Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

The most, and least, walkable cities

economist.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

31–35 of 35 posts

Re: The most, and least, walkable cities

#31

Post by joeyagreco »

jerlam wrote: post #12
pesenti wrote: post #8

Interactive 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?

I noticed this as well. I find it hard to believe that car is the most common form of transportation to work in New York. I would assume Public Transit and Walking would dominate.

Re: The most, and least, walkable cities

#32

Post by cpill »

smeagull wrote: post #27
mppm wrote: post #11

This 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.

Completely agree. I live in the CDB because I don't drive and need to get easy access to the ferries. From the CDB it's easy to get around on public transport and I have a 5minute walk as a commute. I don't know why everyone in Auckland wants to live in the burbs?! The downside is that Friday and Saturday nights turn into a seedy cesspit of drunks and homeless people, but I don't go out anymore so don't really see it much. They also physically cut the CBD off from the nearest neighborhood with freeways which choke the CDB. I guess some right wing government decided they wanted to get to their office and back and fuck the pedestrians. There is even a lovely park in which they just put a freeway straight though. As a result its hard to walk out of the CDB and the center is full of carparks which few can afford. (And the rail network is sporadically not working, and busses are incredibly sloooooow). Would not live here if i wasn't forced too.

Re: The most, and least, walkable cities

#33

Post by cpill »

throwaway22032 wrote: post #16

I 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…

yeah, I used to live in Shoreditch (before it was cool) and commute by bicycle to Queenway 90% of the way on the canal. It was brilliant and not many people seemed to do it at the time. I did have some pretty hairy experience cycling around London however (was almost squeezed between 2 double-deckers once, not to mention black cabs!). Its not the most bike friendly, but this was all before the Olympics...

Re: The most, and least, walkable cities

#34

Post by mppm »

cpill wrote: post #32
smeagull wrote: post #27

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Completely agree. I live in the CDB because I don't drive and need to get easy access to the ferries. From the CDB it's easy to get around on public transport and I have a 5minute walk as a commute. I don't know why everyone in Auckland wants to live in the burbs?! The downside is that Friday and Saturday nights turn into a seedy cesspit of drunks and homeless people, but I don't go out anymore so don't really see it…

Interesting. I lived in Auckland for a month pre-Covid and liked it quite well in general -- fairly clean, modern, lots of green, and not overflowing with traffic. Not much public transport, of course, and a moderately bad homeless problem, but otherwise pleasant all around. Not to mention all the stunning nature an hour's drive away. So I'm genuinely surprised by the negative comments. Has the situation deteriorated recently? Or is the perspective of visitors and locals just that different?
Post reply on HN