DC Walk Score Map

Here courtesy of WalkScore is a nice map showing the "walkability" of different DC neighborhoods:

If you know the city at all, you'll see that being pedestrian-friendly is a strong correlate of being prosperous. This reality sometimes tends to confuse the debate over planning for walkers. Because walkable neighborhoods tend to be inhabited by well-off people, the whole topic gets construed as a concern "for" well-off yuppies. But really that's backwards. Walkable areas tend to be full of relatively rich people because they're relatively rare and relatively desirable -- their scarcity means that the less prosperous are priced out of these areas, but if we shifted policy to increase the supply of areas with good pedestrian access, people of more modest means would be able to afford them.

That, in turn, would be a serious blow for socioeconomic equity because at the end of the day while yuppies may like a nice walkable neighborhood, it's poor people, seniors, and older kids who are mostly likely to really be unable to drive where they want to go.

Comments

There's not a single portion of the east side of that map (specifically east of the river) that is any less 'walkable' then the center. There's enough density and enough sidewalks. There just ain't anything to walk *to*.

And you know what's comparatively not walkable? The center of the Mall, which is very green on your map. If you hypothetically live there, you are a good 1/2 mile from any commercial activity (at least any commercial activity that doesn't involve buying either a three dollar coke or a 'Female Body Inspector' T-shirt)

Posted by Carts and Horses | July 18, 2008 8:55 AM

Yeah, I think Matt got this one wrong.

WalkScore just measures distances to a list of possible amenities, including a variety of commercial establishments. At least in its current form, it has no way of determining if the local roads have sidewalks and such. And as a prior poster pointed out, by that measure a lot of those less walkable areas would be fine--what they apparently lack according to WalkScore is the same density of amenities in the more walkable areas.

So I suspect what the correlation between income and walkability is showing in this case is basically just that higher-income neighborhoods are likely to attract a greater density of commercial establishments. The explanation for that result is kinda obvious, and I'm not sure there is a whole heck of a lot one can do about that from a public policy perspective, other than trying to address the underlying problems that are creating such large income disparities between neighborhoods in the first place.

Posted by DTM | July 18, 2008 9:07 AM

At least in its current form, it has no way of determining if the local roads have sidewalks and such.

Exactly. Click on over to the interactive map and zoom in, and you'll see that the area around the Kennedy Center (a pedestrian's nightmare of on and off ramps which the NCPC has thankfully proposed to demolish) is all green.

Posted by Jake H. | July 18, 2008 9:23 AM

If you know the city at all, you'll see that being pedestrian-friendly is a strong correlate of being prosperous.

Except for Foxhall, which is too rich to allow vulgar intrusions like businesses or sidewalks.

Posted by Marc | July 18, 2008 9:27 AM

Except for Foxhall, which is too rich to allow vulgar intrusions like businesses or sidewalks.

Walk to the store you say? Whyever should we bother? We just send Consuela out in the Escalade to Wegman's in Fairfax.

Posted by Jake H. | July 18, 2008 9:34 AM

Has MY considered that perhaps one factor driving against "walkability" is our societal agreement, enshirned in the ADA, that things need to be accessible to the disabled?

In reality "walkability" has to also mean "wheelchair accessible," and a ramp takes up a lot more space than a couple of steps.

---

And as MY often casts walkability and drivability, and we literally mean "walkability," then there are a number of people who literally cannot walk, and would lose acceess.

I'm not saying this ends the argument, and I don't think that our current cars-first environment is the result of altruistic concern for the disabled, but it needs to be addressed.

Posted by JohnMcG | July 18, 2008 9:36 AM

No, I think Matt has this right. Walkscore is an automated system and there are plenty of idiosyncracies in its results. But generally speaking it does a pretty good job.

One point to add to Matt's: walkable neighborhoods are a godsend for senior citizens, who otherwise end up isolated in their homes. If you're old, you really want to be in Brooklyn, not rattling around in a huge house in Florida.

Posted by Adam | July 18, 2008 9:39 AM

JohnMcG,

In the commercial district in my neighborhood, the sidewalks are level with the entrances. So, no ramps, and wheelchairs can just come straight in.

Posted by DTM | July 18, 2008 9:47 AM

Walkability doesn't mean what Matt thinks it means in this case. A definite swing and a miss, the definition used for the map:

. The Walk Score algorithm awards points based on the distance to the closest amenity in each category.

(Emphasis Added) Now that's a decent definition to use to measure walkability. However there's a self correlation with 'prosperous' and 'amenities' built into the equation. There are two reasons a neighborhood could be 'unwalkable,' one is design the other is lack of economic support for amenities. In DC the east side of the river suffers from the latter, most inner cities have significant sections that lack economic support for amenities. There are public policy options to ameliorate that, at least on the basics like grocery stores, but it has little to do with design or zoning.

Posted by Joel | July 18, 2008 9:54 AM

No, I think Matt has this right. Walkscore is an automated system and there are plenty of idiosyncracies in its results. But generally speaking it does a pretty good job.

I agree but couldn't it do better? I'm sure the algorithm could be improved to take things like curb cuts or highways into account.

Posted by Jake H. | July 18, 2008 9:54 AM

There just ain't anything to walk *to*.

That's exactly what walkability is supposed to measure -- if you live there, you can't get to the store/restaurant/whatever by walking.

What walk score doesn't measure, I don't think, is access to mass transit. (Also, a lot of the scores are erratic; some of the things it lists as near my apartment just aren't there.)

Posted by Matt Weiner | July 18, 2008 9:58 AM

Who cares it? Just want to date a rich man on Rich kis s.co m. So many certified millionaires there. Let me have one. The rich, just come on, to kiss me! haha...

Posted by brown | July 18, 2008 10:05 AM

Jake H.,

I've actually been thinking a bit about how to improve WalkScore. I personally wonder if a collaborative database/wiki approach might be a good idea. People could just rate sections of road they know. The simpler the system the better--maybe one or two dimensions (physical walkability and aesthetics) and a four or five point scale (e.g., a 1 on physical walkability would be "impossible", a 5 would be for perfectly level sidewalks in good condition with appropriate crossings). WalkScore could then use that collaborative database and Google's routing function to calculate appropriate scores for the walks to their list of amenities.

Anyway, just a thought.

Posted by DTM | July 18, 2008 10:06 AM

Actually, John McG has got it exactly wrong. The ADA accessability requirements have improved pedestrian access immensely. Without those requirements it would be harder or impossible for regular walkers to go a lot of places they go today.

A lot of you are too young to remember, but if you keep your eyes open you will see remnants, narrow stairs and doorways that are very difficult for anyone other than agile young people to use, broken sidewalks, irregular or winding stairs, no sidewalks, etc. Because the ADA has ensured that adequate access is available, we view these remnants as picturesque oddities. If, back in the day, you had to share a single width doorway with 500 other students jousting for three flights of poorly designed stairs to climb to get to class, you would appreciate the improvements more.

Posted by serial catowner | July 18, 2008 10:17 AM

DTM - Good idea. Another advantage to a wiki approach would be more up-to-date information. I heard Matt Weiner's complaint about outdated amenity info on another blog as well.

Posted by Jake H. | July 18, 2008 10:24 AM

Often as I've visited, and always on foot, I've still always found Washington the least walkable major city I know. The basic layout of widely separately intersections, frequent traffic circles, lack of subways in some key locations, and domination in most of the parts here said to be most friendly by huge office and government complexes makes everything feel like an arctic expedition. The relative separation between neighborhoods and commercial districts is also sharper than in almost any city I know.

As a New Yorker, I can get a good sense of the rating system by looking at their top choices here, and they're laughable. One would think of walkable as, say, the density and mix of housing, shops, restaurants, galleries or music venues, and so on in Chelsea, the Upper West Side, Williamsburg, Park Slope, the Lower East Side, or the East Village say. But tops, Tribeca is relatively deserted in off hours compared to more vibrant neighborhoods, short on housing (especially affordable housing), short on retail apart from some hot restaurants, and off the grid, with longer blocks.

Next is Little Italy, a tourist trap of elbow to elbow mediocre restaurants. Next is Soho, a pack of upscale national chain stores for the bridge and tunnel crowd from which galleries and other New Yorkers were obliged to flee years ago (and without one supermarket). Then the Garment District, a commercial area with neither housing nor shopping nor anywhere decent and affordable for office workers to eat at lunch. Guess it just shows what a Beltway insider's idea of community is.

Posted by John Haber | July 18, 2008 10:44 AM

That, in turn, would be a serious blow for socioeconomic equity.

Indeed!

As many of us are aware, the US has been falling behind other rich countries in the category of social mobility. I'd love to see a study looking into the connection between reduced social mobility and cars; specifically, the widespread necessity in America of purchasing and maintaining an expensive piece of personal transportation equipment (make that two such pieces for many families). In other words, the socioeconomic inequity problem as it relates to inadequate public transportation isn't just a matter of putting well-paying jobs beyond the geographic reach of poor and working class people (bad enough as that is). There's also the simple issue of the added, often quite onerous financial strain for those who do manage to acquire the means to get to these jobs.

Posted by Jasper | July 18, 2008 10:44 AM

there's walkability and there's walkability. One thing I thought I would like about moving into my apt in downtown DC (techincally Logan Circle, according to Walkscore) is that it was 6 blocks from everything - moving in from the suburbs it would be great to give up my car. The thing I hate about where I live is that it really is 6 blocks from anything - and after awhile I resent having to walk 6 blocks to get *anything*. Yet Walkscore gives my neighborhood a "98". I'm relatively young - I can imagine how awful those 6 blocks will be once I'm old and creaky.

Posted by Ethel-to-Tilly | July 18, 2008 12:11 PM