What the data shows
This is a per-capita infrastructure comparison, not a raw count leaderboard. A city with fewer total crossings can still rank high if it serves a smaller population well; a large metro can rank low even with thousands of crossings if provision does not keep pace with residents.
In this sample, the spread is wide: Bolzano (58.4) to Crotone (7.4), a ratio of roughly 7.9 to 1. That is large enough to change daily pedestrian experience, not just move a ranking table.
A compact sample, still a clear signal
The top three cities here are Bolzano (58.4), Trento (51.2), Milano (41.7). The bottom three are Catania (10.5), Reggio Calabria (9.1), Crotone (7.4). The overlap in geography and city size is limited, but the overall pattern is consistent with a long-standing planning divide: places with sustained street-level investment score better on basic walkability infrastructure.
At the same time, this is not a “north always good, south always bad” claim. Individual municipal choices matter. Some cities outperform their regional neighbors; others underperform despite stronger economic context.
Why large cities can underperform
Roma and Napoli both sit below this sample's average. Big-city networks are harder to retrofit, and older street grids often prioritize vehicular throughput over pedestrian continuity. The policy lesson is practical: crosswalk density is less about city prestige and more about repeated, local execution.
Limits and next reporting step
This story is transparent by design: the current file covers 14 cities, not all provincial capitals. It is a strong prototype for method and storytelling, but not yet a full national census.
Next step is straightforward: scale the same pipeline to a broader city set and add neighborhood-level pedestrian injury context. That would let us test whether crossing density tracks safety outcomes, not just infrastructure presence.
Data source: OpenStreetMap / ISTAT 2023 · Last updated: 2026-02-27
