Today’s Headlines

  • New York Leads US in "Walkable Urban Places" (Post)  
  • Urbanites Will Soon Outnumber Rural Populations (City Room)
  • Hudson Yards Proposals Are In; No One Is Talking About Parking (TSTC)
  • Gowanus Shore Unlikely Target of Land Speculators (Crain’s)
  • Bloomberg Again Links Pricing to Transit Fare (News
  • This Year’s Gotta-Have Gift: The Rush Hour Traffic Jam Puzzle (Politicker
  • MTA to Hold Online Forum (Post
  • Rider Report Cards Dismissed as PR Gimmick (Sun
  • From Portland to New Haven, Streetcars Are Hot (N.H. Independent
  • Americans Don’t Know How to Run a Railroad (WaPo
  • Angus Grieve-Smith

    That Brookings report is funny. Here’s the full version:

    New York is #10 because it “only” has 21 regionally significant walkable places for its population of 18 million? Well, to have as many places per capita as DC it’d have to have at least 71. Honestly, I’m sure it has more than 71 places that are at least as walkable as Dupont Circle and as regionally significant as Park Slope and Morningside Heights. We shouldn’t be penalized for Leinberger not doing his homework.

    Here are my nominations for 21 places not mentioned; I’m sure others here can add at least 29 more.

    Queens: Jamaica, Flushing, Jackson Heights, Long Island City, Astoria, Sunnyside, Woodside, Bayside, Corona, Ridgewood, Elmhurst, Rego Park, Forest Hills, Kew Gardens, Ozone Park.

    The Bronx: Fordham, The Hub, Parkchester, Woodlawn, Riverdale, Norwood, Concourse Village.

  • Boogiedown

    Angus: I was just about to make the same comment, but you said it better than I would have!

  • Steve

    Angus, agree 100%. I wonder why this real estate developer was permitted to do a study in the name of the Brookings Institution that puts NY 10th in walkable cities, just above (gasp) L.A.? What a joke. The mass media widely reported on this report, but completely ignored the problem with the per-capita approach.

  • Charlie D.

    Studies like these are so arbitrary. Your results will vary greatly depending on what you’re trying to measure. For example, you could measure the percentage of people who walk to work, the average distance walked per person per day, etc. Each one would give you a different result. I don’t really understand the approach of identifying specific “walkable” areas and then using a per capita approach, one because the identification of these areas can be somewhat arbitrary, and two because as density increases, the number of walkable areas per capita goes down even though walkability itself may go up.