Is that amount of time common to walk in places in the world where cars don’t dictate the layout of the community?
Im going to be making this walk tomorrow, no worries, I’m just curious if its normal in other places. Maps says its 1hour15minues for 2.3miles or 3.7Km.
A walkable environment also means good public transport.
I live somewhere that absolutely should be walkable and it isn’t. No local public transport, not a single bike lane.
It’s really frustrating. Last time I tried to walk to the store, a 15 minute walk, not counting waiting for the crosswalk light at the 5 lane, four way intersection, my son and I almost got hit by a car when we had the walk signal. It is smelly, loud, dirty, and outright hostile to pedestrians. It’s even dangerous for the cars, that intersection is a race track, and there are accidents there all the time. That’s what I must cross to make my way, two miles, to downtown. I really want walkability.
Anyway, meeting I had to walk for, was able to make it virtual.
I don’t want to live like this. It’s not human.
I asked here, because I thought I was being lazy not wanting to make this journey. I’m glad to confirm, I’m not, and it is not common to walk this length.
That’s weird reasoning. Why would walkable mean there’s busses?
For me walkable means that you don’t need to own a vehicle from going from point A to B and pedestrians are not an afterthought.
For my daily commute or to meet my friends it’s faster/comfortable to walk to the metro station or bus stop than picking the car.
“Walkable” is a very bad description of your vision in that case. :) Anti-car would be more correct, no?
I know a lot of ways to shape an environment so that you do not need a vehicle, yet it’s not walkable neither.
Where I live there are neither. The roads are not walkable, and there is no public transport. I would be happy if they were walkable. I’ll never see buses here as long as I live. They are separate things.