News   GLOBAL  |  Apr 02, 2020
A Message to Our Readers
 9.4K     0 
News   GLOBAL  |  Apr 01, 2020
EarthCam Time-Lapse Documents Rafael Viñoly-Designed New Stanford Hospital Construction
 40K     0 
News   GLOBAL  |  Apr 01, 2020
Resort Town
 5.3K     0 

Ex-Montreal Girl said:
On walkscore.com, they're below the list of nearby amenities (transit score on the left) and the Google street view (bike on the right.)
Click to expand...

Okay, so I have a transit score of 0.

Still don't see bike score anywhere. Maybe there is not enough info or soemthing.
 
Yea 37...with a transit score of 56.

It says there is a restaurant literally a block behind me. That isn't right :) So I think realistically based on where the nearest restaurant is I'd probably do a little worse. Perhaps 35. It also says there is a Pizza Nova at Copperfield and Manse Road. If thats the case (it isn't) then thats an unfortunate location given its proximity to a sewage treatment plant! (right across the road)
 
Using the standard, I am 57/100 and using their new Street Smart algorithms I am 62/100. These seem fair, as after a 10 minute walk through the subdivision I am at a plaza with groceries, restaurants, transit, etc.

I used live 10 minutes further into this subdivision, so it was a 20 minute walk total to get to these amenities. This comes to 43/100 standard, 28/100 Street Smart. I'm not going to argue this, as from experience once you have to walk more than 10 minutes to get somewhere, the commute goes from brisk to tedious very quickly. I'm not alone with this thinking, as most urban planning seems to focus on a 5-10 minute max radius to define a walkable area.

I'm going to be moving again soon (long story), and a high walk and transit score will be a key factor to my residence.
 
The Street Smart is not very meaningful since it doesn't take into account pedestrian-only routes. Like the sidewalk in front of my house connects directly to Britannia, but my street doesn't connect to Britannia. So my walk score is penalized because they only count the street.
 
dt_toronto_geek said:
My address gets "90", a walkers' paradise. Why doesn't my waistline reflect that anymore? :(
Click to expand...

Somehow my address has gone higher for walk-ability from 90 in July 2008 to 97 today. Transit scores a 94 and Bike Score is 89 which will presumably get better once the existing bike lanes on Wellesley Street are separated this year.
 
The problem with this system when you get out into the burbs is that it is so dependant on user input.

On Monday (spurred by this thread...so thanks) I went on and logged in and put my postal code. I was a bit surprised by the low transit score so I looked at it and it had me walking .53 km to what it thought was the nearest bus stop. I was able to put in the bus stop that I use on a regular basis. Now when I log in, my transit score is 2 points higher because it is now aware that of the stop that is .37 km from my house. No where, however, does it look at things like frequency of buses at those stops and inter-connectivity with other routes/modes/etc.

The inaccuracy is further shown when I punch in the address that I commute to. Somehow it tells me that I can drive to work in 32 minutes (an impossibility...a good work day it is one hour and 10 minutes...typical is 1 hour and 20 minutes and it can balloon up.......at 6 a.m. on a Sunday it is about 40 minutes)......it also tells me that public transit is 1 hour and 5 minutes...this is actually a pretty good approximation (on days where I leave the car in the garage it has ranged from 55 to 1:20)....but if you looked at those numbers by comparison you would never consider that option!

Walkscores are a good idea...I just think that they are guidelines (nothing more) and their veracity/accuracy lessens the further out from the core of major cities you go.
 
doady said:
The Street Smart is not very meaningful since it doesn't take into account pedestrian-only routes. Like the sidewalk in front of my house connects directly to Britannia, but my street doesn't connect to Britannia. So my walk score is penalized because they only count the street.
Click to expand...

Perhaps, but when I logged in my old address, on the map it showed the route connecting to various services using a local pathway connection. If it weren't for that, then 27 would be far too generous...

dt_toronto_geek said:
My address gets "90", a walkers' paradise. Why doesn't my waistline reflect that anymore? :(
Click to expand...

I guess it may be the cruel irony around walkability and health. Sure if things are only 3 minutes away versus 8 it may be a more walkable neighbourhood, but it also means you are walking much less. If middle/upper suburbanites decided to brave the cruel world of sprawl with their feet rather than their cars, they could quickly become the fittest demographic in the country!

That said, it would be interesting to compare the health of a working class suburbanite to that of someone who resides downtown. I'd be willing to bet that despite stereotypes, the suburbanite would in fact be far healthier since they would have to travel much further by foot and transit to arrive at their destinations. However, their emotional health may be poorer since such long walks through such bland surroundings can be painfully depressing.

TOareaFan said:
The problem with this system when you get out into the burbs is that it is so dependant on user input.

On Monday (spurred by this thread...so thanks) I went on and logged in and put my postal code. I was a bit surprised by the low transit score so I looked at it and it had me walking .53 km to what it thought was the nearest bus stop. I was able to put in the bus stop that I use on a regular basis. Now when I log in, my transit score is 2 points higher because it is now aware that of the stop that is .37 km from my house. No where, however, does it look at things like frequency of buses at those stops and inter-connectivity with other routes/modes/etc.

The inaccuracy is further shown when I punch in the address that I commute to. Somehow it tells me that I can drive to work in 32 minutes (an impossibility...a good work day it is one hour and 10 minutes...typical is 1 hour and 20 minutes and it can balloon up.......at 6 a.m. on a Sunday it is about 40 minutes)......it also tells me that public transit is 1 hour and 5 minutes...this is actually a pretty good approximation (on days where I leave the car in the garage it has ranged from 55 to 1:20)....but if you looked at those numbers by comparison you would never consider that option!

Walkscores are a good idea...I just think that they are guidelines (nothing more) and their veracity/accuracy lessens the further out from the core of major cities you go.
Click to expand...

Absolutely true! While they generally have good algorithms, it is simply a generalization of real life. If something scores 72 versus 76, it is unlikely that one is going to be visibly more "walkable" than the other one. Likewise you could be steps away from dozens of cafes, but if you drink beer instead of coffee and the closest bar is a 30 minute walk away, then a high walk score can mean nothing.

Most of us know where we are going and what establishments appeal to us, so it makes sense to try and locate close to them. I work at Yonge and Elgin Mills and go to York University, so getting a place downtown would mean nothing to me despite having a higher walkscore than anything in Richmond Hill.
 
I'm at QQ and midway between Reese and Spadina...

Walkscore: 82
Transit: 100 (prolly more like 70 right now ! )
Bike: 58
 
Old address:

Walk score - 42
Transit score - 62
Bike score - 53

Current address:

Walk score - 88
Transit score - 82
Bike score - 79

lol
 
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top