Quote:
Originally Posted by acottawa
When I lived in Gloucester I had a 67 walk score and a 68 transit store. But the walkability was terrible. Sidewalks did not exist on most streets or they were adjacent to narrow, high traffic streets. Lighting was terrible, sidewalk ploughing was rare. I often had to cross 8 lanes of traffic (plus right turn exit ramps).
It was a driver’s paradise though.
|
I am being generous. My condo right now is at a walk score of 51 and a transit score of 74, being beside Cyrville station. So approximately 70 on both would be pretty decent from my perspective. I lived in New Edinburgh a decade and a half back. Walk score there is 80 today. And a transit score of 57. Was probably well over 70 even when I lived there. Based on those experiences, I'd say a walk score of 70 and a transit score of 55 is probably my minimum, with a target of 75/60. I can accept that walkable neighbourhoods probably don't have high transit scores usually. And their bike scores tend to take a hit sometimes too.
Keep in mind that walk score simply draws data on what's around from a map. They aren't really great at determining whether the streets are laid out to make walking pleasant. That requires judgement. But also, if there's stuff to walk to, I think people are somewhat willing to put up with crappy sidewalks. In any event, I am wondering if there's neighbourhoods that are missed. People mostly only tend of think the Wellington/Richmond and Bank St Corridors.