Ranking US/Canadian cities by pedestrian intensity.

[JDRCRASH]

Originally Posted by Cirrus

When folks complain that a low ranking isn't fair because their CBD has gotten so much better in the last 10 years, that actually reinforces my opinion that their city belongs in the lower tiers, because it tells me they aren't even thinking about walkability outside the CBD.

Cheers.

Actually im a little surprised, though happy, that LA made it into Segun's Tier 3, given the great distance between its multiple CBDs and "walkable" cores, and how that translates into overall lower walkability for the city as a whole.

The great resurgence is still very young, but its accelerating and before you know it, LA will be a Tier 2 city.

[Nouvellecosse]

I haven't been to many of the other cities listed to make a comparison, but I'm tentatively going to stick Halifax in tier 3 in terms of segun's list. For Cirrus' list, I'm torn between 2A and 2B...

[simms3_redux]

I like Segun's original list better than Cirrus's, though both are interesting.

I don't know anything about Canadian cities and only have limited travel experience, but my list in order would be something like this:

NYC
Chicago
Boston
San Francisco
Washington DC
Philadelphia
Los Angeles
Seattle

then maybe Minneapolis, Denver, San Diego, Portland, Baltimore, Charleston, New Orleans

then St. Louis, Atlanta, Pittsburgh, Columbus, Miami

then Austin, Nashville, Dallas, Houston

Anything else is not worth mentioning on a pedestrian scale.

[Omaharocks]

Originally Posted by simms3_redux

Anything else is not worth mentioning on a pedestrian scale.

There are plenty of cities in the U.S. that are just as, or more pedestrian friendly than many of the cities you listed. Did you really just imply that no other cities are worth mentioning, or did I read that incorrectly?

[Doady]

According to the census data, Toronto is one of worst cities and metropolitan areas in Canada when it comes to walking mode share.

[TarHeelJ]

Originally Posted by Omaharocks

There are plenty of cities in the U.S. that are just as, or more pedestrian friendly than many of the cities you listed. Did you really just imply that no other cities are worth mentioning, or did I read that incorrectly?

I thought the same thing...I can think of several off the top of my head not mentioned there that are "worth mentioning" - Cincinnati, Tampa, Cleveland, Providence, Buffalo, Louisville, Omaha, Savannah, Milwaukee, OKC, Memphis, etc, etc, etc. It's not like these cities are on another planet or something...they all have at least some walkable areas that have a certain level of pedestrian intensity.

[simms3_redux]

Let's not all catch feelings here. It's my own subjective list since we're all doing it, and I included my own hometown as pointless to mention (also labeled as "hopeless" by Cirrus and I won't throw a hissy over it). There's really not a lot to "rank" in the US in terms of pedestrian intensity outside of tourist zones.

[Crawford]

Originally Posted by simms3_redux

There's really not a lot to "rank" in the US in terms of pedestrian intensity outside of tourist zones.

I don't think most of the busiest U.S. urban neighborhoods are tourist zones.

[sbarn]

Originally Posted by simms3_redux

Let's not all catch feelings here. It's my own subjective list since we're all doing it, and I included my own hometown as pointless to mention (also labeled as "hopeless" by Cirrus and I won't throw a hissy over it). There's really not a lot to "rank" in the US in terms of pedestrian intensity outside of tourist zones.

Umm no. Thats certainly not the case here in NYC.

[J. Will]

Originally Posted by Doady

According to the census data, Toronto is one of worst cities and metropolitan areas in Canada when it comes to walking mode share.

No.

From that chart I put together, Toronto ranks in the top half (amongst cities listed) in both city and metro walk/bike share. In fact, in terms of metro area, it ranks above all US metros listed save for NY, SF, and Boston.

[Xing]

Originally Posted by simms3_redux

I like Segun's original list better than Cirrus's, though both are interesting.

I don't know anything about Canadian cities and only have limited travel experience, but my list in order would be something like this:

NYC
Chicago
Boston
San Francisco
Washington DC
Philadelphia
Los Angeles
Seattle

then maybe Minneapolis, Denver, San Diego, Portland, Baltimore, Charleston, New Orleans

then St. Louis, Atlanta, Pittsburgh, Columbus, Miami

then Austin, Nashville, Dallas, Houston

Anything else is not worth mentioning on a pedestrian scale.

I'd certainly add Cincinnati to the list with St Louis and Atlanta.

[AaronPGH]

Originally Posted by simms3_redux

then maybe Minneapolis, Denver, San Diego, Portland, Baltimore, Charleston, New Orleans

then St. Louis, Atlanta, Pittsburgh, Columbus, Miami

then Austin, Nashville, Dallas, Houston

I can't speak for the others on that tier, but Pittsburgh is easily on the same level as Denver and Baltimore, if not more so. A huge percentage of our population walks and bikes to work. The entire east end of the city is walkable and full of pedestrians, and downtown experiences manhattan-level pedestrian activity on business days. These are every day working/living neighborhoods – not tourist or nightlife spots (which are also packed with pedestrians during certain hours).

I think Cirrus' list is the most accurate I've seen yet.

[TarHeelJ]

Originally Posted by AaronPGH

I can't speak for the others on that tier, but Pittsburgh is easily on the same level as Denver and Baltimore, if not more so. A huge percentage of our population walks and bikes to work. The entire east end of the city is walkable and full of pedestrians, and downtown experiences manhattan-level pedestrian activity on business days. These are every day working/living neighborhoods – not tourist or nightlife spots (which are also packed with pedestrians during certain hours).

I think Cirrus' list is the most accurate I've seen yet.

Almost everyone thinks their city should be ranked higher than it is...but we usually can't be as objective as we should be.

[AaronPGH]

Originally Posted by TarHeelJ

Almost everyone thinks their city should be ranked higher than it is...but we usually can't be as objective as we should be.

Denver was pretty much my second home for six years, I'm talking from a lot of personal experience when I compare the two. 12% population that walks to work, and over 50% who take transit to their jobs downtown equals a lot of pedestrians.

[Austinlee]

Originally Posted by AaronPGH

I can't speak for the others on that tier, but Pittsburgh is easily on the same level as Denver and Baltimore, if not more so. A huge percentage of our population walks and bikes to work. The entire east end of the city is walkable and full of pedestrians, and downtown experiences manhattan-level pedestrian activity on business days. These are every day working/living neighborhoods – not tourist or nightlife spots (which are also packed with pedestrians during certain hours).

I think Cirrus' list is the most accurate I've seen yet.

Shhh. Stop spreading the word. You're only gonna make it more crowded.

[Derek]

Originally Posted by simms3_redux

I like Segun's original list better than Cirrus's, though both are interesting.

I don't know anything about Canadian cities and only have limited travel experience, but my list in order would be something like this:

NYC
Chicago
Boston
San Francisco
Washington DC
Philadelphia
Los Angeles
Seattle

then maybe Minneapolis, Denver, San Diego, Portland, Baltimore, Charleston, New Orleans

then St. Louis, Atlanta, Pittsburgh, Columbus, Miami

then Austin, Nashville, Dallas, Houston

Anything else is not worth mentioning on a pedestrian scale.

I wouldn't put San Diego on the same level as Portland, Baltimore or Denver. I'd swap Pittsburgh and San Diego. Downtown San Diego is pretty walkable, as are some of the surrounding neighborhoods (Little Italy, Hillcrest, some of North Park), but the majority of the city are very non pedestrian friendly suburbia. There aren't really many "urban pockets" outside of the central core.

[Paul in S.A TX]

Originally Posted by Cirrus

If we're talking walkability as opposed to transit, I think the mid-sized 19th century cities need to be higher than people are giving them credit for.

Here's my take. Subgroups within the same tier are intended to be approximately equal, except for perhaps within Tier 1, where Subgroup 1A is "above" 1B.

Tier 1 - The cosmopolitan capitals

Subgroup 1A
Separated because it's so much bigger.
NYC

Subgroup 1B
The other top cities.
Chicago, Washington DC, San Francisco, Boston, Philadelphia, Toronto, Montreal

-------------------------

Tier 2 - Better than average

Subgroup 2A
19th Century cities with bones similar to Tier 1B cities, that remain relatively intact but that haven't grown as much recently and don't have quite the high level of activity.
Baltimore, Pittsburgh, New Orleans

Subgroup 2B
Cities with 20th Century bones that have a high degree of walkability. These cities might be less walkable over large areas than cities in 2A, but may have small peaks of walkability that reach a very high level. Compared to subgroup 2A the most walkable areas of these cities will be better, but a smaller percentage of the city as whole will be walkable.
Seattle, Portland, Los Angeles, Vancouver, Miami Beach, Las Vegas (?)

-------------------------

Tier 3 - The great mass in the middle

Subgroup 3A
19th/early 20th Century cities similar to 2A, but with smaller walkable areas. Also, some of the larger 19th Century cities that have degraded and have large gaps, but still have some sizable walkable areas.
Columbus, Richmond, Louisville, Indianapolis, Hartford, Providence, Milwaukee, St. Louis, Cincinnati, Kansas City

Subgroup 3B
20th Century cities similar to 2B, but smaller and/or with a lower peak.
Minneapolis, Denver, Las Vegas (?), San Antonio, Austin, San Diego, Sacramento,

Subgroup 3C
Very small 19th/early 20th Century cities, which remain very intact.
Norfolk, Savannah, Charleston, New Haven, Harrisburg, etc

Subgroup 3D
Very small 20th Century cities, which have a particularly high degree of walkability (most college towns go here).
Madison, Boulder, etc

-------------------------

Tier 4 - Below average

Subgroup 4A
19th/early 20th Century cities that have degraded so much that they don't have many walkable areas, even though their urban bones are strong.
Cleveland, Buffalo, Detroit

Subgroup 4B
Large late 20th Century cities with OK downtowns but poor walkability outside of downtown.
Atlanta, Dallas, Houston

Subgroup 4C
Small 20th Century cities with average downtowns.
Boise, Roanoke, Green Bay, Toledo, etc

-------------------------

Tier 5 - Hopeless*

Subgroup 5A
Large metropolitan areas almost totally given over to cars.
Tampa, Charlotte, Phoenix, Orlando, San Jose, Nashville, Virginia Beach, Jacksonville, El Paso, Tulsa, Oklahoma City

Subgroup 5A
Smaller cities almost totally given over to cars.
Topeka, Spartanburg, Naples, Colorado Springs, etc

* Don't get hung up on the title, folks. It's just for sorting purposes. The tiering is what's important, not the name of each group.

I would move Buffalo, Atlanta, San Antonio up a tier and move Richmond, Kansas City and Louisville down one.