Street Grid Connections

[AlexandriaVA]

I am of the opinion that regional planning organizations should,whenever possible, mandate that developments be built in such a way to develop some semblance of a street grid. It doesn't need to be a perfect Cartesian lattice grid, but it's ridiculous that many (most?) new developments are built in such a way that there are no real connections.

I am full aware than many people don't like "cut-through" traffic, or that cul-de-sac developments are popular. However, all that does is make traffic worse on arterials. Here in the DC area, I find local traffic to be much worse in Fairfax County and other mid/outer suburbs - the land of major arterial, permissive left-turn arrows, double left-turn lanes - than in DC, Arlington,and Alexandria, where there are generally narrower roads, and more routing options.

"Mom, can I go play with the backyard neighbors?"

"Sure, let me check how much gas I have left"

(https://www.google.com/maps/dir/29.5895657,-95.6897933/29.5895261,-95.6903807/@29.5936765,-95.6920865,16z/data=!4m2!4m1!3e0)

[froggie]

^ 2.3 miles is tame.  I recall seeing one example in Florida where it's a 7 mile difference driving between two adjacent houses.

[webny99]

I think part of the appeal of the suburbs, for many people, would be severely diminished if there was a proper street grid. Having some privacy in a nice quiet neighborhood, without all manner of thru traffic whizzing by, usually takes priority over quickly accessing your backyard neighbor's house.

[_Simon]

It's natural selection;  those people have a shorter average lifespan because the route for emergency services to their house is restricted or confined to one or two entrances into their development.   

I'm a big fan of what I affectionately call "common law" roads in some less urban areas,  where people simply create de-facto dirt roads places they need to exist simply because some part of the population drives ATVs/off-roaders/pick up trucks/large enough vehicles to drive wherever.   If the development I lived in only had one entrance/exit,  it wouldn't after a few days.  I expect every leg of the street network to have an outlet unless i see a DEAD END or NO OUTLET sign,  and I can't find one,  I get very upset and try to create one from scratch until someone gets mad and does it the right way.

[Scott5114]

I'm a big fan of what I affectionately call "common law" roads in some less urban areas,  where people simply create de-facto dirt roads places they need to exist simply because some part of the population drives ATVs/off-roaders/pick up trucks/large enough vehicles to drive wherever.

Hell, in Oklahoma there exists a couple of "common-law exit ramps" from I-240 eastbound to the service road. They're just upstream of the I-35 interchange, and are mostly used to bypass backups on the real ramp to I-35 southbound. ODOT half-heartedly posted a "Keep Off Median" sign, but didn't bother to install any physical barriers, so I doubt it did much good. There's been some construction in the area lately so I'm not entirely sure what the current status of these "ramps" is.

The technical term for a similar path created by pedestrians, by the way, is "desire path".

[1995hoo]

Sometimes you have situations where there would have been a street connection but extenuating circumstances prevent it. This Street View image shows a place not far from where I live where the street was supposed to continue through to connect to a nearby arterial, but the five property owners in between this spot and the stub end nearby (seen here) refused to sell their land and I guess the county was not willing to expropriate it back in the 1980s. (Walking or biking is easy enough–you can't go through this spot, but the single-family house neighborhood to the right has a path that connects through, so it's a 0.3-mile walk.) This is a classic example of how not having a road connection is both a mild nuisance but also a bit of a blessing–as it is, traffic on the street leading to this spot (Lake Village Drive) has a 25-mph speed limit but a lot of people go 45 mph, and I'm absolutely certain, based on what I've see on other nearby streets, that if the road connected through there would be people going 55 mph or more.

I think a bigger problem is when a street is constructed to allow for a "semi-grid" system ("semi-grid" denoting a thru connection but not an actual "grid" system) but then the local neighborhood is allowed to block it off to eliminate cut-through traffic. Here's an example a couple of miles from where I live–this one caused problems due to sat-navs showing a thru street and they wound up having to put up yellow warning signs to tell people you can't get through that neighborhood. (Here is a Street View of what the barrier looks like. I find it curious to note the small sign saying they have a camera somewhere monitoring the barrier. I wonder if angry drivers have tried to vandalize it or drive around on the sidewalk or something.)

In the latter context, I will hasten to point out that we do have privately-owned roads in Northern Virginia (most often HOA-owned), and if the road in question is privately-owned I guess it's the owner's prerogative to close it.

I'm a big fan of what I affectionately call "common law" roads in some less urban areas,  where people simply create de-facto dirt roads places they need to exist simply because some part of the population drives ATVs/off-roaders/pick up trucks/large enough vehicles to drive wherever.

Hell, in Oklahoma there exists a couple of "common-law exit ramps" from I-240 eastbound to the service road. They're just upstream of the I-35 interchange, and are mostly used to bypass backups on the real ramp to I-35 southbound. ODOT half-heartedly posted a "Keep Off Median" sign, but didn't bother to install any physical barriers, so I doubt it did much good. There's been some construction in the area lately so I'm not entirely sure what the current status of these "ramps" is.

The technical term for a similar path created by pedestrians, by the way, is "desire path".

I liked the "common-law exit" from the McDonald's near New Smyrna Beach, Florida, so much I used it myself when it came time to exit. No Street View available, but you can see why someone parked in those horizontally-oriented spaces to the left (as we were) would exit that way. I will hasten to note that when we stopped there, that area to the left had a lot less dirt and the "common-law exit" was just a small path about the width of your average mid-sized SUV.

[kphoger]

I am full aware than many people don't like "cut-through" traffic, or that cul-de-sac developments are popular. However, all that does is make traffic worse on arterials.

That's the whole point, though:  to keep traffic on the arterials and away from your house.

"Mom, can I go play with the backyard neighbors?"

"Sure, let me check how much gas I have left"

(https://www.google.com/maps/dir/29.5895657,-95.6897933/29.5895261,-95.6903807/@29.5936765,-95.6920865,16z/data=!4m2!4m1!3e0)

That's the result of fences with no gates more than anything.

[paulthemapguy]

For context, I like to draw out cities on paper that I invent in my head, at a scale of 1 mi = 2 inches.  I have a rule about avoiding large blocks--You want populated areas to be well interconnected.

So that's my general position--create circuits, and therefore blocks, that aren't too colossal.  I pretty much leave it at that.  Creating a grid system is a quick and easy way to result in large areas with blocks that aren't too large.

[_Simon]

There are many shades of accessibility that I've lived through ranging from your home being directly on a 4-6 lane divided highway all the way to the dominos driver having to call you every single time you order pizza to be walked through the process.

I prefer somewhere in the middle.

But it can be a little more complex if we get creative ... All entrances to a residential block don't all need to be equal.

* having one-way exits adds convenience without allowing thru traffic to thrive

* exits and entrances being on different sides or locations also discourages being used as a thru route

* traffic calming (spees bumps/humps/wiggles/roundabouts)

* automatic vehicular gates

* entrances only accessible from one direction ( no left turn onto the residential block )

* entrances and exits that are only open at certain hours

* having portion of the connecting roadways be made up of private driveways thus providing recessed curb and unbroken center line indications that this isn't a street (yet neighbours can still evacuate via or transverse the driveway if they are a resident of said complex)

* electronic tolling access (registered residents pass through free, non residents are charged a fee if they enter and exit in less than a minutes time)

Thoughts?

SM-G955U

[1995hoo]

You're assuming people will obey the one-way or no-turn restrictions on residential streets. In my observation, it's often the residents themselves who get fed up with that sort of thing and ignore it, especially the residents who live right near one end of the restriction.

Back before I moved to the house where I live now, one of the houses I looked at was on Norham Drive in Kingstowne (see map link below), a one-way loop. The house was about halfway around the loop. The one-way street didn't factor too much into my decision not to consider that house further (two main issues were not liking the floor plan as much and the house having a strange smell to it), but in retrospect, I would have gotten tired of driving all the way around that loop every time I went in or out. This is also a street where I've observed people who live near the end of the one-way restriction going the wrong way on the one-way section and then cutting a quick turn into their driveways.

https://goo.gl/maps/EirLn5YN6LP2

[_Simon]

You're assuming people will obey the one-way or no-turn restrictions on residential streets. In my observation, it's often the residents themselves who get fed up with that sort of thing and ignore it, especially the residents who live right near one end of the restriction.

That's the point,  minimal impact to the people that live there.  It's a deterrent to people unfamiliar with the area that want to use it as a thru street, which is becoming exponentially more common with gps use.  The point is to make it unappetizing (longer, slower, or with restriction) to GPS and casual drivers looking to turn in a given direction or U turn.  It doesn't matter if no one obeys the one way sign (which I don't buy anyway, maybe 2% at most would drive the wrong way down a one way on a repeated basis), the GPS will obey it.  As manual driving becomes less common the problem will be solved simply with metadata.

SM-G955U

[CNGL-Leudimin]

^ 2.3 miles is tame.  I recall seeing one example in Florida where it's a 7 mile difference driving between two adjacent houses.

This one. An 11.5 km drive between adjacent houses, now that is something crazy.

[triplemultiplex]

I'm a big fan of what I affectionately call "common law" roads in some less urban areas,  where people simply create de-facto dirt roads places they need to exist simply because some part of the population drives ATVs/off-roaders/pick up trucks/large enough vehicles to drive wherever.   If the development I lived in only had one entrance/exit,  it wouldn't after a few days.  I expect every leg of the street network to have an outlet unless i see a DEAD END or NO OUTLET sign,  and I can't find one,  I get very upset and try to create one from scratch until someone gets mad and does it the right way.

And to hell with whoever owns the property everyone is driving across!

[jeffandnicole]

I am of the opinion that regional planning organizations should,whenever possible, mandate that developments be built in such a way to develop some semblance of a street grid. It doesn't need to be a perfect Cartesian lattice grid, but it's ridiculous that many (most?) new developments are built in such a way that there are no real connections.

There's definite advantages to something like this, or at least if not a grid, then connections between neighborhoods and even parking lots.  It's much more convenient to get between two parking lots for separate stores, rather than to exit onto the main roadway then turn in to the next parking lot.

Unfortunately, programs like Waze make this common sense approach less desired.  A developer that may have previously been ok with such connections may shy away from it, because they don't want to get future complaints about their development becoming a cut-thru route.   Making it as little desirable as possible for potential cut-thru traffic also can make it undesirable for development traffic as well.

It's natural selection;  those people have a shorter average lifespan because the route for emergency services to their house is restricted or confined to one or two entrances into their development. 

Citation Needed.

I'm pretty sure closeness to medical facilities or even a firehouse has a more direct affect on one's chances to survive.

...I expect every leg of the street network to have an outlet unless i see a DEAD END or NO OUTLET sign,  and I can't find one,  I get very upset and try to create one from scratch until someone gets mad and does it the right way.

So a missing sign causes you to intentionally trespass and destroy property?

[_Simon]

I'm a big fan of what I affectionately call "common law" roads in some less urban areas,  where people simply create de-facto dirt roads places they need to exist simply because some part of the population drives ATVs/off-roaders/pick up trucks/large enough vehicles to drive wherever.   If the development I lived in only had one entrance/exit,  it wouldn't after a few days.  I expect every leg of the street network to have an outlet unless i see a DEAD END or NO OUTLET sign,  and I can't find one,  I get very upset and try to create one from scratch until someone gets mad and does it the right way.

And to hell with whoever owns the property everyone is driving across!

Theyre usually the ones that accelerate the missing signage being replaced.  It's not like city has people on the payroll specifically auditing No Outlet signs.

SM-G955U

[_Simon]

I am of the opinion that regional planning organizations should,whenever possible, mandate that developments be built in such a way to develop some semblance of a street grid. It doesn't need to be a perfect Cartesian lattice grid, but it's ridiculous that many (most?) new developments are built in such a way that there are no real connections.

There's definite advantages to something like this, or at least if not a grid, then connections between neighborhoods and even parking lots.  It's much more convenient to get between two parking lots for separate stores, rather than to exit onto the main roadway then turn in to the next parking lot.

Unfortunately, programs like Waze make this common sense approach less desired.  A developer that may have previously been ok with such connections may shy away from it, because they don't want to get future complaints about their development becoming a cut-thru route.   Making it as little desirable as possible for potential cut-thru traffic also can make it undesirable for development traffic as well.

It's natural selection;  those people have a shorter average lifespan because the route for emergency services to their house is restricted or confined to one or two entrances into their development. 

Citation Needed.

I'm pretty sure closeness to medical facilities or even a firehouse has a more direct affect on one's chances to survive.

...I expect every leg of the street network to have an outlet unless i see a DEAD END or NO OUTLET sign,  and I can't find one,  I get very upset and try to create one from scratch until someone gets mad and does it the right way.

So a missing sign causes you to intentionally trespass and destroy property?

As someone whose S/O is a first responder that often covers other areas they're not familiar with,  the distance to the hospital matters little if the EMT and ambulance run out the clock because not only your house is arbitrarily difficulty to get to, but also their house that they were at where they are were paged (EMTs are usually local), and-- perhaps-- the house they accidentally went to first, all have carefully engineered "time delays" to their navigation.   Not only on the way in, but also on the way out.

Problems arising from distance from medical facilities can be handled by paramedics on the scene, CPR, or other intervention, but no amount of post-response diligence can compensate for someone's house being hard to find or get to. 

Distance between population centers and medical facilities is evaluated routinely and run; but your condo association's retarded entrance plan with one entrance feeding an entire tree of dead ends is probably not clocked for speed by anyone.

SM-G955U

[kphoger]

I'm a big fan of what I affectionately call "common law" roads in some less urban areas,  where people simply create de-facto dirt roads places they need to exist simply because some part of the population drives ATVs/off-roaders/pick up trucks/large enough vehicles to drive wherever.   If the development I lived in only had one entrance/exit,  it wouldn't after a few days.  I expect every leg of the street network to have an outlet unless i see a DEAD END or NO OUTLET sign,  and I can't find one,  I get very upset and try to create one from scratch until someone gets mad and does it the right way.

And to hell with whoever owns the property everyone is driving across!

Theyre usually the ones that accelerate the missing signage being replaced.  It's not like city has people on the payroll specifically auditing No Outlet signs.

So damaging a person's property is your way of ensuring that a sign gets replaced more quickly?  When I was young, my family lived at a dead end; we would not have appreciated your political prowess.

[_Simon]

I'm a big fan of what I affectionately call "common law" roads in some less urban areas,  where people simply create de-facto dirt roads places they need to exist simply because some part of the population drives ATVs/off-roaders/pick up trucks/large enough vehicles to drive wherever.   If the development I lived in only had one entrance/exit,  it wouldn't after a few days.  I expect every leg of the street network to have an outlet unless i see a DEAD END or NO OUTLET sign,  and I can't find one,  I get very upset and try to create one from scratch until someone gets mad and does it the right way.

And to hell with whoever owns the property everyone is driving across!

Theyre usually the ones that accelerate the missing signage being replaced.  It's not like city has people on the payroll specifically auditing No Outlet signs.

So damaging a person's property is your way of ensuring that a sign gets replaced more quickly?  When I was young, my family lived at a dead end; we would not have appreciated your political prowess.

Absolutely not,  that's ridiculous,  stop reading my posts if you're going to turn my ancedotal sarcastic responses into a literal driving manual.   I'm not the root of driver's ethics,  and driving on property that's not the public street does NOT necessarily require destruction of property.  Not everyone in America lives in a suburb with a lawn and white privilege.  We're talking about residential locations with miles between houses, might I remind you. 

My point is that if you're going to design people's streets without proper signage or exits, that will happen as a course of human nature as others have pointed out.   It's the same reason "good samaritans" erect signage in parking lots that's completely wrong,  and why towns that don't sign cross streets wind up signed privately with a mix of wooden posts as privately funded blade signage.

Whether or not you think driving on other people's property to egress your neighborhood is ok or not (and whether or not they feel it's acceptable) probably depends significantly on where you live and whether or not your neighbors all drive F150s or not.
I know plenty of people that live on farms where the roads are all private dirt roads and the public county highway is thousands of feet from the houses with house numbers.

Allies, driveways, private parking lots, rear pathways, bridle paths, and farm to market roads are all examples of ways you might get off your property without touching the public street.  I have to drive almost a mile where I live before Im off private property.

Lastly, the fastest way to get a sign replaced quickly is to have a good working relationship with your local public works department.  I have the email addresses of the folks at the local and county levels for my home and job in case we notice bad or missing signage.

SM-G955U

[kphoger]

driving on property that's not the public street does NOT necessarily require destruction of property.

Please explain.  Unless we're talking about land that nobody owns (unlikely), then how does driving on it not destroy it?  You specifically stated you are a "big fan" of when "people create de-facto dirt roads."  Sounds like the destruction of private property to me.

Not everyone in America lives in a suburb with a lawn and white privilege.  We're talking about residential locations with miles between houses, might I remind you.

Where is this, that there are miles between houses and yet "the development ... only had one entrance/exit"?  This must be a part of the country I'm unfamiliar with.  I've lived in urban/suburban areas where residential neighborhoods only had one entrance/exit, and I've lived in rural places where there were miles between houses (I grew up 28 miles from the nearest stoplight), but never anywhere that both were true.  I'm not saying such a place doesn't exist, or that you don't live in such a place, but I've certainly never encountered that.

Whether or not you think driving on other people's property to egress your neighborhood is ok or not (and whether or not they feel it's acceptable) probably depends significantly on where you live and whether or not your neighbors all drive F150s or not.

I can only assume, however, that you don't care whether the property owner feels it's acceptable, considering that you "try to create one from scratch until someone gets mad."

Allies, driveways, private parking lots, rear pathways, bridle paths, and farm to market roads are all examples of ways you might get off your property without touching the public street.  I have to drive almost a mile where I live before Im off private property.

Alleys are not purely private property, as certain traffic laws apply to them etc.  And a farm-to-market road is by definition a public road.  Your driveway is almost a mile long?  OK, how does that make it all right to drive on someone else's land?

[webny99]

Another extreme example.

This is due in large part to topography, and the fact that the existing gravel connector is on private property (and gated off at the bottom, where there's no street view).

[GenExpwy]

Best example I've found in the Poconos:

Drive 6.8 miles to go 350 feet.

[formulanone]

^ 2.3 miles is tame.  I recall seeing one example in Florida where it's a 7 mile difference driving between two adjacent houses.

This one. An 11.5 km drive between adjacent houses, now that is something crazy.

They are probably two different housing developments; after all, one has golf course access, and the other does not. They do seem to share a "lake", which is just a man-made depression to create fill to raise the elevation of homes, and provide stormwater discharge.

But I do think there should be at least 2-3 ways to access a suburban neighborhood, depending on its size or number of homes. I can understand reducing cut-through traffic, but there's always reasons why you'd want a few ways in/out (improve arterial traffic flow, make up for restrictions or construction, et al).

[AlexandriaVA]

I don't blame the home builders, as it's not their job to plan for the entire community.

The blame lays with city/county/regional planners, who approve these projects largely as standalone projects without considering larger-scale effects. It also shows the benefits of laying out standards (i.e. "all housing developments will have points-of-access from north, south, east, and west, to facilitate a municipal street grid).

[txstateends]

The north TX suburb of Westlake (NNE of Fort Worth) definitely does not want straight grids in its neighborhoods.  They will only allow curvy roads to avoid shortcuts and racers.

[Hurricane Rex]

Best example I've found in the Poconos:

Drive 6.8 miles to go 350 feet.

A more extreme version of something we have in Sherwood. Drive 8 minutes, or walk 3 minutes:
https://www.google.com/maps/dir/45.3534759,-122.8477941/45.3533917,-122.8458577/@45.357121,-122.85831,15z/data=!3m1!4b1!4m2!4m1!3e0