...This statistic represents more of a functional walkability as opposed to "greenways!" and pretty wilderness parks like most of the "Best Walking Cities" lists.  It's walking as a central function of your life... vs. walking as a Sunday afternoon diversion.

 

Thank you. I am shocked at how a landscaped strip of asphalt next to an easement raises the walkability cred of a city, and cities (like Hamtramck) where you can truly live without an automobile don't even get a blink. Population seems to have little to do with the cities on the list--Carlton, CA (on the first list) has a population of around 11,000.

 

I think there's a persistent misconception that an urban neighborhood can't be walkable because of crime fears. Ironic, considering the eyes-on-the-street value of pedestrians.

 

If I were a mugger, I'd wait in the bushes along one of the pretty/safe suburban trail. But I am not, and I did not rob those people.

 

Yeah this smoking ban is going to be great.  It puts people on the street at night, especially late at night, in covering the area around bars and restraunts.  Take that muggers.

I'm sort of suprised to see Dayton on that top 50 walk-to-work cities.  There are some odd ones on the list: Irvine, CA, Syracuse, NY, and so forth.

 

For some of the larger cities on the list, even though the % might be low (below 15%), the overall number of people walking to work is actually quite large. 

 

(again with Kingfish and the Hamtramck)

 

A return trip to Hamtramck is on the agenda when I go to Detroit next month.

 

 

 

 

 

It's Wikipedia. Take their info with a salt lick.

(again with Kingfish and the Hamtramck)

A return trip to Hamtramck is on the agenda when I go to Detroit next month.

 

Lucky!

Of course walking is the most benign mode of travel.  When I'm walking I'm not burning any fossil fuels and I'm not releasing any more emissions than I would be at rest.

It's Wikipedia. Take their info with a salt lick.

I'm sort of suprised to see Dayton on that top 50 walk-to-work cities.  There are some odd ones on the list: Irvine, CA, Syracuse, NY, and so forth.

 

 

Syracuse (Syracuse University) and Irvine (UC-Irvine) are both college towns... though a bit bigger than your usual college town (150k and 200k) especially considering their respective universities aren't mega-universities like OSU... they each have about 18,000 students.  So kudos to them!

 

 

 

 

It's Wikipedia. Take their info with a salt lick.

 

Not in this case.  If you click on the link, you'll see that their info is sourced to the Census and a website for a Car-Free Organization (who did some pretty detailed commuting lists).  You can look up all these numbers on the Census website. 

 

 

Dan Burden (walkable.org) has a fairly straight-forward set of criteria for determining walkability.

 

From http://www.walkable.org/article3.htm:

 

Walkability Items to be rated are always on a scale. A 1-10 scale can be personalized and applied to each of the below twelve categories. Common sense and powers of observation are used to make these determinations. The categories are in no particular order. Never pick a town that you have not visited. Always ask for second and third opinions.

 

If I were making a commitment to move to a town I would want the town to have high scores on 6 or more of the following 12 categories:

 

1. Intact Town Centers

2. Residential densities, mixed income, mixed use

3. Public Space

4. Universal Design

5. Key Streets Are Speed Controlled

6. Streets, Trails are Well Linked

7. Design is Properly Scaled

8. Town is Designed for People

9. Town is Thinking Small

10. In Walkable Communities There Are Many People Walking

11. The Town and Neighborhoods have a Vision

12. Decision Makers Are Visionary, Communicative, and Forward Thinking

 

And drum roll please, Burden's list of walkable cities:

 

WALKABLE COMMUNITIES BY REGION

 

CANADA & NORTHEASTERN STATES

CANADA - Victoria, Vancouver, Toronto, Montreal, Ottawa, Quebec City, Halifax

NEW HAMPSHIRE - Keene, Littleton, Portsmouth, Meredith and Exeter

MAINE - Portland, Kennebunkport

VERMONT - Burlington, Brattleboro, Montpelier

MASSACHUSETTS - Boston, Cambridge, Salem

NEW YORK - New York City, Albany, Saratoga Springs, East Aurora, Huntington, Ithaca, Hamburg, Port Jefferson

NEW JERSEY - Princeton

PENNSYLVANIA - Philadelphia, Pittsburgh, State College

MARYLAND - Annapolis, Kentlands, Bethesda

VIRGINIA - Alexandria, Charlottesville, Virginia

WASHINGTON, DC

 

SOUTHERN STATES

NORTH CAROLINA - Asheville, Chapel Hill, Charlotte, Hendersonville

SOUTH CAROLINA - Charleston

GEORGIA - Savannah

FLORIDA - St Augustine, Winter Park, South Beach, West Palm Beach, South Beach, South Miami, Coconut Grove, Coral Gables, Naples, Celebration, Seaside, Pensacola, Key West

TENNESSEE - Franklin

ALABAMA - Fairhope

LOUISIANA - New Orleans

 

MIDWESTERN STATES

OHIO - Westerville

MICHIGAN - Brighton, Holland, Milford, Birmingham, Traverse City, Kalamazoo, East Lansing, Mackinac Island, Marquette

ILLINOIS - Chicago, Naperville

MINNESOTA - Minneapolis, St Paul

WISCONSIN - Milwaukee, Madison, Cedarburg

 

SOUTHWESTERN STATES

TEXAS - Austin, San Antonio

NEW MEXICO - Santa Fe

ARIZONA - Flagstaff

 

NORTHWESTERN STATES

COLORADO - Ft Collins, Crested Butte, Boulder

WYOMING - Jackson

MONTANA - Missoula, Big Fork, Livingston, Bozeman

 

PACIFIC COAST STATES

WASHINGTON - Seattle, Kirkland, Redmond, Bellevue, Olympia, Bellingham, Gig Harbor, Bainbridge Island, Port Townsend, Everett, University Place, Langley, Issaquah, Ellensburg

OREGON - Portland, Ashland, Corvallis, Eugene

CALIFORNIA - San Diego, Coronado, La Jolla, Santa Monica, Beverly Hills, Pasadena, Brea, Whittier, Claremont, Valencia, Carpenteria, Santa Barbara, Arcata, Chico, Mountain View, Santa Cruz, Monterey, Carmel-by-the-Sea, San Luis Obispo, Los Gatos, San Francisco, Oakland, Berkeley, Sacramento, Davis, Sonoma, Cotati, Petaluma, Healdsburg

HAWAII - Honolulu

ALASKA - Juneau

 

Finally, asked to name the two towns in America most deserving of praise for Herculean tasks they are now performing to overcome the ills of sprawl…Sacramento, California and Charlotte, North Carolina deserve special recognition and observation.

 

As stated before, I think Dan's list is lacking a few locales. Nevertheless, I love what he's doing and agree wholeheartedly with his criteria and point of view.

Statistics like these annoy the hell out of me. Of course there's a lot of pedestrians in college towns. As far as the bigger cities, it really depends what neighborhood you're refering to. I don't see the point in comparing the whole city of Chicago to Berkeley for example.

ok... let's weed out the college towns... I'm bolding Ohio cities and cities of regional interest

 

Pedestrian Commuter % for cities over 250,000 (data from http://www.bikesatwork.com)

 

1. Boston, MA 13.36%

2. Washington, DC 12.27%

3. New York City, NY 10.72%

4. Pittsburgh, PA 10.02%

5. San Francisco, CA 9.82%

6. Philadelphia, PA 9.22%

7. Newark, NJ 8.03%

8. Seattle, WA 7.72%

9. Baltimore, MD 7.28%

10. Minneapolis, MN 6.85%

11. Honolulu, HI 6.8%

12. Chicago, IL 5.8%

13. Cincinnati, OH 5.61%

14. St. Paul, MN 5.58%

15. Portland, OR 5.47%

16. Buffalo, NY 5.43%

17. New Orleans, LA 5.35%

18. Milwaukee, WI 4.79%

19. Denver, CO 4.51%

20. Louisville, KY 4.17%

21. Lexington, KY 4.13%

22. St. Louis, MO 4.11%

23. Cleveland, OH 4.1%

24. Oakland, CA 3.89%

25. San Diego, CA 3.8%

26. Miami, FL 3.75%

27. Los Angeles, CA 3.72%

28. Atlanta, GA 3.64%

29. Tucson, AZ 3.54%

30. Columbus, OH 3.27%

31. Riverside, CA 3.1%

32. Raleigh, NC 2.99%

33. Detroit, MI 2.86%

34. Sacramento, CA 2.85%

35. Albuquerque, NM 2.79%

36. Anchorage, AK 2.76%

37. Austin, TX 2.64%

38. Long Beach, CA 2.61%

39. Colorado Springs, CO 2.55%

40. Nashville, TN 2.45%

41. Omaha, NE 2.43%

42. Tampa, FL 2.41%

43. Toledo, OH 2.36%

44. Houston, TX 2.36%

45. Kansas City, MO 2.33%

46. Anaheim, CA 2.32%

47. Tulsa, OK 2.31%

48. Santa Ana, CA 2.27%

49. Phoenix, AZ 2.24%

50. San Antonio, TX 2.22%

51. Las Vegas, NV 2.21%

52. Mesa, AZ 2.14%

53. Fresno, CA 2.12%

54. Indianapolis, IN 2.05%

55. Virginia Beach, VA 2.02%

56. Dallas, TX 2.01%

57. El Paso, TX 2%

58. Memphis, TN 1.96%

59. Corpus Christi, TX 1.85%

60. Jacksonville, FL 1.82%

61. Fort Worth, TX 1.75%

62. Arlington, TX 1.65%

63. Oklahoma City, OK 1.63%

64. Charlotte, NC 1.57%

65. San Jose, CA 1.48%

66. Wichita, KS 1.46%

67. Aurora, CO 1.44%

 

 

...interesting that most of the cities at the top of this list are losing population while most of the cities at the bottom are amongst the fastest growing cities in the US... what does that say about where we're heading as a country? 

 

It's interesting to note that the combined student population of Harvard and MIT is only around 30,000 -- there are hardly any large parking lots in Cambridge and relatively little park land.  Although there are few buildings above 4 floors, the typical 3-level, 6 unit apartment building has over 20 residents with typically only 2-3 on-street parking spots and often zero off-street spots.  Also subway access is not perfect, since the T is a hub-and-spoke layout...it's the lack of a circle line that I think contributes somewhat to the high level of walking in the Boston area.  Many people just walk across the Charles River bridges instead of waiting for the bus or heading downtown then back out on the sluggish green line. 

 

 

 

 

Kingfish... I was with that list until I got to Charlotte... ranking 64th out of 67 cities with populations over 250,000 with 1.57% walking to work doesn't scream "walking city" to me... maybe they're making strides... maybe they have some cute greenways... but Charlotte's got a loooooong way to go... I swear it's impossible for Charlotte to get any negative press!  ;)

 

...interesting that most of the cities at the top of this list are losing population while most of the cities at the bottom are amongst the fastest growing cities in the US... what does that say about where we're heading as a country? 

 

It seems like (I dont know for sure) that the real estate bubbles are bursting in those top cities and people are looking elsewhere because of the markup on the higher end urban housing.

 

...interesting that most of the cities at the top of this list are losing population while most of the cities at the bottom are amongst the fastest growing cities in the US... what does that say about where we're heading as a country? 

 

It seems like (I dont know for sure) that the real estate bubbles are bursting in those top cities and people are looking elsewhere because of the markup on the higher end urban housing.

 

 

Not the answer I was looking for.  I was looking for something more along the lines of "we're a bunch of lazy happy-motoring idiots who would prefer living in a dystopian nowhere-land with easy access to fry-pits and drive-thru credit unions than functional, vibrant urban environments"....  besides... some top cities like Pittsburgh, Philadelphia and Newark (despite its proximity to NYC) have seen little or no "real estate bubble"... and the most over-valued state... California... ranks pretty poorly in this statistic (San Fran excluded)

That's because people in California are status-oriented, fake and need cars to compensate for their insecurities.

Kingfish... I was with that list until I got to Charlotte... ranking 64th out of 67 cities with populations over 250,000 with 1.57% walking to work doesn't scream "walking city" to me... maybe they're making strides... maybe they have some cute greenways... but Charlotte's got a loooooong way to go... I swear it's impossible for Charlotte to get any negative press!  ;)

 

To be fair (or at least balanced), a city only has to hit 6 out of 12 of Burden's criteria to make the list, which for me, raises eyebrows with regard to the cities left OFF the list. How would my precious Hamtramck stand up?

 

1. Intact Town Centers [yes]

2. Residential densities, mixed income, mixed use [yes]

3. Public Space [yes]

4. Universal Design [yes]

5. Key Streets Are Speed Controlled [yes]

6. Streets, Trails are Well Linked [yes]

7. Design is Properly Scaled [yes]

8. Town is Designed for People [yes]

9. Town is Thinking Small [yes]

10. In Walkable Communities There Are Many People Walking [yes]

11. The Town and Neighborhoods have a Vision [yes]

12. Decision Makers Are Visionary, Communicative, and Forward Thinking [yes]

 

Ah, well. 12 out of 12 isn't bad.

http://www.walkableneighborhoods.com/

 

This seems to be an interesting link I came accross while researching German Village in Columbus.  They seem to have their own project of listing walkable cities.

30. Columbus, OH 3.27%

 

and that's 3.27% of the whole city, where 2/3 of it is suburban.

 

 

a problem with these lists is it lists the whole city, so columbus gets it bad even though parts of it are as walkable as cambridge or ann arbor or whatever

^Agreed. And again: take away the college and what number do you get?

 

As flawed as these lists are, at least they help create some dialog, or at the very least, vocabulary. Getting more people to say, "But is it WALKABLE?" is the first step to changing the way new development is planned.

 

And I really, really tried to write that last sentence without saying "first step."

Here's a link to how transportation to work varies in Cleveland census tracts (courtesy of NEO CANDO).

http://neocando.case.edu/cdoutput/p998598598.pdf

 

A couple of interesting points:

 

- Walking to work is probably a poor proxy for "walkability", as it is more a function of how close someone lives to where they work than of how the streetscape is planned. Certainly, barriers to walkability probably decrease willingness to walk to work, but even the best planned areas (Shaker Square comes to mind) will have low people walking to work if they aren't also major centers of employment.

- While access to public transportation might reduce the percentage of people walking to work, the larger factor is probably again where people live relative to where they work. A huge percentage of downtown Cleveland residents walk to work, but another huge chunk take public transportation (likely because they don't work downtown).

- Nonetheless, it is interesting to see how much these statistics vary across the city.

 

I agree Columbus is much more, eh, "walkable" then it gets credit for and that High St. doesn't really seem much less active than Massachusetts Ave. which has had a subway operating beneath it since 1912 (however I'm sure that it is more active -- once one perceives that an area is "active", it's impossible to rank just how active it is compared to another without gathering hard data).  I'm sure though that Cambridge is still significantly denser because lot sizes are smaller and many more people are packed into a typical block and paying 2-3X the rent for the privilege to do so (and quite a bit of Cambridge's housing stock is significantly lower in quality than Ohio's cities, btw).  A lot of the older parts of Columbus have city blocks divided by alleys but I don't remember there being any alleys at all in Cambridge, which makes a huge difference as do street widths.  A wide street or long setbacks affect potential population density enormously independent of how many bedrooms exist in a typical building on a standard lot.  Something like Neil Ave's width and setbacks is about the least dense Cambridge gets, there's nothing as wide as Summit St.  In a denser configuration, if both 4th St. and Summit St. were narrower with narrower setbacks, an entire additional row of homes could have been built in the same land area.  In short establishing built and population density using municipal boundaries is a borderline useless exercise, cities like Cincinnati with a lot of unpopulated hillsides, cemeteries, golf courses, rail yards, etc. get screwed, if population density is the goal (which it isn't for a lot of people -- for example with the complaints about Cininnati losing population, in the opposite situation the use of "gaining population" as opposed to "becoming more densely population" elicit much different emotional responses in people and TV, politics, college guide books, etc., are about creating and manipulating emotion). 

Here's a link to how transportation to work varies in Cleveland census tracts (courtesy of NEO CANDO).

http://neocando.case.edu/cdoutput/p998598598.pdf

 

A couple of interesting points:

 

- Walking to work is probably a poor proxy for "walkability", as it is more a function of how close someone lives to where they work than of how the streetscape is planned. Certainly, barriers to walkability probably decrease willingness to walk to work, but even the best planned areas (Shaker Square comes to mind) will have low people walking to work if they aren't also major centers of employment.

- While access to public transportation might reduce the percentage of people walking to work, the larger factor is probably again where people live relative to where they work. A huge percentage of downtown Cleveland residents walk to work, but another huge chunk take public transportation (likely because they don't work downtown).

- Nonetheless, it is interesting to see how much these statistics vary across the city.

 

 

 

I disagree about the "number of people walking to work" being a "poor proxy" for "walkability".  Streetscape design is secondary to the "urban structure" of a city.  Charlotte can have hundreds of miles of manicured greenways and asphalt walking strips... but it still doesn't make "walking as transportation" a viable option in that city... because of the way the urban structure is designed there... largely a result of being developed almost completely in the automobile era.  Luckily, our northern cities were built in the walking era... and while we've done a lot to superimpose automobile structure on our cities and destroy much of our walkability... at least we still have some vestiges of that era that the Sunbelt cities still have not developed. 

 

You need appropriate urban structure... good examples in the US include Boston, Philadelphia, Pittsburgh, Washington, San Francisco... residential, commercial and jobs need to be close together  (incl. mixed-use) with functioning linkages... and strong vibrant neighborhoods that offer the amenities of daily life... Pedestrian-oriented streetscape design is an element of structural walkability... but streetscapes alone can't make a place functionally walkable.

 

walkability also goes hand in hand with transit... since transit is unable to drop people off in front of every building... it can only function effectively in areas with density and walkability... and that can be within a major urban area or serving clusters.  Usually cities that have high percentages of people walking to work... also have high percentages of people taking public transit to work.  Ohio cities, for example, score relatively poorly in people walking to work... and probably related to this... have relatively low rates of transit usage.  http://www.bikesatwork.com/carfree/carfree-census-database.html

 

30. Columbus, OH 3.27%

 

and that's 3.27% of the whole city, where 2/3 of it is suburban.

 

 

a problem with these lists is it lists the whole city, so columbus gets it bad even though parts of it are as walkable as cambridge or ann arbor or whatever

 

And yet... Columbus isn't a Cambridge of an Ann Arbor.  It's a major city... the student ghetto is only a small part of it... while it's the dominant part of those other classic college towns.  And we all know municipal boundaries vary wildly across the US... but when it comes to cities over 250k... this is the best way to compare them.  I'm sure if you pared Columbus down to the 200,000 people that inhabit the original 50 sq. miles or whatever... it would push Columbus to around 5 or 6 percent... perhaps you could find data for all the census tracts that make up the old city.  But we could nitpick for a lot of cities. 

Here's a link to how transportation to work varies in Cleveland census tracts (courtesy of NEO CANDO).

http://neocando.case.edu/cdoutput/p998598598.pdf

 

A couple of interesting points:

 

- Walking to work is probably a poor proxy for "walkability", as it is more a function of how close someone lives to where they work than of how the streetscape is planned. Certainly, barriers to walkability probably decrease willingness to walk to work, but even the best planned areas (Shaker Square comes to mind) will have low people walking to work if they aren't also major centers of employment.

- While access to public transportation might reduce the percentage of people walking to work, the larger factor is probably again where people live relative to where they work. A huge percentage of downtown Cleveland residents walk to work, but another huge chunk take public transportation (likely because they don't work downtown).

- Nonetheless, it is interesting to see how much these statistics vary across the city.

 

 

 

walkability also goes hand in hand with transit... since transit is unable to drop people off in front of every building... it can only function effectively in areas with density and walkability... and that can be within a major urban area or serving clusters.   Usually cities that have high percentages of people walking to work... also have high percentages of people taking public transit to work.  Ohio cities, for example, score relatively poorly in people walking to work... and probably related to this... have relatively low rates of transit usage.  http://www.bikesatwork.com/carfree/carfree-census-database.html

 

 

There is also the factor of having an incompetent department of transportation which encourages highway legislation over transit/rail.

I agree Columbus is much more, eh, "walkable" then it gets credit for and that High St. doesn't really seem much less active than Massachusetts Ave. which has had a subway operating beneath it since 1912 (however I'm sure that it is more active -- once one perceives that an area is "active", it's impossible to rank just how active it is compared to another without gathering hard data).  I'm sure though that Cambridge is still significantly denser because lot sizes are smaller and many more people are packed into a typical block and paying 2-3X the rent for the privilege to do so (and quite a bit of Cambridge's housing stock is significantly lower in quality than Ohio's cities, btw).  A lot of the older parts of Columbus have city blocks divided by alleys but I don't remember there being any alleys at all in Cambridge, which makes a huge difference as do street widths.  A wide street or long setbacks affect potential population density enormously independent of how many bedrooms exist in a typical building on a standard lot.  Something like Neil Ave's width and setbacks is about the least dense Cambridge gets, there's nothing as wide as Summit St.  In a denser configuration, if both 4th St. and Summit St. were narrower with narrower setbacks, an entire additional row of homes could have been built in the same land area.  In short establishing built and population density using municipal boundaries is a borderline useless exercise, cities like Cincinnati with a lot of unpopulated hillsides, cemeteries, golf courses, rail yards, etc. get screwed, if population density is the goal (which it isn't for a lot of people -- for example with the complaints about Cininnati losing population, in the opposite situation the use of "gaining population" as opposed to "becoming more densely population" elicit much different emotional responses in people and TV, politics, college guide books, etc., are about creating and manipulating emotion). 

 

Not exactly sure what you're trying to get at with that rambling 2nd half of your post.   Good points about street widths and setbacks.  But I disagree about Cincinnati getting screwed.  Most major cities have large swaths that are uninhabited due to topography, industry, golf courses, parks or LuLu's.  We can nitpick about about the inherent fallacy of comparing anything to anything all day.

 

There is also the factor of having an incompetent department of transportation which encourages highway legislation over transit/rail.

 

I agree there are a lot of things that go into weak rates of public transit usage.  I believe "walkable environments" is one factor that strongly correlates with transit usage.  Transit tends to be more developed in sophisticated in areas with large walkable environments... which results in greater rates of usage.  I will admit, that according to the statistics... Cincy seems to be a bit of an outlier... as it has a pretty decent percentage of walking commuters... yet a woeful percentage of transit commuters... I would assume the complete lack of light rail would have something to do with that... which represents a permenant investment in transit infrastructure and also tends to have a much more positive perception than the bus.

Well at least the shakey criteria didn't allow any southern cities to sneak into the higher ranks. 

 

Here's a MARTA station 4 miles from downtown Atlanta:

 

 

And Cincinnati (technically Norwood) 4 miles from downtown, where the light rail line was to have been built:

what marta station is that?  Mosth of their statsion are not "walkable" to.  You drive to them

 

There is also the factor of having an incompetent department of transportation which encourages highway legislation over transit/rail.

 

I agree there are a lot of things that go into weak rates of public transit usage.  I believe "walkable environments" is one factor that strongly correlates with transit usage.  Transit tends to be more developed in sophisticated in areas with large walkable environments... which results in greater rates of usage.  I will admit, that according to the statistics... Cincy seems to be a bit of an outlier... as it has a pretty decent percentage of walking commuters... yet a woeful percentage of transit commuters... I would assume the complete lack of light rail would have something to do with that... which represents a permenant investment in transit infrastructure and also tends to have a much more positive perception than the bus.

 

Walkable environments are certainly desireable and Cincinnati, Columbus, and Cleveland are all certainly walkable, but keep in mind that many of the most walkable areas in the country are not on a rail line.  For example, Old City in Philadelphia; Fashion District, 26th Street, Chicago; Los Angeles; Outer Richmond and North Beach in San Francisco; etc.  They are served by buses and not rail.  So while having a walkable community is the goal for planning in general, it really doesn't dictate the correlation with transit on a whole.  Transit works if the people can get the point A to point B more economically and perhaps faster than if they had to take a car.  If it makes more sense to take the Rapids from Shaker Square to Tower City versus $50 parking passes and horrendous weather, then duh, Rapid it is. 

 

Meaning, desireability.  In planning, that is perhaps THE factor in deciding if transit ridership is going to be up, down, or as low as Coshocton.  Inept department of transportation, walkability, rail vs bus, etc are all factors but people are mainly using transit if they have a need for it.  In New York, it's a no-brainer to use the subway versus driving from Red Hook to East Village.  But is it a no-brainer for somebody in Monroeville to take the bus to the Southside Works, or simply drive to it (as the Southside Works has numerous parking garages, encouraging auto-dependence)? 

 

Unless, of course, the bus/train has a billygoat holding coffee with plasma screen televisions advertising Mad Mex @ Oakland, then yeah, the car is more of a desireable option.

This just in, "Cities are good for you."

Cities Can Make You Skinny

By LiveScience Staff

 

posted: 20 February 2007

05:28 pm ET

 

 

People who live in the densest, pedestrian-friendly parts of New York City have a significantly lower body mass index (BMI) compared to other New Yorkers, a new study finds.

 

Lower BMI indicates less body fat.

 

The researchers say placing shops, restaurants and public transit near residences may promote walking and independence from private automobiles.

 

 

http://www.livescience.com/humanbiology/070220_city_skinny.html

 

 

^ I just thought of something related to that article.  A large percentage of the housing in NYC's "densest pedestrian-friendly parts" is comprised of 4-6 story pre-war walkups.  For those who live in these buildings, that's a little bonus unavoidable daily workout.

 

That scenario is similar in many other older cities too.  Here's a personal anecdote.  After living in SF for a while, the results of the study above are obvious.  I lived on the third floor of a walkup and walked at least 2 miles a day, just to get to and from work.  Most days I didn't just go home, so there was a lot more walking involved with chores or even going out to eat or to a bar.  In Cincinnati, unless I'm going to one of the stores/establishments in Oakley, I drive to my destination.  I felt 50x healthier during my time there than I do here, although the primary reason for my sedentary lifestyle here is homework.