[deleted]
The most, and least, walkable cities
21–30 of 35 posts
Re: The most, and least, walkable cities
#22I noticed Utrecht in the third place. Having worked there, I can agree with that. However, with Utrecht being so expensive to live in I experienced that most people that work in Utrecht, don't live there. They live in 'affordable' smaller cities and villages nearby. And with industrial estates like Papendorp and Science Park having sub-par public transit, those people often take the car. If you live in a place like C…
Utrecht is fantastic and even if you get to the city by car, the most convenient is to drop it in the park and ride outside for 7 euros a day including public transport to the center. All cities should have a downtown where the only vehicles are taxis and buses and some neighbour. The neighbourhoods around the center are also designed in a way that crossing them by car is possible but very inconvenient. Going from Lo…
Parking outside the city at P+R Westraven and then taking a tram to the client took 20 minutes, going directly to the client by car was 10 minutes. So I would just drive there directly, as it was faster and much more convenient than having to switch from car to tram and then walking 10 minutes for the final leg.
If Utrecht would invest in better public transit that would lower the amount of cars significantly, I assume. If the P+R was a better option I would for sure have taken it.
Re: The most, and least, walkable cities
#23This is not so much about which cities are walkable, but a survey of how people actually do get around there. Big difference. I've browsed the dataset and Auckland rates as less "walkable" than Kuala Lumpur. Yes, Kiwis do get around by car a lot, but Auckland is still a perfectly pleasant, walkable city. On the other hand, I've never been in a more pedestrian-hostile place than KL.
I disagree about Kuala Lumpur. Maybe it depends on the area, but IME the walkability is great. Public transport is superb, lots of zebra crossings and foot paths, drivers are considerate. I see lots of people walking everywhere. Even at night, as the city feels really safe.
Re: The most, and least, walkable cities
#24This is not so much about which cities are walkable, but a survey of how people actually do get around there. Big difference. I've browsed the dataset and Auckland rates as less "walkable" than Kuala Lumpur. Yes, Kiwis do get around by car a lot, but Auckland is still a perfectly pleasant, walkable city. On the other hand, I've never been in a more pedestrian-hostile place than KL.
I disagree about Kuala Lumpur. Maybe it depends on the area, but IME the walkability is great. Public transport is superb, lots of zebra crossings and foot paths, drivers are considerate. I see lots of people walking everywhere. Even at night, as the city feels really safe.
It's been six years since I was there, so things may have changed in the meantime, but back then I've explored central KL on foot for a few days, and did not find that particularly enjoyable. Public transport is indeed great, but as for actually walking... taking kilometer-long detours to cross some urban motorway, being stuck for five minutes at a pedestrian traffic light, sidewalks being constantly interrupted by driveways or switching to the other side of the road... all perfectly normal. This depends on the area too, of course -- I found Putrajaya pretty nice, for example, but also not representative.
Re: The most, and least, walkable cities
#25I don't think that an overall statistic works very well for this. I live in London and I probably do split my time very roughly 1/3 ish across the three modes as stated. But that's because I'm doing different things. The tube is used to go into town, meet up with urban living friends, go to museums, visit specialist high end shops. The car is used to go to larger stores like the supermarket, big shopping centres, DIY…
The article specifically refers to statistics about how people commute to work.
Re: The most, and least, walkable cities
#26Walking, scootering or taking transit to work became of considerable less interest to me once I became fully remote. What is interesting to me now is whether my children will able to walk to school and back, since that one is not remote, and I hope it won't be.
Counter-point: walking and taking public transit became considerably _more_ interesting for me once I became fully remote. However, I do live in an area with walkable amenities (coffee shops, grocery stores, etc).
I agree with this. Why would I need to own a car when I'm going to the office once a week?
Re: The most, and least, walkable cities
#27This is not so much about which cities are walkable, but a survey of how people actually do get around there. Big difference. I've browsed the dataset and Auckland rates as less "walkable" than Kuala Lumpur. Yes, Kiwis do get around by car a lot, but Auckland is still a perfectly pleasant, walkable city. On the other hand, I've never been in a more pedestrian-hostile place than KL.
Auckland is a horrible car-ridden shithole.
You can't get from where people live, to where they work without a car and actually maintain a job.
Re: The most, and least, walkable cities
#28Interactive visualization with free access: https://citiesmoving.com/visualizations/
The difference between the US and even its northern neighbor, Canada, seems stark. That being said, how does Manhattan have a greater percentage of car trips than NYC? Are hundreds of thousands of people taking Taxis and Ubers?
[deleted]
Re: The most, and least, walkable cities
#29The city/cities I have lived in would not be considered walkable by many people. The thing is if you want walkable you pick your location in the city to make it walkable for you. I have always been able to find a place that can cover a large % of my trips by foot. I love cars and still own them, I just prefer to run my errands on foot.
there's a massive difference between city planning in European cities vs Canadian for example. I walk my groceries too, like 18 blocks, it's walkable but not what I would define as "a walkable city", which would be someplace with pedestrian priority zones and not needing to walk more than 10 blocks for anything you might need.
Re: The most, and least, walkable cities
#30I don't think that an overall statistic works very well for this. I live in London and I probably do split my time very roughly 1/3 ish across the three modes as stated. But that's because I'm doing different things. The tube is used to go into town, meet up with urban living friends, go to museums, visit specialist high end shops. The car is used to go to larger stores like the supermarket, big shopping centres, DIY…
The article specifically refers to statistics about how people commute to work .
Sure, I have done all three for a work commute as well.
It just depends where you live and where the job is. The city is not homogeneous, nowhere over maybe a few km in radius is.