Jacksonville: One of America's Least Walkable Cities

[thelakelander]

I like the term "Proximityscore".  It's a lot more accurate. Live adjacent to a 150,000 square foot strip mall and you're likely to have a higher walkscore than staying within two blocks of San Marco Square.  It doesn't matter if reaching that shopping center means playing frogger across an 8-lane highway (with no sidewalks) and dodging vehicles in a 50-acre surface parking lot.

[simms3]

Proximity to staple goods (i.e. grocery, services, I suppose restaurants, pharmacy, gym) is what gives an area a higher walkscore.

So yes, Avondale and San Marco with their pilates places and persian rug stores and consignment shops and books shops does not make the area "walkable" in the sense that residents can go car free because they still have to drive to the grocery, to the doctor, to the bank, etc etc.  What is Riverside/5 Point's walkability score?  I imagine that's highest for Jax?

I just tested: Inputting the Riverside Publix address = 89 Walkability.  Makes sense.

1 Independent Dr in DT Jax got 92 (how?  I have no clue)

The description:

1 Independent Drive is a Walker's Paradise, which means daily errands do not require a car.

1980 San Marco Blvd (Starbucks) got a 75, and I can understand why it'd be less than Riverside/5 Points.


I just tested my apartment's address and nobody can beat me! 

100 Walkscore, 100 Transitscore, 82 Bikescore

xxx Xxxxxxx Street is a Walker's Paradise, which means daily errands do not require a car.

This location is a Rider's Paradise with 94 nearby bus routes and 11 rail routes.

There are excellent bike lanes and the terrain is flat as a pancake. xxx Xxxxxxx Street is very bikeable, biking is convenient for most trips.

[thelakelander]

Lol. I just checked the walkscore of 9964 Old Baymeadows Rd, Jacksonville, FL 32256.  That's the Publix at Baymeadows and Southside.  It's 86.





Evidently, according to Walkscore this location is very walkable, which means most errands can be accomplished on foot.  In reality, if you lived in one of the nearby apartment complexes, you could reach a number of things on foot.  However, sidewalks may not be a part of your trip.

To rub it in more, I also tossed in the location of Pizza Palace in the heart of San Marco Square.  It's walkscore ranking is 75.

[Know Growth]

Tuesday,December 10 7:30-11:00 a.m.
Omni Jacksonville Hotel
245 Water Street
Event Mgr 904 265 2236

Walkability in the Urban Planning Process

Featuring Guest Lecturer Jeff Speck
Author, Walkable City

[peestandingup]

It ought to be called "shit" because that's what it is. My experience, and Lake's example above, just proves that.

They need to include LOTS more data than just "stuff that's around" for any kind of accuracy determining a "walk score". Taking a ride with a simple Google Maps street view would give you a much better idea of walkability than that stupid site.

[Lunican]

A pedestrian death heatmap might be more accurate.

[Scrub Palmetto]

Honestly, I think trying to collect and analyze all the data and factors needed to come up with a truly accurate "walk score" would take a prohibitive number of person-hours. I think the biggest thing overlooked is the actual human element, and it's really much simpler than looking at any secondary indicators. Every place that someone would be interested in the "walk score" of is full of residents. Survey them! Ask about their walking, their sense of safety. It doesn't matter what's nearby if the people aren't actually doing the walking. Now if that were what Walkscore.com did, was to conduct surveys of walking behavior, I would be much more interested in it.

[simms3]

^^But even that lends itself to many discrepancies.  What someone deems "comfortably walkable" and "convenient by foot" in NYC might be totally different from what one considers walkable in Jacksonville.

Also, ask someone from Seattle or San Francisco if they care to walk around Miami, and you might get a response like "hell no, too hot!", but ask someone from Jax and they may think Miami is very walkable because they're used to the heat (and it IS way more walkable than Jax, which shapes people's opinions).  Conversely, ask someone from Jax/Miami if they would want to walk around Boston or Minneapolis, two cities considered extremely walkable by American standards, and you might get a "hell no, wayyy to cold!".

Finally, ask someone from this site if they'd walk around the seedier parts of Brooklyn or the Tenderloin in SF, and you might get some answer that goes like this: "Yes, there are ethnic restaurants and grocery stores and bars within walking distance and convenient to public transportation and DENSE, it would YES!" (of course all based on density and a love affair with a concept not offered in [insert small/sunbelt city here].  But ask someone who actually lives in NYC or SF if they'd walk around some of the seediest parts of the city just because they're "walkable", and you might get a "who are you kidding?  Russian roulette in daylight, certain death by night - I won't even take the bus through that part!"

Generally I like the Walkscore because its metrics aren't subjective and it gets most things right.  Really, it's hard to lump a sprawled out sunbelt city like Jax in with a bunch of older, denser, built around the person cities such as Boston or Chicago.  I don't even know how you "rank" Jax, Houston, Oklahoma City, Charlotte, etc etc.  But I can see how one can rank NYC, SF, Boston, DC, Philly, Chicago, Seattle, Miami, Minneapolis, Providence, Richmond, etc etc.

[Scrub Palmetto]

I don't mean ask people about their armchair opinions of how walkable they think a plethora of cities' neighborhoods across the country are that they don't live in. I mean ask them about their behavior. Where they walk and why and what their experience is like.

[deathstar]

This was also noted in this article...

10 Least Hipster Cities: http://www.facebook.com/l.php?u=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.movoto.com%2Fblog%2Ftop-ten%2Fleast-hipster-cities&h=kAQFGHy-w

"Jacksonville ranked as the least walkable city."

[thelakelander]

A saw this nugget this morning on Baymeadows Road and decided to run it through Walkscore.  This location comes in at 55 (Somewhat Walkable).

[Know Growth]

Friends of mine,Californians,when visiting Jacksonvile,routinely walk from Lambs Yacht Center west of Roosevelt Blvd. to Downtown and back.The locals can't fathom such.

[Ocklawaha]

This thing looks pretty busted to me. 303 Anastasia, about 2 blocks east of the Bridge of the Lions in St. Augustine scores just 62, lower then San Marco, both of which are infinitely more walkable then ½ the cities in the list. The St. Augustine Visitors Center at 10 West Castillo scores a healthy 89, but the Oldest School on the PEDESTRIAN ONLY ST GEORGE STREET scores lower at 82. Over on Vilano Beach, on old Vilano Blvd, the Marina store, in the center of broad decorative sidewalks, fountains, Publix, restaurants, hotels etc within a block or two scores just 15! Me thinks this is flawed. 

[Scrub Palmetto]

Ock, I would think it has to do with distance. You can see a breakdown of the closest 8 places and their distances by category. I wish I could give counts greater than 8, but even so, I think this hints at why they're scoring low:

Within .5 miles:

303 Anastasia Blvd (walk score 62):
Restaurants: 8+
Coffee: 0
Bars: 4
Groceries: 2
Parks: 0
Schools: 2
Shopping: 2
Entertainment: 3
Errands: 1

Vilano Rd (walk score 15):
Restaurants: 8+
Coffee: 0
Bars: 0
Groceries: 2
Parks: 0
Schools: 0
Shopping: 0
Entertainment: 0
Errands: 0

For comparison, my spot in Kansas City (walk score 89):
Restaurants: 8+
Coffee: 8+
Bars: 7
Groceries: 3
Parks: 2
Schools: 4
Shopping: 8+
Entertainment: 4
Errands: 8+

I would agree that a "walk score" doesn't necessarily show "walkable," as you've shown some good examples of places that very well may be walkable, depending on the definition, but are scored "car-dependent" because they have less within a given distance. Having more destination choices within a given area is definitely a factor in how walkable the area is, but not the only one. Some people can find a place with few destination choices perfectly walkable. And really, many people's needs could be perfectly catered by a small number of diverse establishments, so if those needs are being met within walking distance and people are doing the walking, that should factor greatly into how the location is scored. I think that's kind of what walkscore.com is attempting, but it barely scratches the surface. It lists and plots places ad nauseum, but suppose all of the shops within walking distance are antique stores, or all the restaurants are fast food. The parks could all be small and without amenities. It's not showing a full picture.

[I-10east]

I get sick of the "Jacksonville: Original Home of Pedestrians Deaths" slogan many people think is justified. Most of the time, the pedestrian/bicyclist incidents are their own fault; Not crossing and the crosswalk properly; Dark clothing; Not having lights on the bike at night, etc.

I know that this is sacrilegious to say, but whenever I hear about a pedestrian/bicyclist incident when it might be their own fault, the first thing that comes to mind ISN'T "Great, another pedestrian death in Jax; It's because of the vast suburban sprawled layouts, blah blah blah blah" it's "Did the pedestrian use the crosswalk" etc.

A couple of months ago I was driving down Main Street at speed limit during night, and a pedestrian wearing dark clothes was crossing Main going in a diagonal direction towards me already in the freaking middle of the slow lane; I BARELY saw him, and I was in the fast lane. Now if I would have hit him, causing his demise, it would have most likely been on the news, and some of yall would have attributed to me, with the instant 'blame the automobile' mentality such as..."me speeding" or maybe "the Main St suburban layout" etc. Many times, reckless actions (sometimes drugs etc) cause people deaths, and no amount of crosswalks, lampposts, bike lanes etc can help that. Maybe if they reduced the speed limit to 5MPH, it would help....

IMO it would be a complete waste of money to build sidewalks in deep suburban areas, for the sake of boosting up a walkscore right now (Southside Blvd etc); Maybe way in the future would be a better time. You might see an occasional jogger on a new hypothetical Southside Blvd sidewalk, that's about it. IMO the slacking areas around the core with foot traffic should be a top priority.