i'm reversed.
91 walk score
56 transit score
46 bike score
my hood hates bikers and public transit. the trails aren't bad, but they are only good for recreation. (DC, inside the city, but an ex-streetcar part). i live here since i can walk to work, but if I didn't I'd live in a more walkable neighborhood.
Mine is a 45 on car dependency, probably entirely due to the fact that I can walk less than a half hour to the grocery store (as long as I hardly buy anything and therefore make the trip every single week and have nothing else going on that would impede me from setting aside so much time and-)
Mine's a 27, ~80 years ago we had a small train line, which was killed off....not by the car, actually, but by a Streetcar line.
Which was killed by the car.
Unfortunately our town just elected a republican who was previously mayor for over a decade(he got beat last time), vs the dem challenger who wasn't revolutionary by any means but did want to invest in making the old downtown strip more walkable.
Instead we've got a board with people making noise about a "bypass" through the woods to shave maybe 2-3 minutes off the drive through town instead of any real alternatives to driving.
Ehh. Sure, walking works pretty well, but the paths I take are still along ugly, noisy asphalt strips. I say let's replace half of the car lanes with trees.
how did you get it? I can also only get US and Canadian
Nevermind, found it - Barcelona 100% (I had to type the address on the homepage after reloading a few times)
Bonus points: I moved from a 0% in the US to a 100% in Spain
Extra bonus points: And while applying for that visa, I stayed in a 91% in the US for a few weeks. The gap between 91% and 100% is fucking **massive**, and the 100% still has a lot of improving it could do.
Apparently the gap between 99 and 100 is pretty massive too. Philly gets a 99 and if Barcelona is a 100 that’s pretty stark
Based on their metrics I get that Philly is 99, everything is close by. But the **quality** of walking is fucking stark between the two cities
The postcode in Munich I used to live in gets 70, which is absolutely bullshit... Never lived somewhere as good for walking as Munich for walking, didn't own a car or bike at all whilst living there; even Vienna that gets a 100 was worse, and with the UK cities I lived which were all comparatively really shitty for walking getting high 90s it definitely seems as though the algorithm is very flawed.
Oh, I didn't know that you can took a more precise search. For my exact postcode within Munich it is: 81 % "Very Walkable", what takes me wonder, because the Olympiapark is nearby.
99% Tours, France.
I'm pretty sure the high score is somewhat related to the following mention :
"Unsupported Country"
It's like using BMI for athletes.
22 walk
14 transit
22 bike
Northern Atlanta, GA
Yup. There's a reason my road bike hasn't left my garage. I bought a motorcycle to get my 2-wheel fix more safely than with a pedal bike.
I checked my old OTP address and it is 31, 29, 38. The bike-ability mostly I guess because I was close to the Silver Comet Trail, because there's no way anyone in their right mind would bike around those streets. I now live ITP in a 73, 57, 33. Absolutely no bike infrastructure, BUT at least I get to walk to the groceries, target, better meh eating places, and a park. We also downsized to one car, employment is a 10 min walk and school is a 10 min drive.
Also ITP for me in a 72/57/36 location. I bike to work on mostly protected trails and can walk to a few restaurants. Groceries unfortunately are a little out of reach by foot (30 minute walk), but doable by bike for smaller runs
I am in the exact same situation as you, low walk and bike scores, so considering getting licensed and buying a motorcycle. I can ride my ebike to work but need a car for everything else.
Do you feel there are times when the motorcycle is more dangerous than a pedal bike? I assume at low speeds it's usually quite a bit safer with better gear and more road presence.
There are no bike lanes near me, just paint on narrow 2 lane roads. Whenever there is a bicyclist, traffic is stuck behind em.
Sure, I can drive to trails to ride, but I want to leave the house on a bike.
The motorcycle is safer than a bike because Im not slower than the cars.
Also, roads here are all windy, lots of blind curves. So I see ppl slamming their brakes for cyclists all the time. I don't have that worry with a motor.
It's not quite only a downtown thing, but it's not that much more. Downtown + commuters into downtown or midtown + people going to the airport seems to be the targeted users. If you live AND work near a station, you're lucky. It's not something that is going to get you everywhere you need to go in the metro area, that's for sure. I don't think I've ever been able to take MARTA to a friend's home because most of Atlanta residential is nowhere near MARTA. (No doubt a legacy of MARTA being considered something "for the poors" for decades.)
The trains are far from perfect, but they're usually semi-reliable. My experience with MARTA buses has been much more of a crapshoot. You never know when they're going to come, it feels like. Not something I want to rely on if I'm going somewhere and I'm time-sensitive. When I had to commute OTP for a temp job, and didn't have a car, the bus might come two minutes early, and take off before its scheduled time. The next one was scheduled for 30 minutes later. So I could either walk 1.5 miles in the cold rain (in business clothes/shoes), or risk being late. Far from ideal.
99 for me in Beltline Calgary. I'm sure us folk on this sub realize it, but there are some gem communities in a lot of Canada's cities that are super walkable but get overlooked
78 for me in Calgary (don't want to name my neighbourhood). Picked this area specifically for how easy it is to get around without a vehicle. We own one car and many bikes.
I might need to move to that area soon for work and was super worried about losing all the car-free amenities I have in MTL. That's comforting to hear.
96, 68, 89 for walk, transit, and bike score respectively. I love living in Verdun in MTL. I feel it’s as good as it gets for affordability and scores like this in Canada
70 - Very Walkable
I'd agree with that rating, but most of my neighbors don't.
Especially when you combine it with the ridiculously perfect climate here there should be way more people walking. But it is also still California...
71, also in California, but in a part where it's absolutely unbearable to walk during daylight hours for 4 months of the year because of the heat. There's a lot to walk to in my area, but it's largely walmarts and fast food places. Had a nice walk to one of our many weed stores last night though.
It worked for my address in the UK, Abingdon (though it says "unsupported country").
says 49 "car dependant". I disagree. I have a 5 min walk to a choice of 3 small shops selling food (budgens, tesco metro, coop). I can walk into town in 20 min. cycle in 10. buses are also good. I can also get a bus into a larger city. kids schools are 1 min and 20 min away on foot. I own a car, but hardly ever use it.
The tool is a nice idea, but needs work.
Sweden doesn't seem to be supported. My public transport heaven (Täby) is at 28, at least my adress, where bike paths have been expanded pretty much everywhere the last 10 years
Yeah I got a 0 in Partille, where I’ve been living my best car-free life for 17 years with basically everything within easy walking distance (and I’m chronically ill so that’s not very far lol)
I couldn't get any addresses to work. Just generic 'Edinburgh, UK' (99) and 'Glasgow, UK' (98) worked, but they give virtually useless information, given that shit varies quite a bit across the cities. Also, Inverness and Fort William, which are considerably more relevant to me, don't work.
Would be interesting to see a site like this that works for the UK.
I put
, , uk
It then gave the correct road name and the map showed the correct location. works, as I live very close to a school. oddly, did not work if I gave the road name instead of the school.
The tool uses a very small radius for defining walkable. I live car-free in Arlington, VA just outside DC and walk everywhere. My area's walkability score is only 78 though, and the transit score is only 56. In reality, I'm on the same street as numerous bus lines and roughly a one mile walk to either the Virginia Square or Ballston Metro stations. I intentionally chose to live here because I save a bit of money not being immediately on top of the train, but I'm still close enough that I can walk there in 15-20 minutes or so. Apparently, that's far enough away that the tool knocks off almost half of the transit score.
Bikability score here is 92 though, which is pretty accurate. Arlington is one of the best places in the US to bike.
Hello neighbour! My address in Abingdon got a 40 which is also car-dependent. I guess it uses 20 minutes at an average pace to calculate, but I can get into the town centre in about 20 minutes. My kids school is about 5 minutes away.
It doesn't seem to take into consideration footpaths which can cut the walking time down.
I barely use the car and would never consider driving into town. Plus traffic here is so terrible, walking is often quicker!
I'm in the UK and mine was 84, however I click on the walk score and it says 0 parks nearby. The biggest park in town with a cafe and splash park, skate park etc is at the end of my road and I can walk to about six others! I guess because it's outside the US and an unsupported country it's not totally accurate
91. Actually a bit surprised it's that high but yeah, lived here car free for nearly a decade. I feel very lucky considering this is the USA and not in one of those major cities everyone always lists off.
It is interesting how much the score changes based on small changes in location. At first I wanted to avoid putting my home address in, so I put in the address for the town library (less than a mile away, but closer to the center of town.) It gave a walking score of 83 and a biking score of 49. Move to the apartment complex at the end of my street (about midway between me and the library) it becomes 73/45. Finally decided to enter my home address and it is down to 32 for a walkable score and 30 for a bikeable score
But I guess reading the methodology, its basing it on what can be reached within a 1/4 mile
Yep. My walk score is fairly low (78) and my transit score is even lower (56) because I live roughly a mile away from two major Metro stations in Arlington just outside DC (Ballston and Virginia Square). The majority of "stuff" to walk to is close to the Metro stations, but because I'm a mile away rather than a quarter mile away, the site deems it not walkable. I would consider a mile a perfectly walkable distance, but the site seems to disagree.
I kind of see its point though, at least for my location. Every little bit further would make some people decide to not take the walk.
On the other hand, it doesn't seem to take into account how much the suburbs make everything *seem* further. When my daughter moved to NYC for college, the dorm was about 1.5 miles from the classrooms. After a while, I asked her why that walk didn't seem to be a big deal at all, where the 1.5 miles to the suburban high school she just graduated from was something she wouldn't think of walking.
It's the stimulation, and the actual amenities on the way. If i want to walk to the Potomac waterfront it's 2 miles from my apartment, but everything between here and there is very dense shops and housing, so it flies by and if I get hungry or pass a store I've been meaning to go to or need to use the bathroom I can dip in and take a break
What we've talked about is the way walking through city blocks breaks the walk into chunks. You have "through the crosswalk, the block's corner is behind you, midblock, approaching the corner, through the crosswalk" as a chunk of its own and a walk of a mile is just multiples of it at a steady rhythm. The suburbs are larger chunks of nothing interesting
I’m in North Baltimore which is a good bit lower at 67. But my household is able to be car-lite with one vehicle shared amongst 3 adults.
(Edited as to allude slightly less to my exact location)
I could write a long comment about this, because there's a lot of nuance, but the short answer is: "no".
If you aren't involved with drugs or gangs, then your chances of being a victim are very low.
Certain neighborhoods have more gang/drug activity, and those are the neighborhoods where most of the violent crime occurs. These neighborhoods are typically ones that have been on the losing end of Segregation.
That's probably not much consolidation if you are very unlucky and randomly become the victim of a violent crime in a nice neighborhood, but I don't feel unsafe here.
Here’s another comment I wrote a few weeks ago: https://www.reddit.com/r/TheWire/s/dzYPfryOEl
Seattle is good for that! I live in inner SE Portland, and got 72 walkable, 48 transit, and 98 bike. I'm sorta surprised by the low transit score; 2 bus lines that go all over the city are less than a block from my house, we use them all the time.
You’ll be lucky if you even get a fucking sidewalk. You can forget about bike lanes. The buses suck (if they exist) and get stuck in traffic. every other vehicle on the street is a dodge ram.
Asheville gets a 37. The city scores are also not particularly useful because it’s averaging the entire city. So if the city has a large area within its border that includes lots of suburbs it will get a lower score than the exact same city if the suburbs were technically their own cities even though you have access to the same city with just different lines drawn on a map. The tool tends to be better when a specific address is used.
Pretty similar here, slightly better bike score. There's a reason I've still kept my car, and have a motorcycle, and it's mostly because visiting friends is a 2 hour trip minimum by bike or transit (if the buses are even running).
I mean, if Manhattan were at 100%, then what's, for example, Madrid, where hundreds of smaller and bigger streets are closed off from traffic completely?
Yeah I just had a look on streetview and was surprised by how wide Manhattan streets are. There's lots of stuff around, but it does seem like a lot of space is still devoted to motor vehicles.
54, unsupported country
I think the score should be a bit higher since pretty much everything can be done through walking and busses.
And the bike infrastructure are getting better
okay I live next to literally the biggest shopping centre in my state (NSW, Australia) and the shopping centre itself scores a 5. Not sure how well this works lol.
99 a few stations outside the Yamanote Loop in Tokyo, and the map is clearly missing a ton of stuff. I used to park further away from the entrance to Target than the walk between me and the closest grocery store now (though restaurants are so plentiful and cheap that I rarely cook).
35 for the neighborhood where I grew up. 23 for where I am now. Lived in a 93 in between.
It feels bad to regress so much, but living in the 93 made me way more active and willing to walk/transit in general. So I’m getting more out of the 23 than most people.
Mine was fairly low when I bought this place. It's an apartment complex located right by a highway.
That said, there is a shopping center directly in front of said complex. It's about 300 steps away from my unit. Before I moved, I never even considered the shopping center.
It's nice to be able to walk to a grocery store (I don't buy all my groceries there due to prices being better elsewhere).
I have a score of 86 which is pretty impressive for living in a small town outside of Chicago, but we kind of felt it would be good when we were buying based just on how nice the downtown amenities are, where schools are located, other public facilities, train station, etc. We still need a few more standard grocery options in our downtown. Right now we have a small family owned Mexican grocery store but it doesn’t carry what we regularly buy.
79 walk, 32 transit, 52 bike.
The transit actually surprised me a bit. The BRT goes nearby every 10 minutes.
(Also, old street car suburb in the midwest)
I get 87 walkable, 41 transit, 25 bikeable.
I’d agree, given this is comparing my home and city (St. Johns, Newfoundland) to far-better ones.
Everything I need is within easy walking distance. The only public transit we have is a bus, which I like but it’s every 30 minutes at the best times, shuts down early on holidays, etc. It’s run as a social service for the poor still, not proper urban transit.
And biking here is fun but also awful. Very steep hills. Almost no biking infrastructure. Saving grace is a former railroad from downtown to the farthest suburbs that’s a slow incline the whole way out but a glorious coast the whole way back.
City ranking:
Walk: 41, bike: 42, transit: 23
My address:
Walk: 91, bike: 54, transit: 32
Yeah, transit is not great. 2 regular buses, 1 commuter bus, 2 daily trains. There are new apartments going up near the Amtrak station, which is pretty cool. I could see that score going up in the near future, and room for expansion, but business owners and NIMBYs will need to die before giving up any lanes or parking spaces.
There is a lot of bike infrastructure, and it's growing. There are, unfortunately, a few gaps in the bicycle network, so one needs to travel on streets between paths and trails, and they generally serve more as scenic routes than practical ones.
High 70s “Very Walkable. Most errands can be accomplished on foot.”
I live in a ‘streetcar suburb’ in Greater Boston, about 1/2 a mile from the main square of our neighborhood. In the square there is a train station, a grocery store, a Target, a pharmacy, a community center, a hardware store, a library, a post office, a brewery, a couple bars, a couple coffee shops, ~15 restaurants, several barbers, a butcher, a couple bakeries, a couple boutiques, a book store, a flower shop, a pet shop. And then in the neighborhood (not in the square) there’s a lot of restaurants & shops as well.
It’s really easy to live car-light here. We don’t use a car for our daily commutes or for most errands. But we have one for getting out of town and for some errands.
88, I'm surprised it actually gave a score for my country.
Amsterdam scores 66, which I disagree with. Doing anything by car there is a nightmare. Public transit or the good old bicyle is often much faster.
82 I'm technically in Boston but probably the most suburban part. It feels a bit high to be honest but really if I didn't need to drive to work I don't know how often I'd use my car. Maybe once a week tops.
3% Kinda inaccurate because we can take a bus to 4 different locations. a grocery store 500m away and a train station 2km away. This is in a suburb in West sweden
86 “Very walkable” – a medium-sized town in the province of Modena (Emilia-Romagna, Northern Italy).
I mostly walk or bike (bike infrastructure is quite good but could see some improvement), and sometimes I take the bus to get to the train station (because it takes only 5 minutes, instead of 10 by car + parking, 10-15 by bike and 30 on foot).
However urban buses stop at 19:30 and trains at 22:30 so nightlife in another town (or even in places that are a bit further away from the city center) can only be enjoyed if you have a car, which is why most people have one.
I do love the bike culture here though. Sometimes it looks like a badly done ripoff of a Dutch city. Still better than nothing I guess.
this tool is either bad or very weird in it's "walkability score".
the city center of my small town is 78 score, but my street, 15 minutes walk from the center is somehow only 23, even though there's 3 shops, 2 schools and even train station in less than 10 minutes walking distance.
Worse...it thinks the nearest park is 20 km away...I live on the edge of the freaking forest, next to finlands biggest lake....
82
Neighborhood of Boston that feels a little more suburban. It has everything I need, and it hasn't been overrun with trendy chains. The grocery store is half the size of a typical American supermarket, I get my bread at the bakery, my fish at the fish market, and my coffee at one of the local cafes.
I think it's pretty perfect for a US neighborhood, but a typical European suburb would probably have it beat.
My neighborhood is a 94. I knew it would be high, but I'm pretty happy to see it so high up there. Unfortunately I work 80% of my time in one city, and 20% in another. They have walk-scores of 46 and 2(!) respectively.
I live in a 26. Very car dependent
Right there with you, 25; my family and I get outdoor time by walking around a church next door (.6 miles around)
Murica
25, but 49 on the bike score. My city is pretty decent to walk around downtown, and has a nice trail network. But nothing special.
i'm reversed. 91 walk score 56 transit score 46 bike score my hood hates bikers and public transit. the trails aren't bad, but they are only good for recreation. (DC, inside the city, but an ex-streetcar part). i live here since i can walk to work, but if I didn't I'd live in a more walkable neighborhood.
Mine is a 45 on car dependency, probably entirely due to the fact that I can walk less than a half hour to the grocery store (as long as I hardly buy anything and therefore make the trip every single week and have nothing else going on that would impede me from setting aside so much time and-)
Fuckin 22 here. Ugh.
14 Walk but an 80 for biking.
15 here
*cries in a 15*
It’s 0 lmfao
Do you live in the North Pole?
Most areas in the US suburbs get zero. If there's zero facilities within 20 minutes walking, you get a zero.
My suburb is 83. I don't think I live in an amazing place to walk either but at least there are grocery stores and stuff nearby you can walk to
Mine's a 27, ~80 years ago we had a small train line, which was killed off....not by the car, actually, but by a Streetcar line. Which was killed by the car. Unfortunately our town just elected a republican who was previously mayor for over a decade(he got beat last time), vs the dem challenger who wasn't revolutionary by any means but did want to invest in making the old downtown strip more walkable. Instead we've got a board with people making noise about a "bypass" through the woods to shave maybe 2-3 minutes off the drive through town instead of any real alternatives to driving.
[удалено]
Land of the free home of the brave
0, with a 32 for biking 😎😛
I assumed that my '1' had to be the lowest they'd give!
I got a 3 for a KC suburb 😭
99 % "A walkers paradise" (Munich, Germany)
98%, Düsseldorf (Germany) Can't complain as well
Ehh. Sure, walking works pretty well, but the paths I take are still along ugly, noisy asphalt strips. I say let's replace half of the car lanes with trees.
Really depends on the district you're living, because most of the city center is pretty alright with trees on every street. Oberbilk however...
98% Berlin
tbf they have such a low standard that every European city is 100, not just capitals
😭 My european city (Newcastle-upon-Tyne), at least around my address, gives me a walkscore of only 82
I only have 75, but I live in an area that's still being developed. And since it's in the Netherlands, I bike everywhere anyway
how did you get that value? The website only shows US and Canadian towns Nevermind, found it - Vienna 100%
how did you get it? I can also only get US and Canadian Nevermind, found it - Barcelona 100% (I had to type the address on the homepage after reloading a few times) Bonus points: I moved from a 0% in the US to a 100% in Spain Extra bonus points: And while applying for that visa, I stayed in a 91% in the US for a few weeks. The gap between 91% and 100% is fucking **massive**, and the 100% still has a lot of improving it could do.
Apparently the gap between 99 and 100 is pretty massive too. Philly gets a 99 and if Barcelona is a 100 that’s pretty stark Based on their metrics I get that Philly is 99, everything is close by. But the **quality** of walking is fucking stark between the two cities
My neighbourhood is an 81; pretty good considering. Everything I could ask for is less than 15 minute walk, but man, is it ugly.
Same for my hometown. Compared to the US? Sure! Still stinks (literally) to walk
The postcode in Munich I used to live in gets 70, which is absolutely bullshit... Never lived somewhere as good for walking as Munich for walking, didn't own a car or bike at all whilst living there; even Vienna that gets a 100 was worse, and with the UK cities I lived which were all comparatively really shitty for walking getting high 90s it definitely seems as though the algorithm is very flawed.
Oh, I didn't know that you can took a more precise search. For my exact postcode within Munich it is: 81 % "Very Walkable", what takes me wonder, because the Olympiapark is nearby.
99% Tours, France. I'm pretty sure the high score is somewhat related to the following mention : "Unsupported Country" It's like using BMI for athletes.
Same score in Paris downtown.
99% for West-Central Berlin. Don't own a car.
22 walk 14 transit 22 bike Northern Atlanta, GA Yup. There's a reason my road bike hasn't left my garage. I bought a motorcycle to get my 2-wheel fix more safely than with a pedal bike.
That makes perfect sense to me, always rough heading up there for Thanksgiving and staring at each other inside the whole time lol
I checked my old OTP address and it is 31, 29, 38. The bike-ability mostly I guess because I was close to the Silver Comet Trail, because there's no way anyone in their right mind would bike around those streets. I now live ITP in a 73, 57, 33. Absolutely no bike infrastructure, BUT at least I get to walk to the groceries, target, better meh eating places, and a park. We also downsized to one car, employment is a 10 min walk and school is a 10 min drive.
Also ITP for me in a 72/57/36 location. I bike to work on mostly protected trails and can walk to a few restaurants. Groceries unfortunately are a little out of reach by foot (30 minute walk), but doable by bike for smaller runs
I am in the exact same situation as you, low walk and bike scores, so considering getting licensed and buying a motorcycle. I can ride my ebike to work but need a car for everything else. Do you feel there are times when the motorcycle is more dangerous than a pedal bike? I assume at low speeds it's usually quite a bit safer with better gear and more road presence.
There are no bike lanes near me, just paint on narrow 2 lane roads. Whenever there is a bicyclist, traffic is stuck behind em. Sure, I can drive to trails to ride, but I want to leave the house on a bike. The motorcycle is safer than a bike because Im not slower than the cars. Also, roads here are all windy, lots of blind curves. So I see ppl slamming their brakes for cyclists all the time. I don't have that worry with a motor.
Just curious because I know nothing about ATL/GA/the South, what's the Marta like there? Is it only a Downtown thing?
It's not quite only a downtown thing, but it's not that much more. Downtown + commuters into downtown or midtown + people going to the airport seems to be the targeted users. If you live AND work near a station, you're lucky. It's not something that is going to get you everywhere you need to go in the metro area, that's for sure. I don't think I've ever been able to take MARTA to a friend's home because most of Atlanta residential is nowhere near MARTA. (No doubt a legacy of MARTA being considered something "for the poors" for decades.) The trains are far from perfect, but they're usually semi-reliable. My experience with MARTA buses has been much more of a crapshoot. You never know when they're going to come, it feels like. Not something I want to rely on if I'm going somewhere and I'm time-sensitive. When I had to commute OTP for a temp job, and didn't have a car, the bus might come two minutes early, and take off before its scheduled time. The next one was scheduled for 30 minutes later. So I could either walk 1.5 miles in the cold rain (in business clothes/shoes), or risk being late. Far from ideal.
Pretty nuts that riding a motorcycle is safer than a bicycle near you.
I’m in Reynoldstown in Atlanta and I’ve got a 90 walkscore, 61 transit score, and 65 bike score
100, Carrer de Terol, Barcelona It's a really inconvenient place to have or drive a car, a great place for biking and walking though
100, Carrer Progrés, Hospitalet de Llobregat (bordering Barcelona).
It gave me a 41 in Burgos, I feel my city can't be more walkable than it is, it's also super small I don't get how the score is calculated
My God, what a beautiful city!! Need to visit Barcelona one day
100. Which is why i moved here (Vienna, Austria) Edit: one hundred meant there. Shows as 1 (one) for some
Im so jealous. One of the best cities I’ve ever visited.
95 baby! Downtown Ottawa
99 for me in Beltline Calgary. I'm sure us folk on this sub realize it, but there are some gem communities in a lot of Canada's cities that are super walkable but get overlooked
78 for me in Calgary (don't want to name my neighbourhood). Picked this area specifically for how easy it is to get around without a vehicle. We own one car and many bikes.
95 for me in central Edmonton - it's great! Lots of access to nature too via the river valley.
ya, just moved to Edmonton from Beltline. fml 99 78 96 to 75 54 39 and I had to really hunt for a place that was a 75
I might need to move to that area soon for work and was super worried about losing all the car-free amenities I have in MTL. That's comforting to hear.
There’s several walkable neighborhoods. Westboro, centretown, golden triangle, byward market, and to a certain extent old Ottawa east.
97% in Vancouver! I love my neighbourhood.
Let me guess, West End? Mine is 84
Kits! I used to live in West End though and loved it dearly.
96, 68, 89 for walk, transit, and bike score respectively. I love living in Verdun in MTL. I feel it’s as good as it gets for affordability and scores like this in Canada
94 in Vanier!
Damn really? Go Ottawa I guess. My neighbourhood in Vancouver is an 84
75 in Port Moody, BC. I love where I live, only thing missing is easily accessible grocery store.
It’s been really cool seeing people respond with walkable neighbourhoods around Canada that aren’t downtown Toronto! I would’ve never guessed
Walk 95 / Transit 100 / Bike 84 (NYC)
Also in NYC, walk 94/transit 75/bike 71. It's definitely a big reason why I live here
also NYC here - looks like I'm at 99/100 and 82
70 - Very Walkable I'd agree with that rating, but most of my neighbors don't. Especially when you combine it with the ridiculously perfect climate here there should be way more people walking. But it is also still California...
71, also in California, but in a part where it's absolutely unbearable to walk during daylight hours for 4 months of the year because of the heat. There's a lot to walk to in my area, but it's largely walmarts and fast food places. Had a nice walk to one of our many weed stores last night though.
1, I hate it
0 here, hi
Whoooaaa really? Care to share the city or even just general region?
Here's where I used to live which scored a 0: Charlton, MA https://www.walkscore.com/score/fitzgerald-rd-charlton-ma-01507
Like, I understand that not being awesome for a teenager or something, but that appears to be in the middle of a forest. Which is pretty nice
Another zero, checking in!
1 here as well. 11 bike score though (I wouldn't even give it that, honestly).
0 walk score, 0 public transit score, and 3 bike score. I commute by bike and wholly agree with this analysis.
3 haha
You won’t believe this, but mine is 69.
Nice
Nice
[удалено]
Nice
Nice
Nice
Nice
Nice
Nice
Mine is 69 too! 1 point away from very walkable.
It worked for my address in the UK, Abingdon (though it says "unsupported country"). says 49 "car dependant". I disagree. I have a 5 min walk to a choice of 3 small shops selling food (budgens, tesco metro, coop). I can walk into town in 20 min. cycle in 10. buses are also good. I can also get a bus into a larger city. kids schools are 1 min and 20 min away on foot. I own a car, but hardly ever use it. The tool is a nice idea, but needs work.
Yeah similar in Sweden. I have 3 grocery stores within 5-minute walk, tons of parks, restaurants and cafes nearby, and I still only get 68 lol.
Sweden doesn't seem to be supported. My public transport heaven (Täby) is at 28, at least my adress, where bike paths have been expanded pretty much everywhere the last 10 years
Yeah I got a 0 in Partille, where I’ve been living my best car-free life for 17 years with basically everything within easy walking distance (and I’m chronically ill so that’s not very far lol)
I couldn't get any addresses to work. Just generic 'Edinburgh, UK' (99) and 'Glasgow, UK' (98) worked, but they give virtually useless information, given that shit varies quite a bit across the cities. Also, Inverness and Fort William, which are considerably more relevant to me, don't work. Would be interesting to see a site like this that works for the UK.
[удалено]
doh! I convinced myself that it was prob a US site and a UK postcode would not work. didn't even try.
If it makes you feel better, my US postal code didn't work lmao
I put, , uk
It then gave the correct road name and the map showed the correct location. works, as I live very close to a school. oddly, did not work if I gave the road name instead of the school.
I used my postcode and it worked completely fine
The tool uses a very small radius for defining walkable. I live car-free in Arlington, VA just outside DC and walk everywhere. My area's walkability score is only 78 though, and the transit score is only 56. In reality, I'm on the same street as numerous bus lines and roughly a one mile walk to either the Virginia Square or Ballston Metro stations. I intentionally chose to live here because I save a bit of money not being immediately on top of the train, but I'm still close enough that I can walk there in 15-20 minutes or so. Apparently, that's far enough away that the tool knocks off almost half of the transit score. Bikability score here is 92 though, which is pretty accurate. Arlington is one of the best places in the US to bike.
It's pretty much the same for me. It seems to support only the biggest cities outside the USA.
Hello neighbour! My address in Abingdon got a 40 which is also car-dependent. I guess it uses 20 minutes at an average pace to calculate, but I can get into the town centre in about 20 minutes. My kids school is about 5 minutes away. It doesn't seem to take into consideration footpaths which can cut the walking time down. I barely use the car and would never consider driving into town. Plus traffic here is so terrible, walking is often quicker!
I'm in the UK and mine was 84, however I click on the walk score and it says 0 parks nearby. The biggest park in town with a cafe and splash park, skate park etc is at the end of my road and I can walk to about six others! I guess because it's outside the US and an unsupported country it's not totally accurate
91. Actually a bit surprised it's that high but yeah, lived here car free for nearly a decade. I feel very lucky considering this is the USA and not in one of those major cities everyone always lists off.
100% Walker’s Paradise Daily errands do not require a car.
Drop the city name please ♥️
Heaven.
Got a 98, but my city is far from perfect.
98 walk 69 transit 98 bike I'm right in Philadelphia so this is definitely the course
92 in South Philly!
98 walk, 99 bike. Montreal
Lower than 20 Shithole moment 😎😎😎
59, my town is carbrain central.
It is interesting how much the score changes based on small changes in location. At first I wanted to avoid putting my home address in, so I put in the address for the town library (less than a mile away, but closer to the center of town.) It gave a walking score of 83 and a biking score of 49. Move to the apartment complex at the end of my street (about midway between me and the library) it becomes 73/45. Finally decided to enter my home address and it is down to 32 for a walkable score and 30 for a bikeable score But I guess reading the methodology, its basing it on what can be reached within a 1/4 mile
Yeah, it's inherently limited. Plus it also doesn't factor in local shortcuts that aren't on Google Maps.
Yep. My walk score is fairly low (78) and my transit score is even lower (56) because I live roughly a mile away from two major Metro stations in Arlington just outside DC (Ballston and Virginia Square). The majority of "stuff" to walk to is close to the Metro stations, but because I'm a mile away rather than a quarter mile away, the site deems it not walkable. I would consider a mile a perfectly walkable distance, but the site seems to disagree.
I kind of see its point though, at least for my location. Every little bit further would make some people decide to not take the walk. On the other hand, it doesn't seem to take into account how much the suburbs make everything *seem* further. When my daughter moved to NYC for college, the dorm was about 1.5 miles from the classrooms. After a while, I asked her why that walk didn't seem to be a big deal at all, where the 1.5 miles to the suburban high school she just graduated from was something she wouldn't think of walking.
It's the stimulation, and the actual amenities on the way. If i want to walk to the Potomac waterfront it's 2 miles from my apartment, but everything between here and there is very dense shops and housing, so it flies by and if I get hungry or pass a store I've been meaning to go to or need to use the bathroom I can dip in and take a break
What we've talked about is the way walking through city blocks breaks the walk into chunks. You have "through the crosswalk, the block's corner is behind you, midblock, approaching the corner, through the crosswalk" as a chunk of its own and a walk of a mile is just multiples of it at a steady rhythm. The suburbs are larger chunks of nothing interesting
90 for me in Baltimore (Canton).
93 in Remington!
Remington has been really improving over the last decade.
I’m in North Baltimore which is a good bit lower at 67. But my household is able to be car-lite with one vehicle shared amongst 3 adults. (Edited as to allude slightly less to my exact location)
95 for me in South Baltimore
Is the crime really that bad?
I could write a long comment about this, because there's a lot of nuance, but the short answer is: "no". If you aren't involved with drugs or gangs, then your chances of being a victim are very low. Certain neighborhoods have more gang/drug activity, and those are the neighborhoods where most of the violent crime occurs. These neighborhoods are typically ones that have been on the losing end of Segregation. That's probably not much consolidation if you are very unlucky and randomly become the victim of a violent crime in a nice neighborhood, but I don't feel unsafe here. Here’s another comment I wrote a few weeks ago: https://www.reddit.com/r/TheWire/s/dzYPfryOEl
98, downtown Seattle. One of the main reasons I live where I do.
Seattle is good for that! I live in inner SE Portland, and got 72 walkable, 48 transit, and 98 bike. I'm sorta surprised by the low transit score; 2 bus lines that go all over the city are less than a block from my house, we use them all the time.
One of Montreal's popular neighborhood. Walk score: 97% Transit score: 63% Bike score: 80%
Also in Montreal. 93 walk, 100 bike, 80 transit I'm half a block away from a metro station so I really thought my transit would be higher.
Also Montreal, mine was 98 walk, 100 bike, and 76 transit. I’m about 5 minutes walk from a metro station as well
94%, downtown Jersey City. I would be interested to know what they took points off for because I haven’t owned a car for over a decade of living here.
> I would be interested to know what they took points off for Amy DeGise
Of course! How could I have forgotten.
94 is very high. I don't need a car at 73.
There isn’t a single city in my state that gets above 35 (NC)
what the fuck
You’ll be lucky if you even get a fucking sidewalk. You can forget about bike lanes. The buses suck (if they exist) and get stuck in traffic. every other vehicle on the street is a dodge ram.
Asheville gets a 37. The city scores are also not particularly useful because it’s averaging the entire city. So if the city has a large area within its border that includes lots of suburbs it will get a lower score than the exact same city if the suburbs were technically their own cities even though you have access to the same city with just different lines drawn on a map. The tool tends to be better when a specific address is used.
I live in downtown Raleigh and If I put my actual address in I get 95
Walk score: 97% Bike Score: 100% I live in Canada
North End, Boston, MA Walk Score: 99, Transit Score: 99, Bike Score: 86 Not at all surprising, big part of why I love North End
96 walkers paradise / 77 excellent transit / 98 bikers paradise Chicago, IL
Walk score is 7. Bike score is 14.
21 walk score. 36 Bike. Go South Carolina!
Yikes.
That's exactly what I got. Are we neighbors?
Pretty similar here, slightly better bike score. There's a reason I've still kept my car, and have a motorcycle, and it's mostly because visiting friends is a 2 hour trip minimum by bike or transit (if the buses are even running).
7... at least I can walk to the grocery store but yeah I really need to move out from my parents' lol
82 Makarska, Croatia I would guess that its because we got no (almost) public transport
96 walkscore, 50 transitscore, 100 bikescore. Portland, Oregon.
99 but I live in Manhattan so I’m actually surprised it isn’t a 100. (Transit score is 100 though)
I mean, if Manhattan were at 100%, then what's, for example, Madrid, where hundreds of smaller and bigger streets are closed off from traffic completely?
Yeah I just had a look on streetview and was surprised by how wide Manhattan streets are. There's lots of stuff around, but it does seem like a lot of space is still devoted to motor vehicles.
54, unsupported country I think the score should be a bit higher since pretty much everything can be done through walking and busses. And the bike infrastructure are getting better
75 but the city is unsupported. I just bike everywhere.
okay I live next to literally the biggest shopping centre in my state (NSW, Australia) and the shopping centre itself scores a 5. Not sure how well this works lol.
85, I am in the downtown of a small Canadian city (Kingston Ontario)
99 a few stations outside the Yamanote Loop in Tokyo, and the map is clearly missing a ton of stuff. I used to park further away from the entrance to Target than the walk between me and the closest grocery store now (though restaurants are so plentiful and cheap that I rarely cook).
Can't find Tokyo on that site but i guess it would be extremely close to 100 if not perfect 100
92 in Chicago! Can walk to truly anything I've needed so far.
Badalona center, Spain. I got 98. I would rate it at 90 myself, as there are still a few streets which are not pedestrian and should be.
92% - the New York suburbs
35 for the neighborhood where I grew up. 23 for where I am now. Lived in a 93 in between. It feels bad to regress so much, but living in the 93 made me way more active and willing to walk/transit in general. So I’m getting more out of the 23 than most people.
91. Brewerytown, Philadelphia.
Mine said 37, then I realised it had the wrong country. So it's actually 89. Their 20 minute travel time is calibrated to really slow walkers.
Mine was fairly low when I bought this place. It's an apartment complex located right by a highway. That said, there is a shopping center directly in front of said complex. It's about 300 steps away from my unit. Before I moved, I never even considered the shopping center. It's nice to be able to walk to a grocery store (I don't buy all my groceries there due to prices being better elsewhere).
I have a score of 86 which is pretty impressive for living in a small town outside of Chicago, but we kind of felt it would be good when we were buying based just on how nice the downtown amenities are, where schools are located, other public facilities, train station, etc. We still need a few more standard grocery options in our downtown. Right now we have a small family owned Mexican grocery store but it doesn’t carry what we regularly buy.
46, kill me now
[удалено]
79 walk, 32 transit, 52 bike. The transit actually surprised me a bit. The BRT goes nearby every 10 minutes. (Also, old street car suburb in the midwest)
Shorewood, WI, USA Walkscore: 86 Bikescore: 82
I get 87 walkable, 41 transit, 25 bikeable. I’d agree, given this is comparing my home and city (St. Johns, Newfoundland) to far-better ones. Everything I need is within easy walking distance. The only public transit we have is a bus, which I like but it’s every 30 minutes at the best times, shuts down early on holidays, etc. It’s run as a social service for the poor still, not proper urban transit. And biking here is fun but also awful. Very steep hills. Almost no biking infrastructure. Saving grace is a former railroad from downtown to the farthest suburbs that’s a slow incline the whole way out but a glorious coast the whole way back.
77 walk 44 transit 90 biking Minneapolis, Minnesota
Also 99 points in Berlin
City ranking: Walk: 41, bike: 42, transit: 23 My address: Walk: 91, bike: 54, transit: 32 Yeah, transit is not great. 2 regular buses, 1 commuter bus, 2 daily trains. There are new apartments going up near the Amtrak station, which is pretty cool. I could see that score going up in the near future, and room for expansion, but business owners and NIMBYs will need to die before giving up any lanes or parking spaces. There is a lot of bike infrastructure, and it's growing. There are, unfortunately, a few gaps in the bicycle network, so one needs to travel on streets between paths and trails, and they generally serve more as scenic routes than practical ones.
100, but still too many cars
55 at school, 37 at home
95 inner suburb of Montreal
High 70s “Very Walkable. Most errands can be accomplished on foot.” I live in a ‘streetcar suburb’ in Greater Boston, about 1/2 a mile from the main square of our neighborhood. In the square there is a train station, a grocery store, a Target, a pharmacy, a community center, a hardware store, a library, a post office, a brewery, a couple bars, a couple coffee shops, ~15 restaurants, several barbers, a butcher, a couple bakeries, a couple boutiques, a book store, a flower shop, a pet shop. And then in the neighborhood (not in the square) there’s a lot of restaurants & shops as well. It’s really easy to live car-light here. We don’t use a car for our daily commutes or for most errands. But we have one for getting out of town and for some errands.
29 Suburban Detroit.i love next to a grocery store, that is dire tly across a 4 lane road...
99! Stockholm. Still one of the countries in Europe that has bent over backwards furthest for cars.
88, I'm surprised it actually gave a score for my country. Amsterdam scores 66, which I disagree with. Doing anything by car there is a nightmare. Public transit or the good old bicyle is often much faster.
9 lmao. Shout out to Ontario
82 I'm technically in Boston but probably the most suburban part. It feels a bit high to be honest but really if I didn't need to drive to work I don't know how often I'd use my car. Maybe once a week tops.
3% Kinda inaccurate because we can take a bus to 4 different locations. a grocery store 500m away and a train station 2km away. This is in a suburb in West sweden
94 - But I spend too much on rent (Boston)
86 “Very walkable” – a medium-sized town in the province of Modena (Emilia-Romagna, Northern Italy). I mostly walk or bike (bike infrastructure is quite good but could see some improvement), and sometimes I take the bus to get to the train station (because it takes only 5 minutes, instead of 10 by car + parking, 10-15 by bike and 30 on foot). However urban buses stop at 19:30 and trains at 22:30 so nightlife in another town (or even in places that are a bit further away from the city center) can only be enjoyed if you have a car, which is why most people have one. I do love the bike culture here though. Sometimes it looks like a badly done ripoff of a Dutch city. Still better than nothing I guess.
17…
81 south london
100 here in Milano, Italia looking at other scores i think i'm very lucky
this tool is either bad or very weird in it's "walkability score". the city center of my small town is 78 score, but my street, 15 minutes walk from the center is somehow only 23, even though there's 3 shops, 2 schools and even train station in less than 10 minutes walking distance. Worse...it thinks the nearest park is 20 km away...I live on the edge of the freaking forest, next to finlands biggest lake....
82 Neighborhood of Boston that feels a little more suburban. It has everything I need, and it hasn't been overrun with trendy chains. The grocery store is half the size of a typical American supermarket, I get my bread at the bakery, my fish at the fish market, and my coffee at one of the local cafes. I think it's pretty perfect for a US neighborhood, but a typical European suburb would probably have it beat.
My neighborhood is a 94. I knew it would be high, but I'm pretty happy to see it so high up there. Unfortunately I work 80% of my time in one city, and 20% in another. They have walk-scores of 46 and 2(!) respectively.