what does "walkability" mean to you? (in NOVA-DC region) (Alexandria: apartment complex, homes)

[brooklynborndad]

we often get questions here asking for walkable neighborhoods.

I answer based mostly on my own criteria.

A walkable neighborhood, to me is one where there are lots of places I might want to that I can walk to comfortably. That depends on the distance to those places, if the route I would take is generally a good physical facility for walking (usually this means a sidewalk, though if necessary I will walk on a very quiet road) Ideally the sidewalk is in good condition, and has few driveways through it. Its better if the parallel road is narrow and slow, but if its not, vegetation or similar between the sidewalk and road helps. Well protected not to wide crossings are better, when street crossings are necessary. The interest and attractiveness of the development along the sidewalk is also an issue. Both attractive housing and attractive shops can be pleasant (though the shops usually mean more walkable destinations). Either are better if they face the street, and do not have large parking lots between them and the sidewalk.

My criteria for a walk are somewhat different after dark - I will walk on a trail during the day, but not at night. On a trail I want there to other users, even during the day. Walking on a sidewalk at night, I do not want it to be deserted. Generally I like there to be more people rather than less, at least up the point where the sidewalk becomes crowded.

There are many areas in NoVa I find very walkable. For now I will only name one, King Street area in Old Town Alexandria. When you are there (if you live there, or bike there, or take the metro, or drive there and park for a day of walking) you can access many destinations nearby. King street itself is narrow and somewhat slow, and easy to cross (as are most of the cross streets). The sidewalk COULD be wider, but I do not usually find it to crowded. The adjacent buildings are interesting, without being so big as to block out sun, etc. I feel safe there vis a vis auto traffic, and thanks to the critical mass of walkers, I feel safe in terms of crime, day or night (well Ive never walked there at 3 AM, so I cant vouch for that time).

Do you use other definitions when answering peoples questions on walkability? Do you think my usage is misleading to the people who ask about this?

[rsh56]

You've pretty much summed it up for me. I can't live in an area that doesn't have just a sidewalk. The thing is nowadays, people are too damn lazy to walk to do simple errands.

[marie5v]

I think there is actually some official definition and way to "score" walkability. Not sure whether it's only distance or there is more. For me, it's a literal definition - how suitable for walking. Sidewalks count, as do sufficient crosswalks and/or do not-too-wide or busy streets, and also that there is a variety of stuff you can walk to in just a few blocks. I can walk two miles and go to a Safeway and small strip mall, but I would not call that walkable since it takes hours round trip and isn't terribly easy. Plus it's not like you can spend the day there like you can in Old Town. I once lived in another place that was about a quarter mile from a similar strip mall, but you had to cut through a narrow path in the woods behind the apartment complex and then cross a wide four lane highway to get there. Again, not my idea of walkable. Plus that strip mall had only a Golds Gym, grocery and Wild Bird Store. Just not enough. So when people on this forum say walkable, I think Reston Town Center, Old Town, and similar, but not places where it's possible for distance runners to make it all the way to a Safeway.

[brooklynborndad]

Originally Posted by marie5v

I think there is actually some official definition and way to "score" walkability..

walkscore.com is a private web site, and is no more official than any other, though its widely cited, and often used in the RE business. AFAIK it only rates based on distance to destinations, and it has a number of issues with that - it doesnt evaluate the quality of the walk at all, as long as there is a mapped sidewalk (and in some cases its had issues with correctly identifying even that, though I guess it may have improved) and there is no clear weighting for different destinations, and sometimes the destinations are pretty odd.

That said, a lot of things correlate (usually places with lots of things close by also have good walking routes), so a place with a walk score of 90 is going to be more walkable by my (and i think most peoples) definitions than say a 30. But a 90 vs an 80? Not necessarily.

here, BTW, is some thing from the walk score web site

What makes a neighborhood walkable?

• A center: Walkable neighborhoods have a center, whether it's a main street or a public space.
• People: Enough people for businesses to flourish and for public transit to run frequently.
• Mixed income, mixed use: Affordable housing located near businesses.
• Parks and public space: Plenty of public places to gather and play.
• Pedestrian design: Buildings are close to the street, parking lots are relegated to the back.
• Schools and workplaces: Close enough that most residents can walk from their homes.
• Complete streets: Streets designed for bicyclists, pedestrians, and transit.

[Caladium]

According to the other thread on this issue, apparently some people feel you need to have a critical mass of fellow walkers for an area to be called "walkable". I'm glad you left that off your list, however, since whether you see 2-3 fellow walkers or 50 fellow walkers or no fellow walkers, a route is just as walkable. IMO.

I couldn't care less if I walk past a parking lot or I walk past a shop window or I walk past a grove of trees for that matter, as long as I have a good sidewalk or walking trail. I suppose if I got a choice I'd prefer walking past the grove of trees, but I walk past a shopping plaza with parking out front pretty much every day and consider my walk to work very walkable. In fact sometimes I stop at one of the stores and pick up something to take home.

[brooklynborndad]

Originally Posted by Caladium

According to the other thread on this issue, apparently some people feel you need to have a critical mass of fellow walkers for an area to be called "walkable". I'm glad you left that off your list, however, since whether you see 2-3 fellow walkers or 50 fellow walkers or no fellow walkers, a route is just as walkable. .

perhaps you missed this


"The adjacent buildings are interesting, without being so big as to block out sun, etc. I feel safe there vis a vis auto traffic, and thanks to the critical mass of walkers, I feel safe in terms of crime, day or night (well Ive never walked there at 3 AM, so I cant vouch for that time). "

I dont use critical mass as a defining point in my responses here, as the merit of it is more disputed. For me its definitely an issue though - esp as I like to walk at night, and I do not like to walk in a deserted area at night. Even during the day I find at least a few walkers more desirable than none - and a very large number can add a wonderful energy (and yes, I love Manhattan for that - and even some parts of DC - but WIDE sidewalks and bulbouts at corners help immensely for that)

note also, where there are more walkers, our local govts tend to be faster to improve sidewalks, crossings, etc, in an upward cycle. So thats a non-subjective impact of critical mass. Also stores and other destinations are more likely to emphasize easy pedestrian access where there are more pedestrians. Also I think (though of course I can't prove it) that drivers look more carefully for pedestrians at crossings with lots of them. Though on the negative side, some pedestrians may get more careless at such crossings. ALSO in a place with more pedestrians, shopping centers, etc can have smaller parking lots, so there can be more destinations within a given distance.

Again, think of Old town. If only person walked every day there, the businesses would need parking lots, and would have to set further apart, and there would be far fewer places to walk to.

Now if you happen to be in a low density place on the edge of a busy one - take the rosemont area near Old Town say, you can have your cake and eat it so to speak - Rosemont itself gets few walkers (well probably more than lots of other areas in NoVa, but not enough to support lots of destinations) but you can walk to Old Town, which DOES have critical mass.

You can also I suppose be walking distance to a busy place thats mostly supported by drivers - a mall. Often malls are not easy or pleasant to access for pedestrians (despite being walkable within) though there are of course exceptions (Pentagon City a notable one, IMO) Lifestyle centers seem to usually be more designed for pedestrian access, though usually getting most of their patronage from drivers. RTC is something of a hybrid - it gets lots of its patronage from drivers, but has a considerable number of dense units a very close and easy walk away.

[brooklynborndad]

Originally Posted by Caladium

I suppose if I got a choice I'd prefer walking past the grove of trees, but I walk past a shopping plaza with parking out front pretty much every day and consider my walk to work very walkable. In fact sometimes I stop at one of the stores and pick up something to take home.

I wouldnt say one shopping center makes a route unwalkable (and note I dont use the word unwalkable, I am more concerned with what is more walkable and what is less) It will depend on the number of them, and the design - if they have a lot facing the street (when the lot doesnt face the street we seem to not call it a shopping center anymore, but a "lifestyle center" - Shirlington though was born before the terminology changed) it depends on the size of the lot. Also many shopping centers in this area have at least a bank or restaurant close to the sidewalk, creating some seperation from the parking lot, which helps, IMO.

[michgc]

If I'm looking for a place to live with walkability it means that one could walk to destinations, not that one could go out and take a walk in the neighborhood. I grew up in a neighborhood with sidewalks, but it was at least a mile before I could reach a store, so some might call it "walkable" but to me that's not what I mean when I ask for a place that has walkability.

To me walkable means I can walk to some or most of the following things: a park, a school, a restaurant, a store, a library, etc. And they should all be within 1 mile. While technically the whole country (minus Hawaii and some smaller islands) is walkable or bikeable (I know someone who rode his bike across the country), if it's not within 1 mile of ones home, it's not walkable for the general public.

[cb at sea]

I live in an area with no "walkabilty" at all.....no sidewalks, no paths....it's a total "car world"....if you don't have a vehicle, it's difficult to get anywhere. We do have a sort of "bus service", but there are no shelters, no benches, and no sidewalks to get you to the bus stop! And, even tho things aren't THAT far apart, the traffic is horrendous, so a 5 mile trip can take 30 mins. or more, depending on time of day, and whether it's a Friday or not!
No...the Fredericksburg area is not "walkable".

[Jenjen391]

My experince of a walkable neighborhood in NoVa is Fairlington. A lot of the neighborhood is within distance of Shirlington Village. I could walk to the Harris Teeter, plenty of restaurants and other services.
The bus service was terrific, and we were able to get by with just one car for several years.

Alas, to get more space for our money, walkability was one of the things that we sacrificed, along with having to move farther out.

Interestingly, I don't spend as much money now because sometimes it's just a hassle to have to get in the car and drive to the store rather than stroll down the road.