Challenge: You can only bike/walk to get groceries!
Options
Replies
-
TimothyFish wrote: »Packerjohn wrote: »TimothyFish wrote: »
IMO, in the vast majority of cases people choose their housing and are well aware of the walk/bike friendliness of the area when they move in, so no reason to be sad.
That also makes me sad, because that implies that if a person reaches a point in their life where they decide to be more active than they have been in the past they may be forced to relocate.
Someone in another post mentioned something about a walkablity index. I checked my neighborhood and it was a 0, not within a couple miles of employers, stores, public transportation, etc. What the index didn't measure was the neighborhood has 5 miles of local traffic only streets that are very safe for biking as well as having sidewalks. It surrounds a golf course that can be used for cross country skiing is season. Yards and driveways are large enough that kids can actually go outside and play. There is a large park at one end of the neighborhood. If you leave the neighborhood, you can get on a 12 ft wide blacktop multipurpose path that will take you to many part of the community. The trail doesn't run real close to the cluster of 6-7 grocery stores/supercenters we normally get groceries at. It would take us within a couple blocks of a large grocery store, we're not real big fans of that store though.
Just because one cannot easily bike to a grocery store doesn't set a neighborhood up for inactivity.1 -
I just checked my walk score, it' s75 ("very walkable"), transit score 65, bike score 59. Groceries and schools are the two things holding our score down. Groceries, I agree with, it could be easier. Schools, though, we banned children from Seattle a decade ago!0
-
TimothyFish wrote: »Packerjohn wrote: »TimothyFish wrote: »
IMO, in the vast majority of cases people choose their housing and are well aware of the walk/bike friendliness of the area when they move in, so no reason to be sad.
That also makes me sad, because that implies that if a person reaches a point in their life where they decide to be more active than they have been in the past they may be forced to relocate.
Meh. Outer suburbanites can't really switch to walk/cycle commuting, but they ARE closer to the good trail running and mountain biking parks. (For me, this constitutes at least 35 minutes of driving both ways from the city which makes it out of the question most weekdays).0 -
NorthCascades wrote: »I just checked my walk score, it' s75 ("very walkable"), transit score 65, bike score 59. Groceries and schools are the two things holding our score down. Groceries, I agree with, it could be easier. Schools, though, we banned children from Seattle a decade ago!
Even though my particular neighborhood/subdivision is not considered walkable the community in total is on the League of American Wheelman's Bronze list of bike friendly communities.1 -
TimothyFish wrote: »Packerjohn wrote: »TimothyFish wrote: »
IMO, in the vast majority of cases people choose their housing and are well aware of the walk/bike friendliness of the area when they move in, so no reason to be sad.
That also makes me sad, because that implies that if a person reaches a point in their life where they decide to be more active than they have been in the past they may be forced to relocate.
Meh. Outer suburbanites can't really switch to walk/cycle commuting, but they ARE closer to the good trail running and mountain biking parks. (For me, this constitutes at least 35 minutes of driving both ways from the city which makes it out of the question most weekdays).
No mountains where I live but I can ride the bike 1 mile and be on smooth, traffic free country roads.0 -
Packerjohn wrote: »TimothyFish wrote: »Packerjohn wrote: »TimothyFish wrote: »
IMO, in the vast majority of cases people choose their housing and are well aware of the walk/bike friendliness of the area when they move in, so no reason to be sad.
That also makes me sad, because that implies that if a person reaches a point in their life where they decide to be more active than they have been in the past they may be forced to relocate.
Someone in another post mentioned something about a walkablity index. I checked my neighborhood and it was a 0, not within a couple miles of employers, stores, public transportation, etc. What the index didn't measure was the neighborhood has 5 miles of local traffic only streets that are very safe for biking as well as having sidewalks. It surrounds a golf course that can be used for cross country skiing is season. Yards and driveways are large enough that kids can actually go outside and play. There is a large park at one end of the neighborhood. If you leave the neighborhood, you can get on a 12 ft wide blacktop multipurpose path that will take you to many part of the community. The trail doesn't run real close to the cluster of 6-7 grocery stores/supercenters we normally get groceries at. It would take us within a couple blocks of a large grocery store, we're not real big fans of that store though.
Just because one cannot easily bike to a grocery store doesn't set a neighborhood up for inactivity.
The reason for that is because the people looking at walkability aren't really interested in walking as a recreational activity. What they are really looking at is how we can reduce the number of single occupancy vehicles (SOV) on the road. It is only by reducing SOVs that we can see a reduction in deaths caused by pollution, a reduction in traffic accidents, and reduce the cost of maintaining our roads. So, their primary focus is how we can get more people to use alternative transportation to work.1 -
TimothyFish wrote: »Packerjohn wrote: »TimothyFish wrote: »
IMO, in the vast majority of cases people choose their housing and are well aware of the walk/bike friendliness of the area when they move in, so no reason to be sad.
That also makes me sad, because that implies that if a person reaches a point in their life where they decide to be more active than they have been in the past they may be forced to relocate.
Meh. Outer suburbanites can't really switch to walk/cycle commuting, but they ARE closer to the good trail running and mountain biking parks. (For me, this constitutes at least 35 minutes of driving both ways from the city which makes it out of the question most weekdays).
I have a 30 minute drive to work. If it weren't for messing with traffic in the dark, I would gladly ride my bike because it would save me time over what I am doing now, which is spending an hour driving and then spending over an hour riding my bike after work.1 -
TimothyFish wrote: »The reason for that is because the people looking at walkability aren't really interested in walking as a recreational activity. What they are really looking at is how we can reduce the number of single occupancy vehicles (SOV) on the road. It is only by reducing SOVs that we can see a reduction in deaths caused by pollution, a reduction in traffic accidents, and reduce the cost of maintaining our roads. So, their primary focus is how we can get more people to use alternative transportation to work.
For me personally, walk friendliness is a quality of life issue. I don't want to have to drive my car every time I need to run some small errand. My car is incredibly useful for big distances, but it's more hassle than it's worth for a few blocks.
I think that's more important to me than walking as a recreational activity, but I'm not really sure.
There are a lot of people here in Seattle who drive to some of the bigger city parks and stroll around. The idea is very foreign to me. I live in a walkable neighborhood and I can string half a dozen smaller parks together in a mile walk. Or, I can ride my bike to these bigger parks and enjoy them that way. I drive to go hiking regularly so I understand, though.0 -
TimothyFish wrote: »I have a 30 minute drive to work. If it weren't for messing with traffic in the dark, I would gladly ride my bike because it would save me time over what I am doing now, which is spending an hour driving and then spending over an hour riding my bike after work.
I commuted to and from work by bike until the office moved and made it impractical for me. I really loved the benefit you just said. Even though it usually took a little longer to get home by bike, my exercise was done for the day, so I had more time.
Plus, it took about the same amount of time every day (unless I made a detour to spend more time on the bike), so I could make plans with other people and be reliable. Driving to commute, I never know when I'll be home because there are good traffic days and there are bad ones.1 -
My neighbourhood's walkability index is 38 ... not very walkable. Yet we walk.
https://www.walkscore.com/0 -
TimothyFish wrote: »Packerjohn wrote: »TimothyFish wrote: »Packerjohn wrote: »TimothyFish wrote: »
IMO, in the vast majority of cases people choose their housing and are well aware of the walk/bike friendliness of the area when they move in, so no reason to be sad.
That also makes me sad, because that implies that if a person reaches a point in their life where they decide to be more active than they have been in the past they may be forced to relocate.
Someone in another post mentioned something about a walkablity index. I checked my neighborhood and it was a 0, not within a couple miles of employers, stores, public transportation, etc. What the index didn't measure was the neighborhood has 5 miles of local traffic only streets that are very safe for biking as well as having sidewalks. It surrounds a golf course that can be used for cross country skiing is season. Yards and driveways are large enough that kids can actually go outside and play. There is a large park at one end of the neighborhood. If you leave the neighborhood, you can get on a 12 ft wide blacktop multipurpose path that will take you to many part of the community. The trail doesn't run real close to the cluster of 6-7 grocery stores/supercenters we normally get groceries at. It would take us within a couple blocks of a large grocery store, we're not real big fans of that store though.
Just because one cannot easily bike to a grocery store doesn't set a neighborhood up for inactivity.
The reason for that is because the people looking at walkability aren't really interested in walking as a recreational activity. What they are really looking at is how we can reduce the number of single occupancy vehicles (SOV) on the road. It is only by reducing SOVs that we can see a reduction in deaths caused by pollution, a reduction in traffic accidents, and reduce the cost of maintaining our roads. So, their primary focus is how we can get more people to use alternative transportation to work.
Each to his own I guess. Personally, as someone who has raised kids it would be sad to have them grow up on in most walk-able neighborhoods.
Where do they play?0 -
Packerjohn wrote: »TimothyFish wrote: »Packerjohn wrote: »TimothyFish wrote: »Packerjohn wrote: »TimothyFish wrote: »
IMO, in the vast majority of cases people choose their housing and are well aware of the walk/bike friendliness of the area when they move in, so no reason to be sad.
That also makes me sad, because that implies that if a person reaches a point in their life where they decide to be more active than they have been in the past they may be forced to relocate.
Someone in another post mentioned something about a walkablity index. I checked my neighborhood and it was a 0, not within a couple miles of employers, stores, public transportation, etc. What the index didn't measure was the neighborhood has 5 miles of local traffic only streets that are very safe for biking as well as having sidewalks. It surrounds a golf course that can be used for cross country skiing is season. Yards and driveways are large enough that kids can actually go outside and play. There is a large park at one end of the neighborhood. If you leave the neighborhood, you can get on a 12 ft wide blacktop multipurpose path that will take you to many part of the community. The trail doesn't run real close to the cluster of 6-7 grocery stores/supercenters we normally get groceries at. It would take us within a couple blocks of a large grocery store, we're not real big fans of that store though.
Just because one cannot easily bike to a grocery store doesn't set a neighborhood up for inactivity.
The reason for that is because the people looking at walkability aren't really interested in walking as a recreational activity. What they are really looking at is how we can reduce the number of single occupancy vehicles (SOV) on the road. It is only by reducing SOVs that we can see a reduction in deaths caused by pollution, a reduction in traffic accidents, and reduce the cost of maintaining our roads. So, their primary focus is how we can get more people to use alternative transportation to work.
Each to his own I guess. Personally, as someone who has raised kids it would be sad to have them grow up on in most walk-able neighborhoods.
Where do they play?
The current trend is toward urban villages. Often, urban villages have a common area suitable for children to play in.0 -
Where I live, the walkability score is 28 but also ride or walk to the store.0
-
After reading this i decided to leave the car at home when we went to the store
Too far for my daughter to walk (cerebral palsy) so we walked a bit, took public transport with me standing (baby on my back) and walked the rest of the way
She loved taking the tram, took us 2 hours to buy pasta for dinner thou1 -
I live in a great neighborhood - one grocery store is half a mile away and another is almost a mile away. I can walk to both. Since I can only carry so much, that means I have to go more often. Carrying two bags is fine but three bags is a bit much if I've got heavy items.
Only one exception: a fish store that's 10 miles away. I don't know how to ride a bike, believe it or not. Around here, cyclists take their lives into their hands. Not nearly enough bike lanes.0 -
ruqayyahsmum wrote: »After reading this i decided to leave the car at home when we went to the store
Too far for my daughter to walk (cerebral palsy) so we walked a bit, took public transport with me standing (baby on my back) and walked the rest of the way
She loved taking the tram, took us 2 hours to buy pasta for dinner thou
Good for you doing it though!
0 -
I'm such a failure today. I hiked 8 miles with 2,800 feet of vert, and all I got was a few handfuls of snow to quench my thirst.
https://connect.garmin.com/modern/activity/17318495601 -
This is something I'd love to do...although kind of hard to do right now, being my closest store is about a 20 minute drive (the walk in the heat sounds pretty bad) and I don't currently own a bike. Although, it does inspire me to save up for one! I would love to be able to ride through the trails on my campus also! Hmm...1
-
This is a great habit I've been trying to cultivate. If I need just a small bag of groceries, I ride or walk. I've also decided to have a baseline of activity of 10,000 steps that I don't count as exercise.
My grocery trip is 6000-7000 steps round trip so that's new motivation to get some easy steps in and to push me to walk instead of cycling. Right now, I need some lemons so of I go.0
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 391.9K Introduce Yourself
- 43.5K Getting Started
- 259.8K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.7K Food and Nutrition
- 47.3K Recipes
- 232.3K Fitness and Exercise
- 399 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.4K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.5K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 152.8K Motivation and Support
- 7.9K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.3K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.4K MyFitnessPal Information
- 23 News and Announcements
- 985 Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.4K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions