Walkable, Bikeable and Busable Cities of Canada

[Truenorth00]

Originally Posted by Hali87

Calgary seems to have pretty good cycling infrastructure and I'm surprised it doesn't score higher here.

Actually good or good by our shitty Canadian standards?

Far too many cities in Canada will put painted bicycle gutters and think that counts as bike infrastructure. Cause you know, riding a bike with no real protection against the cars going 60-80 kph, just a metre away, is totally going to give the average person the confidence to bike.

In their methodology, the somehow account for bike commuters. I'm going to guess using Google mobility data. So that gives them a gauge of how much bike commuting there actually is. Calgary might score lower here.

[Truenorth00]

Originally Posted by Doady

So if cities want to start getting people of their cars and start becoming more walkable, they need to focus on buses. Buses are the first step, then cycling, then finally walking.

That's sort of like putting a Band Aid on a sucking chest wound.

Yeah. The buses can make up for extreme car dependency by providing something of an alternative. Better than nothing. But at the end of the day you're still in a crappy sprawling city that will take you forever to get around with a lot of your time and money going towards sitting in a vehicle. If you have or spend less that'll be a bus. If you have and are willing to spend more that will be a car.

I think quality of life in a lot of cities can be judged by the answer to the question, "Is a car a nice to have in your city or a prosthetic that is necessary for your mobility?"

[someone123]

Originally Posted by Hali87

Water is mostly an interesting factor in Halifax because there are so few crossings as well as a bunch of small lakes within the urban core. They do make trips longer and a well-placed bridge would "open up" a lot more of that area in the lower left corner.

A bridge for that area could be a big win for people on both sides. I could see an active transportation bridge happening one day. It would sidestep the traffic concerns and would tie together a bunch of recreational areas.

[Architype]

Originally Posted by Truenorth00

They haven't. And I think it would be damn near impossible to create any kind of weighting system for aesthetics. Especially one that could pull sufficient data for algorithmic processing. How would you weigh one park against another or walking by an old cathedral against a park with a swing set?

What they've done is effectively compile a radius score of amenities. X amenities within 10 min walk. Y amenities within 20 min bike ride. Z amenities within 30 min transit ride.

*Times are illustrative. I don't recall the exact times they use.

Yes, quality is hard to quantify, but providing incentive to walk through better enhancement and accessibility in the public realm is as important as anything else. This includes things like landscaping, width of sidewalks, park space, pedestrian crossings, width of streets, size of lots, types of land use permitted, all the things we hold sacred here. You can measure availability and proximity factors but not motivation and choice so much. The actual usage factor is the most important.

[someone123]

Originally Posted by Architype

Yes, quality is hard to quantify, but providing incentive to walk through better enhancement and accessibility in the public realm is as important as anything else.

If you look in detail at different cities it falls apart for a lot of specific neighbourhoods. For example, Taschereau Blvd in Brossard, QC is considered "very walkable" (78 in the spot I checked). It is a 6 lane arterial with strip malls by a highway.

I would also say many older lower density areas score too low, even though they're quite pleasant to walk around. If you live on Dallas Road in Victoria (next to the accursed water, -10 points) you might be in a 56 walk score area. 5 minute walk to a grocery store, 15 minute walk to downtown Victoria, probably up there in terms of sought after real estate in Canada. To me it seems like the score drops off too quickly over distances.

[Hali87]

Originally Posted by Truenorth00

Actually good or good by our shitty Canadian standards?

I'm not really an expert but I would have guessed relatively good by North American standards. They had more than just painted lanes when I was there about 3 years ago.

[logan5]

Originally Posted by Hali87

Calgary seems to have pretty good cycling infrastructure and I'm surprised it doesn't score higher here.

Not sure how they do the cycling score, but Calgary probly doesn't have a lot people cycling outside of the Beltline, despite the 100's of KM's of trails. Just no real destinations along those trails.

[Truenorth00]

Originally Posted by logan5

Not sure how they do the cycling score, but Calgary probly doesn't have a lot people cycling outside of the Beltline, despite the 100's of KM's of trails. Just no real destinations along those trails.

And this is probably the answer. If you live in a sprawling burb, bike trails are seen as something for recreation as opposed to reliable transport infrastructure.

And virtually all of our cities are guilty of not taking bicycle infrastructure seriously. Both in how they build it. And how they maintain it. How often are bike paths plowed in the winter? Are those painted bike gutters kept free of snow?

I saw a great video talking about how much proper infrastructure and maintenance can make a difference. Here is is talking about a Finnish city (Oulu) that has the same density as London, ON. But an order of magnitude more biking, all year round.

• Video Link

[ssiguy]

Originally Posted by Denscity

Vancouver and Victoria way at the top.

Both are walkable cities but the stats are warped by the fact that they are both very small in geographic area. Vancouver only has 670k and Victoria only 90k. In other words all of their city area only envelopes pre-war areas.

A fairer comparison of Toronto/ Montreal with Vancouver would be if you also included North & West Van, Burnaby, Richmond, and NuWest. Conversely Vancouver should only be compared to pre-amalgamation of Toronto & Montreal both of which are much more walkable and have far better transit.

[Denscity]

None of those inner suburbs are very sprawly and are covered in transit, bike lanes and town centres.

[esquire]

Originally Posted by Truenorth00

Thoughts? How does your city fair? Do you think the ranking was unfair? Is it what you expected?

Winnipeg ranks pretty highly, but I think the reality on the ground might surprise a lot of people. I think there is a bit of a subconscious correlation between walkable areas being gentrified, but that is not the case here. Large swaths of the most walkable areas and those with the highest transit usage are either outright low income areas (North End, West End, Centennial areas) or mixed areas where you have a fair number of people from across the spectrum (Downtown, Osborne Village, Old St. Boniface).

There are very, very few gentrified walkable areas in Winnipeg with the usual trappings of that sort of thing, e.g. chic bars and restaurants, boutiques, that the word "walkability" often implies. It's limited to a small handful of places. There are middle/upper middle class streetcar suburbs I suppose (River Heights being a prime example) but overall walkability is hampered by a lack of neighbourhood destinations.

In Vancouver, a typical example of someone living a walkable lifestyle might be a credit union loans officer who lives in Kitsilano and on the weekend walks to the organic grocery store. A more typical Winnipeg walkable lifestyle scenario might be a warehouse worker who lives in the North End and on the weekend walks over to the payday loan joint and the beer vendor. Both living very walkable, transit friendly lifestyles, but a very different class situation.

[thewave46]

When I lived in Ottawa, I thought the city did reasonably well. Of course, I lived in the core. If I had lived in Barrhaven I might have a different take.

Ottawa's weird in the sense that's it is a major metro area but has huge chunks of essentially farmland incorporated into its municipal structure. So, yeah, I've my doubts about some of the measures of walkability/transit.

Once you get within the old municipal boundaries Ottawa does pretty well; the cycle paths are well used during the summer by commuters. That actually was a source of conflict as the locals and tourists were mixing it up on the various paths in the core of the city.

With the inauguration of Confederation Line - especially in Stage 2 - Ottawa now has a mass-transit system that hits most major nodes of the city.

By North American standards, Ottawa is good. By European/Asian standards? No.

Any 'score' given to Phoenix that's much above zero is laughable. It's one of the few cities I've visited that's absolutely required a vehicle for every damned thing. My travels to cities elsewhere (including Ottawa) pretty much have me using transit exclusively or a majority of the time.

That being said, I expect that we'll live with the hangover of our city planning choices for awhile. It's literally trillions of dollars worth of capital. I expect electric vehicles will mitigate that somewhat. We live with the choices of our forefathers.

[TorontoDrew]

Originally Posted by Truenorth00

Most Walkable Cities in Canada (Walk Score/Transit Score/Bike Score)

1. Vancouver (80/74/79)
2. Montreal (65/67/73)
3. Toronto (61/78/61)
4. Hamilton (50/45/50)
5. Mississauga (49/56/54)
6. Winnipeg (48/51/61)
7. Surrey (46/47/56)
8. Ottawa (45/50/64)
9. Quebec City (45/47/59)
10. Laval (4346/57)
12. Edmonton (40/49/40)
13. Calgary (39/50/50)
##. Halifax (63/60/59)
##. Victoria (76/62/80)
##. Saskatoon (46/45/32)
##. Regina (44/41/56)
##. London (39/45/53)
##. Moncton (35/28/47)
##. St. John's (37/34/24)

Source: https://www.walkscore.com/cities-and-neighborhoods/

No shocker with the first 3 but I'm very surprised to see Hamilton as #4, good for them, but it also shows how how far behind the leaders other cities are.


What are everybody's personal scores?

Mine are 88/91/92


My previous address scores at 0/5/0

[JHikka]

Originally Posted by torontodrew

what are everybody's personal scores?

98/100/94

[Truenorth00]

Originally Posted by TorontoDrew

My previous address scores at 0/5/0

How rural was that? That would mean literally nothing within a 30 min walk of your home.

[MonctonRad]

My personal score in fairly far suburban Moncton is 11/24/43.

[WarrenC12]

Originally Posted by Truenorth00

I decided to pull the most walkable cities in Canada. And some of the larger cities or major cities that weren't ranked.

Most Walkable Cities in Canada (Walk Score/Transit Score/Bike Score)

1. Vancouver (80/74/79)
2. Montreal (65/67/73)
3. Toronto (61/78/61)

I thought Montreal had much better transit. I'm surprised to see them significantly below Vancouver and Toronto.

Walking and biking numbers, no surprise.

[Drybrain]

Originally Posted by TorontoDrew

No shocker with the first 3 but I'm very surprised to see Hamilton as #4, good for them, but it also shows how how far behind the leaders other cities are.


What are everybody's personal scores?

Mine are 88/91/92


My previous address scores at 0/5/0

I actually find the placement of Mississauga (huge car suburb) as being equivalent to Hamilton (200-year-old city with a large pre-car urban core) illustrative of the oddness of some of these rankings. I'm willing to entertain arguments that Mississauga is more or similarly walkable, but I've got my doubts.

Personal score: 79/59/75. Pretty fair, but I'd bump the transit score up at least ten points.

[WarrenC12]

Originally Posted by Architype

A pretty good, although perhaps crude and anecdotal measurement of urbanity may be how many people you know who don't own a car or drive, or who have never even had a driver's licence. Here in Vancouver it seems surprisingly high.

one thing I have noticed is that this exacerbates some of the issues between pedestrians, cyclists, and drivers.

I've done all 3 (including commuter cycling), and rode a motorcycle for many years.

Having the context of what the other traveler is doing/seeing/responding/etc. is important.

I've witnessed endless boneheaded moves by all of the above, because they have no appreciation for the other traveler's limitations, or expectations.

[Truenorth00]

Originally Posted by WarrenC12

I thought Montreal had much better transit. I'm surprised to see them significantly below Vancouver and Toronto.

Walking and biking numbers, no surprise.

Montreal has amazing transit in the core. Not so much in the suburbs. Walkability is also weirdly terrible in some suburban areas with paths that basically have you walking beside a freeway. Their transit score should improve somewhat when the REM opens. Doesn't fix walkability though...