Having recently taken a trip to NYC; this is so true. I got more exercise than I normally ever do, felt great, and never once thought about traffic. Walkable cities are amazing.
this post was submitted on 07 Aug 2025
660 points (98.2% liked)
Fuck Cars
12956 readers
2481 users here now
A place to discuss problems of car centric infrastructure or how it hurts us all. Let's explore the bad world of Cars!
Rules
1. Be Civil
You may not agree on ideas, but please do not be needlessly rude or insulting to other people in this community.
2. No hate speech
Don't discriminate or disparage people on the basis of sex, gender, race, ethnicity, nationality, religion, or sexuality.
3. Don't harass people
Don't follow people you disagree with into multiple threads or into PMs to insult, disparage, or otherwise attack them. And certainly don't doxx any non-public figures.
4. Stay on topic
This community is about cars, their externalities in society, car-dependency, and solutions to these.
5. No reposts
Do not repost content that has already been posted in this community.
Moderator discretion will be used to judge reports with regard to the above rules.
Posting Guidelines
In the absence of a flair system on lemmy yet, let’s try to make it easier to scan through posts by type in here by using tags:
- [meta] for discussions/suggestions about this community itself
- [article] for news articles
- [blog] for any blog-style content
- [video] for video resources
- [academic] for academic studies and sources
- [discussion] for text post questions, rants, and/or discussions
- [meme] for memes
- [image] for any non-meme images
- [misc] for anything that doesn’t fall cleanly into any of the other categories
Recommended communities:
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
Walkable and bikeable, please. While it is nice to be able to exercise and explore, sometimes I just need to transport a few bags worth of groceries, and carrying bags for over an hour is not fun.
I'll take a bike and some pannier bags please.
carrying bags for over an hour is not fun.
I hate to break it to you, but if you have to walk an hour to buy groceries you’re not living in a walkable city.
If it's an hour to the grocery store I don't think that's walkable either
an hour to walk to the grocery store is about 10 minutes on a bike. Just get a backpack to carry things.
Yeah, that's bikeable, but not walkable
A walkable city means everything, including the grocery store, is a conveniently walkable distance away, which would automatically make it bikeable, too. An hour's walk to the grocery store does not a walkable city make.
I feel it's hard to find places which are walkable but not bikeable (outside of the USA)
A walkable grocery store is at max a 10-15 mins from the house (in my opinion). This allows you to just pop in and buy stuff while coming from the public transport stop without having to schedule big trips for the entire week/month.
i feel like there's a general tendency for people to mean different things when they say "bike", some people think dutch-style cycling where high gears are something you use when you're late for school, other people think more like road biking where low gears are something you begrudgingly resort to when you encounter a steep incline.
slow cycling is perfectly compatible with pedestrian places so long as it isn't like a medieval alleyway, but fast biking is going to end up with people getting bruises.
Fast cycling isn't really compatible with walkable culture. It needs some level of infrastructure for separation (lanes, lights, crossings, etc) to prevent collisions. I don't understand the fascination with fast cycling for anything except for sports, exercise or long distance travel.
Slow cycling and walking don't need any such infrastructure and that's commonly considered as a walkable area. It brings roughly 1 km radius in a 5-10 minute zone and that's enough area for at least 60-70% of required facilities (school, police station, fire station, hospital, groceries, bakery, shopping, transit stops).
and here i feel we've overcorrected.
Fast biking is absolutely fine (i have an e-bike, it's very nice) and doesn't require any insane infrastructure, just some wider straighter bike paths between more significant and far apart destinations.
like i'm sorry but i'm not gonna bike to the next town over at 15km/h, and those routes aren't going to have lots of pedestrians.
A big road having bike lanes is perfectly fine. Moreover it's encouraging to see people talking of putting bike lanes for commuters. But that's a bikeable area, not a walkable one. And these 2 make sense in diff situations.
As long as kids and old people are able to walk or slow cycle most places, unsupervised (in a 20-40 minute radius around their homes), I'm happy with that. A place suitable for these 2 demographics is walkable for almost everyone else as well.
I remember some comment somewhere on lemmy about e scooters being too slow (it was 10 or 15 km/h?) so they shouldn't be in a bike lane and all I'm thinking is "I wonder if I exceed 5 km/h on my bike when there's strong headwind" lol
I'm not sure dutch biking is a good example for slow biking. A lot of bikes here in the Netherlands are e-bikes these days, and even without e-bikes people tend to be quite fast, especially on main streets that go straight for a while.
But then, most streets have bike lanes, and cars are very bike aware in streets that don't. Pedestrians and bikes don't share the same space.
dutch-style cycling where high gears are something you use when you're late for school
Where I lived in the Netherlands there often were electric bikes and scooters and sports bikes going 30+kph on the bike lanes.
Text:
Walkable cities sneak exercise into daily life. Coffee runs, grocery trips and commutes turn into steps that boost dopamine, mood and energy.
Car dependent cities keep you parked in traffic and at desks, fuelling sedentary habits linked to depression and cognitive decline.
Walkable cities invite chance encounters. Smiles on sidewalks, quick chats with neighbours and local shop hellos build connection and fight loneliness.
Car dependent cities keep people alone in cars and homes where isolation quietly chips away at mental well being.
Walkable cities give you options to stroll, bike or take transit. Less car dependence means less traffic stress, more freedom and calmer mornings.
Car dependent cities lock you into unpredictable commutes, noise and road rage that spike cortisol and strain mental health daily
Walkable cities weave green parks and trees into everyday life. Nature exposure lowers stress, improves focus and lifts mood.
Car dependent cities replace trees with asphalt and noise, pumping out pollution that can worsen anxiety, irritability and cognitive performance.
Walkable cities naturally promote activity, connection, calm & nature which are all protectors of mental health.
Car dependent cities lead to more isolation, stress & less movement.
How we build cities is not just transport planning. It needs to consider mental health planning.
Yes but also a walkable city has to be a sitable city! I'm not about to enforce extra unneeded walk time under the climate change summer sun to an elderly person who enjoys the pleasure of irreversible knee damage that the state did not want to solve nor even palliate.
Yes, there will be plenty of place for outdoor seating space and shade from trees and water and stuff once there no cars in the cities (and countries). Also good public transport if it's a bad knee day.
I was staying near Austin, tx a while back. We wanted to get some fast food at like 2am, so we chartered a shuttle for like $5 for a round trip to a 24hr joint. And we probably could have walked! Its insane what good public transport can do.
Live in a highly walkable city; can confirm.
Twitter is such shit. who types that much with character limits. can't even be bothered to read that broken mess of posts
I still sometimes ask myself what was wrong with the web forum that it needed to be replaced by modern "social media" formats...
Corporate profits and control of speech, obviously!
/sarcasm
I'm guessing the sarcasm is because in truth that's only part of the answer instead of the whole answer? or does the sarcasm signify that it's none of the answer?
there's def many reasons why shitty social medias won out, and you certainly named one of them, sarcastically or not. others may include: dopamine driven content, marketing successes, corporate collaboration, random chance, that one media effect that has a name but is basically survivorship bias, and so on
I'd say too sparse and no user friendly mobile app. Having your friends all in the same place and being able to join them just by downloading an app using an already available store on your phone does wonders
Pretty sure walkable cities also have desks, but the rest is solid.
Sure, but walking/biking to the local rapid station to then walk to your job is much better than taking 24 steps from your home to your car. And then if you decide to go out for lunch at work, you can walk a block over to a cafe or deli and then walk back. If you have a local produce shop that's a 15 minute walk from your home, you will likely prefer walking out there 3 times a week for groceries than driving out to a grocery shop once a week. Lots of little walks and rides add up to make you much healthier than the sedentary lifestyle encouraged by suburban life.
I agreed with everything else, just found the inclusion of desks to be silly.
load more comments
(1 replies)
What are top five best walkable cities in the US that are also affordable?
They're not affordable, sadly. Walkable cities are so amazingly great that people will pay a lot of money to live in them. And they have to, because the demand is huge, but they're illegal to build, so the supply is tiny.
In short, Americans are dumb.
I'm not sure I could name 5, period
What I was afraid of. Walkable cities is a great a noble thing. It just sucks we aren't making those in America.
bear in mind that american "cities" are basically small countries, i'm sure there's at least a hundred "towns" or districts of "cities" that are walkable and affordable, but the "cities" are so stupid huge that they have a bunch of variation in them.
Pennsylvania's got you covered with Pittsburgh and Philly.
Pittsburgh has great walking but its transit is quite limited. Philly has good transit (for USA).
Both very affordable compared to other cities.
Chicago is pretty similar to Philly in terms of affordability, walkability and transit.
Trying to decide if these could have data backing them up. Clearly if you look at people who walk/bike to work in our current cities, they will be healthier. But I would assume this is a selection effect? And probably not much less lonely? I was under the impression that loneliness was high everywhere.
Curious if transit systems really are more reliable than the typical car commute. I've certainly had missed connections, bus breakdowns, and people jumping in front of trains.
And I didn't follow why a walkable city will have more green spaces. Surely in a capitalism we'll still have strong pressure to fill most of that.
And I didn't follow why a walkable city will have more green spaces. Surely in a capitalism we'll still have strong pressure to fill most of that.
Well yes, but a walkable city is already something that doesn't really align with hardcore capitalism. And if your goal is a walkable city, then you need to make it enjoyable. Most people don't enjoy walking through endless grey.
Although yes, in Europe, city leaderships that care about that are usually on the left side of the political spectrum.
Point is, a walkable city has no advantage to capitalism. So it's a safe assumption that a leadership pushing for it is not really that capitalist.
It's not really a "walkable" city if you are getting ass-blastes by the sun in the middle of summer. My small town is definitely a walkable city and has trees lining pretty much every street since something has ro go between the road and the sidewalk.
Trees are ideal because they:
- Will stop a car dead in its tracks if it drifts towards the sidewalk Produce shade to keep the surrounding area cool Are natural sound insulation (my town is on a busy cargo rail line and i never hear trains in the summer, but hear them frequently in the winter when the trees are bare) reduce pollution and increase air quality
Any town that is trying to become more walkable will put trees everywhere they are a cheap and easy way to make everything more pleasant.
load more comments
(4 replies)
It's very difficult to take these questions/criticisms seriously when I live this everyday
load more comments
(1 replies)
Well, when you put it that way
view more: next ›