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.
3.7Km
It is more like 40-50 minutes if you’re in the town with actual roads, not just a corn field.
would you walk an hour and 15 minutes to go to say, the library?
Walking more than an hour just to get to one place? No, unless walking is a sub-goal. You know, the weather is nice, no tasks for today…
Would I? Depends on the day, the weather, the mood.
Would I regularly? No, I would either take public transport or the bike.
Would I need to? Also no, I live in a mid-sized city with many libraries and the closest one is 20 minutes walk away, the main one is some half an hour walk away in another direction. Access to municipal facilities was a key element in my decision of where to live.
I think that, because cars didn’t dictate the layout, things ended up being naturally closer by, such that long walks would be fairly unusual within the city.
Heck I live in a moderately sized town and the library is a 10-15 minute walk away.
Walk? No. I would cycle there. Get some bike bags so you can bring some books back.
Yes that makes sense. Good to know it’s not a common walking length for everyday. I thought I was being lazy not wanting to make the trip on foot. I’ll be two and a half hours walking for a 45 minute meeting …
I wish cars didn’t rule everything here
That’s biking distance boss
As a long time (former) NYer, my maximum walk length is about 20m. Anything further than that and I’m taking public transit. The exception is when it’s a nice day out and I want to walk, in which case it’s just until I get tired
I am from Denmark where the biking infrastructure is also pretty good, so I will almost always take the bike if I’m going somewhere that is further than 1 km away (~.6 miles).
But that is just if I’m going somewhere – taking a 4 km walk just for the sake of the walk and getting some fresh air (especially when the weather is nice) is quite normal here.
If it’s free time and I don’t have any appointments yes. If I have to be there regularly and as appointmemt, I would use public transport on the way there and walk the way back.
These answers are great. I thought so. Folks mentioned bikes. I didn’t think about the bike, there isn’t biking infrastructure in place, and mines been broke in the shed for years. But yeah that would probably be the best way in my situation, if I didn’t have to cross like 5 death traps to use it. The public transport comments make me laugh. I wish.
Don’t forget that scooters are also popular these days, both electric and non-electric. They need less infrastructure and are cheaper than bikes, but please wear a fucking helmet. Roller blades depending on the surface or even Skateboarding can also be used to cut the time/effort.
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?
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.
That’s too much for walking. I would take a bike in that case.
Here’s what I consider common:
- Walk 10 minutes to the train station
- Get to the city center while scrolling Lemmy on your phone.
- Walk in the center to visit some fancy stores. Maybe like 15-20 minutes in one direction.
- Buy some specialty coffee, fancy kitchen knives, Bialetti rubber rings or whatever.
- Walk back to the station: 15-20 minutes.
- Battery is nearly dead, and I forgot to bring a charger with me. I guess I’ll just stare out the window.
- Walk back home: 10 min.
In total, that’s going to be like an hour, but it’s divided into multiple parts. Walking that much in just one direction is something I would prefer to avoid. If the library is a 60 min walk away, that’s the same as like 12 bus stops or 15 minutes while sitting in a bus. BTW that 15 minutes includes walking at both ends of the journey. I would definitely choose public transport over walking in that case.
If the destination is just 15 minutes walk away from your house, that’s perfectly normal, and not a problem in any way. If it’s like 20 minutes away, I would begin to consider using a bike or maybe even a bus.
I’m in pretty much the same boat as you
0-20 minutes is usually walking or up to about 1mi/1.6km After that I usually consider biking up to around 5mi/8km If biking isn’t good due to terrain/parking/activity or any further I would generally rather take some form of public transit
Alas I live in the U.S. in a non pedestrian friendly area now and the majority of the time the only real option is driving
I’ve spent some time in a few different environments in Europe. In the city, the walking rule applies, and public transport works well. You don’t really need a car unless you buy ikea furniture frequently. The larger the city, the more you end up hating your car.
In small towns, the focus shifts towards walking, bicycling and driving your own car. Busses might exist, but just barely. Not something you would consider unless you’re completely out of options. If you live close to the town center, you can walk or bike nearly everywhere, but you usually still need a car for certain things. That’s not really a problem because parking is free and always available everywhere.
If you’re in a more rural environment, walking is no longer an option, because everything is at least 5 km (about an hour walk) away, usually more like 20-50 km away. Bicycling is an option, but there are no bike lanes. That’s usually not a huge problem since there’s hardly any traffic to bother you. The locals seem to enjoy F1 and rally though, so bare that in mind. Oh, and the wildlife is actively looking for ways to commit suicide using your car, so keep your eyes open while driving.
So, how is it on the other side of the puddle? I’ve heard all sorts of wild things, and I get the feeling that it’s really different from what I’ve experienced here.
I lived in a town of around 5k that was all within 9 km2 and there it was great because you could walk/bike everywhere and there was a regular bus that took you to the next town over that was even smaller that was also walkable, really the only time you needed a car was going to do outdoor sports or if you needed to get any further than the other town because the next closest town was around 120km away
I also lived in a city of around 160k that was considered one of the most bikeable cities in the country and you could bike to the stores but even then you would end up having to bike around cars on roads going 75km/hr which isn’t super fun and there were busses but they generally didnt run frequently enough to rely on so even things like going to the gym or the grocery store usually involved a car
I grew up in the suburban hell which represents large chunks of America where it was around 5-10km to any store and your only real option was driving
Where I currently live there are busses but they don’t really run frequently to rely on and while the downtown area is decently walkable there aren’t any good sidewalks or bike lanes to get there so most people drive to the downtown. But there aren’t really any grocery stores in the down town area all the shops are more niche shops or bars/reastaurants so you still basically have to own a car
So of all those the first one was the only one you could comfortably live without a car
Thanks for the reply. That really clarifies a few things. No wonder why they call it a suburban hell.
Anyway about the shopping thing. In walkable places, the largest shopping centers tend to be close metro/train/bus stations, so you can easily do your shopping on the way home. I guess that’s not the case in America, now is it?
We have a lot of absolutely massive stores, as in around 4000 m^2 and then they have parking lots that are generally even larger so a single grocery store can take up 10,000 m^2 and then they are usually in the same lot as massive sporting goods or clothes stores of comparable sizes. So you end up with these giant clumps of stores but with the only way of getting there is to drive or walk along a highway
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
In general no
However, a sunny Sunday, walking 1h to do something may be part of the fun.
For distance above roughly a km, I use bicycle or even bus/train
I’d walk that for pleasure, but not for work. Time for you to get a bike.
Walkable means all you need is in reasonable walking distance.
I wouldn’t consider my neighbourhood to be particularly walkable as it’s a suburb (in Europe) but my library is about 15 mins walk away.
Sometimes the amenity you need isn’t in that walkable range, but cycling is a great alternative.
In NYC everything is within like a 15 minute walk, including the library
In my city, there are enough libraries that few if any residents are that far from one (I’m a block away from one myself).
In theory, I’d walk that far if the library had a rare book or something else unique I wanted to see; but if I just wanted a place to read I’d go to a café, and if I wanted a generally-available book I’d go to a bookstore. (I figure most books worth walking that far for are worth owning.)
