When evaluating the livability of a community, multiple factors come into play. Our analysis focuses on six key criteria: Overall Walkability, Retirement Score, Urban Sophistication (Cultural amenities), Vibrant Score, Cycling-Friendly, and Transit-Friendly ratings. The Overall Walkability Score encompasses numerous elements including pedestrian infrastructure, accessibility to amenities, street connectivity, and safety considerations. These comprehensive metrics provide insight into how easily residents can navigate their communities without relying on personal vehicles.
It’s important to note that all scores presented are derived from real-world data and resident surveys, not arbitrary assessments. Each criterion offers a unique perspective on community design and functionality, with scores ranging from 0 to 100 where higher numbers indicate better performance. The relationship between walkability, cycling infrastructure, and public transit highlights the interconnected nature of transportation alternatives in these communities.
Here’s the list.
25. Valdez – Whittier
- Overall Walkability: 1.72
- Retirement Score: 87.94
- Urban Sophistication (Cultural amenities): 41.42
- Vibrant Score: 4.13
- Cycling-Friendly: N/A
- Transit-Friendly: N/A
Ranking as the 25th worst walkable community in Alaska, the Valdez-Whittier area scores a mere 1.72 out of 100 for walkability. These coastal communities show impressive retirement appeal (87.94) and good urban sophistication (41.42) despite their remote locations. Vibrancy remains low (4.13), and the area lacks data for cycling and transit infrastructure. The stunning natural environment and recreational opportunities likely explain the high retirement appeal despite walkability challenges.
24. Tok
- Overall Walkability: 1.62
- Retirement Score: 48.61
- Urban Sophistication (Cultural amenities): 5.27
- Vibrant Score: 3.52
- Cycling-Friendly: 7.26
- Transit-Friendly: N/A
Tok, a major highway junction in eastern Alaska, scores poorly for walkability (1.62) and offers limited urban sophistication (5.27). 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, Tok’s infrastructure naturally prioritizes vehicle traffic over pedestrian accessibility.
23. Thorne Bay – Kake
- Overall Walkability: 1.55
- Retirement Score: 93.41
- Urban Sophistication (Cultural amenities): 21.97
- Vibrant Score: 0.61
- Cycling-Friendly: 2.22
- Transit-Friendly: 16.70
The Thorne Bay-Kake area in Southeast Alaska presents a dramatic contrast, combining poor walkability (1.55) with the highest retirement score (93.41) on our list. These communities offer moderate urban sophistication (21.97) but have the lowest vibrancy score (0.61) among all listed towns. 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.
22. Point Hope – Wainwright
- Overall Walkability: 1.47
- Retirement Score: 26.46
- Urban Sophistication (Cultural amenities): 10.58
- Vibrant Score: 5.64
- Cycling-Friendly: N/A
- Transit-Friendly: N/A
The Point Hope-Wainwright area on Alaska’s North Slope demonstrates poor walkability (1.47) combined with low retirement appeal (26.46) and limited urban sophistication (10.58). Vibrancy is minimal (5.64), and the communities lack data for both cycling and transit infrastructure. As remote Arctic communities, these villages face extreme climate challenges that significantly impact pedestrian mobility throughout much of the year.
21. Kwethluk
- Overall Walkability: 1.44
- Retirement Score: 28.33
- Urban Sophistication (Cultural amenities): 2.54
- Vibrant Score: 5.51
- Cycling-Friendly: N/A
- Transit-Friendly: 16.25
Kwethluk in western Alaska shows poor walkability (1.44) combined with limited metrics across all other categories. Urban sophistication is extremely low (2.54), vibrancy is minimal (5.51), and retirement appeal is limited (28.33). The community offers some transit options (16.25) but lacks cycling infrastructure data. As a small Alaska Native village, Kwethluk faces significant challenges in developing pedestrian infrastructure due to its remote location and climate.
20. Kotzebue
- Overall Walkability: 1.41
- Retirement Score: 29.25
- Urban Sophistication (Cultural amenities): 31.56
- Vibrant Score: 20.38
- Cycling-Friendly: 1.42
- Transit-Friendly: 67.35
Kotzebue presents an interesting contrast with poor walkability (1.41) but impressively high transit scores (67.35), the highest on our list. This regional hub north of the Arctic Circle offers moderate urban sophistication (31.56) and relatively good vibrancy (20.38) compared to other communities ranked here. However, cycling infrastructure is almost non-existent (1.42), and retirement appeal is limited (29.25). The community’s unique transit situation reflects its role as a regional transportation center despite pedestrian limitations.
19. McGrath – Holy Cross
- Overall Walkability: 1.39
- Retirement Score: 26.51
- Urban Sophistication (Cultural amenities): 3.30
- Vibrant Score: 2.07
- Cycling-Friendly: 14.74
- Transit-Friendly: N/A
The McGrath-Holy Cross area scores poorly for walkability (1.39) with extremely limited urban sophistication (3.30), minimal vibrancy (2.07), and low retirement appeal (26.51). 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.
18. Old Harbor
- Overall Walkability: 1.39
- Retirement Score: 58.69
- Urban Sophistication (Cultural amenities): 48.53
- Vibrant Score: 1.61
- Cycling-Friendly: N/A
- Transit-Friendly: 8.62
Old Harbor on Kodiak Island scores poorly for walkability (1.39) despite offering surprisingly high urban sophistication (48.53) for its remote location. The community provides moderate retirement appeal (58.69) but minimal vibrancy (1.61) and very limited transit options (8.62). As an isolated island community, Old Harbor’s transportation infrastructure necessarily prioritizes water and air access over pedestrian amenities.
17. Anchor Point – Ninilchik
- Overall Walkability: 1.32
- Retirement Score: 77.18
- Urban Sophistication (Cultural amenities): 22.23
- Vibrant Score: 1.18
- Cycling-Friendly: N/A
- Transit-Friendly: N/A
The Anchor Point-Ninilchik area on the Kenai Peninsula demonstrates poor walkability (1.32) but high retirement appeal (77.18). These communities offer moderate urban sophistication (22.23) but have one of the lowest vibrancy scores on our list (1.18). 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.
16. Big Lake
- Overall Walkability: 1.26
- Retirement Score: 51.85
- Urban Sophistication (Cultural amenities): 21.17
- Vibrant Score: 13.28
- Cycling-Friendly: N/A
- Transit-Friendly: N/A
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). While its vibrancy score (13.28) is better than many communities on this list, Big Lake lacks data for cycling and transit infrastructure. The area’s orientation around its namesake lake and recreational activities explains its limited pedestrian focus.
15. Selawik – Noorvik
- Overall Walkability: 1.13
- Retirement Score: 19.96
- Urban Sophistication (Cultural amenities): 8.88
- Vibrant Score: 4.80
- Cycling-Friendly: N/A
- Transit-Friendly: N/A
The Selawik-Noorvik area in northwest Alaska combines poor walkability (1.13) with the lowest retirement score on our list (19.96). These communities offer minimal urban sophistication (8.88) and low vibrancy (4.80) while lacking data for both cycling and transit infrastructure. As remote Alaska Native villages above the Arctic Circle, the challenging climate and isolated location significantly impact pedestrian mobility.
14. Hooper Bay – Chevak
- Overall Walkability: 1.11
- Retirement Score: 28.42
- Urban Sophistication (Cultural amenities): 2.02
- Vibrant Score: 4.87
- Cycling-Friendly: 2.50
- Transit-Friendly: N/A
The Hooper Bay-Chevak area shows poor walkability (1.11) with extremely limited urban sophistication (2.02) and minimal vibrancy (4.87). With low retirement appeal (28.42) and nearly non-existent cycling infrastructure (2.50), these remote western Alaska communities face significant challenges for pedestrians and limited transportation alternatives due to their isolation and harsh climate.
13. Togiak – Manokotak
- Overall Walkability: 1.11
- Retirement Score: 44.51
- Urban Sophistication (Cultural amenities): 9.91
- Vibrant Score: 5.91
- Cycling-Friendly: N/A
- Transit-Friendly: 20.21
The Togiak-Manokotak area in southwest Alaska scores poorly for walkability (1.11) with limited urban sophistication (9.91) and minimal vibrancy (5.91). The region offers moderate retirement appeal (44.51) and some transit options (20.21) but lacks cycling infrastructure data. As remote Alaska Native villages, these communities face significant challenges in developing walkable infrastructure due to their isolation and climate.
12. Kasilof
- Overall Walkability: 1.01
- Retirement Score: 52.11
- Urban Sophistication (Cultural amenities): 46.05
- Vibrant Score: 5.14
- Cycling-Friendly: 18.67
- Transit-Friendly: N/A
Kasilof breaks the one-point threshold for walkability (1.01) but still ranks among Alaska’s least pedestrian-friendly communities. The area offers solid urban sophistication (46.05) and moderate retirement appeal (52.11). While vibrancy remains low (5.14), Kasilof provides some cycling options (18.67) but lacks public transit data. Located on the Kenai Peninsula, this community prioritizes rural living over walkable infrastructure.
11. Bethel
- Overall Walkability: 0.90
- Retirement Score: 32.36
- Urban Sophistication (Cultural amenities): 23.46
- Vibrant Score: 15.87
- Cycling-Friendly: 2.19
- Transit-Friendly: N/A
As one of western Alaska’s largest communities, Bethel still scores poorly for walkability (0.90). The town offers moderate urban sophistication (23.46) and shows relatively better vibrancy (15.87) compared to other communities on this list. Its retirement appeal is modest (32.36), and cycling infrastructure is minimal (2.19). Despite being a regional hub, Bethel’s remote location and challenging climate contribute to its walkability limitations.
10. Ester
- Overall Walkability: 0.61
- Retirement Score: 88.47
- Urban Sophistication (Cultural amenities): 36.53
- Vibrant Score: 1.38
- Cycling-Friendly: N/A
- Transit-Friendly: N/A
Ester continues the trend of communities with very low walkability scores (0.61) but high retirement appeal (88.47). This small community near Fairbanks offers decent urban sophistication (36.53) despite its size but has minimal vibrancy (1.38). 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.
9. Eielson Air Force Base
- Overall Walkability: 0.57
- Retirement Score: 22.03
- Urban Sophistication (Cultural amenities): 9.32
- Vibrant Score: 9.25
- Cycling-Friendly: N/A
- Transit-Friendly: N/A
Eielson Air Force Base scores poorly for walkability (0.57) and has a low retirement appeal (22.03). 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.
8. Sterling
- Overall Walkability: 0.51
- Retirement Score: 88.58
- Urban Sophistication (Cultural amenities): 42.41
- Vibrant Score: 2.77
- Cycling-Friendly: N/A
- Transit-Friendly: 11.52
Sterling demonstrates one of the most dramatic contrasts on our list with an extremely low walkability score (0.51) yet one of the highest retirement ratings (88.58). The community offers relatively good urban sophistication (42.41) despite its rural setting. With minimal vibrancy (2.77) and limited transit options (11.52), Sterling appeals primarily to those seeking retirement in natural surroundings rather than walkable neighborhoods.
7. Willow
- Overall Walkability: 0.49
- Retirement Score: 73.76
- Urban Sophistication (Cultural amenities): 31.14
- Vibrant Score: 4.88
- Cycling-Friendly: N/A
- Transit-Friendly: N/A
Willow presents the recurring pattern of poor walkability (0.49) combined with strong retirement appeal (73.76). The area offers moderate urban sophistication (31.14) but minimal vibrancy (4.88) and lacks data for cycling and public transit infrastructure. Known for its connection to the Iditarod Trail Sled Dog Race, Willow attracts residents seeking rural living rather than pedestrian-friendly environments.
6. Prudhoe Bay
- Overall Walkability: 0.40
- Retirement Score: 32.37
- Urban Sophistication (Cultural amenities): 0.87
- Vibrant Score: 3.68
- Cycling-Friendly: N/A
- Transit-Friendly: 24.55
As an industrial hub centered around oil production, Prudhoe Bay unsurprisingly scores very low on walkability (0.40) and has the lowest urban sophistication rating (0.87) on our list. The area’s vibrancy score is minimal (3.68), though it does offer some transit options (24.55). 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.
5. Delta Junction
- Overall Walkability: 0.38
- Retirement Score: 69.12
- Urban Sophistication (Cultural amenities): 35.81
- Vibrant Score: 1.62
- Cycling-Friendly: N/A
- Transit-Friendly: 13.89
Delta Junction combines very poor walkability (0.38) with relatively strong retirement appeal (69.12) and moderate urban sophistication (35.81). The town’s extremely low vibrancy score (1.62) and limited transit options (13.89) contribute to its pedestrian challenges. Despite lacking cycling infrastructure data, Delta Junction maintains some appeal for retirees looking for a quieter lifestyle while sacrificing walkability.
4. Talkeetna
- Overall Walkability: 0.37
- Retirement Score: 71.17
- Urban Sophistication (Cultural amenities): 18.72
- Vibrant Score: 1.23
- Cycling-Friendly: 73.32
- Transit-Friendly: 12.32
Talkeetna showcases a fascinating disparity in its metrics. Despite an extremely low walkability score of 0.37, it boasts an impressive cycling-friendly rating of 73.32 and a strong retirement score of 71.17. This tourist destination offers moderate urban sophistication (18.72) but lacks vibrancy (1.23) and has limited public transit options (12.32). Talkeetna’s appeal lies primarily in its natural surroundings rather than pedestrian infrastructure.
3. Sutton
- Overall Walkability: 0.35
- Retirement Score: 78.30
- Urban Sophistication (Cultural amenities): 6.91
- Vibrant Score: 6.60
- Cycling-Friendly: N/A
- Transit-Friendly: N/A
Sutton presents an interesting contrast with its very low walkability score of 0.35 but significantly higher retirement score of 78.30. This suggests the area appeals to retirees despite lacking pedestrian-friendly infrastructure. Urban sophistication (6.91) and vibrancy (6.60) scores are minimal, and the town lacks measurable cycling and public transit systems. The median home price in Sutton reflects its appeal to those seeking a more secluded lifestyle despite the limited walkability.
2. Aniak – Lower Kalskag
- Overall Walkability: 0.32
- Retirement Score: 27.21
- Urban Sophistication (Cultural amenities): 1.64
- Vibrant Score: 2.30
- Cycling-Friendly: N/A
- Transit-Friendly: 23.35
With an overall walkability score of just 0.32, the Aniak-Lower Kalskag area demonstrates significant limitations for pedestrians. 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.
1. Galena – Huslia
- Overall Walkability: 0.31
- Retirement Score: 26.90
- Urban Sophistication (Cultural amenities): 3.58
- Vibrant Score: 5.19
- Cycling-Friendly: 5.03
- Transit-Friendly: N/A
Galena-Huslia has the absolute worst walkability score in Alaska at a mere 0.31 out of 100. The area shows weak scores across all measured criteria, with particularly low urban sophistication (3.58) and minimal vibrancy (5.19). While the retirement score reaches 26.90, this rural region lacks adequate cycling infrastructure (5.03) and has no measurable public transit system. The isolation of these communities contributes significantly to their walkability challenges.
Definition of Terms:
- Overall Walkability: Measures how easily residents can accomplish tasks on foot, factoring in pedestrian infrastructure, proximity to amenities, street connectivity, safety, and topography.
- Retirement Score: Indicates a community’s appeal and suitability for retirees, considering factors like healthcare access, recreational opportunities, cost of living, climate, and safety.
- Urban Sophistication (Cultural amenities): Evaluates the availability and quality of cultural resources including museums, theaters, restaurants, libraries, and educational institutions.
- Vibrant Score: Assesses the energy and liveliness of a community through factors like nightlife, events, population density, commercial activity, and social engagement opportunities.
- Cycling-Friendly: Measures the infrastructure and environment supporting bicycle transportation, including dedicated lanes, trails, storage facilities, and safety factors. This criterion is included because cycling represents an important alternative transportation option that, like walkability, promotes healthier, more sustainable communities.
- Transit-Friendly: Evaluates public transportation access, frequency, reliability, coverage, and integration. Transit options directly complement walkability by extending the practical range of car-free travel, making both metrics critical for understanding a community’s overall accessibility.
References:
In addition to our proprietary data, we used the following for the median home price information:
