3 ms·
Fwiw many newer residential developments (from roughly the 1990s) are built like this in the first place, which is why there are so many back-to-back cul-de-sac
by _delirium 10y ago
Fwiw many newer residential developments (from roughly the 1990s) are built like this in the first place, which is why there are so many back-to-back cul-de-sacs, and rarely through streets that go more than a few blocks. It's mainly older neighborhoods that have the traffic cut-through problem, because they were built before developers started laying out neighborhood streets with the explicit goal of preventing through traffic.
- oftenwrong 10y agoThe Berkeley solution has the advantage that it doesn't hurt the utility of walking and cycling.
- oh_sigh 10y agoBut it does negatively affect some home prices while positively affecting other home prices.
- enoch_r 10y agoIt's much more difficult to change streets into cul de sacs after the fact, but I can't imagine that forcing through-traffic to take certain streets doesn't reduce the value of homes on those streets, regardless of the method you use to do so.
- plorkyeran 10y agoCul-de-sacs could easily be built with connecting bike/pedestrian pathways if that was something the developers actually cared about.
- _delirium 10y agoThat's pretty common. I lived in a suburban neighborhood in Houston for years and the back-to-back cul-de-sacs always had sidewalks connecting them, so it was only with a car you'd have to go around the long way. As a result it was actually a lot nicer to travel through subdivisions if you were going somewhere by bike/foot, rather than going on the busy main roads.
- TulliusCicero 10y agoYes. For an extreme example, see Houton, NL: https://www.google.com/maps/place/Houten,+Netherlands/@52.0309639,5.1562873,17.25z/data=!4m5!3m4!1s0x47c666e7c006f4bb:0x87d8ebe7bead1a3d!8m2!3d52.0278426!4d5.1630019 https://www.google.com/maps/place/Houten,+Netherlands/@52.03...