http://www.walkscore.com/score/Pittsburgh-PA
(My particular neighborhood scored a 28, or "Car Dependent", and didn't even have a transit score, but I'm still playing with the site)
edited to add: the second closest "amenity" to me is listed as a Starbucks, about a mile away. I'd never heard of that so I clicked on it - it's the starbucks at the turnpike plaza, which is about a 14 mile drive/walk/ride, even though it's a mile in theoretical space. oh well.
Where I grew up in Indiana Twp. was rated 22. Much like yours, that's inflated because of a bus stop and businesses in Dorseyville that are a mere half mile away as the crow flies, but that walk would be through a rough-shod path in the woods and would otherwise be a 2+ mile walk or bike ride along hilly, narrow roads or the main road of PA910 with 45-50 mph traffic.
I'll take my 57 and run with it.
Seems we discussed this on some prior thread, but I'm too lazy to find it. It looks different, so maybe they've made some updates. Regardless, I see several data errors, and the same lack of brilliance in their logic.
For instance, they show Sheetz (0.38 miles distant) as a grocery store, which it kinda is, but if they can show the Citizens Bank (0.75) you'd think they'd notice the adjacent Shop & Save (not listed). I also take issue with the Showcase Cinemas being only 2.0 miles away. Might be if I had wings, but by car it's 3, and I wouldn't walk or bike that part of McKnight if I didn't have to. I can forgive them not knowing the cinemas closed a month or so ago.
They also entirely missed CCAC North and Northland Library, which are walkable, desirable, high profile destinations. La Roche College and UPMC Passavant hospital would seem useful, too, but didn't make the cut, though an adjacent bar did.
If they really wanted to do it right, they'd use "Manhattan distances", i.e., traveling only along public roadways, to calculate distances. That's a much better way to do it than simple radius, though I'm sure it's a lot more complex to calculate.
Oh right, transit. The biggie here is that you need only be near a bus stop. Doesn't matter if it has 4 trips a day or 84. To them.
I think that's a major data failing.
At home, 86 walk, 70 transit. Woo!
i live literally across the street from one bus stop and a 5 minute walk for 3 or 4 other routes and i got a 47. it also listed the closest stops as .6 miles away, more like 50 feet.
What is hilarious is that Cranberry scored a walk score of 60. They do admit that one should check for presence of sidewalks / safe walking routes, but 60? All the amenities listed as close by (my office) are across two highways (which have no crossing other than a third highway) and located on another highway. I'd give Cranberry a 2, though my office complex does have a lovely walking path through the buildings and around the fire pond for us lemmings to stretch our atrophied legs on. It doesn't go anywhere useful, but it is pretty.
I think there are some solvable bugs, but the idea is nice.
Walk Score 83, Transit 52... Well my house is set within an Escher sketch of intersecting stairs.
I should've looked at the transit numbers closer. It says 20, but that's inflated, as they list every one of the 8 patterns of the PerryHwy 11C and 13C as a different route, and count every nearby PerryHwy bus stop as distinctly different when in fact only two matter (1 inb, 1 out).
OTOH, they neglect altogether the McKnight buses, which actually provide twice as much service as 11/13C, though it's a longer walk.
Yeah, their transit algorithms leave a lot to be desired.
Well, I'd rate this a "nice try." They continue to indicate that my neighbor Bob operates a bar called "Howards Pub" (presumably from his back porch?) as does another neighor a few blocks away. Holy Family Institute, a residential program for at risk youth kicks up the local "education accessibility factor" and something called Brunners Supply Company on Neville Island provides my local shopping option. My walkability score? 57. Oh, and should I mention that they reference transit stops that no longer have any service at all? They continue to show service by four different routes. So, while I live in a very safe community that is full of families, and has sidewalks, parks and walking trails that are full of runners and walkers at all hours, my community is deemed moderately walkable based on the proximity of these very weird or non-existent "community amenities." Oh well. I would argue that my community is very walkable. There's just no place to walk TO, unless you want to make the hike into Avalon or Bellevue, a distance of 2-3 miles.
Walk score 88, transit score 49 which is nuts since I live in the middle of Squirrel Hill and have very good access to many bus routes.
Where does the site give you your transit score? Does it appear clearly, or doyou have to dig for it? I don't see an obvious one for my house. Also, I mis-stated my walkability score. It is 51, not 57 as reported above. Has anyone else played with the commute report? I like the elevation feature. It tells me that that highest point on my ride is in downtown Bellevue, and the low point(s) are Woods Run and the Sixth Street Bridge - with several high points in between.
The transit score isn't so obvious, it appeared below the map in a bar. My address didn't have a specific transit score show up, but it showed transit options (which is new for the site). the 28 for my 'hood was walkability. But I'm not in the city, so maybe it doesn't list for places not part of the city (but I thought McCandless was outside city limits?)
I love the elevation bit, and it loads faster for me than the mapmyride application.
Urbane hipster that I am, I got an 89 walk score and 64 transit score.
I should buy a house - if gasoline ever goes to reasonable price, rent in my neighborhood will go up.
My current apartment (Greenfield) got: Walk 51, Transit 44.
My old apartment (Squirrel Hill) got: Walk 95, Transit 49.
I'd say Squirrel Hill actually is about twice as walkable as Greenfield, and that "Somewhat Walkable" is an appropriate label for the latter. Squirrel Hill was bus-rider's paradise, though, while Greenfield is lacking in that department, so the low transit score seems odd.
Like others have said, many of the listed businesses have closed (or never existed?).
Fun to play with, but even without the bugs I'm not sure how useful the index really is.
Not sure how useful it is? Did you see that I scored 86+70=156? That means I win, right? What else does a website need to do besides tell me that I won?
PS I await my prize.
jz, i get a walk score of 86 and a transit score of 71. so, that's 157. YOU LOSeE!!
I've heard the Walkscore folks are working on developing a new algorithm that uses walking distances rather than distance as the crow flies.
82 + 55 here, seems ok on the former and low on the latter... although riding is usually the most convenient option 
@ejwme - 60 for cranberry is a complete joke. i worked in different parts of that hellhole for 3 different companies over ~5 years and never dreamed of walking anywhere. ok, maybe when i was in cranberry woods, i could take a stroll on some of the trails (probably overrun by westinghouse by now) but there's nowhere to *go* aside from maybe the marriott. The main part of the abyss, ugh. Wow I hope I never have to go back.
@salty - I know, right! The thing that kills me is every morning, and every evening, there's at least two or three carloads of people (semi-long term residents of Marriott, ~weeks to a month or so, various training and auditing programs) that DRIVE from the (W) parking lot, across the street (marked with crosswalk), to the Marriott parking lot. They don't even drive ON a street, just ACROSS one (and only one). You'd think after sitting for at least 8 hours, they'd want to stretch their legs. But I'm sure they use the indoor fitness center for that. And at least they're carpooling.
I feel like a space alien being up here.
I plugged in a bunch of different addresses. I think I see two major flaws:
- When figuring out how walkable an area is, it seems to heavily weight the number of destinations, but not the type and quality. To me, a big part of what makes my neighborhood walkable is that I can walk to a grocery store, a dry cleaner, a laundromat, a bookstore, a liquor store, etc. Walking to a plumbing supply store, a welding school, and a scrap yard doesn't have the same zing.
- Similarly, number of bus routes seems to be the entirety of what's considered for the transit score. When and how often do those busses come, and how many different places do they go? There are lots of places that can easily get you to/from downtown during daylight hours Monday-Friday, but just give up if you need to get to a non-downtown location on a weekend.
So neither score really reflects what to me is the important question: how good is an area for someone who primarily walks and uses public transit to get around, and either doesn't have a car, or only uses the car for ancillary transportation?
Of course, this is really just sour grapes because I didn't win.
Aspinwall - 78 for walkability. When I put in just the zip-code: 15 for walkability = "car-dependent."
Makes ense, I guess: most of the balance of the zip code is "up the hill," primarily residential, nearly completely devoid of sidewalks.
That walkability factor also makes some assumptions about toughness. McCandless has a sidewalk ordinance dating to 1975, but most of the buildings along Perry Hwy date to well before it. So what you get is a combination of the occasional 100 feet of sidewalk, interspersed with a downpour washout shoulder, an asphalt parking lot that abuts the street, grass from someone who actually still lives on Rt19, and impenetrable six-foot overgrowth. Half the time you're either walking in a 35mph (ha!) driving lane, or trying to cross four lanes of Perry to the perfectly good sidewalk on the other side of the street (connecting CCAC North to its parking lot 0.2 mile away).
All that in 1.0 mile between Perrymont and Cumberland, e.g. hiking to Northland Library & CCAC North.
That's my 57. Take it for what it's worth, which ain't much, but after 19 years I'm used to it, and my neighbors think I'm a kook.
stu - better a kook than a lemming 
Stu - I loved the place where I used to live (Barkhurst/Breezewood). Right behind my house they cut down a bunch of trees and squeezed a dozen or so new houses in. They put in a sidewalk. Which connects those dozen houses on a dead-end street (oh, sorry "cul-de-sac" is the proper suburban euphemism, right?) to each other. Fantastic!
current address: 71 walking, 46 transit.
previous address: 86 walking, 76 transit
my work: 91 walking, 74 transit.
conclusion: I should move closer to my work.
Current apartment: 78+62
Girlfriends apartment (down the street): 50+51
Previous apartment: 88+66
Parents house: 20+0
Monroeville: 71+0
