What Makes a Running City?

As stated in the Club Bylaws, the purpose of the GRTC is “to make Rochester the best place to live for runners.”  Missing from the Bylaws is any way to determine whether the Club is fulfilling its stated purpose?  How might one measure whether a city is a good place for runners?  Many who have lived and run in other cities can say that we “know a great place for runners when we see one.”  This is fine as a subjective judgment, but is it possible to objectively rank running cities? In the May 2008 issue of Running Times magazine, Aaron Ladd reported on a graduate study he did:  “What Makes a Running City?”  Ladd ranked 516 cities based on 1) the number of marathon runners per 1,000 residents and 2) the average marathon finish time.  The article includes a list of the top 10 and bottom 10 cities for each ranking.  Ladd found a remarkably broad range between the top and bottom scores.    Marathon Finishers Per 1,000 Residents Average Marathon Finish Time First Ranked City 10.04 Alexandria, VA 4:03:34 Cambridge, MA Last Ranked City 0.05 Gary, IN 6:03:19 El Monte, CA Aaron did further analysis to try to determine what makes certain cities more attractive to runners than others.  Comparing the number of marathon runners per 1,000 residents produced unexpected results.  Aaron found no relationship between amount of parkland or density… both dense and sprawling cities had similar percentages of residents who run marathons.  The variable that showed the greatest correlation to the number of marathon finishers was related to the type of workers in a city.  Cities with a high percentage of residents working in management, professional and related occupations had a high percentage of marathoners. Rochester did not make the Top 10 on either measure and I was unable to find the full dataset  on the internet to determine where Rochester was ranked.  But, given the occupations associated with the top five employers in this area (U of R/Strong Health, Wegmans, Eastman Kodak, Xerox, ViaHealth), it seems reasonable that the Greater Rochester region should have a high percentage of marathoners.  For more information on the study, see the magazine article at Running Times online:  http://runningtimes.com/Article.aspx?ArticleID=13817 Web App of the Month:  A Walkability Score for Any AddressOf course, the percentage of marathon runners is only one possible measure of the goodness of a city for runners.   In looking around the web for other methods, I came across an interesting web application to rate the “walkability” of a neighborhood: http://www.walkscore.com/  Walk Score measures how easy it is to live a “car-lite lifestyle.”  Walk Score uses an algorithm to assign points based on the distance to the closest amenity in each category (e.g., grocery stores, restaurants, coffee shops, bars, movie theaters, libraries, drug stores, etc.).  If the closest amenity in a category is within .25 miles, Walk Score assigns the maximum number of points. The number of points declines as the distance approaches 1 mile — no points are awarded for amenities further than 1 mile. Each category is weighted equally and the points are summed and normalized to yield a score from 0–100.  According to Walk Score, the number of nearby amenities is the leading predictor of whether people will walk, not how pretty it is to walk in your neighborhood.Give the application a try; the results can be interesting.  Our first home in this area was on a quiet cul-de-sac in suburban Pittsford.  That address has a “car dependent” score of 5.  The only amenities within a mile of our house were the Park Road School and Power Mills Park.  While the location was great for running, we drove our kids and ourselves to every other amenity.  Our current home in Fairport Village rates a “somewhat walkable” 63.  The score is lower than I might have expected due to our house being more than a half mile walk from the businesses around the Main Street Lift Bridge.  If we moved to the Lift Bridge end of our street, the walk score would be a “walker’s paradise” 92.