The Top 10 Least Walkable U.S. Cities

Sad that they are all in states that show little regard for their inhabitants as well.

What's really sad is that some cities that get significant snow each year managed to get in the top ten, while the bottom ten seems to be dominated by cities that should be walkable year 'round. Also, there seems to be a distinct "red" tinge to this list, in the political red/blue sense. My imagination? Coincidence? Or is there just maybe some correlation between political leaning and affinity for unhealthy, ecologically irresponsible, and community-destroying urban non-design?

Charlotte at least I'm surprised at. It's such an important financial center so it should be concentrated, plus it's got college campuses and North Carolina has a lot of progressive, independent people.And Nashville relies on so much tourism.

I really thought Columbus, OH would make it on this list. Although downtown area is very walkable, it's the getting to that area that is the problem. With nearly three quarters of a million people in the city limits and almost 2 million in the metro area, it is really a pain to get from point a to point b around the city.

As I mentioned in the related piece and on my blog (link to below), the walkscore for each city is not really representative of the same scale of analysis. For example, even if Mesa were incorporated into the Phoenix analysis, then the cumulative walk score of that metro area (Phoenix + Tempe + Mesa) would not yet be equivalent to the analysis of the Jacksonville metro area (which includes large sections of "commuter ville" that many city analyses farther up the list of "walkable" don't include).

Try walking in Houston or Dallas.

Unfortunately, in the US, listing the 10 least walkable cities is essentially meaningless. The great majority of US cities are not walkable in any practical sense. So why differentiate a few? Why not show how appropriate urban design can improve this and what people in various areas are doing to make this better?

It makes sense that pretty much all of the least walkable cities are in the South or Midwest. Nobody walks there because nobody wants to walk there, so it goes to figure that the cities would develop around that pattern of behavior. Many of the 'most walkable' cities on the list are either in the north or in California, and have reasonably good public transportation (Seattle excepted).

And you see the results in these walk-unfriendly cities in the size of the people. It's too bad.

I would kind of expect that (especially considering the responses we see to stories posted here) it's a 100+ way tie for last place when it comes to the walkability of American cities. It appears most of them are about equally bad in this respect.

Possibly a better list would be "top 10 most actively pedestrian-hostile cities", which could be measured by how many pedestrians get maimed/killed/harassed/assaulted without legal consequences. One town in which I lived for about 5 years netted me no less than half a dozen incidents where I was verbally ("LOSER!") or physically (ever seen someone swerve to hit that slush puddle next to you?) assaulted by motorists for the unforgivable crime of being on the sidewalk. Cycling was generally considered to be a capital offence to many people.

I've lived in KC for over 20 years and I have to say... I'm actually glad to see it on this list. Maybe someone will take this as a sign that something needs to be done????

My question is, were they just counting KC proper or including the entire metro area, because that's a whole 'nother mess of unwakableness you don't even want to get into. Trust me.

The sad thing is that I am not stunned at all to see my city ranked at #9. Sidewalks, where there are some, are covered in tumbleweeds, cracked, uneven or just covered in broken glass. Our public transportation here is a joke too, and bike lanes are just as bad.

I'll never forget walking with some friends in Dallas a few years ago (ok, a LOT of years ago) when a car passenger yelled at us, "Get a car!" as if our pedestrian presence itself was an affront to their existence.

Yes...my city made number 1!!! Jacksonville is pretty pedestrian unfriendly....it is neverending urban/suburban sprawl. I can't wait to get out of here.

Hmm. Most of these cities are in Southern states. I never really liked the south, and it's usually not so eco-friendly ways, and the list kind of shows this.

The south really doesn't have an urban atmosphere, if people hadn't noticed. Most southern cities have a small urban center, and the suburbs extending all the ways to bordering towns and beyond.

Suburbs I've seen, typically don't have sidewalks that connect along roads to other neighborhoods, public transport since it's far out and affluent people consider it "dirty", and suburbs are built for cars, not pedestrians.

I live in NW Houston, and the suburban parts of Houston are definitely not pedestrian friendly. If I want to visit a friend that lives more than a mile away, I have to go across several busy roads, and watch my foot over ditches, weeds, litter, beer bottle, and other trash. Plus at least half the crossing lights don't even work, a few points where there's sidewalk in front of a business that connects nowhere, dodging cars is scary, there's not enough shade from trees, and so on and so on. You will rarely see anybody walk in suburban Houston.

Though downtown and uptown and around those areas are fairly walkable. It's just that when you hit the suburbs (which Houston is mostly composed of), then it becomes a pedestrian nightmare.

As a southerner, I really don't like or appreciate the tone of a lot of these comments. I love southern culture, but yeah, I love the earth too, and I will always consider whether or not I can live somewhere without a car before I decide to live there.

For the record, I am a southerner, not a "red", not chubby because I am always behind the wheel (quite the opposite), not a backwards hick (but I like and appreciate people that are! it makes life interesting!) ...

Yeah, I grew up in Memphis, and I really hate that place, but its unwalkability is the LEAST of its problems.

SOUTHERN PRIDE (and not the kind you are thinking of)!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Stop hatin'!

Wow, my city is on this list!!

While I'm not surprised to see Mesa listed (since I can't walk anywhere in this town!) I would like to offer as consolation that Mesa at least attempts to be bike-friendly as well as offer the bus as public transportation. There are bike lanes on nearly every city street, and the city has been adding new, more convenient stops for the bus line lately. Too bad the bus doesn't run on my side of town.

I'll be moving soon, anyway.

I am from Charlotte, and also do not appreciate the unwarranted hostility aimed at residents of southern states. While most of us do understand that our lifestyles are not as green as possible for reasons out of our control, we choose to live where we do for reasons more than how easy it is to walk around town. Charlotte citizens are well aware of our transportation problems, which are slowly but surely being improved. The recent addition of the Lynx lightrail train is greatly reducing the amount of vehicular traffic in Charlotte. Affluent citizens could not benefit from our earlier transportation system because it simply did not run to the majority of areas that uptown workers live.

To bird: I am unaware if you have visited Charlotte, but it is simply unwalkable because of the planning of our city; relatively no shopping, few restaurants, and a very limited amount of housing within walking distance of most major areas of commerce. Fault of city planners, not citizens. Yes, weather is decent for walking, but not matter how pleasant our weather is, commute is unavoidable for most. And a red designation of the state does not represent the entirely of its inhabitants. I agree that it may be a factor in the majority political stance of some city leaders, but I have never read any information regarding the correlation between political party and stance on walking. Seen plenty of pictures of our President in the news out for a run.

Jeff Darcy: Absolutely correct. Our huge numbers of bank workers and college students in the uptown area can only benefit from the progress we are making towards making uptown more pedestrian and eco-friendly.

Don: Thank you for pointing out this more important fact than the names of the cities. How many other thousands upon thousands of cities/towns are unwalkable not because of citizens, but design? Im sure city design will be an astronomically growing field in the future as areas realize the environmental impacts of their layouts.

Dave A: Why would our local in relation to the Mason-Dixon line have any impact on our desire to help the environment? Everyone I know wishes walking or biking were an option, but no one I knows feels that the 20 miles to work is commutable by any way other than vehicle. Not all southerners are lazy.

Scott: Many, many eco friendly people live in the south not because we're lazy or don't care about the environment, but because of the fact that many suburban areas surrounding major souther cities are more condusive to raising families in a less urban setting than large cities. Lower crime rates, highly rated public schools in many areas, and family atmospheres are more appealing to many people living in the south than bustling cities. Affluent people do not consider public transportation dirty; our only form of public transportation until the last 2 years did not run to many areas of the city where the affluent live. So it was not an option for many of the middle class to wealthy in Charlotte.

quikboy: Truth.

I hope that this comment helps those of you who are not from or have not visited Charlotte understand that the city's transportation problems are not a reflection of it's citizens, but the result of urban planning that occured before the world's growing ecological problems became such an obvious concern. Our city is slowly but surely attempting to provide better public transportation, bike lanes, and housing that will be more condusive to becoming a less environmentally-unfriendly city.

I lived in Oklahoma for several years, and Oklahoma City is fairly pedestrian un-friendly, unfortunately. It's just so huge. And why not? Oklahoma is such sprawling prairie land that it's easier to just spread out than to build up. There's just no real economic incentive to do otherwise.

One thing many of these cities have in common is that there territory includes miles and miles of suburban-style housing and vacant land. Most are cities that annexed suburbs to keep up with growth, so they are much more than the historic core.

Despite our low ranking, here in KC we did have a few individual neighborhoods in the "paradise" category, very close to 100. While the city as a whole scores low, there are many areas in the central city where you can certainly live car-free.

It helps to think about WHEN these cities developed.

Many southern/sunbelt cities ballooned after WWII during the suburban/auto boom.

So it makes sense that many southern metro areas and cities are mostly "newer" make, meaning built around autos.

Older cities, built in more traditionally sustainable/attractive areas like port and coastal cities close to water resources, have more connected street grids.

See "Planning for Sustainability" by Stephen M. Wheeler for examples.

I can't speak for the other cities, but I'd ask you all to please not judge my fair city of Fort Worth by this list. We have a ways to go, but we are making great progress. Myself, and a group of dedicated urbanists in the city and private firms, have built upon the success of our downtown revitalization (and downtown Fort Worth is really great) and are now spreading it to the surrounding neighborhoods. There is a tremendous amount of urban infill going on, and we're even seriously starting to plan for a modern streetcar system.

I'd invite you all to visit my site, Fort Worthology, which chronicles the smart growth in our city. It's at http://fortworthology.com . We're making progress every day.

Why are these cities unwalkable? Because of urban expansion. We've overpoplated the areas and the infrastructure has killed all wildlife. We can solve this, but we need to relocate people and live simpler lives, where we cut down on industrial-technological dependency.

I live in Seattle and I live about a mile and a half from my work. Usually I walk to work and back, but if it's too rainy I take the bus. I do this because it's a lovely walk and the temperature is almost always comfortable for a stroll.

However, my family is from the rural gulf coast and has been there for many, many generations. If I lived down there, and had a mile and a half commute, would I still walk? Probably not. I'd probably rather ride in an air-conditioned car so I wouldn't be all sweaty when I got to work. Is that lazy? Kinda. Is that wasteful? Certainly, given then current state of technology. If given the choice, would most people in the south choose air-conditioning over no air-conditioning? I don't know you'd have to ask them, but I know I would.

Sometimes I wonder what my ancestors would think of my cousins' seeming inability to do anything outside (or inside) without the assistance of a machine. Would my ancestors think they were wimps? Or would they want to buy themselves an air-conditioned car ASAP?

For better or worse, walkability just isn't going to be as big an issue in many southern (or nothern) places. A walkable neighborhood and a close commute is important to me, but that's me - it's not important to everyone. It seems to me that what we'll need to do is create a way for people to have what they've become accustomed to having, in the most green manner possible. It seems to me that clean sources of power, along with solar/ electric/ hydrogen/ etc cars and clean air-conditioning, are going to be the most useful developments in that regard.

I grew up in Indianapolis all my life, and yes it isn't exactly walker friendly in all areas. But I think people need to take into consideration that in the 60's Indy enacted Unigov which made the entire county into the city. This means that they are including a lot of areas that in most other metro areas, would not be counted. Furthermore as others have mentioned Indy received much of its population and building boom during the 1950's, the era of urban sprawl. If you look at the historic areas such as downtown, Irvington, Butler-Tarkington, or Meridian Hills, the walk scores shoots through the roof. These are all areas that were developed PRIOR to the automobile. Furthermore, for people who live in Indy, most of these neighborhoods are prohibitively expensive. Please don't judge people for being economically disadvantaged.

You really can't compare Chicago or New York to a city the size of Indianapolis or with the resources (read tax base) of a smaller city.

Hey Kevin, Fort Worth may be unwalkable, but you guys at least have public transit so you can still get around.

I live in Arlington (a city between Ft. Worth and Dallas, for y'all that aren't up on your TX geography) and I believe we still hold the award for the largest city in the US without public transit. I've heard it's because the powers that be want to keep Arlington's "Small town feel". Personally, I think they want to keep lower income people/families out of town, which I guess they believe will move in if public transit is available. On top of that Arlington is a college town and has a pop. over 300,000, I believe the "small town feel" was lost a long time ago.

Sorry for the rant... but it really ticks me off.

Kenny, great list, but first of all you MUST get the statistics right!!! Jacksonville tops the list because its square miles are insanely huge - the city annexed hundreds of square miles of countryside which is totally undeveloped so doing math automatically puts it on top. That said, Jacksonville and everything else in Florida is PURE SPRAWL so I'm sure it should figure high, just probably not on top.

Second, that photo looks like a really nice relaxing place. Why did you choose it? Very big mistake equating buccolic imagery with something negative. You should have chosen an image of Frogger, or some god awful strip mall.

Also, Mesa should not be thought of as distinct from Phoenix... it's all the same sprawl

You know I am surprised that Louisville, KY isn't on there, which ironically is in the south. That being said please don't blanket a comment like "people don't want to walk in the south" on everyone. Older cities like NY and places like that aren't going to have as much Urban sprawl because most of them were started or developed in a time when things were kept close but as the US grew people spread out to own large plantations and farms and ranches (for the midwest). This culture and sprawled beginnings have kept on in our areas.

I personally, living in the south, would love to see less sprawl and more walkable areas. Just because I live in the south doesn't mean that I am an SUV or F15 drivin, fast food eatin large carbon footprint lazy southerner. I am probably more eco conscious than most of the people in the top 10 walkable cities. Been to LA lately? Very walkable but everyone owns the biggest SUV they can afford.

Let's not try to stereotype people because of their areas. The sprawl is there and if it weren't I guarantee there would be many more walkers in the south and the midwest.

Los Angeles should be on that list!

What about Detroit????

I live in KC and I was not surprised to see my city on the list. I actually live in the mid-town area and if I wanted to walk anywhere I would probably have to go through an "iffy" neighborhood to get there. I do walk my dogs around my neighborhood several times a week and I see a lot of other folks doing the same.

KC has a lot of suburban sprawl which I think accounts for some of the problem. And Kansas Citians are not very active as a whole. It never ceases to amaze me to see people waiting for the elevator to go up one or two flights of stairs. Or even worse, to go downstairs. I see a lot of overweight people in this city. I think the lack of public transportation and lack of motivation contribute a lot to the problem. But I do think things are improving a little. Downtown is coming back in a big way. People are moving back to the city. The MAX bus has been around for a couple of years that has an express route from the Plaza to downtown.

Personally, I am able to work from home a couple of days a week. And my husband rides his scooter to work whenever the weather cooperates. We also ride our scooters around town as much as possible instead of taking a car. We may not be getting as much exercise but I do feel it helps the environment and our wallet.