How we score an address

Measures how easily you can run everyday errands on foot. The approach is based on published researches and calibrated by Urban Index.

• Each amenity's contribution follows a distance decay curve: full credit within roughly 400m, fading to near-zero around 1.5km.
• Nine amenity categories each carry a max-points cap. Grocery has the highest weight — food access drives most walking trips (Lee & Moudon, 2006). Other categories carry lower caps.
• Up to five amenities per category count, with diminishing returns on the 2nd through 5th (the nearest counts most; extras add smaller increments).

• After category points are summed, a street-connectivity multiplier is applied when OSM network data is available — poor grids can reduce the final walk score by up to 15%. Coastline-aware so waterfront addresses aren't penalised for water in their catchment.
• Includes a POI quality signal for selected categories using Google ratings — Bayesian-shrunk toward the global mean, so a highly rated grocer or café counts more than a poor one nearby.

The approach is based on Winters et al. (2013) and calibrated by Urban Index.

• Three components share one linear decay curve: full credit within 500m, zero by 2.5km — nearest-path proximity, decay-weighted network density, and decay-weighted destination reach.
• Infrastructure quality multiplies the nearest-path score: dedicated cycleway scores highest, followed by shared path, then on-road lane.

Measures whether public transport is a dependable option. The approach is based on TCRP service-quality research and calibrated by Urban Index. Where timetable data is available, we use GTFS feeds — the same open timetable standard that powers Google Maps public transport directions — sourced directly from Australian transit authorities.

• Every nearby stop gets its own score based on four factors: walking distance from the address, how frequently services run, the number of different routes available, and travel time to key destinations.
• The best-scoring stop sets the baseline for the address. A second independent route corridor on the same mode adds further value, and access to more than one mode (e.g. bus and train) strengthens the score again with a multimodal bonus. The final score caps at 100.
• Train, ferry, tram, and bus are all considered based on what's actually near the address. The best-performing mode drives the headline score, while any additional corridors are reflected in the breakdown.
• When timetable data is available, more frequent services carry greater weight — a stop with regular, reliable departures adds more value than one with sparse coverage. Where timetable data isn't available, the score falls back to proximity alone, factoring in how close the stops are without accounting for how often they run. A note on the page flags when this applies.

A single headline score that combines multiple liveability dimensions into one number. The framework draws on the EIU Global Liveability Index, the OECD Better Life Index, and Mercer's Quality of Living methodology — adapted and calibrated by Urban Index to work at the address level.

Six dimensions are scored from 0 to 100 and combined with fixed weights:

• Flood Safety — 20%
• Active Transport — 20% (Walk Score at 60% and Cycling Score at 40%)
• Green Space — 15%
• Healthcare — 15%
• Education — 15%
• Public Transport — 15%

Flood Safety is included when flood mapping is available for the area. When it isn't, the remaining five dimensions are re-weighted so they still add up to 100%. Green space, healthcare, and education scores are based on how close relevant amenities are — closer facilities contribute more than distant ones.