SF #2 walkable city in nation, Oakland #10

[Radical347]

Yes, SF is walkable. Heck, many times it's even faster to walk than take the bus.

I'm surprised that so many people are surprised about Seattle being #6. It's a major, relatively dense, walkable city and there's no reason why it shouldn't be on the list. What would you rather see instead of Seattle...Memphis? Omaha? Phoenix? Los Angeles? :\

Keep in mind this is the US we're talking about, it's a stretch to even get 10 on the list.

[goldenchild08]

Originally Posted by OakAve2OakLand

Point taken, but aren't "walkable" and "transitable" (new word? ) 2 different things? I would imagine that a "Best Cities to Live In Without a Car" list would produce different (albeit similar) rankings.

True. Here is a list of "the best cities to live without a car" from 2008. SF, NYC, Philly and DC are still on this list as well:

Best Cities in the US for Living Without a Car | Useful Automotive Articles About the Auto Industry from Used Car Buyer Big Bucks Auto | Big Bucks Auto

[OakAve2OakLand]

Originally Posted by goldenchild08

True. Here is a list of "the best cities to live without a car" from 2008. SF, NYC, Philly and DC are still on this list as well:

Best Cities in the US for Living Without a Car | Useful Automotive Articles About the Auto Industry from Used Car Buyer Big Bucks Auto | Big Bucks Auto

Since we've taken it this far, here is a side by side comparison. The Top 5 are almost identical.

Best for:

Walkability ..........................Car-free Living

1. New York (85.3).................1. New York
2. San Francisco (84.9)...........2. Boston
3. Boston (79.2).....................3. San Francisco
4. Chicago (74.3)...................4. Chicago
5. Philadelphia (74.1)...............5. Philadelphia
6. Seattle (73.7).....................6. Portland
7. Washington, D.C.(73.2)........7. Seattle
8. Miami (72.5).......................8 Washington DC
9. Minneapolis (69.3)...............9. Dallas*
10. Oakland (68.2).................10. Denver


* I'm shocked that they would list Dallas in the Top 10 in not needing a car. Have they ever been to Dallas? That town is WAY spread out.

[mayorhaggar]

Kind of interesting that Portland is nowhere on the walkable list but it's #6 on the w/o car list.

[Isebiel]

Ah, they're using the numbers from walkscore.com where they don't take any account of how difficult the walk is, just if certain categories of amenities are within walkable distance. They don't even check if the walk is possible. I've seen places in Sunnyvale get a decent walk score, but everything "walkable" was on the other side of an impassable interstate.

Still, I like walkscore a lot. It's a useful site and concept. Not at all surprised at the results, but I've been using the site for years, and they have the top cities listed right there.

[fizbin]

Originally Posted by OakAve2OakLand

I would guess it's the Oakland Hills that are bringing down its rank, otherwise it seems it would rank much higher.

A month ago we moved from Montclair near Skyline to the Lake Merritt area and I've barely used my truck since. Walk to work in downtown Oakland, shop around the neighborhood, walk everywhere. Never walked in Montclair (outside of hiking in Redwood Park) - not because of the hills, but because most streets are too narrow with no sidewalks.

[OakAve2OakLand]

Originally Posted by mayorhaggar

Kind of interesting that Portland is nowhere on the walkable list but it's #6 on the w/o car list.

One can only assume that speaks highly of their transit system. Which is right in line with what I've heard.

[Isebiel]

Originally Posted by goldenchild08

True. Here is a list of "the best cities to live without a car" from 2008. SF, NYC, Philly and DC are still on this list as well:

Best Cities in the US for Living Without a Car | Useful Automotive Articles About the Auto Industry from Used Car Buyer Big Bucks Auto | Big Bucks Auto

I just read through this list, and the details seems to be, ah, somewhat more imaginative than factual. He may be right about the overall standings, but I wouldn't put too much stock in it.

[andyadhi01]

Originally Posted by OakAve2OakLand

Since we've taken it this far, here is a side by side comparison. The Top 5 are almost identical.

Best for:

Walkability ..........................Car-free Living

1. New York (85.3).................1. New York
2. San Francisco (84.9)...........2. Boston
3. Boston (79.2).....................3. San Francisco
4. Chicago (74.3)...................4. Chicago
5. Philadelphia (74.1)...............5. Philadelphia
6. Seattle (73.7).....................6. Portland
7. Washington, D.C.(73.2)........7. Seattle
8. Miami (72.5).......................8 Washington DC
9. Minneapolis (69.3)...............9. Dallas*
10. Oakland (68.2).................10. Denver


* I'm shocked that they would list Dallas in the Top 10 in not needing a car. Have they ever been to Dallas? That town is WAY spread out.

Yes Dallas shouldn't be on the list. Life in Dallas is very difficult without a car. Dallas has invested heavily in public transit, probably more so than any other city in US in the last 10 years. Dallas has a very good and extensive light rail network, but you still need a car because its so spread out and huge. Commute to downtown Dallas from major suburbs are very public transit friendly these days.

[EdJS]

Originally Posted by OakAve2OakLand

One can only assume that speaks highly of their transit system. Which is right in line with what I've heard.

It's true, Portland has an excellent transit system, based mainly on an extensive system of light rail lines that pretty much covers the entire city.

Not only that but riding the light rail is free within the central part of the city.