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…
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
A reasonable amount of time would be 15min-30min
Longer than that there needs to be transit
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.
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.
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
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.
A walkable environment also means good public transport.
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.
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.
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.)
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.
If the library is the all day activity then sure! Great start and end to it.
If it’s a nice library sure
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
