How we score a neighbourhood

Urban Index combines practical access (walk, cycling, transit), everyday essentials, and local risk factors into clear 0–100 scores. This page explains the approach at a high level — what the scores represent, what they consider, and where the underlying ideas come from.

Walk Score

Measures how easily you can run everyday errands on foot. Nearby essentials matter most, and additional options add smaller incremental value (the second café helps — but less than the first).

  • Considers a balanced set of daily destinations (groceries, food, parks, schools, health services, community). Full-service supermarkets are weighted more heavily than small convenience outlets where that distinction applies.
  • Distance matters through a smooth polynomial-style falloff — closer destinations count much more, with a fair penalty at mid-range distances rather than a simple straight-line rule.
  • Where street-network data is available, an optional connectivity adjustment can slightly lower the score for areas with a sparse or disconnected walking grid (aligned with walkability-index practice).
  • Includes a POI (point of interest) quality signal for selected categories only using Google ratings — not parks, schools, finance, or every amenity type — disclosed as a product enhancement (not part of the original published Walk Score method).

Cycling Score

Measures whether cycling is practical — not just possible. We value nearby infrastructure, prefer protected facilities where available, and consider how useful cycling is for reaching destinations.

  • Rewards closer cycling infrastructure more than far infrastructure.
  • Adjusts for infrastructure quality (e.g., protected vs on-road).
  • Adds network density (how much usable cycling infrastructure sits within about a kilometre) and destination reach (how many useful stops are within cycling distance).
  • Accounts for terrain when elevation data is available (hills change the experience).

Transit Score

Measures whether public transport is a dependable option. Where timetable data (GTFS) is available, we value both proximity and service frequency; otherwise we fall back to proximity-only scoring. The final 0–100 result is scaled using a single calibration so scores stay comparable across locations.

  • Calibration: the top of the scale is anchored using a high-transit reference point in central Melbourne and Victorian timetable data, so “100” reflects a dense, multi-modal hub rather than an arbitrary local ceiling.
  • Uses a mode hierarchy (train vs ferry vs tram vs bus) to reflect typical reliability and network effect. Tram and light rail are included only in defined Australian tram service areas; elsewhere the score uses train, ferry, and bus only (from GTFS or the proximity fallback).
  • Rewards frequent service more than infrequent service when GTFS data is available.
  • Bus stops use a tailored distance weighting compared with rail and ferry-style curves within the same overall framework.
  • Where timetable data is missing, Transit Score falls back to proximity-only (no frequency signal), but uses the same overall scaling when calibration data is present so the headline score stays on the same kind of scale.

Livability Score (overall)

A composite index that blends multiple dimensions into a single headline score. It is designed to answer a simple question: how well does this location support day-to-day life?

  • Combines green space, healthcare, education, public transit (from the Transit Score above), and active transport into a single score. The active-transport slice blends 60% Walk Score with 40% Cycling Score.
  • Uses proximity-weighted access so “one nearby option” doesn’t create cliff-edge jumps.
  • Includes Flood Safety as a first-class factor (currently available in Brisbane only).

Value additions: POI quality + flood safety

POI quality signal (Google ratings)

Not all destinations are equal. For selected categories only, we use Google Places ratings as a light-weight quality signal so the score reflects lived experience — while still keeping distance as the primary driver.

Flood Safety (public flood awareness data)

In flood-prone cities, livability includes resilience. We incorporate flood awareness classification as a transparent safety factor and show it clearly in the breakdown (currently available in Brisbane only).

References

Our methodology is aligned with published research and public frameworks.

  1. Carr, L.J. et al. (2011). Walk Score as a global estimate of neighbourhood walkability.
  2. Frank, L.D. et al. (2010). Walkability Index / built environment and walking (connectivity and active transport framing).
  3. Winters, M. et al. (2013). Built environment influences on route selection for bicycle and car travel.
  4. Xu, Y. et al. (2018). Food environment and grocery-access research (major vs convenience differentiation).
  5. Transportation Research Board (2013). Transit Capacity and Quality of Service Manual (TCRP Report 165).
  6. Economist Intelligence Unit (2023). Global Liveability Index.
  7. OECD (2020). Better Life Index Framework.