Even though simply adjusting timeframes for the elderly (e.g., by 30% as argued in this research) could be a “quick fix,” it should be mentioned that walking capacity should not be confused with the ability, the will, the reason, or the motivation to walk at the first place, pointing to a multifactorial relationship that can be overlooked by quantitative and normative methods. For example, regional research findings have pointed out that many older people tend to walk significantly long distances daily, but only for a few years after retirement age, probably due to the availability of free time and the voluntary trade of effort and speed for endurance and socialization, thus causing even further confusion \cite{Buehler_2011,Sugiyama_2019}. Finally, the main assumptions of the digitization of most everyday activities should be treated with healthy skepticism, especially for those who are less capable of rapidly adapting to new and tech-savvy lifestyles. In conclusion, to answer the question of 'how far is too far, which can, of course, be rephrased as 'how long is too long, a better and more detailed approach is suggested when putting into practice what appears to be, or can be holistic suggestions.
Suggested Future Steps: Cities and changing human bodies
From a Eurocentric point of view, most planning and anthropometric standards and conventions regarding pedestrian walking in the literature trace their roots to the post-war reconstruction aligned with the last major phase of expanding urbanization related to population growth. Accordingly, urban forms in European cities today have mainly been structured around the concept of nuclear family and work-home daily commuting, emphasizing functionality and purposely directing resources and planning agendas toward that double goal. Yet, as demographics change, the nature and organization of work changes, and finally human bodies change, these conventions need to be revisited and revised to better align with up-to-date data and future projections.