When evaluating the livability of a community, multiple factors come into play.
These comprehensive metrics provide insight into how easily residents can navigate their communities without relying on personal vehicles.
Vibrancy remains low (4.13), and the area lacks data for cycling and transit infrastructure.
Home Stratosphere | Leaflet
The stunning natural environment and recreational opportunities likely explain the high retirement appeal despite walkability challenges.
The community shows minimal vibrancy (3.52) and moderate retirement appeal (48.61).
While some cycling infrastructure exists (7.26), the town lacks public transit data.
As a highway service community, Toks infrastructure naturally prioritizes vehicle traffic over pedestrian accessibility.
Cycling infrastructure is minimal (2.22), though some transit options exist (16.70).
The appeal to retirees despite walkability challenges reflects the stunning natural environment of the Inside Passage region.
Vibrancy is minimal (5.64), and the communities lack data for both cycling and transit infrastructure.
Kwethluk
Kwethluk in western Alaska shows poor walkability (1.44) combined with limited metrics across all other categories.
The community offers some transit options (16.25) but lacks cycling infrastructure data.
However, cycling infrastructure is almost non-existent (1.42), and retirement appeal is limited (29.25).
The communitys unique transit situation reflects its role as a regional transportation center despite pedestrian limitations.
The area does offer some cycling options (14.74) but lacks transit infrastructure data.
These remote interior Alaska communities face significant challenges for pedestrian accessibility due to their isolation and harsh climate conditions.
As an isolated island community, Old Harbors transportation infrastructure necessarily prioritizes water and air access over pedestrian amenities.
The lack of data for cycling and transit infrastructure suggests limited alternatives to car travel.
The area appeals primarily to retirees and fishing enthusiasts rather than those seeking walkable neighborhoods.
Big Lake
Big Lake, despite being relatively close to Anchorage, scores poorly for walkability (1.26).
The community offers moderate retirement appeal (51.85) and limited urban sophistication (21.17).
The areas orientation around its namesake lake and recreational activities explains its limited pedestrian focus.
Kasilof
Kasilof breaks the one-point threshold for walkability (1.01) but still ranks among Alaskas least pedestrian-friendly communities.
The area offers solid urban sophistication (46.05) and moderate retirement appeal (52.11).
Located on the Kenai Peninsula, this community prioritizes rural living over walkable infrastructure.
Bethel
As one of western Alaskas largest communities, Bethel still scores poorly for walkability (0.90).
Its retirement appeal is modest (32.36), and cycling infrastructure is minimal (2.19).
Despite being a regional hub, Bethels remote location and challenging climate contribute to its walkability limitations.
The lack of data for cycling and transit infrastructure suggests limited options for non-car transportation.
Ester attracts residents seeking a quieter lifestyle despite pedestrian limitations.
This military installation offers limited urban sophistication (9.32) and minimal vibrancy (9.25).
The base lacks data for cycling infrastructure and public transit systems.
Its function as a military facility rather than a traditional residential community explains many of these characteristics.
The community offers relatively good urban sophistication (42.41) despite its rural setting.
The retirement score of 32.37 reflects its primary function as a work destination rather than a residential community.
The harsh Arctic climate further limits pedestrian activity in this industrial center.
Talkeetna
Talkeetna showcases a fascinating disparity in its metrics.
Talkeetnas appeal lies primarily in its natural surroundings rather than pedestrian infrastructure.
This suggests the area appeals to retirees despite lacking pedestrian-friendly infrastructure.
This region has one of the lowest urban sophistication scores (1.64) and minimal vibrancy (2.30).
While its transit-friendly score reaches 23.35, the area lacks cycling infrastructure data.
Like many remote Alaskan communities, the challenging terrain and climate contribute to these low walkability metrics.
Galena Huslia
Galena-Huslia has the absolute worst walkability score in Alaska at a mere 0.31 out of 100.
The isolation of these communities contributes significantly to their walkability challenges.
