San Francisco, New York most walkable cities

Fri Jul 18, 2008 3:28PM EDT

See Comments (2)

More and more people are turning to public transportation as gas prices keep soaring, so we may be hearing more about a neighborhood's walkability thanks to new site that helps people find walkable places to live. Walkscore.com uses an algorithm that gives neighborhoods "Walk Scores" between 0-100 based on nearby amenities per person. The higher the score the easier it is for a person to live a car-lite lifestyle, says the site.

The site recently ranked San Francisco as the most walkable city in the United States after scoring an 86 out of 100 "Walk Score." New York and Boston followed with an 83 and 79 Walk Score, respectively.

Mike Mathieu, founder of company that created the site's software, told Reuters he hopes Walk Scores become part of future property listings, which is good if you want to find out how pedestrian-friendly an area is, just don't rely on this tool to tell you how safe it is to walk in those areas.

I noticed some very questionable areas in San Francisco had a very high walkability score, which is sort of scary since you would expect a tool like this one to at least give you a heads up. If you're moving, you might want head to the site to find out your new neighborhood's walkability score, just keep in mind this score doesn't exactly take into account crime rates, traffic accidents, and other important factors that help one determine if walking is the best mode of transportation in those areas.

Link: San Francisco most walkable U.S. city, website says (Reuters)

Comments on San Francisco, New York most walkable cities

Post a Comment

Join in the discussion. Here you'll see the comments in the order they were posted.

  • 1 Posted by michaelturner13 on Sun Jul 20, 2008 10:34PM EDT Report Abuse

    OK I don't know how this scoring system works, but having lived in Boston and New York and worked in San Francisco for 3 weeks, I can tell you that SF is not anywhere close to as walkable as the other two cities. The number one reason for this is HILLS. Very big HIllS. You had better have a very intact cardio system or you will die. I would rank Boston first New York second and SF a heart attack waiting to happen.

  • 2 Posted by penguy9 on Thu Jul 31, 2008 11:03AM EDT Report Abuse

    I'm not sure how the person who wrote this article got her scores, but if I put in Boston, MA for my address, I get a score of 95, a lot higher than reported in the article. If I put in Pittsburgh, PA, I get a score of 97. So where is the math logic if I can get a 97 for Pittsburgh and San Francisco gets a 89 and is the most walkable city?

More Posts: First Prev 1 Next Last

Post a Comment

 

Sign In to see your profile information, saved products and more...

Register Sign In

My Favorite Gadgets

 

Recent Activity

 

Recently Viewed

on | off on | off
 

Recent Searches

on | off on | off
 
 
 

Also on Yahoo! Tech

Computers Home Office Wi-Fi & Networking Phones & PDAs Cameras & Camcorders TV & Home Theater Portable Audio
 

Question and Answer content at Yahoo! Tech is written by Yahoo! users at Yahoo! Answers. Yahoo! does not evaluate or guarantee the accuracy of any Yahoo! Answers content. For more information, read the Full Disclaimer.

Opinions expressed by the Advisors are their own and do not necessarily reflect the views of Yahoo! Inc. Yahoo! receives no compensation from any manufacturer or distributor nor does it compensate any Advisor for the coverage of any product or service in any Advisor's content.