• Cyburbia is a friendly big tent, where we share our experiences and thoughts about urban planning practice, planning adjacent topics, and whatever else comes to mind. No ads, no spam, no echo chambers. Create your FREE Cyburbia ID, and join us today! You can also register through your Reddit, Facebook, Google, Twitter, or Microsoft account.

Subdivision Stub vs. cul-de-sac

Tom R

Cyburbian
Messages
2,274
Points
25
Is anyone else fighting the battle between developers and residents wanting cul-de-sacs and the need for street stubs and interconnections. We are proponent of the prudent use of the latter, in fact it is in our subdivision regulations but we're still getting a battle. Any suggested ammunition?
 

BKM

Cyburbian
Messages
6,464
Points
29
One argument that might work is that interconnected local streets allow school children (and adults) better access to schools and neighborhood parks-without having to go onto the crowded arterial.

Also: do you have a problem with poorly functioning/overcrowded arterials and major collectors? Providing alternative paths will theoretically reduce the impacts of such traffic jams.

Unfortunately, as you know, cul-de-sac lots sell for a premium, as they are considered safer and more family friendly. At a minimum, you might require pedestrian connections between abutting cul-de-sac ends. (The Police may not like this, if you are in a higher crime area)

Good Luck.
 

Jeff

Cyburbian
Messages
4,161
Points
27
While I love the idea of interconnecting developments, and prohibiting cul-de-sacs in order to encourage it, I have a real problem with stub streets.

Let's face it, 9 out of 10 times they remain stub streets. At least a cul-de-sac is a little more visually appealing. Especially if you put landscaping in the middle.

I've been seeing alot of municipalities requiring cul-de-sacs to be "temporary."

Meaing the twp reserves the right to rip em up if they can interconnect a new development. Don't know of any instances where this has actually happened though.
 

JNL

Cyburbian
Messages
2,449
Points
25
Tom, what are 'stub streets'? Haven't heard the term here.

The problem of whether pedestrian connections off the end of cul-de-sacs is an interesting one. In terms of encouraging walking, these connections are supposed to be good because they improve connectivity which means reduced walking times etc. However there seems to be disagreement within the Crime Prevention Through Environmental Design field as to whether closed cul-de-sacs are better than interconnected ones in terms of crime and safety - it seems that the important thing is how the pedestrian connections are designed. To maximise safety, they should be wide, well-lit, straight so they maintain sightlines, and should be able to be observed from neighbouring properties. Well that's what I've read anyway!

Some interesting findings from some Australian research on burglary risk in cul-de-sacs:
Being on "pure" cul-de-sacs decreases risk by about 28% (Axially straight, no pedestrian links)
Being on an "impure" cul-de-sac increases risk by about 22% (Axially complex, with pedestrian links)
Being "first in line" to a cul-de-sac decreases risk by about 25% (Increased movement, ie cars and people go past twice, in and out)
 

Tom R

Cyburbian
Messages
2,274
Points
25
stubs

JNL said:
Tom, what are 'stub streets'? Haven't heard the term here.

The problem of whether pedestrian connections off the end of cul-de-sacs is an interesting one. In terms of encouraging walking, these connections are supposed to be good because they improve connectivity which means reduced walking times etc. However there seems to be disagreement within the Crime Prevention Through Environmental Design field as to whether closed cul-de-sacs are better than interconnected ones in terms of crime and safety - it seems that the important thing is how the pedestrian connections are designed. To maximise safety, they should be wide, well-lit, straight so they maintain sightlines, and should be able to be observed from neighbouring properties. Well that's what I've read anyway!

Some interesting findings from some Australian research on burglary risk in cul-de-sacs:
Being on "pure" cul-de-sacs decreases risk by about 28% (Axially straight, no pedestrian links)
Being on an "impure" cul-de-sac increases risk by about 22% (Axially complex, with pedestrian links)
Being "first in line" to a cul-de-sac decreases risk by about 25% (Increased movement, ie cars and people go past twice, in and out)
What we call "stub" streets are temporary dead end streets, usually with a temporary cul-de-sac or other type of turn around. There purpose is to facilitate the development of adjoining, undeveloped land and to improve connectivity. The problem is whan one piece of land develops a significant time before another, the residents cease to realize and/or understand the purpose of the "stub" is to become a through street to the adjoining land. They want and like their unofficial cul-de-sac. Therein lies the order of battle.
 
Top