Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Other than that, I think it is pretty interesting Austin finished in the top 20 in all 3 categories.
Yeah actually that was my mistake, I accidentally posted the "Top 20 in all 3" figures from the 50k lists up there. It's too late to edit it now. The only difference in the 250k list is that Houston is in there and Austin isn't. Also keep in mind that Walk Score kind of arbitrarily leaves some cities out of certain rankings. There wasn't a bike score for Baltimore when I put this together, for example. There still isn't a transit score for Detroit.
Highest AVG ranking at 250k level
1. New York - 1.7
2. San Francisco/Oakland - 2
3. Philadelphia - 3.3
4. Chicago - 5.3
-. Boston - 5.3
6. Washington - 6.7
7. Los Angeles - 8.3
8. Seattle - 9
-. Minneapolis/St. Paul - 9
10. Portland - 9.3
11. Denver - 12
12. Miami - 15
13. San Diego - 16
14. Houston - 17
15. San Jose - 20
(At the risk of introducing subjectivity, I think this ^^^ is quite a stable list of what I would describe as the 15 most "urban" cities in the US, and in a decently fair order too. I would remove Houston and San Jose - no offense - and then I would add Baltimore somewhere in the Seattle/Minneapolis/St. Paul realm and also Pittsburgh in the Portland/Denver realm.)
Highest AVG ranking at 50k level
1. San Francisco/Oakland - 2.3
2. Philadelphia - 2.7
3. New York - 4.7
4. Boston - 5.7
5. Washington - 7
6. Chicago - 9
-. Portland - 9
8. Minneapolis/St. Paul - 9.7
9. Seattle - 10.3
10. Denver - 11
11. Los Angeles - 11.7
12. San Diego - 15.7
13. Austin - 17
14. Miami - 18.3
15. Madison - 19
(I don't like this list, I don't think it really represents anything. New York and LA are much too far down and Chicago and Portland obviously should not be tied.)
Here are the 50k numbers! I don't like this size as much, I think it's too small to give a good picture. I wish I'd done 150k instead but just this took foreevvvvveeerrrrrrrr.
WALK SCORE 50k AVG
1. New York - 100
2. San Francisco/Oakland - 99 Toronto - 98
3. Philadelphia - 98 Sydney - 98
4. Boston - 97
5. Washington - 96
6. Chicago - 96 Vancouver - 96
7. Seattle - 96 Melbourne - 95
8. Portland - 93
9. Los Angeles - 93 Montreal - 93
10. Baltimore - 93 Brisbane - 91
11. San Diego - 91
12. Honolulu - 91
13. Minneapolis/St. Paul - 90 Calgary - 89
14. Denver - 89
15. Pittsburgh - 88
TRANSIT SCORE 50k AVG
1. New York - 100
2. San Francisco/Oakland - 100 Toronto - 100
3. Boston - 99
4. Philadelphia - 99 Montreal - 99 Vancouver - 98
5. Chicago - 96
6. Los Angeles - 96
7. Seattle - 94
8. Washington - 93
9. Miami - 90
10. Baltimore - 81 Ottawa - 81
11. Minneapolis/St. Paul - 81
12. Portland - 78 Calgary - 76
13. Houston - 75
14. Pittsburgh - 75
15. Denver - 73
BIKE SCORE 50k AVG
1. Philadelphia - 99
2. Tucson - 96
3. San Francisco/Oakland - 95
4. Denver - 95
5. Minneapolis/St. Paul - 94
6. Madison - 94
7. Portland - 94
8. Washington - 91
9. Sacramento - 91
10. Boston - 90
11. Albuquerque - 89
12. New York - 88
13. San Jose - 88
14. Austin - 86
15. Lincoln - 86
I just find it funny how low Atlanta ranks for transit when there are only about 8 more cities in this country with heavy rail. Walkscore underestimates heavy rail a lot and overestimates light rail.
I just find it funny how low Atlanta ranks for transit when there are only about 8 more cities in this country with heavy rail. Walkscore underestimates heavy rail a lot and overestimates light rail.
I agree. Another example of their cluelessness is rating Glenwood Park here in the 50's. Your own pics revealed how laughable that is. They have a flawed model.
^^^They do have a flawed model, but generally it seems to get things [fairly] correct. I think Glenwood Park is a wonderful infill development; have nothing bad to say about it, and I am quite familiar with it. But the area is a perfect example of why Atlanta may score low on Walkability. The two nearest grocery stores are the Kroger on Moreland S of 20 and the Kroger at Edgewood Retail District off of Moreland N of 20 (grocery, or at minimum a well-stocked bodega and a CVS/Walgreens/Duane Reade type store are arguably the *most* important things to be near to be truly walkable). Each are 1.7 and 1.8 miles respectively, through residential neighborhoods with not much along the way, and one requires a crossing over a 10-12 lane highway. The Census Tracts containing and surrounding Glenwood Park are actually quite sparsely populated with densities between 3500-5000 ppsm, and a lack of a grid making straight shot connections anywhere a challenge. In other words, Glenwood Park is a yuppie island with some nice restaurants/upscale services and upscale infill housing for families making wellll above the local average mean, but is lacking vital amenities within it to make it truly walkable (will the Fuqua Walmart be closer?...shame it's a Walmart, but it does make the area more walkable/provide groceries)
In terms of transit, yes, there is MARTA rail. But I'd argue that like BART or even the DC Metro outside of DC, it's a blend of commuter rail and inner city rail, with lots of passenger traffic driven by Park N Ride versus walkup. Many light rail systems are city-centric and provide a lot of access to more/more urban and walkable areas, and with stations that are primarily walk-up as opposed to massive park-n-ride operations complete with garages. MARTA bus outperforms for a southern system, but underperforms heavily compared to western and northern systems. The only two cities I would definitely question on the Top 15 list that are clearly ahead of Atlanta are Houston and Miami (and maybe Pittsburgh), but I'd give the nod to cities like Denver, Portland, Minneapolis, Baltimore, etc.
Yeah actually that was my mistake, I accidentally posted the "Top 20 in all 3" figures from the 50k lists up there. It's too late to edit it now. The only difference in the 250k list is that Houston is in there and Austin isn't. Also keep in mind that Walk Score kind of arbitrarily leaves some cities out of certain rankings. There wasn't a bike score for Baltimore when I put this together, for example. There still isn't a transit score for Detroit.
Highest AVG ranking at 250k level
1. New York - 1.7
2. San Francisco/Oakland - 2
3. Philadelphia - 3.3
4. Chicago - 5.3
-. Boston - 5.3
6. Washington - 6.7
7. Los Angeles - 8.3
8. Seattle - 9
-. Minneapolis/St. Paul - 9
10. Portland - 9.3
11. Denver - 12
12. Miami - 15
13. San Diego - 16
14. Houston - 17
15. San Jose - 20
(At the risk of introducing subjectivity, I think this ^^^ is quite a stable list of what I would describe as the 15 most "urban" cities in the US, and in a decently fair order too. I would remove Houston and San Jose - no offense - and then I would add Baltimore somewhere in the Seattle/Minneapolis/St. Paul realm and also Pittsburgh in the Portland/Denver realm.)
Highest AVG ranking at 50k level
1. San Francisco/Oakland - 2.3
2. Philadelphia - 2.7
3. New York - 4.7
4. Boston - 5.7
5. Washington - 7
6. Chicago - 9
-. Portland - 9
8. Minneapolis/St. Paul - 9.7
9. Seattle - 10.3
10. Denver - 11
11. Los Angeles - 11.7
12. San Diego - 15.7
13. Austin - 17
14. Miami - 18.3
15. Madison - 19
(I don't like this list, I don't think it really represents anything. New York and LA are much too far down and Chicago and Portland obviously should not be tied.)
Interesting, I think your point on the first table makes sense - though Boston should be numerically closer to Philly and SF based on my experience, likely Chicago too its hard to quantify or order but this about as good an attempt as I have seen. Probably tiers make most sense in some ways
^^^They do have a flawed model, but generally it seems to get things [fairly] correct. I think Glenwood Park is a wonderful infill development; have nothing bad to say about it, and I am quite familiar with it. But the area is a perfect example of why Atlanta may score low on Walkability. The two nearest grocery stores are the Kroger on Moreland S of 20 and the Kroger at Edgewood Retail District off of Moreland N of 20 (grocery, or at minimum a well-stocked bodega and a CVS/Walgreens/Duane Reade type store are arguably the *most* important things to be near to be truly walkable). Each are 1.7 and 1.8 miles respectively, through residential neighborhoods with not much along the way, and one requires a crossing over a 10-12 lane highway. The Census Tracts containing and surrounding Glenwood Park are actually quite sparsely populated with densities between 3500-5000 ppsm, and a lack of a grid making straight shot connections anywhere a challenge. In other words, Glenwood Park is a yuppie island with some nice restaurants/upscale services and upscale infill housing for families making wellll above the local average mean, but is lacking vital amenities within it to make it truly walkable (will the Fuqua Walmart be closer?...shame it's a Walmart, but it does make the area more walkable/provide groceries)
In terms of transit, yes, there is MARTA rail. But I'd argue that like BART or even the DC Metro outside of DC, it's a blend of commuter rail and inner city rail, with lots of passenger traffic driven by Park N Ride versus walkup. Many light rail systems are city-centric and provide a lot of access to more/more urban and walkable areas, and with stations that are primarily walk-up as opposed to massive park-n-ride operations complete with garages. MARTA bus outperforms for a southern system, but underperforms heavily compared to western and northern systems. The only two cities I would definitely question on the Top 15 list that are clearly ahead of Atlanta are Houston and Miami (and maybe Pittsburgh), but I'd give the nod to cities like Denver, Portland, Minneapolis, Baltimore, etc.
It's a Kroger, not Walmart. And it's going to be immediately adjacent to Glenwood Park. The Walkscore for the neighborhood will shoot up when it's finished.
^^^There you go then. That's the most important missing ingredient in my opinion. Whatever happened to Fuqua's Walmart proposal for the area? I hate Walmart, but would have also effectively put groceries and goods right there, as well.
^^^There you go then. That's the most important missing ingredient in my opinion. Whatever happened to Fuqua's Walmart proposal for the area? I hate Walmart, but would have also effectively put groceries and goods right there, as well.
After meeting massive opposition to the original site plan (which had a Walmart), Fuqua downscaled it slightly, added residential, and replaced Walmart with Kroger as the anchor tenant. The problem the neighborhood had wasn't with Walmart, however, but rather that the development was very automobile oriented and not scaled to pedestrians and cyclists. This problem was made worse by the fact that the property is adjacent to the Beltline and should cater to pedestrians, cyclists, and those using transit. Thanks to neighborhood pushback, the development is a little better, but still woefully inappropriate for the site.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
