The Burrow
Apr 8, 2024
With 1.475 billion vehicles in the world,1 and around 8.1 billion humans, there’s approximately 182 cars for every 1,000 people.
That means there’s a significant proportion of people in the world who can’t drive, or don’t have access to a car. If you’re one of those people, or you simply prefer to navigate a city by foot instead of behind the wheel, then you’ll want to read on.
We’ve analysed various factors to see which cities in the world are the most walkable, by looking at things like the number of walking trails, rainfall, and how safe they are. Additionally, we’ve looked at public transport systems and biking options, as both are crucial alternatives when you don’t have a car.
So, read on to discover the most – and least! – walkable cities around the world; and, if you’re considering moving to one of these cities, you may want to have a look into your home loan options.
So, which cities in the world are the most walkable? Read on to see if your city makes the list.
Nestled in the heart of Bavaria, Munich is officially the most walkable city in the world, for several reasons. For instance, it has a huge 1,468,623km worth of bike trails – the second highest anywhere in the world – as well as 86% of the population living within 1km of a car-free space – again, the second highest on our list.
Despite Munich’s public transport being the third most expensive (AUD$6.11 for a one-way ticket), it scores the fourth highest for safety, which is key when walking around; as well as the joint second highest for people living within a kilometre of healthcare and education facilities, at 85%.
Known for its fashion and coffee, Milan’s also great for walking around, making it into second place on our list. It has more bike trails than anywhere else in the world, with a staggering 1,941,010km accessible; not to mention, 80% of its population lives within a km of healthcare and educational services.
So, whether you want to wander around the winding canals of Navigli, or coffee shop hop around Porta Venezia; know that you’ll be able to do it with ease on foot.
Poland’s capital comes in third place for navigating on foot; with the compact size of the city one key benefit. Public transport is cheap here, with a one-way ticket costing you AUD$1.67 – the 20th cheapest overall, but the cheapest of our top 10.
Not only that, but 74% of the population live within 1km of a car-free space, such as the pretty Lazienki Park, which comes alive during the summer months; and the charming cobblestoned streets of the Old Town, which are lined with quirky coloured buildings.
With 85% of the population living within 1km of a car-free space, and 320,647km of bike trails to ride on, Helsinki makes it into a very respectable fourth place.
A capital city that’s known for its outdoors way of life (despite the bleak winters), enjoy walking and biking in Helsinki Central Park, which spans an incredible 10km squared; or enjoy a swim at Pikkukoski Beach, which you can reach in just 30 minutes on public transport.
Speaking of public transport, Helsinki’s is rated the fourth highest on our list, based on transit density, efficiency, and utilisation.
Perhaps the chicest city in the world, Paris also comes fifth for walking, with 85% of the population within a kilometre of access to healthcare and services – the joint second highest on our list.
Not only that, but the city’s public transport score is the fifth highest, at 68.2%, and it boasts the fourth longest distance of bike trails, at 972,734km. If you’ve had enough of exploring the inner arrondissements of Paris, then head a little further out of the city to Forêt de Fontainebleau, where you’ll have 300km of forest trails to choose from, as well as boulders that many climbers choose to try out!
Nine out of the top 10 walkable cities are all in Europe, with Madrid in seventh, Oslo in eighth, Copenhagen in ninth, and Amsterdam in 10th. The only non-European city in our top 10 list is Tokyo, which makes it into sixth place.
Sydney just falls short in 11th place, with Melbourne in 17th; and New York City the highest placing American city, in position 34; with San Francisco and Boston in 35th and 36th place.
Looking a little more at these cities, Amsterdam scores well for its bike trails, at 1,090,608km in total – the third highest on our list. Denmark’s capital, however, has the second highest public transport score, as well as the ninth safest score, with Warsaw in 10th. Other cities that score well for the quality of public transport are Zurich (in first place), and Stockholm (third).
Sydney, Melbourne, Rio de Janeiro, and Tokyo have the most walking trails, with Sydney’s at an impressive 667 – over 100 more than Melbourne. When it comes to safety, you can’t beat Abu Dhabi, Dubai, or Manama; whereas if you consider the cost of public transport, Buenos Aires is by far the cheapest, at AUD$0.23 a ticket. Mumbai and Cairo are the second and third cheapest, at AUD$0.37, and AUD$0.5, respectively.
The only thing our top 10 list doesn’t score so well for, is rainfall! Madrid is the least rainy in our top 10, at 34.6mm on average a month; but overall, it’s Cairo, Abu Dhabi, Dubai, and Manama that have the least.
On the other end of the spectrum, these are the cities that are the least walkable.
With its reputation for being a dangerous city to walk the streets, it perhaps comes as no surprise that South Africa’s Johannesburg tops the list as the least walkable city. Not only does it have the worst safety score (19.31), but just 8% of its population live within 1km of car-free spaces – the joint lowest on our list – and it has the sixth worst public transport score, too.
Whilst the city has plenty to offer, from the swanky rooftop bars of the CBD area, to the graffiti-covered Soweto cooling towers; it’s advised that for your own safety, you get around Joburg by car.
The third largest city in Greece, Patras is also the second least walkable city in the world – mainly due to the fact that, like Cairo, they don’t have any walking trails whatsoever.
Aside from that, the city scores averagely with most other factors we looked at – or we couldn’t get data at all – which contributed to its low score. For instance, you can expect to see an average of 76.5mm of rainfall each month.
Many of the USA’s major cities are notorious for needing a car to get around, and Dallas is the least walkable city in the USA. One reason, is that just 10% of the population live within a kilometre of education and healthcare services (the joint second lowest, tying with Bangkok); meaning that it’s likely you’ll need a car to go to the school or doctors.
Not only that, but only 13% of the population live within a kilometre of a car-free area; and the city has just 13,744km of bike trails – the third least on our list.
In fourth place is Houston: another city that’s not very walkable. It scores the lowest on our list for access to healthcare and education, with just 8% of the population living within a kilometre of both.
Similarly, just 15% of people live within a kilometre of a car-free space, and Houston sees 103.5mm of rainfall on average a month; meaning that realistically, if you want to access the city and see it to its full potential, you need a car.
Rounding off our top five least walkable cities is Manila, with the city having just 11 walking trails, and 44,943km of bike trails – the 13th lowest on our list.
Additionally, the city scores the joint second lowest for public transport, at 32.3% (in-line with Mexico’s Monterrey), as well as the fourth highest rainfall (138.8mm on average per month), and the eighth lowest safety score.
Completing our list of top 10 least walkable cities are Bangkok, Mumbai, Cape Town, Quito, and Chicago. Patras is the only European city to score in the bottom 10, with the next lowest scoring city Thessaloniki, in position 30.
Looking at the factors analysed overall, we can see that when it comes to bike trails, Bahrain’s Manama has the least, at just 9,305km; followed by Monterrey, at 11,180km. After Joburg; Rio de Janeiro, Cape Town, and Lima score the worst for safety.
Tying with Johannesburg for car-free places is Manama, with just 8% of the population living within 1km of a car-free place, although Cairo and Bangkok don’t fare much better, at 10% and 11% respectively.
If the rain puts you off from stepping foot outside, then avoid Quito, Vancouver, and Mumbai, which have the highest average monthly rainfall. Interestingly, the only factor that the least walkable cities didn’t score poorly in was the cost of a one-way ticket on public transport. Zurich, which came 15th overall, charges the most, at a huge AUD$7.64 per ticket, followed by Stockholm, Munich, and Oslo, who came 12th, first, and eighth on the overall list.
General Manager of Money at Compare the Market, Stephen Zeller, states that access to everything from healthcare and educational services through to amenities such as parks, cafes, and libraries, has an impact on house buying.
“Looking at transport and amenities is a crucial step of assessing a potential home,” Zeller explains.
“That means looking at the public transport links, and seeing how far away your nearest stop is, what time they run to, and frequency; as well as identifying routes that you feel safe walking.”
“Keep in mind more desirable areas will generally cost more, which means you might need a bigger home loan than you were originally budgeting for. Australian citizens and permanent residents looking to buy in Australia can use Compare the Market’s home loan comparison service to get property reports with estimated values for free, as well as make use of our free borrowing power calculator to help with budget planning.”
Sources:
References:
Methodology:
This dataset ranks 53 locations, based on how good they are for being car-free. To do this, 8 different factors were used. Once the data for the factors was collected, the factors were then normalised, to provide each factor with a score of between 0 and 1. If data was not available, a score of 0 was given. The normalised values were then summed, to give each location a total score out of 8. The locations were then ranked from highest to lowest, based on their total scores.
The factors used are as follows:
The factors were indexed as follows:
All data is correct as of 19/02/24. The ranking data shown is a compilation of multiple data sources and may not be representative of real life. All data is accurate with regards to the sources provided.