Cul-de-sacs are killing our community

The Harvard Business Review has a piece this month on research by Lawrence Frank, Bombardier Chair in Sustainable Transportation at the University of British Columbia, on the effects of cul-de-sacs (thats 'dead ends') in neighborhoods in King County, Washington. To summarise the findings, as pros and cons

Pros

Residents in areas with the most interconnected streets travel 26% fewer miles by automobile than those in areas with many cul-de-sacs.

The higher a neighborhood’s overall walkability, the greater the amount of walking and biking— which means a drop in per capita air pollution, fuel use, and body mass index.

Cons

The theory behind cul-de-sacs was that they lessened traffic, since they change the primary function of local streets. The problem is that this design inherently encourages car use, even for the shortest trips.

It also limits the growth of communities and transportation options.

The argument that cul-de-sacs increase safety because they limit traffic is also misguided — the more empty and desolate a suburban (and often affluent) street is, the more likely crime is to occur.

It’s much harder for emergency vehicles to reach these homes if they’re sequestered in the belly of a web of disconnected dead-ends.

Effect

As more and more direct evidence piles up that these dead-end developments are doing no one any good, the cul-de-sac tides are beginning to change: legislatures are passing laws limiting cul-de-sacs in future developments.

More efficient streets that are cheaper to maintain, as well as other savings from not having to widen arterial roads that otherwise were overburdened by cul-de-sacs.


Are we having too many cul-de-sacs in our life? If yes, are we freeing them up? And allowing life to flow through?