THE VINE FEBRUARY 9, 2010
-
Read Later
READ LATERAvailable only to subscribers. SUBSCRIBE TODAY
-
Listen
ARTICLE AUDIO
- Font Size
Via Sarah Goodyear, it looks like a number of city and regional planners are starting to declare war on the cul-de-sac:
Early last year, the state of Virginia became the first state to severely limit cul-de-sacs from future development. Similar actions have been taken in Portland Oregon, Austin, Texas, and Charlotte, North Carolina.
What they are beginning to realize is that the cul-de-sac street grid uses land inefficiently, discourages walking and biking, and causes an almost complete dependence on driving, with attendant pollution and energy use. Furthermore, town officials are beginning to realize that unconnected streets cost more money to provide services to and force traffic onto increasingly crowded arterial roads, which then, in many cases, need to be widened (more tax money).
There are quite a few reasons why homeowners are attracted to cul-de-sac layouts—the lack of through traffic, for one, makes the area quieter and (or so the perception goes) safer for kids to play outside. But many localities now seem to be discovering the less-apparent downsides. Even if you're not very sympathetic to the notion that suburban-dwellers are too reliant on their cars, a number of recent studies suggest that the inefficient road networks created by cul-de-sacs also inflict real costs on residents.
So, for instance, one study of the city of Charlotte found that places where the streets weren't very well connected (thanks, in part, to the heavy use of cul-de-sac) required a lot more fire stations to be built, costing the area more money. Another study found that areas with poor connectivity have much worse congestion—up to 80 percent worse—because the main roads and arteries are more likely to get clogged. So it's not just that cul-de-sac layouts dissuade people from walking or biking; they also seem to be imposing costs on local governments. Though it's unclear whether this backlash is a growing trend or just a few isolated incidents.
(Flickr photo credit: Lins Art)
2 comments
Regarding the child safety question, have any good studies been done? I ask only because quantitative studies of traffic safety produce counterintuitive results more often than not. Simpler intersections are more dangerous than complex ones, for example. Streets with parallel parking are safer for children than streets without, for another example. Having lived on cul-de-sacs as a child, I have fond memories of repainting home plate and three bases every spring for what amounted to a summer-long game of whiffle ball. But I also remember a lot more close calls with cars in cul-de-sacs than when playing on the streets in grid neighborhoods. So I would have to see an actual empirical study before I accept as true the claimed benefit of greater child safety for cul-de-sacs.
- rhubarbs
February 10, 2010 at 10:21am
That's a good point. I can't find a study, but here's a snippet from an NPR piece that suggests cul-de-sacs aren't actually safer: http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=5455743 [William Lucy, a professor of environmental studies at the University of Virginia,] says safety has always been a big selling point for cul-de-sacs. From the beginning, builders noted that they gave fire trucks extra room to turn around, and that they prevented strange cars from speeding by on their way to somewhere else. Ads for cul-de-sacs often pictured children riding bikes and tricycles in the street. These days, those images seem grimly ironic to people who actually look at safety statistics. For example, Lucy says cul-de-sac communities turn out to have some of the highest rates of traffic accidents involving young children. "The actual research about injuries and deaths to small children under five is that the main cause of death is being backed over, not being driven over forward," he says. "And it would be expected that the main people doing the backing over would in fact be family members, usually the parents."
- Bradford Plumer
February 10, 2010 at 11:00am