What's your walk score?

[tygab]

gah. apparently, mine is a 0 as in zero.

But the walk score apparently does not take into account the fact that I could bike to lots of places with fresh local food (in the interest of disclosure, I have not actually shopped this way yet), and can easily run to town hall and the library (which I have done). And that there is a multi use trail network in the woods behind my house. Scoring seems highly geared toward urban areas with businesses.

[colby]

Darn, the maps are old... my street's not on it. We've been on real google maps for something like a year now.

I picked a nearby street that is on the map, and it scored a 23. Doesn't really take into account that within a mile is the farmer's market in summers, there are decent sidewalks and walking paths (and bike lanes), the few bus stops we do have are within reasonable walking distance (half a mile at most) and it's really pretty flat here. That said, there are some things you can't get within our few mile radius, either, and said public transportation isn't very extensive at all. But hey, we have a home depot now... that's pretty handy for walkers, right?

Someone just needs to come up with a Cycling Score site now...

[kelownagirl]

gah. apparently, mine is a 0 as in zero.

But the walk score apparently does not take into account the fact that I could bike to lots of places with fresh local food (in the interest of disclosure, I have not actually shopped this way yet), and can easily run to town hall and the library (which I have done). And that there is a multi use trail network in the woods behind my house. Scoring seems highly geared toward urban areas with businesses.

Thanks, I feel better now.

[tygab]

glad to oblige

in seriousness, if a neighborhood is full of all sorts of stores and businesses, that may be great, but I'm not sure it's any more "green" and local. And it looks like the walk distance is like 1.5 miles or something.

Where I live I can get meat, veggies, fruit and eggs anywhere ranging from my backyard to a big farmstand a few miles away. This food has traveled extremely minimally, and has little packaging, yet this is not a factor in this method.

Don't get me wrong, walking and running are good. So is biking. So is horse riding... and I see a lot of all three

[dex]

72/100 here. But a lot of what it's showing as walkable is perfectly fine for getting *to* those places, but straight uphill (or >20 flights of stairs set into the hillside) to get home. Maybe I should move to the bottom of my hill...heh.

[Eden]

72/100 here. But a lot of what it's showing as walkable is perfectly fine for getting *to* those places, but straight uphill (or >20 flights of stairs set into the hillside) to get home. Maybe I should move to the bottom of my hill...heh.

wow - a few blocks makes a big difference - I'm pretty sure you live just a little north of me.

[smilingcat]

I must be in heaven!!

Hermosa Beach came up with 95 ya hear 95 And this in carcentric world of Los Angels 'burb.

So cool. yes I do walk to the grocery store (Ralph's on a pinch) I walk to Starbucks if I'm too lazy to go to Java man.

must be two dozen restaurants within walking distance and another 4 or 5 dozen bars. Yes we have a dubious distinction of having the highest concentration of bars in California.

Drug stores, jewelry store, bike shops (BMX only though), and riff raffy places like Ms. so and so fortune teller... A porn shop...

a green belt to walk jog... Several large parks.

well there are downsides here.

smilingcat

[ClockworkOrange]

Really not sure how they work their statistics out?

From where I live in Poole, Dorset, whichever direction I go, I can ride, mainly off road too.
44.

Bang in the shopping centre of Poole, Dorset it only gave it 31!

Chelsea in London, which is pure hell for cycling because of the volume of traffic and not much better for walkers with all the pollution it was given 75.

OMG...........OK, the parks are nice to walk in but Hyde Park in central London was given 91.

Sandbanks, Poole, Dorset is said to be the fourth most expensive place to live in the world and it was given 40!

I think the guys who do all the statistics have never considered cycling anywhere!

It was a bit of fun to do AND I did not think it would include the UK, thanks Trek.

Clock

[smurfalicious]

Yeah I think this thing is on crack. I live across the main drag from university housing and everyone walks or bikes. That and it doesn't list half the places that are close. I have a bar within staggering distance! The Denny's is missing, McDonald's is missing... sheesh.

[Duck on Wheels]

Hey there, Trek Didja try our mutual Mom's address? They gave it an 80. She was looking for a place where she wouldn't have to drive everywhere. Looks like she chose well. My place scored a 23, but they didn't locate the neighborhood schools, libraries, the pub and restaurant at the end of our street, the dozen or so shopping centers (not to mention the entire downtown area) within a mile or three in various directions, the parks, my gym, the LBS ... They just don't have enough info about the place. And then too, you have to know what a person's trying to achieve by walking. Are you looking for convenience, or trying to stay in shape? Sonoma is flat, flat, flat (well, there are hills all around the town, but not in the town itself). Here I can get my Saturday workout just walking downtown and back to do my shopping, carrying the groceries back up a couple miles of 10-20% hills. And then I can stop at the pub around the corner (it's even called Kvilhaugen, which means "Rest Stop Hill") to enjoy the view and a beer. But yeah, if by 80 they mean that an 80-year-old LOL can manage without a car, then they definitely got Mom's address right.

[Mr. Bloom]

Hmmm...

Home #1, with no sidewalks outside the neighborhood, no bike routes, and no bus service, got a 38.

Home #2, with bike routes and sidewalks throughout the entire town and bus service everywhere - in a BikeLeague Bronze rated community...got an 18.

[7rider]

Really not sure how they work their statistics out?

Maybe they determine based on what you can walk TO - i.e. destinations.
My house got a 17!
Our neighborhood has TONS of walkers - including dog walkers - and joggers. No sidewalks, but fairly quiet, although rolling, streets. But there isn't much in terms of destinations. The grocery store is over a mile away (bikeable, but not sure I'd want to walk there - especially on a code red air quality day like today.).

[SouthernBelle]

Mine got an 11. It also assumed places were open to the public, which aren't. Like assuming a coffee distributor was a coffee shop.

[VeloVT]

I got a 62. I actually think Burlington, VT is a lot more walkable than that... The following are all less than two miles from my house:
--a nice, large natural foods co-op
--a pedestrian (closed to traffic) street with shopping, restaurants and bars
--a university
--two bike shops
--two bike paths
--several parks, a "beach" (on Lake Champlain), a sailing center
--a movie theatre, a performing arts venue, a post office and a public library
--Starbucks...

[uk elephant]

Checked out the village where I live here in Essex and it only came out at 55. But we don't actually own a car. We walk, cycle or use public transport to get everywhere. Granted it's a small village with only a couple of shops (although the lists they gave were out of date and incomplete), but the bigger city of Colchester is only 5 minutes away on the train, 15 minutes on the bus with a dense city centre largely pedestrianised. And London is only an hour away.