Text-only version. View the full version of this page · All text pages

Cul-de-sac

LOC-CDS-03
Situational / Discouraged Local

Cul-de-sac

A dead-end Local street with no through connection for any mode.

Related Media

The items below come from outside the Commonway System, external videos, podcasts, and articles related to this page's topic, not part of the guidebook itself.

Aligned

The Reason Our Streets Switched to Cul-De-Sacs

City Beautiful

Traces the postwar shift from connected grid networks to tree-shaped cul-de-sac subdivisions, then covers the same shared-use-path connector strategy CS's Network Reconnection retrofit recommends for stitching disconnected cul-de-sacs back into the surrounding network.

Typical at: Suburban

Compact is an edge case. Undeveloped, Rural, Urban, and Core are unlikely pairings.

Caution

Cul-de-sac carries Situational status. The connectivity and walkability expectations that define Urban and Core density are close to incompatible with a dead-end street pattern, so this Typology's realistic range is narrow, peaking at Suburban.1

Speed and modal hierarchy

Design speed & speed limit

[SPEED LIMIT 20]
Follows the Local default: 20 mph hard maximum, no exceptions.

See Design Speed & Speed Limits.

Modal hierarchy

Pedestrian> Bicycle> Vehicle> Freight
The Local base order minus Transit, since a dead-end street rarely carries a transit route.

Design notes

A cul-de-sac trades network connectivity for a quiet, low-through-traffic environment. That trade only holds up at lower densities, where a disconnected street grid does not yet conflict with pedestrian and bicycle route continuity.

Grid (NET-GRD-01) (the connected Network topology this pattern structurally departs from, the basis of this page's cited connectivity/safety research), Default (Standard Local Street) (LOC-DEF-01) (the base order this pattern drops Transit from)

References

  1. Evidence-based Marshall, W.E. and Garrick, N.W. (2011), "Street network types and road safety: A study of 24 California cities," Urban Design International 16(2).