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.
I wouldn’t hesitate to walk that far for a library, but realistically I’d take my cruiser bike for that distance. I’ve heard people tend to cite around 15-20 minutes as the maximum walk length that is considered “walkable,” but I’ve often chosen walking longer distances than that even when other options were available. For dense urban areas, I’d rather walk that take a bus unless it’s really far. Sometimes I get passed up by the same bus 5 or 6 times along the way. I agree with others who have said that time estimate sounds way long.
no, but i would bike 10 minutes
What kind of path takes 75min for 3.7km? In a normal environment, this should be doable in 40 minutes.
I’d walk that for pleasure, but not for work. Time for you to get a bike.
Nah. If I can use public transport for such distances, I will.
For once because it’s quicker, and because my path would probably lead along some noisy roads, so it wouldn’t be fun to walk there
I don’t go to the office often, but when I do, I usually walk. The distance is 4km and it takes me 40mins. It’s not like I walk often, most days I get less than 2k steps, but I do walk fast.
It is up to you (unless the infrastructure is an ass) to make it there in 40mins or 2 hours
I walk 1,5 km in 10-15 minutes (depends on if I am alone or not), so yes I would walk that. But I like walking, I can suggest walking as a way to hang out haha
If it’s more than a 20 minute walk I’m biking, if it’s more than a 30 minute bike ride I’m driving, if it’s more than a 40 minute drive I’m not going.
Last time I lived in a city, 15m is where I’d take the bus instead.
Depends on the weather but probably not. I would walk an hour to a concert, to keep from having to park the car, but library, no. 2 miles doesn’t seem like it should take that long though - 2 miles is the distance kids have to have between their house and the school before the school bus will get them, so I had to walk that twice a day for 7 years of my youth, it didn’t take an hour.
I’d bike it. 2.3 miles should only be a 45 minute walk for a normal person unless there’s bad stop lights (assume ~20 minute miles). On a bike it’s less than 15
Not really.
I may do a walk like that if I incorporate the walk as a leisure. But if I have to just be in a place I won’t be walking more than 30-40 minutes to get to it if there’s a fastest more convenient way.
Everyone has their own definition of “walkable”. For me that’s not, plus it’s getting to the point where the books i’d likely get would be annoying to carry. But also do you mean literally walkable or “don’t need a car”. The latter includes transit and micromobility
I walk to my library but it’s less than ten minutes. Especially since they put up parking meters, walking ten minutes is more convenient than finding change or feeding a profiteering app company.
Unfortunately the best part of my towns downtown is a mile away so less convenient. Most of the time I’ve lived here I’ve decided to drive the mile but since pandemic I’ve been far more likely to walk. I recently went to a diner where a newly opened trail made it a nice walk despite it being over a mile.
And the definition of walkable changes over time as well. As a young adult I lived in Boston and considered essentially everything walkable. While I was also a big user of transit, they tended to be too slow and crowded when you can walk instead. Most of my driving was to move my car for street cleaning or snow removal
A reasonable amount of time would be 15min-30min
Longer than that there needs to be transit
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.
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.
“Walkable” is a very bad description of your vision in that case. :) Anti-car would be more correct, no?
