View Full Version : OKC scores low in walkability



Pete
11-11-2013, 11:49 AM
http://www.walkscore.com/cities-and-neighborhoods/


Walk Score measures the walkability of any address using a patent-pending system. For each address, Walk Score analyzes hundreds of walking routes to nearby amenities. Points are awarded based on the distance to amenities in each category. Amenities within a 5 minute walk (.25 miles) are given maximum points. A decay function is used to give points to more distant amenities, with no points given after a 30 minute walk.
Walk Score also measures pedestrian friendliness by analyzing population density and road metrics such as block length and intersection density. Data sources include Google, Education.com, Open Street Map, the U.S. Census, Localeze, and places added by the Walk Score user community.


City Walk Score
1 New York 87.6
2 San Francisco 83.9
3 Boston 79.5
4 Newark 77.8
5 Philadelphia 76.5
6 Miami 75.6
7 Chicago 74.8
8 Washington D.C. 74.1
9 Seattle 70.8
10 Oakland 68.5
11 Baltimore 66.2
12 Long Beach 65.8
13 Minneapolis 65.4
14 Buffalo 64.9
15 Los Angeles 63.9
16 Portland 62.8
17 Honolulu 62.6
18 Santa Ana 61.3
19 St. Louis 59.8
20 Pittsburgh 59.8
21 Milwaukee 59.4
22 Cleveland 56.8
23 New Orleans 56.3
24 St. Paul 56.0
25 Denver 55.7
26 Detroit 52.2
27 Anaheim 50.6
28 Cincinnati 50.1
29 San Diego 48.5
30 San Jose 48.1
31 Tampa 46.3
32 Atlanta 45.9
33 Houston 44.2
34 Dallas 43.6
35 Sacramento 43.4
36 Toledo 43.0
37 Fresno 42.1
38 Omaha 41.1
39 Lincoln 40.3
40 Columbus 40.0
41 Stockton 40.0
42 Albuquerque 39.6
43 Tucson 38.9
44 Riverside 38.9
45 El Paso 38.7
46 Las Vegas 38.6
47 Aurora 38.4
48 Phoenix 38.3
49 Plano 36.4
50 Tulsa 36.0
51 Corpus Christi 35.7
52 Austin 35.4
53 Arlington 34.6
54 Mesa 34.4
55 Bakersfield 34.3
56 Lexington-Fayette 33.9
57 San Antonio 33.7
58 Colorado Springs 33.0
59 Memphis 33.0
60 Anchorage 32.2
61 Kansas City 32.1
62 Wichita 31.9
63 Fort Worth 31.6
64 Oklahoma City 31.6
65 Louisville-Jefferson 31.2
66 Virginia Beach 31.1
67 Raleigh 28.8
68 Indianapolis 28.7
69 Fort Wayne 28.3
70 Greensboro 28.0
71 Henderson 27.6
72 Nashville-Davidson 26.5
73 Jacksonville 25.5
74 Charlotte 24.4

catch22
11-11-2013, 11:51 AM
I'm surprised we did that well...

Outside of downtown and a few outlying neighborhoods, OKC is severely unwalkable.

Pete
11-11-2013, 11:52 AM
Little better on Bike Score:


For a given location, a Bike Score is calculated by measuring bike infrastructure (lanes, trails, etc.), hills, destinations and road connectivity, and the number of bike commuters. These component scores are based on data from city governments, the USGS, OpenStreetMap, and the U.S. Census.


1 Minneapolis 78.5
2 Portland 70.3
3 San Francisco 70
4 Denver 69.5
5 Philadelphia 68.4
6 Sacramento 68.3
7 Boston 67.8
8 Washington D.C. 65.3
9 Seattle 64.1
10 Tucson 64.1
11 St. Paul 62.9
12 New York 62.3
13 Lincoln 62
14 Long Beach 61.9
15 Chicago 61.5
16 Albuquerque 61
17 New Orleans 59.7
18 Aurora 58.3
19 Oakland 57.1
20 Santa Ana 56.9
21 Miami 56.5
22 San Jose 56.1
23 Mesa 55
24 St. Louis 54.6
25 Plano 54.2
26 Los Angeles 54
27 Buffalo 52.5
28 Phoenix 51.9
29 Las Vegas 51.8
30 Tampa 51
31 Cleveland 50.5
32 Anaheim 49.9
33 Riverside 49.4
34 Henderson 49.3
35 Houston 48.8
36 San Diego 47.8
37 Colorado Springs 46
38 Virginia Beach 45.8
39 Columbus 45.7
40 Fresno 45.3
41 Austin 45.1
42 Honolulu 44.8
43 Tulsa 43.3
44 Wichita 43.2
45 Atlanta 42.7
46 Lexington-Fayette 42.4
47 Fort Wayne 42
48 Louisville-Jefferson 41.8
49 Dallas 41.4
50 Omaha 41.1
51 Arlington 40.7
52 Indianapolis 40.6
53 Kansas City 40.3
54 San Antonio 40.1
55 Greensboro 39.8
56 Memphis 39.4
57 Oklahoma City 39.3
58 Raleigh 38.8
59 Pittsburgh 38.5
60 Fort Worth 38.5
61 Cincinnati 36.6
62 Charlotte 35.2
63 Nashville-Davidson 31.5
64 Newark --
65 Baltimore --
66 Milwaukee --
26 Detroit --
36 Toledo --
41 Stockton --
45 El Paso --
51 Corpus Christi --
55 Bakersfield --
60 Anchorage --
73 Jacksonville --

Just the facts
11-11-2013, 11:59 AM
I'm surprised we did that well...

Outside of downtown and a few outlying neighborhoods, OKC is severely unwalkable.

If they measured how unwalkable the unwalkable areas are, OKC would come in with a negative number.

bchris02
11-11-2013, 12:02 PM
OKC will likely always score low on this survey due to the nature of development here and the criteria they use. Cities such as Nashville, Louisville, Indianapolis, and Charlotte all have vibrant downtowns that are a cut above OKC yet they score lower. I don't put much stock in walkscore and it is not a good measure for desirability and vibrancy of walkable neighborhoods in otherwise unwalkable cities.

Just the facts
11-11-2013, 12:07 PM
OKC will likely always score low on this survey due to the nature of development here and the criteria they use. Cities such as Nashville, Louisville, Indianapolis, and Charlotte all have vibrant downtowns that are a cut above OKC yet they score lower. I don't put much stock in walkscore and it is not a good measure for desirability and vibrancy of walkable neighborhoods in otherwise unwalkable cities.

If you live in a walkable area it doesn't matter what the city's walk score is because for you it is 100%. What this list does show is how many walkable areas a city has and how well mass transit connects them.

Plutonic Panda
11-11-2013, 12:27 PM
We scored worse than Anchorage and Plano???? That's bad man lol

bombermwc
11-12-2013, 06:44 AM
Can I just say, "WELL DERRRR".

CuatrodeMayo
11-12-2013, 07:01 AM
In other news...the sun rises in the east and sets in the west.

lasomeday
11-12-2013, 08:01 AM
I think the city should define goals more clearly and set about ways to accomplish them with public/private partnerships. They may have blown it with the last MAPS projects by not having them defined clearly on the ballot with funding and scope.

The city should say "We plan on moving ahead of Denver on the biking list and Dallas on the walkability list".

There is no reason why the city could not have zoning laws in place to accomodate bikes. Our city is so far behind in trails and bike paths. Denver, Tulsa, and Portland would be great places for our city leaders to visit to see what small things can be done to improve paths (Oklahoma River and Lake Overholser bike paths) and utilize existing infrustructure to create paths and connectivity. They need to hop on a bike and bike down Riverside Park in Tulsa, Springwater Corridor Trail in Portland, and Cherry Creek in Denver. They need to see how many people use them and how much public/private investment has gone into creating destinations along these bike trails. The Oklahoma River bike trails need to be improved and other trails need to be integrated to connect the city and suburbs by bike. They can see how these trails provide alternate routes to connect different sectors of the city. These connections create development opportunities and help create a unique sense with less parking lots.

I think the walkability part will develop as the inner core of the city continues to develop as we are seeing more development in Midtown and north to Uptown. I think connecting the two with developments along Classen and Broadway will be integral in creating a continuous urban environment that like Denver will spark more development. They need to define areas of the city that are close to being walkable. Then have meetings with local businesses and citizens to discuss walkability and see what ideas they may have or be able to fund. This would create a sense of ownership for the businesses that don't fund any projects if they feel like they contributed to the process. They should also study areas like Northwest Expressway and see what they can do to improve the bikability?/walkability of it. There is a lot of ride of way that could be utilized for bike lanes/paths to connect businesses.

lasomeday
11-12-2013, 08:06 AM
Here is the link to Oklahoma City.

http://www.walkscore.com/OK/Oklahoma_City

Architect2010
11-12-2013, 08:16 AM
We scored worse than Anchorage and Plano???? That's bad man lol

I noticed we're the exact same score as Fort Worth. Charlotte, Nashville, Jacksonville, Louisville, Raleigh, and Indianapolis all scored lower than us. So while it is indeed a suck-a** score, it seems that quite a few of our peer cities are in the same boat. Other peer cities don't do much better than us. For example, there are 20+ cities on the list whose range of scores all happened to be in the 30s with us: Las Vegas, Austin, Omaha, Kansas City, Tulsa, Memphis, San Antonio, Phoenix, etc.

This list is a testament to how America's cities aren't very walkable at all. Out of the 74 cities listed, only 18 were able to attain a percentage higher than 60; even that is a low bar. WOW.

lasomeday
11-12-2013, 08:19 AM
I wonder what European and Japanese cities would score? It links Canadian and Australian cities. They fared better than most of the US cities....

Just the facts
11-12-2013, 08:59 AM
I wonder what European and Japanese cities would score?

They would probably be close to 100 since many people in those cities don't even own a car.

traxx
11-12-2013, 09:03 AM
I don't know how much if any this would help our score but some of or problem is how we develop retail areas.

Look at Wal-Mart and Sam's in Edmond. Built right next to each other but hardly walkable. Those two stores plus the others in that same development all face the street. If they'd been made to face each other, had a walkable area in between and had parking on the outside, then you could park and visit each store. But as it stands you would have to get in your car and drive from Sam's to WM and do it again to go from WM to Braum's.

Look at the Quail Springs area. You wouldn't think of walking from the mall to TGIFriday's and then over to Barnes and Noble. Same goes for the shopping area on the south side of Memorial. Walking from Lowe's to Old Navy would be a hassle.

The Outlet Shoppes is a step in the right direction. They still have their signage that you can see from the interstate, but the stores are layed out in a walkable style. If we had more developments layed out with a plaza in between or made it walkable in between the stores with parking being outlying it would be great. Then you wouldn't have to get in your car to go to three or four stores that are a few hundred yards apart.

shawnw
11-12-2013, 09:29 AM
Look at the Quail Springs area. You wouldn't think of walking from the mall to TGIFriday's and then over to Barnes and Noble. Same goes for the shopping area on the south side of Memorial. Walking from Lowe's to Old Navy would be a hassle.

Trying to not be silly by parking at a restaurant on the site and then driving to the mall, I recently parked near a mall entrance, walked to BJ's for dinner, and then walked back to the mall for a movie. It was not a pleasant experience. I did not catch before hand that there were zero crosswalks of other pedestrian aides.

Midtowner
11-12-2013, 10:09 AM
http://stream1.gifsoup.com/view2/1624593/duh-o.gif

bchris02
11-12-2013, 10:14 AM
I noticed we're the exact same score as Fort Worth. Charlotte, Nashville, Jacksonville, Louisville, Raleigh, and Indianapolis all scored lower than us. So while it is indeed a suck-a** score, it seems that quite a few of our peer cities are in the same boat. Other peer cities don't do much better than us. For example, there are 20+ cities on the list whose range of scores all happened to be in the 30s with us: Las Vegas, Austin, Omaha, Kansas City, Tulsa, Memphis, San Antonio, Phoenix, etc.

This list is a testament to how America's cities aren't very walkable at all. Out of the 74 cities listed, only 18 were able to attain a percentage higher than 60; even that is a low bar. WOW.

This is true. I don't put a whole lot of stock in this list because of that. Louisville, Indianapolis, and Charlotte have very vibrant and walkable cores, and are a good deal ahead of OKC yet they score lower. What OKC needs to focus on is not making the burbs more walkable by adding sidewalks nobody will use, but more gentrification and placemaking in the areas that already are walkable so that more people will WANT to visit/live in them and will WANT to walk rather than use their cars.

Just the facts
11-12-2013, 10:43 AM
As with most things, the devil is in the details. OKC has 2 zip codes that score pretty high (above 70) and both are downtown. Then for some reason the area between Penn Sq and Hefener Pkwy scores high. Of course, we know this area isn't walkable at all. They need a new rule that says if a 6 lane divided road and no sidewalks is present - it is an automatic 0.

Rover
11-12-2013, 12:21 PM
I live near Wilshire and May. I can easily walk/bike to any number of restaurants, shops, etc. Walking/biking to Sprouts or Homeland is not bad.

PWitty
11-12-2013, 12:38 PM
I wonder what European and Japanese cities would score? It links Canadian and Australian cities. They fared better than most of the US cities....

I've never been to Europe, but from what my friends say who have been I would assume they would score much higher than most all the cities in the US. Like JTF said, there's a ton of people in Europe who don't even own cars. That's to be expected though, because those cities had just a bit of a head start on developing their cities compared to the US.

I am a little surprised by some of the cities who scored lower than OKC. From how some people talk about Nashville and Charlotte on this board I figured they would score much higher on walkability. I'm a little surprised Austin and Raleigh did so poorly as well, especially Raleigh. I'm not surprised KC scored about the same as OKC though. I see people place it above OKC all the time, but it is just as un-walkable as OKC once you get outside of the Downtown/Plaza/Westport area.

Other than that, most of the cities on those lists are about where I would expect them to be.

Just the facts
11-12-2013, 12:52 PM
Walkability scores, downtown population rankings, downtown employee rankings... the biggest problem is they are all using data that isn't consistent with the way they are trying to use it. Walkability by Zip Code is not a good way to do it; census track maybe, but not zip code. I would like to see a national Urban to Rural Transaction Mapping effort. Do the whole country all in one weekend. That would give us a much better view of the country, but it would take a lot of trained volunteers.

bchris02
11-12-2013, 01:01 PM
I've never been to Europe, but from what my friends say who have been I would assume they would score much higher than most all the cities in the US. Like JTF said, there's a ton of people in Europe who don't even own cars. That's to be expected though, because those cities had just a bit of a head start on developing their cities compared to the US.

I am a little surprised by some of the cities who scored lower than OKC. From how some people talk about Nashville and Charlotte on this board I figured they would score much higher on walkability. I'm a little surprised Austin and Raleigh did so poorly as well, especially Raleigh. I'm not surprised KC scored about the same as OKC though. I see people place it above OKC all the time, but it is just as un-walkable as OKC once you get outside of the Downtown/Plaza/Westport area.

Other than that, most of the cities on those lists are about where I would expect them to be.

Charlotte as a whole is no more walkable than OKC. The walkable neighborhoods they do have though are amazing. Places like Southend, Dilworth, NoDA, etc are like Midtown, Uptown, and the Plaza in 15 years when everything is fully gentrified and polished. A lot of the core of OKC is very walkable, it's just either boarded up, distressed, or urban prairie.

traxx
11-12-2013, 02:01 PM
Trying to not be silly by parking at a restaurant on the site and then driving to the mall, I recently parked near a mall entrance, walked to BJ's for dinner, and then walked back to the mall for a movie. It was not a pleasant experience. I did not catch before hand that there were zero crosswalks of other pedestrian aides.

Did people look at you funny? I've noticed that people look at you kinda sideways when you think "I'm not gonna start my car up to travel 100 yards" and you try to walk it in an area that is completely not walkable.

shawnw
11-12-2013, 02:45 PM
Did people look at you funny? I've noticed that people look at you kinda sideways when you think "I'm not gonna start my car up to travel 100 yards" and you try to walk it in an area that is completely not walkable.

There were definitely awkward human/car interaction moments where there should have been crosswalks...

warreng88
11-12-2013, 03:30 PM
This report brought to you by the letter "D". D as in Duh...

Urbanized
11-12-2013, 11:46 PM
Try dropping your car at the Red Carpet at NW Expressway and Penn, and running across the street to pick something up while your car is being washed. I have. I felt as crazy as I probably looked to the motorists sailing by. IT'S ACROSS THE FREAKING STREET! WITH TRAFFIC CONTROLS AT THE CORNER!! It shouldn't be next to impossible, but it is. That's only one of a thousand places like that in this town.

soonerguru
11-13-2013, 01:37 AM
Try dropping your car at the Red Carpet at NW Expressway and Penn, and running across the street to pick something up while your car is being washed. I have. I felt as crazy as I probably looked to the motorists sailing by. IT'S ACROSS THE FREAKING STREET! WITH TRAFFIC CONTROLS AT THE CORNER!! It shouldn't be next to impossible, but it is. That's only one of a thousand places like that in this town.

I walked across the 23rd and Meridian intersection to visit the grocery store on Saturday. NW 23rd has been reduced to two lanes on that corner, but I still felt I was risking my life to cross there, and, as a pedestrian, I was acutely aware how much of a curiosity I probably was to the motorists.

It is unsafe and weird to walk in many places in OKC. I was saddened by the story yesterday in the Oklahoman about the female pedestrian killed at 46th and Classen.

bchris02
11-13-2013, 06:11 AM
It seems like OKC for the most part was designed to be as pedestrian unfriendly as possible. The developments are designed for the person who gets in their car to drive to another part of a strip mall. It's unbelievable how many developments that are right next to each other have no connecting path. Other cities, such as Charlotte and Louisville also have low walkscores but they do have more pedestrian friendly developments and culture. Maybe not what you would call "walkable" by new urbanism standards but still more pedestrian friendly than the typical development in OKC i.e. Belle Isle. I lived in what was a very typical development by suburban standards when I lived in Charlotte and could walk to several restaurants, Harris Teeter, Costco, Target, World Market, and more. It wasn't a place that appeared "walkable" but it was and I could walk it without getting weird looks from people.

OKCTalker
11-13-2013, 06:54 AM
I suspect that OKC experienced quick growth because people wanted a more rural/suburban lifestyle, there were no natural geographic barriers, and we had the road network to support quick commutes. Those surface street commuting corridors were enhanced by interstate highways and eventually the JKT. None of these elements encourage walking or cycling, which was forgotten in the rush to adopt an automotive lifestyle.

Just the facts
11-13-2013, 07:44 AM
The average suburban family starts their car 13X a day. Try counting it for yourself. You will be shocked how much driving you do.

lasomeday
11-13-2013, 08:05 AM
The average suburban family starts their car 13X a day. Try counting it for yourself. You will be shocked how much driving you do.

JTF, what's your number?

LandRunOkie
11-13-2013, 08:07 AM
It seems like OKC for the most part was designed to be as pedestrian unfriendly as possible.
Really?
General Motors streetcar conspiracy - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/General_Motors_streetcar_conspiracy)

Just the facts
11-13-2013, 08:49 AM
JTF, what's your number?

I sometimes go 2 or 3 days without driving. Yesterday I started my car 3 times. I started my car at home and drove to my son's karate school. I started it again when I left there and drove to Taco Bell. I started it at Taco Bell and drove home. However, my wife probably started her car at least 10 times yesterday. So combined we hit the family average of 13.

ooops, correction - I started it 4 times yesterday. I dropped my son off a program early in the morning. I didn't turn the car off so even though it was a round trip it was only one start.

traxx
11-13-2013, 10:12 AM
In regards to mentioning the walkability of European cities; remember that those cities were established at least several hundred years ago if not thousands of years ago. So, way before cars and trucks. And they existed as such for thousands of years until the 20th century. To compare them to a city in the American west with plenty of wide open space that's only existed for about 125 years isn't really an apples to apples comparison as far as walkability is concerned. And that would be the case with many US cities as compared to European cities.

lasomeday
11-13-2013, 10:15 AM
In regards to mentioning the walkability of European cities; remember that those cities were established at least several hundred years ago if not thousands of years ago. So, way before cars and trucks. And they existed as such for thousands of years until the 20th century. To compare them to a city in the American west with plenty of wide open space that's only existed for about 125 years isn't really an apples to apples comparison as far as walkability is concerned. And that would be the case with many US cities as compared to European cities.

I think this viewpoint is the problem. America was developed before the car. San Fransisco is a city you don't need a car. It has the street cars that OKC had at one time. OKC had a dense urban core that had the street cars that serviced suburban and urban areas. The advent of the car industry and their buying the street car rail lines with incentives from the government and government policies spread our cities out. It has nothing to do with age. It has to do with policy. We need to learn from our mistakes and improve on the past.

bchris02
11-13-2013, 10:23 AM
In regards to mentioning the walkability of European cities; remember that those cities were established at least several hundred years ago if not thousands of years ago. So, way before cars and trucks. And they existed as such for thousands of years until the 20th century. To compare them to a city in the American west with plenty of wide open space that's only existed for about 125 years isn't really an apples to apples comparison as far as walkability is concerned. And that would be the case with many US cities as compared to European cities.

You are 100% correct. Most of this city's development history has been during the era of the automobile. While some of the downtown decay and sprawl can be attributed to the Big Three and I.M. Pei, this city isn't necessarily unique in that regard. OKC has never been and never will be a walkable city in the sense that European cities are or that US cities in the Northeast and Pacific Northwest are. What can be developed though is an environment and a culture that puts a higher priority on being active than this city has in the past. Simple stuff like greenways and parks will go a long ways. Shopping centers that are more pedestrian friendly rather than being designed for those who get in their cars and drive 100 feet between stores. A downtown that gives people a human-scale living environment for those who want it. Other cities built in the auto-era are doing it and this one can as well.

windowphobe
11-13-2013, 06:11 PM
OKC has never been and never will be a walkable city in the sense that European cities are or that US cities in the Northeast and Pacific Northwest are. What can be developed though is an environment and a culture that puts a higher priority on being active than this city has in the past.

+1, or whatever it is the young folks are saying.

I'm not giving up my wheels; on the other hand, the cost of driving -- even without trying to calculate all the externalities -- is very high, and I am not keen on the idea that everyone should have to pay that cost for the privilege of living here. And I may have gone one word too far with that sentence.

traxx
11-15-2013, 12:53 PM
I think this viewpoint is the problem. America was developed before the car. San Fransisco is a city you don't need a car. It has the street cars that OKC had at one time. OKC had a dense urban core that had the street cars that serviced suburban and urban areas. The advent of the car industry and their buying the street car rail lines with incentives from the government and government policies spread our cities out. It has nothing to do with age. It has to do with policy. We need to learn from our mistakes and improve on the past.

Some good points and I can agree to a point. But also, look at the size of streets in American cities as opposed to European cities. I think that has a bearing on it as well. In a lot of European cities on their older roads, a car will hardly fit.