More for folks from walkable environments, my question is: would you walk an hour and 15 minutes to go to say, the library?
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.
123
Comments120
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.
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 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.
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.
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
That's too much for walking. I would take a bike in that case.
Here's what I consider common:
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 walk that for pleasure, but not for work. Time for you to get a bike.
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
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.)
If the library is the all day activity then sure! Great start and end to it.
Yes. I would but no it would not take that long. I walked to and from work 3 miles for awhile and it was about 45 mins. A neat thing with walking is that the time is very consistant. If I walked pretty much as fast as I could and was lucky on street lights and such I could almost make it in 35 minutes but if I took my sweet ass time it was hard to get to an hour. If I was taking one hour and 15minutes I should be able to get to a library that was 5 miles away. I have regularly walked to my current library in recent times and its about a mile and a half away but I have not really kept track of how long it takes me.
2.3 miles wouldn't take me an hour and 15 min. More like 45 min one way, walking 3.5 - 4 mph.
I would not walk that regularly for the library. I would bike or more likely drive due to time, weather, and some roads between my home and the library not really being suitable to walk/bike safely the whole way. My immediate neighborhood is bike/walk friendly, but as I go out 1 - 2 miles and further, they are very much car roads not built with cyclists and pedestrians in mind.
45 minutes each way would come to 1:15 total walking time
But edit: OP mentions in a comment that it's going to total 2.5 hours.
Maybe OP is short like me. We take longer to get places
5km/h is my casual walking pace.
To answer their question, I walk my dog 4km twice a day.
Yeah, the distance isnt a problem for me either, it's the logistics. Safety on the path there, what to do w my dog while I'm in the library. Fitting that much time into my day for a single-purpose trip. Carrying many pounds of books or larger (my library checks out household maintenance and cooking tools too).
Path safety: I'm in Australia, it's pretty safe.
Dog: I don't take my dog to the library, he's fine at home.
Encumbrance: That's personal, I'm a big guy, I can carry a 20kg backpack for an hour or two without issue.
No
I wouldn't walk any distance for a library.
But even it was a place I actually wanted to go, 10 minutes walking distance is about the maximum. For anything more there has to be a tram (or at least a bus).
I don’t do walks longer than 20 minutes unless it’s for pleasure, thankfully the bus can get me most places I want to go beyond that. The terrain also makes a difference, I’d be less inclined to do 20 minutes uphill or across multiple freeways or something.
Probably not. And no, I've done maybe an hour, but more likely 45 minutes to a library in a car centric city, and now somewhere with public transit I don't think you're ever more than a half hour walk from one
This is part of why I'm so vocal about increasing walkability. There's a cascading effect with increasing walkability as more and more is easily walkable less people need cars and there's more demand for walkability and mass transit solutions.
The fact that I've lived in cities (including major ones) where the public transit is a bus that comes every hour and I've lived where it's faster to take the train to go to a lot of places. If transit sucks, only the poor take it. In many places the bus is treated as welfare not mass transit. It can't improve until the area is willing to invest in distant returns. Not investing however will eventually hit growing urban areas with worse and worse conditions and traffic
No, but walkable places would probably have public transport access as well? If so I'd take the bus. I think I generally consider 15-20 minutes to be "walkable" if I need to go often (train/metro stations, grocery stores). For the occasional trips I'd consider 1 hour walk one way. Anything longer I would probably skip or find alternative ways to get there (including taxis/ride shares)
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.
If that’s the round trip, yes. I do that daily. But one way? No.
If it's a nice library sure
Nah that's too much. Most I did regularly was going to a big mall, 2km away, about 25min walk
Maybe? Does seem a bit much. I already walk about 40 mins to get to work and that's at the higher end of what most people would walk.
But I would maybe do it if there were other things near that library that I need to go to. Have multiple destinations in mind for a longer walk like that.
EDIT: The library by me is about a 5 minute walk for what it's worth. Same for groceries & other stuff.
Very jealous. My favorite grocer is 2.5 miles away and I have to get on a highway to get there. That's the most direct route. Drives me mad.
I used to do 40 minutes walking home from work, it wasn't so bad once I was used to it. One time a buddy dropped me off/picked me up from work on a quad. We took the (defunct) railroad tracks. It was very fun.
Grew up in a small town, the library was about 15 minutes walk. Used to go there three times a week. I miss those days.
Last time I lived in a city, 15m is where I'd take the bus instead.
no, but i would bike 10 minutes
What stops to put a tram there? Or bike there? Thats then 10-20 minutes from my experience
There really could be a tram there. It's my pike dream.
Cars rule everything here. :(
Fat Americans... Right. But they forbid walking for day to day life, make it hostile basically anywhere that isn't a major city, and even there it kind of sucks to walk/take the bus/ride a bike.
There's density here, Universities, my husband works at one of them, he leaves an extra 30 minutes early for work everyday, because parking is such a bitch up there they fight for spots(workers have to pay for a parking pass too!). My son can't even ride his bike to a park or to school. I can't tell you how much I hate it. I'm literally trapped unless I have a car. We won't be able to move somewhere walkable that dream is dead.
I was fit when I rode my bike to work, back in the day in my states capital. My grandfather was a civil engineer who helped design this hell. I will always hate him. I don't have the freedom of movement unless I was to dodge cars going 60mph, and be the only person on the sandy street, where people just stare at you like you're poor from their cars.
Anyway. Ugh. I can hope for changes in the future, but that is becoming very bleak each day.
I knowww right? Im not from america but when ever i see that something around the corner is a 160 minutes walk is CRAZY! Even here in german country side you have to rely on cars to even get anywhere outside the villages!! One should have the right, to get to anywhere with public transport and not be reliant on private tools!
I dont get the whole "cars give you freedom" argument.
How are you indipendent if you are trapped in a metal cage you cant move around in? Dependend on so many companies, mechanics, oil, licensing, insurance and all that you pay yourself!!
I once met one that tried to argue car dependence is good because since you force people to spend their money on all that is good for the economy. I am NOT KIDDING!
The "cars give you freedom" argument also completely breaks apart if you stop to think about the millions of people who can't drive, such as children and blind people, who are forced to rely on someone else taking them everywhere because they can't walk without getting run over and public transport is nonexistent.
It's only "freedom" if you can afford it.
Yes! It is a right!
It SHOULD BE a right! IN LAW just like food, water, housing!!
No, and my closest library is closer to 15 minutes away.
No, that's way too far just for the library. I'd do that for pleasure but right now I'm time poor and can't afford that for a general task.
I can, and have in the past, it's not that big of a deal, but it's not something I do regularly. Here's the thing, 4km takes about 1h walking, 30min by bus/tram, 20min by car (then another 10min finding a place to park), or 15min by bike. This is why bikes are so ubiquitous in European cities, you can get to places usually much faster than by public transport, and sometimes even faster than cars since they have to do weird paths and skip entire neighborhoods.
I normally would take public transport for such distances, mostly because I don't own a bike and sweat more than I'm comfortable with when I ride one, and don't mind the extra 15min of listening to music.
It has been observed through history humans have been willing to spend up to half an hour each way on their daily commute. It doesn't matter if they are walking, biking, driving, flying, or something else, half an hour is the typical budget. Some people do go much longer (transit often allows for little longer if it is otherwise good enough that you can do something else while riding) , but that half an hour rule tends to stand across all cultures. Anyone who has farther to go will move.
That is daily commutes though. People often lived in a village near their field, but every few weeks would make the much longer trip to the town (city?) where there is a bigger market day. You don't do this every day, but for a once or twice a a month trip it can be worth it.
So back to your question is this a regular daily trip to the library - half an hour is the most you get, so you need to have multiple locations in all but the smallest towns. If this is however the big central library with a special collection of some sort people will make a 2 hour walk every few weeks if there is something special you cannot do at the local library.
Realistically I'd aim for a small library within 15 minutes for everyone because shorter distances makes it more likely people will go. You should try to have basic market places in the same location: basic groceries, a couple cafes, a few other shops, doctor and dentist offices.... That is the basics everyone wants close to home in one "central location" so it becomes habit to walk there a few times a week after work. People might go elsewhere to "costco" for their main shopping, but when you just need a cup of sugar this is close enough to send a kid alone while you finishing supper.
Do you happen to have any references? I'd like to read the study/information where you found that data, it actually sounds pretty interesting.
There’s like a gazillions hits in google alone for « study optimal daily commute time » with NIH studies and more in the first 10 results.
No need to be snarky about it…
Topic is indeed interesting, it was an interesting couple of reads.
If you ride a bike it would only be about 15 min each way.
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
German?
What kind of path takes 75min for 3.7km? In a normal environment, this should be doable in 40 minutes.
It's gonna be real annoying for future me with arthritis.
I live in the US and even my walk to the library isn't that bad. Ive done walks that long or a bit longer as a novelty or to get exercise, but in general no, about half an hour is about as long as I "normally" like to go without looking into a bus or something.
Very much depends on my motivation, my schedule and the weather. Walking much more than half an hour feels like a fair distance, and if it's unpleasant weather then I'd be tempted to take a bus or train partway.
But if it's nice weather and I've got plenty of time, walking an hour to go to a museum or whatever would seem perfectly normal.
Nope. That’s would be about the whole of my daily free time just walking over there and back. As I’m aging time is becoming the absolute scarce resource :-(
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 live in a walkable European city.
My nearest library is 5 minutes away, there's a bigger library maybe 20 minutes away, and for anything further I'd take public transport.
Today, my longest walk was 6.8 km. Took about 2 hours, but I had frequent stops as I was collecting kids from their schools and taking them to their respective sports clubs. When I have to go to the office, I run commute, 8 km each way. My watch says that my average step count for the past 7 days is 20,109 per day. I may be an extreme case, but walking 3.7 km to the library would be so routine I wouldn't even think of taking a bus.
No. I would walk ~5-20 minutes to a bus/train station that would take me there.
Edit: for < 4km I would walk. Why does Google think that would be such a long journey in terms of time (which my first response was based upon)
A walkable city has libraries in every alternate neighborhood. So one is generally at most 1~1.5km away. But anything more than ~800m, I'm taking the bus anyway.
I usually run that kind of distance on a e scooter. Faster, less noise and pollution.
People talking walkable cities forget that cars move more than just people. And people don't stay in one living spot all the time. No modern city works without the logistics moving goods in and out and peoples stuff from and to their homes and businesses.
So you can't just remove all the streets and make a denser neighborhood. You need alternative solutions for logistics. I work in rail and I can tell you there is too many people starving in the world, but not for a lack of food but for a lack of logistics infrastructure to get the food to them in time.
Me personally I love underground rail networks and pneumatic tube delivery, but as an engineer i know about the weaknesses of these systems. For now that remains a dream.
No, we don't forget that! What, you think we're idiots? In fact, we are able to distinguish the difference between logistics vehicles and people moving about in individual vehicles. Those are two very different things. A dozen or so semis to the grocery store every day is a far sight different than thousands of cars.
Walkable cities around the world still have stores. And vehicles. It's not that hard.
Cool, let's acknowledge families next. :) I used public transportation until shopping for 5 kids and taking them everywhere until they are old enough required the use of a car. Not a fan, but couldn't be helped. How do we solve for that in walkable neighborhoods? I know what you want to say, let's play devils advocate and find some good arguments to use. ;)
Simple: Kids can walk, too.
Tell me to don't have kids without telling me you don't have small kids. X)
Hmm, yes, I guess I forgot about anthropology's Out of Africa (In a Minivan) hypothesis on the origin of the human species.
Ya let's get back to nomadism. Live in tentssI guess?
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
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.
Maybe on a nice day, but then really because I want to take a walk, and not out of necessity.
For me everything more than 10' of walking from my home is a bike default. Except i need to transport bulky equipment or it rains very strongly. Then its walking with umbrella + bus/train. (I dont own a car, as I live in a City.)
4km / >30 mins is ok for 2x per month - but get a bike, that's a 15 min ride - just l9ng enough for casual excessive.
Where I grew up it was about a 45 minute walk to the library. I went maybe twice a year.
Now I'm about 15 minutes from the library and I'm there weekly.
Its a perfectly fine walk to go that far, it just kinda blows to do it regularly
I used to live in a city where it was 15 minutes to the library, but the walk was awful. No trees, ugly houses, then near a major road. There was homeless tents and no alternatives.
My new place, the walk is gorgeous. Trees, dog walkers, houses with so many ecofriendly gardens. It takes about 30 minutes. But a fraction of the time on a bike.
If I had no responsibilities for the day I would walk that but if I had anything else it would add up too much
I've been walking 3 miles uphill to get to uni every day and it makes you feel so much more accomplished when you do it. I live in a pretty car centric city but there are pavements the whole way there so it's not too bad.
I did close to that, when I was finding jobs after college, I was applying to listing in a library,/uni library. The trains back before pandemic decided they need to renovate for 6 years, so it left with limited options for transportation
Hey, my local public library is 3.2km away from me, which is about a 45 minute walk!
Anyways, no. I have multiple affordable public transit options that can take me there in 10 minutes. There are also bike lanes for the entire route if I ever decide to bike.
Bus or bike distance.
But i also walk closer to 3mph so maybe it would be on the edge of the weather is nice.
Hell no. Maybe if it was a really nice weather, but I would still go home with a bus or a tram, no way I'll carry books that long.
I used to walk an hour and a half to get home from university, but I bussed to get there so I could sleep later and not be too sweaty when I arrived. I believe this would hold true for a library, as I tend to use that time to reflect on what I learned and plan out things.
That said, I'm an outlier; most people won't walk more than an hour, or even 30 minutes, unless I promise them a fun stop on the way or something.
That's almost what it takes for me, so yes.!
Well sure, if you don’t take the ferry
No, I wouldn't. For daily needs, the walk needs to be less than 10 minutes. Weekly less than 20, and anything over that needs to be a special thing. I know the pain of lugging back groceries and a heavy load of books on what was a 20 minute walk one way. Those get a bike with luggage, or the scooter.
I think my requirements would be the same if I had to use a car, actually. An hour trip to see relatives is a once a month/every two months thing.
Yes, when i was a piss poor student I walked home from the booze shop because I missed the bus.
No. I'd not do that anymore. I don't have the free time and I prefer other kinds of exercise.
By the way, count the actual time it took you to walk that. From personal experience, Google Maps always says a considerably higher number
Agreed. 90 minutes to go 2.3 miles sounds like a snails pace. That works out to just under 40 minutes to walk a mile. Most healthy adults should be able to jog or fast walk a mile in under 15 minutes. A 5k is about 3.1 miles and most of the slow runners finish in 30-40 minutes. I would consider 25 minutes per mile a leisurely pace. 40 minutes per mile must mean a lot of signalized intersections. I've found a mile or two is the perfect distance to walk home from the bar after a night out (weather dependent obviously). Maybe Google thinks they'll be walking drunk?
Thats fair. Honestly its less about the time, and more about how hostile the first half the journey is. I used to live in a place that was urban, I felt lazy not wanting to make this trip, just another "stupid lazy American" ya know. Confirmed here it's not normal to walk an hour to a destination as an everyday task, even though I have done walks prior daily, I'm not so young anymore.
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 will sometimes walk up to an hour or so to go somewhere but that's more occasional, for something I need to do regularly 30 minutes is the upper end. Above that, I would usually look at public transports, bike, or car options
1h15 for 3.7 km sounds quite slow though, I would expect closer to 45 minutes for that kind of distance around where I am
I think the most I would walk is around 40-45 minutes. So no, 1h15m would be far too long to justify walking. Maybe on the weekend if the library was super nice?
I used to live about that distance from my work. I only walked it occasionally, if the weather was nice, I had the time to spare, and a little extra energy. Generally I took the bus.
I think 30 minutes is about how long I’d walk to get somewhere before considering public transit or driving.
Definitely would bike or bus something over 30m
I walk more than that just to listen to my podcast in peace lol
We do that few times a year but bike is designed for these distances
No. But that's because I work there.
i try to walk 4 miles a day and often i burn those miles going to the library
I would ride a bike. But generally yes, an hour to get across town is normal and not the crazy thing car brains imagine it to be.
No.
Walking that much sucks because you are all sweaty when you arrive at your destination.
Walkable environments wouldn't include distances like that anyways. The real way to solve this issue is to have town centers that you drive to, and then leave your car behind when you enter it.
If you have even moderate housing density and don’t have giant parking lots and freeways everywhere you can fit most things within a 2 mile radius. Then with that higher density of people since you aren’t wasting a bunch of space on highways and parking you can build usable public transit
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
The infrastructure is ass.
I'm sorry for your loss
No. My City is walkable from one end to the other within an hour. and most things are of course located in the middle of the city, making it so I can go to the library within 10 minutes.
What part of „15 Minutes” as in „15 Minute city” are you too lobotomized to understand?
just walking bro calm down