Walk Score

On his blog, Richard Layman points us to the Walk Score website. It calculates the "walk score" of a neighborhood showing how walkable a neighborhood is. It does this by locating nearby  stores, restaurants, schools, parks, etc. and using that to determine a score. It has flaws which they point out

We'll be the first to admit that Walk Score is just an approximation of walkability. There are a number of factors that contribute to walkability that are not part of our algorithm:

      

• Street width and block length: Narrow streets slow down traffic. Short  blocks make it easier to navigate the grid.
• Safety: How much crime is in the neighborhood? How many traffic accidents are there? Are crosswalks well marked and streets well lit?
• Pedestrian-friendly design: Are there walking paths? Are buildings close to the sidewalk with parking in back? Are sidewalks shaded by trees?
• Topography: Hills can make walking difficult, especially if you're carrying groceries.
• Public transit: Good public transit is important for walkable neighborhoods.
• Freeways and bodies of water: Freeways can divide neighborhoods. Swimming is harder than walking.
• Weather: In some places it's just too hot or cold to walk regularly.

The score is on a 1-100 scale. Capital Hill gets a 75, Shirlington a 74 and Greenbelt a 55. The neighborhood I grew up in gets a 35 - but all the "nearby" facilities are across a stream for which there is no bridge.

If a similar "bike score" existed it would probably be similar to the walk score, so it's a nice tool for getting a first look at how bikeable a neighborhood is.

Comments

[Grendel]

My 'hood rates a 52 but I'll take Greenbelt any day for walking or cycling.

[Grendel]

Hmm, just ranked my mothers house--0 and she has a county park across the road from her that is heavily used by walkers and equestrians. Of course that is the only thing in walking distance...

[Purple Eagle]

The score is only as good as the database used to calculate it. This site was discussed on a Greenbelt listserve several weeks ago, and it was noted that many ammenities that would positively affect the score were not shown on the map and therefore not included in the calculation - so the score should be higher than 55, at least for Old Greenbelt. Might be similar issues with other neigborhoods.

[guez]

I agree with the previous posters. Old Greenbelt not only has great walkable amenities (coffeeshop, restaurants, supermarket, pool/fitness center, community center, park, playgrounds). It also has a system of walking paths (with underpasses) and bike lanes.

It may not have a Chipotle or a Starbucks, but it is well-planned.

[guez]

I agree with the previous posters. Old Greenbelt not only has great walkable amenities (coffeeshop, restaurants, supermarket, pool/fitness center, community center, park, playgrounds). It also has a system of walking paths (with underpasses) and bike lanes.

It may not have a Chipotle or a Starbucks, but it is well-planned.

[Jeff]

FYI, the bikes in the top right picture are the same as DC's new Smart Bikes, which should be up and running soon.

[Murph]

I grew up in Greenbelt and from the time I was about 10 or so until I got a car, would walk or ride my bike everywhere, to friends houses, to school, the library, the pool, sports practice, Joe's carryout, etc. If you wanted to, you could take off-road paths almost everywhere you needed to go.

I also walked and rode a lot when I lived in Columbia, MD, with its network of bike paths. My old house there scored a 52 in the index.

[gwadzilla]

very gwadzilla-esque photo

[Mary]

I believe that walk score is cool, but nowadays more and more people prefer to drive cars. Homes are often located in an area where some establishments are easier to get to by car than on foot. I've recently found a type of service on Fizber which is called Drive Score. It shows a map of what establishments are in your neighborhood and calculates a Drive Score based on the number of places within a convenient driving distance.