Debunking the Cul-de-Sac

[fiamme red]

Interesting article about the evolution of street layout in the past century:

http://www.theatlanticcities.com/design/2011/09/street-grids/124/

...In their California study, Garrick and Marshall eventually realized the safest cities had an element in common: They were all incorporated before 1930. Something about the way they were designed made them safer. The key wasn’t necessarily that large numbers of bikers produced safer cities, but that the design elements of cities that encouraged people to bike in places like Davis were the same ones that were yielding fewer traffic fatalities.

These cities were built the old way: along those monotonous grids. In general, they didn’t have fewer accidents overall, but they had far fewer deadly ones. Marshall and Garrick figured that cars (and cars with bikes) must be colliding at lower speeds on these types of street networks. At first glance such tightly interconnected communities might appear more dangerous, with cars traveling from all directions and constantly intersecting with each other. But what if such patterns actually force people to drive slower and pay more attention?

“A lot of people feel that they want to live in a cul-de-sac, they feel like it’s a safer place to be,” Marshall says. “The reality is yes, you’re safer – if you never leave your cul-de-sac. But if you actually move around town like a normal person, your town as a whole is much more dangerous.”

This is the opposite of what traffic engineers (and home buyers) have thought for decades. And it’s just the beginning of what we’re now starting to understand about the relative advantages of going back to the way we designed communities a century ago.

Marshall and Garrick took the same group of California cities and also examined all their minutely classified street networks for the amount of driving associated with them. On average, they found, people who live in more sparse, tree-like communities drive about 18 percent more than people who live in dense grids. And that’s a conservative calculation...

[rugbysecondrow]

Interesting article about the evolution of street layout in the past century:

http://www.theatlanticcities.com/design/2011/09/street-grids/124/

...In their California study, Garrick and Marshall eventually realized the safest cities had an element in common: They were all incorporated before 1930. Something about the way they were designed made them safer. The key wasn’t necessarily that large numbers of bikers produced safer cities, but that the design elements of cities that encouraged people to bike in places like Davis were the same ones that were yielding fewer traffic fatalities.

These cities were built the old way: along those monotonous grids. In general, they didn’t have fewer accidents overall, but they had far fewer deadly ones. Marshall and Garrick figured that cars (and cars with bikes) must be colliding at lower speeds on these types of street networks. At first glance such tightly interconnected communities might appear more dangerous, with cars traveling from all directions and constantly intersecting with each other. But what if such patterns actually force people to drive slower and pay more attention?

“A lot of people feel that they want to live in a cul-de-sac, they feel like it’s a safer place to be,” Marshall says. “The reality is yes, you’re safer – if you never leave your cul-de-sac. But if you actually move around town like a normal person, your town as a whole is much more dangerous.”

This is the opposite of what traffic engineers (and home buyers) have thought for decades. And it’s just the beginning of what we’re now starting to understand about the relative advantages of going back to the way we designed communities a century ago.

Marshall and Garrick took the same group of California cities and also examined all their minutely classified street networks for the amount of driving associated with them. On average, they found, people who live in more sparse, tree-like communities drive about 18 percent more than people who live in dense grids. And that’s a conservative calculation...

This thinking has been around for decades. Any traffic engineer who is a proponant of cul da sacs needs to return his/her credentials. They are designed solely because the lots sell and sell for a premium vs. traditional street lots. They are safer in one respect, kids can play in the street because there is no through traffic, but they are horrendous for a multitude of other reasons. They are also less safe as a whole because there is no through traffic, invaders and burglers have less to fear because of the isolation.

Read Jane Jacobs The Death and Life of Great American Cities, written in the 1950's, classic Urban Planning 101. "The Eyes of the Street" is a great descriptive in favor of residing where there is more traffic.

[Lifelover]

Figures lie and liars figure.

I'll take my Cul-de-sac anyday and everyday.

[fiamme red]

I'll take my Cul-de-sac anyday and everyday.But I remember you said that you prefer to ride on trails around you, not on the roads.

Places designed around cul-de-sacs can have decent road cycling, but more often they don't, in my experience.

[avalonracing]

I grew up in the center house of a cul-de-sac. It was great as my friends all came to my house to play baseball (with a tennis ball) do bike stunts and jump in the big leaf pile. My best childhood memories are probably directly related to the fact that I grew up with my house located off the busy street.

[TimmyB]

This thinking has been around for decades. Any traffic engineer who is a proponant of cul da sacs needs to return his/her credentials. They are designed solely because the lots sell and sell for a premium vs. traditional street lots. They are safer in one respect, kids can play in the street because there is no through traffic, but they are horrendous for a multitude of other reasons. They are also less safe as a whole because there is no through traffic, invaders and burglers have less to fear because of the isolation.

Read Jane Jacobs The Death and Life of Great American Cities, written in the 1950's, classic Urban Planning 101. "The Eyes of the Street" is a great descriptive in favor of residing where there is more traffic.
Don't forget that they are cheaper for developers to build because the road can be rated for less traffic => even greater profits!

Also, that is a terrific book.

[rugbysecondrow]

I grew up in the center house of a cul-de-sac. It was great as my friends all came to my house to play baseball (with a tennis ball) do bike stunts and jump in the big leaf pile. My best childhood memories are probably directly related to the fact that I grew up with my house located off the busy street.


I grew up the center house on one as well and my childhood was nearly the exact same, so I empathize with the homeowners perspective. Kids playing in the street are one very good reason. I must say I would have found a different place to play though and from a planning perspective, they are horrendous. Buses, snow removal, fire protection, adequate public services, expansion or town growth etc etc. There are many real reasons to not have cul da sacs.

What is worse than a cul da sac? Gated community. I hated driving around Phoenix because all the neighborhoods were closed off, absolutely stupid.


Don't forget that they are cheaper for developers to build because the road can be rated for less traffic => even greater profits!

Also, that is a terrific book.


Agreed. Less traffic, less setbacks, maybe no guttering etc etc. Developers profit, but it costs the community quite a bit more in management and operations.

[palincss]

Figures lie and liars figure.

I'll take my Cul-de-sac anyday and everyday.

Fine, if you are under house arrest. Where can you go without your car?

There was an interesting piece in the paper about one of the 'burbs out in The Sprawl a couple of years ago that caught my eye because it was about a road we used to ride on a lot back in the 1980s, when it was all farms out there. Since then, it's in the heart of The Sprawl, and it's been widened 4 times to relieve congestion, all to no avail.

The article pointed out one development that was located approximately 200 meters from a shopping center that contained a drug store. Because of the way the roads were laid out, people living in that development had to drive four miles on congested roads to get to that shopping center, there was no way to walk the 200 meters.

In one of the old trolley suburbs, you could walk from your house to stores, libraries and schools, and if one road was blocked you could go around the corner and take a parallel street, because they all connected. Such a layout is great not only for walking, but also for getting around by bicycle.

Sometimes Bob Dylan puts it just perfectly:

I must have been mad
Never knew what I had
Until I threw it all away

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XhqhvpMCtj4

[William]

I lived on one for a number of years as a kid as well, my house was the last house on the left with a house across the street. The cul-de-sac itself had no houses on it and it bordered a forest. We had the cul-de-sac itself, the dirt border between it and the woods, and the woods themselves as a playground. So many good memories there! :cool:




William

[bozman]

I love my Cul-de-Sac. Kids are learning to ride bikes w/o fear of some db speeding by to annihilate them. It also backs up to a partial green space. That said, my single biggest frustration is the way people park in them. It is parallel parking, not nose-in!

[zap]

snip

They are also less safe as a whole because there is no through traffic, invaders and burglers have less to fear because of the isolation.



Maybe safer.......fewer escape options.

Grids are stupid and boring.....like a pissed off communist.

Love our Cul de Sac with a nice treed circle in the ctr.

[CNY rider]

This hits a major pet peeve of mine.
I grew up on a cul-de-sac street as well and I have no complaints about my childhood.
The street had 6 houses on each side and then 4 around the dead end loop.
The house furthest from the opening could not have been more than 1/6 mile down the street.
When it was time to go to school we all walked to the bus stop at the top of the block, hung out and waited for the bus.
Now: The bus goes down the little dead end and stops to pick up and let each kid off at their house.
Insane.

[JMerring]

Grids are stupid and boring.....like a pissed off communist.


huh??? surely a pissed off communist would be more super fly tnt/guns of okhut than boring?

[alexstar]

I grew up on a cul-de-sac. It was great - except the times when a drunk driver thought it went through to the freeway. Mr. Rodriguez who lived in the center house had his house smashed on at least one occasion.

Once a guy in a stolen car was running from the cops and drove up on his lawn.

The relative isolation was OK from a kids' perspective, but it must have been irritating for my parents to have to drive 20 minutes to get to the grocery store.

[deechee]

I couldn't care less about dead-ends/cul-de-sacs, but I agree I HATE most modern suburban neighborhoods. They're impossible to navigate! Its a maze to drive in, and another to get out. Sometimes you can't even exit the same way you came in because of one way streets, its ridiculous. It was amusing to see the curvilinear examples as it is a spitting image of the neighborhood I grew up in.

Since some of you seem knowledgeable, what is the influence public transportation has when designing new urban centers? I have this feeling that some of the newer south american centers are designed with a hub/city center and the lines sprawling out from center. This would seem to help the cul-de-sac model since you can sprawl out radially and branch off. On the other hand, a grid system fits in fine too, although I wonder how major arteries are designed...

Thanks for the info about Jane Jacobs, I had no idea who she was and that she influenced the decomission of the Spadina highway in Toronto. I always wondered why Allen Road seemed unfinished since I always take it when I'm visiting my sister in Toronto.

[goonster]

Excellent article, and it really boils down to this:

"The FHA never put it quite this way, but what we were really doing was building communities for cars, not people."

[FlashUNC]

Excellent article, and it really boils down to this:

"The FHA never put it quite this way, but what we were really doing was building communities for cars, not people."

Totally drives the point home. Most modern cities aren't designed for people, really. Its all about cars.

[Likes2ridefar]

I grew up on a cul de sac and have many fond memories of playing in the street without a care for cars. A few years ago I took a drive through the neighborhood and it looked the same...except there were almost no kids playing outside. And it was summer in the afternoon! I remember kids all over the place when I was young.

Now I live in a grid (Manhattan) and see the kids playing ball in the streets...not quite the same experience I had! But there are plenty of parks nearby they can go to, but unfortunately most are too fat to make it that far. I digress..

Unforunately my grid is generally not very safe for cycling. The roads are bad, the traffic is even worse, and there's hardly any safe place to leave your bike outside once you arrive to your destination.

Cul de sacs and remote neighborhoods are nice and seem like a good idea, but as the article states rely heavily on cars.

Lets hope the future brings an affordable or more efficient means of transportation otherwise most of the cul de sac lovers are going to be begging to get back in to the city.

[Likes2ridefar]

Totally drives the point home. Most modern cities aren't designed for people, really. Its all about cars.

I wonder if this was purposely done to support the car industry, or was it done under the impression cars would always remain a cheap, viable means of transportation nearly everyone could afford?

I'm sure there are countless other reasons like the desire to have a yard, privacy, etc....

[sg8357]

Excellent article, and it really boils down to this:

"The FHA never put it quite this way, but what we were really doing was building communities for cars, not people."

In an old Science Fiction story the Aliens observe the USA and the
Alien scientists figure out that Cars are the dominant life form,
people are servants that clean and doctor cars.

1950s story before Home owners associations banned washing
cars and changing engines in the driveway. :)

[bart998]

Excellent article, and it really boils down to this:

"The FHA never put it quite this way, but what we were really doing was building communities for cars, not people."

I don't see how cul-de-sacs benefit cars.. I am easy walking distance from two markets, my kids schools, and two parks. I bought my house for the cul-de-sac when my kids were small. It's been great to have a quiet street with no traffic. All the neighborhood kids play games in the street. The neighbors all know each other and have an annual block party in the center. All my past homes were on grid type streets, this is better.

[Ralph]

One of the things I don't like about Central Florida is our lack of a traffic grid system. We have so many lakes, and our local governments shove all road building down to the lowest level....that we wind up with all these "feeder" systems. One way in or out of subdivisions, then those roads feed to more busy roads, those roads feed to even more busy roads, etc, and soon everyone is on the same major road in gridlock during busy hours. With a couple million people, that's poor planning in my opinion....or at least out dated planning.

I'm always amazed when I visit my wife's home town of Chicago, and there are so many ways to go some place. Here....there is usually just one way to go somewhere....the same road everyone else is on.

[fiamme red]

Virginia proposed to phase out new cul-de-sac development a few years ago.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/03/21/AR2009032102248.html

[keevon]

Cul-de-sacs are insular: Don't live on my street? GTFO.

That's not how you build community.

[echappist]

I couldn't care less about dead-ends/cul-de-sacs, but I agree I HATE most modern suburban neighborhoods. They're impossible to navigate! Its a maze to drive in, and another to get out. Sometimes you can't even exit the same way you came in because of one way streets, its ridiculous. It was amusing to see the curvilinear examples as it is a spitting image of the neighborhood I grew up in.

Since some of you seem knowledgeable, what is the influence public transportation has when designing new urban centers? I have this feeling that some of the newer south american centers are designed with a hub/city center and the lines sprawling out from center. This would seem to help the cul-de-sac model since you can sprawl out radially and branch off. On the other hand, a grid system fits in fine too, although I wonder how major arteries are designed...

Thanks for the info about Jane Jacobs, I had no idea who she was and that she influenced the decomission of the Spadina highway in Toronto. I always wondered why Allen Road seemed unfinished since I always take it when I'm visiting my sister in Toronto.

She also somehow trumped Robert Moses, whom we all have to thank for congestion on the roads in and around NY. Moses wanted to build the Lower Manhattan Expressway (which would have ran roughshod through Canal Street), got funding for it, and usually it would have been game over for any opposition. She got a rag-tag crew to protest it and somehow beat Goliath.

That said, i couldn't stand reading her book. I thought it was bone-dry compared to Robert Caro's book on Moses. Furthermore, it could be argued that the very types of neighborhood she champions are disappearing because they are too successful as white collar workers push out the working class who used to live in areas such as East Village. And voila, the organic, tightly nit community is now replaced by yuppies who have very few interactions with their neighbors.

For the very same reason i wouldn't want to read Robert Moses justifying Title I Slum clearance, i didn't want to read Jacobs as she was the extreme opposite. Certainly needed as a counter against Moses, but opinionated in her own ways. Though it took me a year to finish, Caro's book was something i was reluctant to put down. Unfortunately, Jacobs has put me to sleep on quite a few occassions.

For those of you interested in urban planning, one author i would recommend is Kenneth T Jackson. Incidentally, he has also written a re-appraisal of Moses.

[EDS]

Ideally, I would love to live somewhere where I can have a house and a modest amount of green space of my own but still be able to walk to a bar, restaurant, coffee shop, etc. Developments where every house looks alike seem kind of blah to me.

[jr59]

I lived on one for a number of years as a kid as well, my house was the last house on the left with a house across the street. The cul-de-sac itself had no houses on it and it bordered a forest. We had the cul-de-sac itself, the dirt border between it and the woods, and the woods themselves as a playground. So many good memories there! :cool:




William

No wonder you love....Squirrels. :p

[jr59]

Ideally, I would love to live somewhere where I can have a house and a modest amount of green space of my own but still be able to walk to a bar, restaurant, coffee shop, etc. Developments where every house looks alike seem kind of blah to me.


Seems to me that you can do that anywhere you wish!

All it takes is a LOT of cash! :p

[echappist]

Ideally, I would love to live somewhere where I can have a house and a modest amount of green space of my own but still be able to walk to a bar, restaurant, coffee shop, etc. Developments where every house looks alike seem kind of blah to me.
+1

I love suburbs like the Mainline, Brooklyn, and Cambridge

[torquer]

These cities were built the old way: along those monotonous grids. In general, they didn’t have fewer accidents overall, but they had far fewer deadly ones. Marshall and Garrick figured that cars (and cars with bikes) must be colliding at lower speeds on these types of street networks. At first glance such tightly interconnected communities might appear more dangerous, with cars traveling from all directions and constantly intersecting with each other. But what if such patterns actually force people to drive slower and pay more attention?

I'm no planner, just a stupid and boring pissed off commie, I guess, but the notion that apparently dangerous grids result in safer travel reminded me of what I once was told when I was in college about an especially narrow spiral stair in the architectural library: because of its daunting height, and perhaps because of the oversize volumes being transported, the stair in fact was unusually safe. In other words people were paying attention.

Regarding traffic, though, I find myself with very low expectations regarding drivers paying attention, no matter what the road layout.

And politically, I do admit to being to the left of the salad fork. ;)

[Ray]

Don't get me started on this. Suffice it to say that most traffic planners and engineers have seen the problems with cul de sacs since at least the 80's, but they were and still are popular and most suburban politicians come out against them at there peril.

-Ray

[EDS]

Seems to me that you can do that anywhere you wish!

All it takes is a LOT of cash! :p

Exactly! I was specifically thinking of Boulder - though I don't know if that classifies as a city.

The greatest thing about living in NYC is being able to walk everywhere. When/if I move to the burbs or somewhere else I know it would be hard to adjust to driving everywhere. That said, the convenience of having a car at my fingertips and not having to deal with the traffic associated with leaving/entering NYC would be a benefit. The dedicated man/bike room in the basement would be nice too!!!!

[1centaur]

Popular but bad. An interesting view. I equate popular with perceived good, and I do not favor the assumption of mass stupidity, especially over decades and generations of individual choice. Rather I'd say both forms of layout have goods and bads and government is best off explaining those aspects in the course of their planning hearings. If people are willing to trade off traffic congestion and more difficult snow plowing for the goods of cul-de-sacs, I say let them. One warning - cul-de-sacs are like TIVO: awesome if you're in the minority and a network killer if everybody has one. Webs of cul-de-sacs are at least as mind numbing as endless grids and kind of spoil the fun. An occasional cul-de-sac is worth paying up for.

On the burglary front, I think it's the common view that burglars don't like cul-de-sacs because neighbors know their local traffic and exit is constrained.

People pay more for cul-de-sacs because they're quieter and safer than the alternative. They'd rather not have bad traffic patterns, but if they had to choose freer flowing traffic over their daily living realities I know which they'd choose because they already have.

[Ray]

One warning - cul-de-sacs are like TIVO: awesome if you're in the minority and a network killer if everybody has one.
That's the key. I don't judge people's individual reasons for choosing to live on one. But it's kind of like entire societies not spending in a recession. It's a perfectly rational decision for any given individual, but if everyone does it the sociey as a whole is much the worse for it. That's what I meant by popular but bad, although I don't think that's how I put it.

And of course I didn't preach about them to my clients. I explained the choices and the tradeoffs and nine out of ten suburban municipalities didn't even consider the alternatives.

-Ray

[TimmyB]

I'm no planner, just a stupid and boring pissed off commie, I guess, but the notion that apparently dangerous grids result in safer travel reminded me of what I once was told when I was in college about an especially narrow spiral stair in the architectural library: because of its daunting height, and perhaps because of the oversize volumes being transported, the stair in fact was unusually safe. In other words people were paying attention.

Regarding traffic, though, I find myself with very low expectations regarding drivers paying attention, no matter what the road layout.

And politically, I do admit to being to the left of the salad fork. ;)

You should look into Monderman's work. It suggests that streets with no signs/visual distractions/separation between user-group etc including at intersections actually increases the safety of roads as users are required to stay more alert, make eye contact, and operate in a more respectable manner. Because the intersections have no signage/etc; users are required to proceed with caution, which in turn has been shown (with his models) to decrease deaths/collisions/etc.

Basically Monderman's method is the regeneration of the classic town street prior to sidewalks/lights/freeways/etc; when the public space was a shared, egalitarian space, rather than one sectored off for different modes. Quite radical by the US's standards, this style of design has been pretty effective in a handful of places in and around Europe.

Actual safety and perceived safety are two entirely separate, yet often misused, terms.

[Kontact]

I've never seen a "city" with cul de sacs, but I've seen quite a few suburban neighborhoods near cities that have them.

I don't really understand the issue. Complex street plans are more likely to cause accidents, but cul de sacs don't make streets any more complicated than driveways do. You can locate cul de sacs on gridded streets.

Around here I am most likely to be killed on a bike due to confusion at pedestrian crossings or by buses - both of which are supposed to be positive urban features.


I think a lot of "debunking" needs to be debunked. Just because something is associated with a statistic, that doesn't make it the cause.

[93legendti]

I can't get upset by cul de sacs. Life is too short.

My Mom lives on one, but the area is surrounded by lakes and marshes. My father was an architect and builder-it didn't bother him when he bought the house.

OTOH, the traffic on our street @ 8-9:00am and 4-5:30 pm, as drivers zip thru to cut out a small town just north of our street with lots of lights and congestion, doesn't make for good bike riding for my 8 and 5 year olds.

[rugbysecondrow]

I've never seen a "city" with cul de sacs, but I've seen quite a few suburban neighborhoods near cities that have them.

I don't really understand the issue. Complex street plans are more likely to cause accidents, but cul de sacs don't make streets any more complicated than driveways do. You can locate cul de sacs on gridded streets.

Around here I am most likely to be killed on a bike due to confusion at pedestrian crossings or by buses - both of which are supposed to be positive urban features.


I think a lot of "debunking" needs to be debunked. Just because something is associated with a statistic, that doesn't make it the cause.

I disagree. First, all sorts of cities have cul de sacs, not just suburbs. A cul de sac is quite a bit different than a driveway in a number of ways. 1) a CDS of 16 houses, 32+ cars is significantly more than a driveway. Two, in many places, the CDS are utilized in a planned unit development, which is a way to utilize an undersized lot for this purpose. The problem often is that a small development of 4-10 houses is shoe-horned into a place not really adequate for it (no turn lanes, increased traffic, narrow roads etc.

Cul de sacs are quite, especially more than a grid system. Where I live in Columbia, MD, CDS are everywhere, but at least they have an extensive trail/path system so one could walk many places. Driving in Columbia is a different issues...you are screwed if you get lost...CDS hell.

[rugbysecondrow]

I can't get upset by cul de sacs. Life is too short.

My Mom lives on one, but the area is surrounded by lakes and marshes. My father was an architect and builder-it didn't bother him when he bought the house.

OTOH, the traffic on our street @ 8-9:00am and 4-5:30 pm, as drivers zip thru to cut out a small town just north of our street with lots of lights and congestion, doesn't make for good bike riding for my 8 and 5 year olds.


It is not about being upset, it is about planning a little bit better. As resources for services and infrastructure is diminished, why keep a system in place that is inefficient and costs more?

[don compton]

This thinking has been around for decades. Any traffic engineer who is a proponant of cul da sacs needs to return his/her credentials. They are designed solely because the lots sell and sell for a premium vs. traditional street lots. They are safer in one respect, kids can play in the street because there is no through traffic, but they are horrendous for a multitude of other reasons. They are also less safe as a whole because there is no through traffic, invaders and burglers have less to fear because of the isolation.

Read Jane Jacobs The Death and Life of Great American Cities, written in the 1950's, classic Urban Planning 101. "The Eyes of the Street" is a great descriptive in favor of residing where there is more traffic.
Amen to your comments. I am a retired residential real estate developer and the winding street, cul de sac design was forced on us. It helped create lot upgrades but was much more expensive to develop. Older neighborhoods in Sacramento,ca. are grid patterns but have many beautiful parks which could have been financed by saving the extra cost of the curvy neighborhoods.
Don C.

[93legendti]

It is not about being upset, it is about planning a little bit better. As resources for services and infrastructure is diminished, why keep a system in place that is inefficient and costs more?
It's not a "system" -it was an opportunity and the builder paid for the street when he built the small development. Garbage collection is by private co.
The twp board is known for its tough stds.

There are several small developments in the area with cul de sacs. Home values have stayed high and there have been no foreclosures in this area.
As I stated above, the cul de sac was necessary because of the wetlands. The cul de sac allowed 16 homes to be built in a pretty area; increasing the tax base and allowing for good schools.
The sub is serviced by 1 main, N-S road that cuts thru several communities. To the north is a E-W road that does like wise.
The home ownership in my Mom's sub is extremely stable, with 90% of the homes owned by original homeowners who bought in 1980-82.
Of all of America's true problems, cul de sacs have be one of the least pressing.

[nahtnoj]

If the best thing you can say about where you live is "my kids can play in the street because there is no traffic" well, that's pretty sad.

Parks, anyone?

[rugbysecondrow]

It's not a "system" and the buider paid for the street when he built the small development. Garbage collection is by private co.
The twp board is known for its tough stds.

There are several small developments in the area with cul de sacs. Home values have stayed high and there have been no foreclosures in this area.
As I stated above, the cul de sac was necessary because of the wetlands. The cul de sac allowed 16 homes to be built in a pretty area; increasing the tax base and allowing for good schools.
The sub is serviced by 1 main, N-S road that cuts thru several communities. To the north is a E-W road that does like wise.
The home ownership in my Mom's sub is extremely stable, with 90% of the homes owned by original homeowners who bought in 1980-82.
Of all of America's true problems, cul de sacs have be one of the least pressing.

Adam, nobody is saying it is one of America's pressing issues, at least nobody here has said that.

It is a system, not sure how you see it otherwise. Frankly, I am unconcerned with what the builder does or does not pay for. Decades after the builder is long gone, other folks will have to mitigate a poor planning and development if forethought is not had.

Also, lets not pretend an anecdote is a basis for reasonable discussion.

There are no absolutes here, no good or evil, but that also doesn't mean we firmly plant our heads in the sand and ignore a better way of doing things, a way that is more cost effective.

[93legendti]

Adam, nobody is saying it is one of America's pressing issues, at least nobody here has said that.

Adam, it is a system, not sure how you see it otherwise. Frankly, I am unconcerned with what the builder does or does not pay for. Decades after the builder is long gone, other folks will have to mitigate a poor planning and development if forethought is not had.

Also, lets not pretend an anecdote is a basis for reasonable discussion.

There are no absolutes here, no good or evil, but that also doesn't mean we firmly plant our heads in the sand and ignore a better way of doing things, a way that is more cost effective.

Because it is the exception here-that's why it's not a system. It's an option is certain areas that can't provide thru traffic.
The property values are high and the tax base is great for the city.

The street is in great condition-as opposed to my street which is in terrible condition because of the increased traffic I reported above. The costs to take care of my street will be far greater.

Let's not pretend that generalities make a basis for a reasonable discussion.

Sorry that I can't agree that cul de sacs (based upon my personal experiences) are evil.

Weighing available evidence, has lead a few U.S. cities including Austin, Texas; Charlotte, North Carolina; and Portland, Oregon to restrict and regulate the inclusion of cul-de-sac streets in new suburbs.[5] However, a 2010 study [28] on Spawl in NA by a legal expert concludes that “....neighborhoods dominated by cul-de-sacs are less walkable than those that include street grids...’. ‘On the other hand, cul-de-sacs do have a countervailing public benefit: because of their very inaccessibility, they tend to have less automobile traffic. Given the existence of important public policy goals on both sides, a city seeking to maximize walkability should not favor cul-de-sacs over grids, but should also allow some cul-de-sacs as a legitimate residential option’ ... ‘In addition, there are “middle ground” alternatives between prohibiting cul-de-sacs and mandating them. For example, a city could encourage cul-de-sacs combined with pedestrian walkways”. This design combination is shown in the Village Homes layout and is an integral part of the Fused Grid.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cul-de-sac#cite_note-27

[don compton]

Because it is the exception here-that's why it's not a system. It's an option is certain areas that can't provide thru traffic.
The property values are high and the tax base is great for the city.

The street is in great condition-as opposed to my street which is in terrible condition because of the increased traffic I reported above. The costs to take care of my street will be far greater.

Let's not pretend that generalities make a basis for a reasonable discussion.

Sorry that I can't agree that cul de sacs (based upon my personal experiences) are evil.
I agree that Cul de sacs aren't a major cause of whatever, but they haven't caused any insurance of a successful neighborhood. In Stockton,ca, there plenty of neighborhoods with cul de sacs and gated communties and the houses are currently selling for 35-40 percent of their 2004 values. Its all about the econ of your community. With the loose financing of the late 1990's and early 2000's( caused by loosening financing requirements during Clinton's reign) people expected more and the money was there to pay for it including saving waterfowl and whatever. With the loose financing it was easy for developers to give in to demands of many of the environmental demands and in addition pay for excessive cities and counties much expanded staff. Now states like California are trying to figured what happened. It wasn't unusual for develop and permit fees to exceed $100,000 per house. How would you like to write a check a check for $1,000,000 for 10 permits? I did it. The American public has no idea of the true excesses of this period.

[rugbysecondrow]

Now we are getting somewhere. If a CDS is used only because the land crappy is not developable otherwise that is completely different than how it is often used intra-neighborhood. It is not the ad-hoc developments so much as it is the proliferation of the CDS as a standard practice...a system (think viens and arteries) in neighborhoods where there are options to develop in a more sensible manner.



Because it is the exception here-that's why it's not a system. It's an option is certain areas that can't provide thru traffic.
The property values are high and the tax base is great for the city.

The street is in great condition-as opposed to my street which is in terrible condition because of the increased traffic I reported above. The costs to take care of my street will be far greater.

Let's not pretend that generalities make a basis for a reasonable discussion.

Sorry that I can't agree that cul de sacs (based upon my personal experiences) are evil.

Weighing available evidence, has lead a few U.S. cities including Austin, Texas; Charlotte, North Carolina; and Portland, Oregon to restrict and regulate the inclusion of cul-de-sac streets in new suburbs.[5] However, a 2010 study [28] on Spawl in NA by a legal expert concludes that “....neighborhoods dominated by cul-de-sacs are less walkable than those that include street grids...’. ‘On the other hand, cul-de-sacs do have a countervailing public benefit: because of their very inaccessibility, they tend to have less automobile traffic. Given the existence of important public policy goals on both sides, a city seeking to maximize walkability should not favor cul-de-sacs over grids, but should also allow some cul-de-sacs as a legitimate residential option’ ... ‘In addition, there are “middle ground” alternatives between prohibiting cul-de-sacs and mandating them. For example, a city could encourage cul-de-sacs combined with pedestrian walkways”. This design combination is shown in the Village Homes layout and is an integral part of the Fused Grid.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cul-de-sac#cite_note-27

[johnnymossville]

I don't really have a problem with Cul-de-Sacs. Traffic Circles on the other hand, are total crap and should be banned, yet they keep building more and more of them here in MD.

[rugbysecondrow]

I don't really have a problem with Cul-de-Sacs. Traffic Circles on the other hand, are total crap and should be banned, yet they keep building more and more of them here in MD.

Roundabouts are actually more efficient at moving traffic and also have fewer crashes all with an equal to or reduced footprint. Also, severe accidents are fewer because speeds are reduced for all participants.

[saab2000]

I don't really have a problem with Cul-de-Sacs. Traffic Circles on the other hand, are total crap and should be banned, yet they keep building more and more of them here in MD.

Traffic circles are fine if people know how to drive with them. They keep traffic moving. They're in use in much of the rest of the world and even developing countries :fight: like the US can adapt to their usage.

BTW, I also don't have a problem with Cul de Sacs. If this is a forum about cycling it should be noted that the southern suburbs of Minneapolis/St. Paul are full of thousands of such roads and it is still a cycling-friendly area. The connector roads are wide with wide paved shoulders. Virginia Beach on the other hand also has lots of Cul de Sacs but since the connector roads are narrow with no shoulders at all it is not a cycling friendly area. Ergo, it's not the CDSs which make for poor cycling, but the idea that bikes do or do not belong on roads which is the problem.

[fiamme red]

If the best thing you can say about where you live is "my kids can play in the street because there is no traffic" well, that's pretty sad.

Parks, anyone?My sister lives in a cul-de-sac, and yes, her children can ride their bikes in front of the house. But to get to any neighborhood park, or to visit their friends in another cul-de-sac, they have to be driven. I feel sorry for them. I grew up in the big city and had much more freedom.

[goonster]

Traffic Circles on the other hand, are total crap and should be banned, yet they keep building more and more of them here in MD.
I think traffic circles are great, and I'm glad to see more being built in the U.S. From my limited, anecdotal experience it seems that some older drivers are having trouble adapting, but there's a new one near me that's been a tremendous improvement.

[kenmetzger]

I hate giant Cul-de-Sac neighborhoods for biking, because I usually bike with a destination. It can be impossible to map my route without using major thoroughfares, because the neighborhoods are giant dead end streets. These areas are usually devoid of any other bikers, which makes me feel much less safe. I often end up going through someone's yard or hopping fences to get to my destination.

[rugbysecondrow]

I hate giant Cul-de-Sac neighborhoods for biking, because I usually bike with a destination. It can be impossible to map my route without using major thoroughfares, because the neighborhoods are giant dead end streets. These areas are usually devoid of any other bikers, which makes me feel much less safe. I often end up going through someone's yard or hopping fences to get to my destination.

HAHA. I have gotten lost while riding in a CDS neighborhood...it is pretty frustrating and I have actually done just what you said, shouldered my bike and run through somebodies yard to another road.

[johnnymossville]

I guess you guys don't ride bicycles through many traffic circles then. In my experience, they are dangerous places to be on a bike. Cars entering at high speed from the right rarely yield to cyclists.

[zap]

Agreed, roundabouts are not safe for cyclists.

Great for autocrossing though. Bet traffic planners never counted on motorists actually speeding up to go through neighborhood roundabouts at twice (or more if the curb is low :cool: ) the posted speed limit.

[JeffS]

The number of content cul-de-sac dwellers here does not surprise me one bit.

I'm sure you could make an equally compelling argument for the 15 cupholders in your SUV, or the absolute necessity of each of your 4000sqft. And I know better than try to change your minds, because we live in alternate realities.

[rugbysecondrow]

I guess you guys don't ride bicycles through many traffic circles then. In my experience, they are dangerous places to be on a bike. Cars entering at high speed from the right rarely yield to cyclists.


I ride through them regularly and never had a problem.

Cyclists should love them because their "rolling stop" becomes legal. :)

[palincss]

Roundabouts are actually more efficient at moving traffic and also have fewer crashes all with an equal to or reduced footprint. Also, severe accidents are fewer because speeds are reduced for all participants.

It's also a lot easier for a cyclist to get through a roundabout than the intersections they replaced. I've had lots of personal experience with a few that went from stop sign to roundabout, and it's nice to get a little respect for a change!

[Kontact]

The number of content cul-de-sac dwellers here does not surprise me one bit.

I'm sure you could make an equally compelling argument for the 15 cupholders in your SUV, or the absolute necessity of each of your 4000sqft. And I know better than try to change your minds, because we live in alternate realities.
Really? I don't see anyone here insisting that cul de sacs are superior, just a lot of people that have a hard time believing that their sleepy little neighborhoods are contributing to bicycle traffic fatalities.

And they aren't. Other things, often associated with cul de sacs, but not necessary to having cul de sacs, make roadways more dangerous, but only in areas with a high enough volume of traffic, like in very large developments with minimal access to main roads.

The alternate reality is one where people read something minor in a statistical report about road planning and start up an anti-cul de sac movement. The tendancy for people to get all up in arms about minor details in a system they don't fully understand is a little ridiculous.

[palincss]

Really? I don't see anyone here insisting that cul de sacs are superior, just a lot of people that have a hard time believing that their sleepy little neighborhoods are contributing to bicycle traffic fatalities.

And they aren't. Other things, often associated with cul de sacs, but not necessary to having cul de sacs, make roadways more dangerous, but only in areas with a high enough volume of traffic, like in very large developments with minimal access to main roads.


The fact that they're dead end streets means they do not connect, that no thru paths are possible. Instead, traffic is funneled onto major collectors that are used to get from place to place -- and they most certainly are a problem for cyclists.

[Bradford]

I've lived in several cities, way out in the country, several older suburbs, and now live in the very essence of a modern suburb, cul-de-sacs and all. Without a doubt, and it isn't even close, this is the best place I've ever lived. We have two parks we can walk to and about 10 parks we can get to by bike path without riding over any roads (although crossing some at cross walks). We have more open space for hiking and mountain biking than I've ever been close to in my life. We can walk to two shopping centers if we want. And we have every conceivable retail store within a 10 minute drive.

And I ride everywhere with my kids. We ride to soccer and T Ball games, we ride to ice cream and pizza, and we ride to visit friends...all on bike paths and sleepy streets.

It sounds like modern suburbs arn't the problem, crappy modern suburbs are the problem.

I can't imagine living in a city again under any circumstances. If I go anywhere, it will be more rural, but no way will I go more urban.

[Kontact]

The fact that they're dead end streets means they do not connect, that no thru paths are possible. Instead, traffic is funneled onto major collectors that are used to get from place to place -- and they most certainly are a problem for cyclists.
So, streets are a danger to cyclists, or cul de sacs mean that the streets MUST be extra busy? And this happens everywhere there are cul de sacs?

Really?

[palincss]

So, streets are a danger to cyclists, or cul de sacs mean that the streets MUST be extra busy? And this happens everywhere there are cul de sacs?

Really?

Of course not really. I never said "streets" are a danger to cyclists, as you well know. I said major collectors are a danger to cyclists, and road layout that provides no alternative to riding on major collectors is a danger to cyclists.

[Kontact]

Of course not really. I never said "streets" are a danger to cyclists, as you well know. I said major collectors are a danger to cyclists, and road layout that provides no alternative to riding on major collectors is a danger to cyclists.
Which is pretty much the point I made earlier - CDS don't cause the problem, its the design and number of the streets that link them and the size of neighborhoods.

It is super easy to find CDS filled neighborhoods adjacent to real cities that do not have any traffic problems. Why? Because CDS's themselves don't cause the problem.

[93legendti]

I've lived in several cities, way out in the country, several older suburbs, and now live in the very essence of a modern suburb, cul-de-sacs and all. Without a doubt, and it isn't even close, this is the best place I've ever lived. We have two parks we can walk to and about 10 parks we can get to by bike path without riding over any roads (although crossing some at cross walks). We have more open space for hiking and mountain biking than I've ever been close to in my life. We can walk to two shopping centers if we want. And we have every conceivable retail store within a 10 minute drive.

And I ride everywhere with my kids. We ride to soccer and T Ball games, we ride to ice cream and pizza, and we ride to visit friends...all on bike paths and sleepy streets.

It sounds like modern suburbs arn't the problem, crappy modern suburbs are the problem.

I can't imagine living in a city again under any circumstances. If I go anywhere, it will be more rural, but no way will I go more urban.
Sounds like our experience.

[93legendti]

I guess you guys don't ride bicycles through many traffic circles then. In my experience, they are dangerous places to be on a bike. Cars entering at high speed from the right rarely yield to cyclists.
Agreed. I like the RA's for driving, but biking thru the ones we have here would be scary-they are very busy and on roads with 45mph speed limits (I don't even bike on those rodas).

[Ray]

Which is pretty much the point I made earlier - CDS don't cause the problem, its the design and number of the streets that link them and the size of neighborhoods.

It is super easy to find CDS filled neighborhoods adjacent to real cities that do not have any traffic problems. Why? Because CDS's themselves don't cause the problem.
Yeah, there are some of those. I lived in a CDS for several years that was one of two in our small town and it emptied out onto a small neighborhood grid street and it was the best of all possible worlds. There are places where infill development is done like this and its not bad for anyone really. But the tenet of MOST of the suburban development where you'll find the vast majority of cul de sacs is that to assure that everyone lives on a dead end cul de sac (with no thru traffic), every cul de sac empties out onto a collector or sub-collector through the subdivision, which are already mildly dangerous, and then these all spill out onto collectors and arterials that link the various subdivisions. And THESE, as Steve pointes out, are inherently dangerous for anything OTHER than motorists and the systems as a whole are far less efficient than interconnected grids.

Some of these suburban neighborhoods have been retro-fitted with trails and walking cut-throughs so that's they're not inherently bad places for people to walk to a park or a neighbor's house, and some of them even have shopping opportunities at the edge that you can get to safely without going out onto large collectors or arterials. A lot of newer ones are designed with decent pedestrian circulation built in (which is preferable, because trying to get a pedestrian cut-through between two existing homes can make the battles over things like debt limits look tame and civilized by comparison). But these are still the exceptions. There are a LOT of causes of our obesity epidemic in this country, but suburban development patterns where very few trips to ANYWHERE can be taken without getting into a car is a fairly significant contributing factor.

THAT's the problem with cul de sacs generally and, NO, its not true of all of them - there are plenty of exceptions to every rule. But it IS the rule. And while I don't deny the benefits of living on a cul de sac to an individual family (having done it myself, twice), there are also big downsides to a lot of those families and to the community as a whole as well.

-Ray

[EDS]

I've lived in several cities, way out in the country, several older suburbs, and now live in the very essence of a modern suburb, cul-de-sacs and all. Without a doubt, and it isn't even close, this is the best place I've ever lived. We have two parks we can walk to and about 10 parks we can get to by bike path without riding over any roads (although crossing some at cross walks). We have more open space for hiking and mountain biking than I've ever been close to in my life. We can walk to two shopping centers if we want. And we have every conceivable retail store within a 10 minute drive.

And I ride everywhere with my kids. We ride to soccer and T Ball games, we ride to ice cream and pizza, and we ride to visit friends...all on bike paths and sleepy streets.

It sounds like modern suburbs arn't the problem, crappy modern suburbs are the problem.

I can't imagine living in a city again under any circumstances. If I go anywhere, it will be more rural, but no way will I go more urban.

Where is this utopia? Other then cost of living, NYC was great when I was single, great when newly married and great now with a little baby. I have an absolutely perfect place to teach the little lady how to ride a bike half a block from me. Once she is a little older though I want what you describe.