Dead End vs. No Outlet

[roadman65]

I noticed that if one street immediately ends and has no other street connecting to it that goes anywhere it is signed Dead End.

However if a road goes several miles and ends suddenly with no connecting roads to anywhere before it ends, then it get will get a No Outlet.  Also if a road goes into a subdivision where it has many streets, but none connect to anyplace else, then it also gets a No Outlet.

That is how it is in Florida anyway.  In NJ where I came from it never used No Outlet anyplace but always used Dead End, and in PA I remember seeing No Outlet used on even short side streets that go nowhere.

What is it like in your state.  Is it like Florida where the literal term of the sign is used, or is there another standard that only your state uses for the application of either of the two signs?

[TheArkansasRoadgeek]

I can't speak for every situation in Arkansas, but what I have seen is a literal useage of "DEAD END"

I remember seeing the usage of "NO OUTLET" with a long paved lane of sorts. But, it seems that Arkansas treats NO OUTLET like DEAD END, but I'd have to go find an example and learn its usage to be able to compare them better.

[PHLBOS]

MA uses DEAD END
PA uses NO OUTLET

[GaryV]

Maybe No Outlet are the kinder, gentler traffic signs?

[JasonOfORoads]

I've seen both used in Oregon. Usually a "dead end" is a single street with no outlet, and a "no outlet" is a series of streets where none of them have an outlet. I also think "no outlet" might be used on streets that don't allow cars to exit, but do have a bike path or something to allow pedestrians to exit.

That said, this street used to make me rage for using both signs. The City of Tigard eventually removed the "dead end" sign late last year/early this year, which supports my theory above since there's more than one road with no exit.

[SectorZ]

MA uses DEAD END
PA uses NO OUTLET

Plenty of no outlet signs around me in MA, usually used for the tree branch dead end neighborhoods with multiple roads but no actual outlet.

[jflick99]

I noticed that if one street immediately ends and has no other street connecting to it that goes anywhere it is signed Dead End.

However if a road goes several miles and ends suddenly with no connecting roads to anywhere before it ends, then it get will get a No Outlet.  Also if a road goes into a subdivision where it has many streets, but none connect to anyplace else, then it also gets a No Outlet.

For the most part, that's how it is here, but they seem to be used interchangeably, as seen here (use the historical imagery to go back to 2014).

Occasionally, where a street leads to and then ends in a subdivision, there will be a sign with some variation of "not a thru street", such as this and this.

[1995hoo]

Our neighborhood has a "No Outlet" sign near the entrance. The one street that leads in is the only street you can use to get back out in a motorized vehicle, but there are nine (I think) streets that branch off it. A couple of those intersect each other, and there are three others that branch off those, but none of them connect to any street in a way that would allow you to drive out other than by going back the way you entered. (A couple of paths provide for other pedestrian or bicycle routes out.)

A "Dead End" sign as used around here doesn't require that the street be a short one. It just requires that it not intersect anything else. Dead ends are not always posted.

In Quebec, what we would call a dead end is often posted as "Cul-de-sac." It doesn't mean a residential street that typically has a circular end the way it usually does in the USA.

[webny99]

The difference seems fairly straightforward to me:

"Dead End" means no formal ending (or crossings) at all, not even a cul-de-sac; in other words, no oppurtunity to turn around beyond that point without using private property.
"No Outlet" could be a cul-de-sac, but it could also be an extensive neighborhood; it simply signifies that if you proceed beyond that point, you'll have to pass through it again to in order to exit. There could be any number of separate streets, but only one exit.

That means that "No Outlet" scenarios are the much more common of the two, and as such there are many more "No Outlet" signs. At least in areas with which I'm familiar, true dead ends are quite rare.

[MNHighwayMan]

I don't even get how there's a debate here. The difference is right there in the MUTCD.

Section 2C.26 DEAD END/NO OUTLET Signs (W14-1, W14-1a, W14-2, W14-2a)

Option:

01 The DEAD END (W14-1) sign (see Figure 2C-5) may be used at the entrance of a single road or street that
terminates in a dead end or cul-de-sac. The NO OUTLET (W14-2) sign (see Figure 2C-5) may be used at the
entrance to a road or road network from which there is no other exit.

02 DEAD END (W14-1a) or NO OUTLET (W14-2a) signs (see Figure 2C-5) may be used in combination with
Street Name (D3-1) signs (see Section 2D.43) to warn turning traffc that the cross street ends in the direction
indicated by the arrow.

03 At locations where the cross street does not have a name, the W14-1a or W14-2a signs may be used alone in
place of a street name sign.

Standard:

04 The DEAD END (W14-1a) and NO OUTLET (W14-2a) signs shall be horizontal rectangles with an
arrow pointing to the left or right.

05 When the W14-1 or W14-2 sign is used, the sign shall be posted as near as practical to the entry point
or at a suffcient advance distance to permit the road user to avoid the dead end or no outlet condition by
turning at the nearest intersecting street.

06 The DEAD END (W14-1a) or NO OUTLET (W14-2a) signs shall not be used instead of the W14-1
or W14-2 signs where traffc can proceed straight through the intersection into the dead end street or no
outlet area.

[TheHighwayMan3561]

I never knew there was a distinction between the two. I always thought they meant the same thing and "no outlet" just came into usage because somebody decided having the word "DEAD" on a sign in all caps wasn't particularly kind enough anymore.

[MNHighwayMan]

I never knew there was a distinction between the two. I always thought they meant the same thing and "no outlet" just came into usage because somebody decided having the word "DEAD" on a sign in all caps wasn't particularly kind enough anymore.

I did think that to be a bit eerie as a kid. I also, at one point, thought "NO OUTLET" had something to do with electricity.

[Truvelo]

How about adopting the sign we use over here. This sign is well understood throughout Europe. A common sign for both dead end and no outlet would remove the confusion

[Henry]

The more I think of it, the more I believe that No Outlet has a clearer meaning than Dead End. The former gives a better clue that there is no other way out of the place you are passing through, as the latter should only be placed where no other road or street will cross over the one you are on.

[MNHighwayMan]

The more I think of it, the more I believe that No Outlet has a clearer meaning than Dead End. The former gives a better clue that there is no other way out of the place you are passing through, as the latter should only be placed where no other road or street will cross over the one you are on.

Which is exactly how they're supposed to be used, as the snippet from the MUTCD I posted states.

[jp the roadgeek]

I learned about this early on in life.  I grew up on a cul-de-sac with no other streets attached, so we had a "Dead End" sign at the beginning of the street.  However, I was curious about "No Outlet" signs, and I discovered that there were streets attached to the road, but no other way out of the neighborhood.

As long as I don't see something like this...

[Brandon]

How about adopting the sign we use over here. This sign is well understood throughout Europe. A common sign for both dead end and no outlet would remove the confusion

That just looks like a "T" with no other real message.  If you didn't explain it, I wouldn't have a clue what it meant.

[MNHighwayMan]

How about adopting the sign we use over here. This sign is well understood throughout Europe. A common sign for both dead end and no outlet would remove the confusion

That just looks like a "T" with no other real message.  If you didn't explain it, I wouldn't have a clue what it meant.

Looks like a generic logo that a small urban transit system might use.

[PHLBOS]

MA uses DEAD END
PA uses NO OUTLET

Plenty of no outlet signs around me in MA, usually used for the tree branch dead end neighborhoods with multiple roads but no actual outlet.

I wonder if those were erected within the last 20-30 years.  Growing up in the North Shore during the 70s & 80s, I never saw any NO OUTLET signage around.  Back then, most DEAD END signs were smallish white rectangles that resembled mini-regulatory signs.

Checking GSV at a neighborhood I grew up in, I saw this town-made example of such.

However, one similar (small white rectangular) sign used en lieu of a NO OUTLET sign for dead end neighborhoods with multiple roads was the NOT A THRU WAY sign.

[DaBigE]

How about adopting the sign we use over here. This sign is well understood throughout Europe. A common sign for both dead end and no outlet would remove the confusion

That just looks like a "T" with no other real message.  If you didn't explain it, I wouldn't have a clue what it meant.

And then we're back to where we are with Dead End vs. No Outlet. No need to reinvent the wheel...just apply the existing signs as prescribed in the MUTCD:

The DEAD END (W14-1) sign (see Figure 2C-5) may be used at the entrance of a single road or street that terminates in a dead end or cul-de-sac. The NO OUTLET (W14-2) sign (see Figure 2C-5) may be used at the entrance to a road or road network from which there is no other exit.

[MNHighwayMan]

How about adopting the sign we use over here. This sign is well understood throughout Europe. A common sign for both dead end and no outlet would remove the confusion

That just looks like a "T" with no other real message.  If you didn't explain it, I wouldn't have a clue what it meant.

And then we're back to where we are with Dead End vs. No Outlet. No need to reinvent the wheel...just apply the existing signs as prescribed in the MUTCD:

But my Vienna Convention signage! It's so great and easy to understand!

[jeffandnicole]

How about adopting the sign we use over here. This sign is well understood throughout Europe. A common sign for both dead end and no outlet would remove the confusion

That just looks like a "T" with no other real message.  If you didn't explain it, I wouldn't have a clue what it meant.

As long as it's posted in another country on a regular basis, and they know what it means, I guess that's all that's important.

If someone doesn't know what it means, after passing it a few times and winding up in a dead end, hopefully they figure it out by then! LOL

[GaryV]

The more I think of it, the more I believe that No Outlet has a clearer meaning than Dead End. The former gives a better clue that there is no other way out of the place you are passing through, as the latter should only be placed where no other road or street will cross over the one you are on.

Which is exactly how they're supposed to be used, as the snippet from the MUTCD I posted states.

Not exactly.  In MUTCD, No Outlet is a super-set of Dead End.  The definition of Dead End falls within the definition of No Outlet.

For a single road, either could be used.  For more than one road in the subdivision, only No Outlet should be used.

[Super Mateo]

I don't even get how there's a debate here. The difference is right there in the MUTCD.

There shouldn't be.  A dead end requires a u turn, 3 point turn, or some offroading to get out and you have to go back the way you came.  A "no outlet" situation gives all of those options, plus you can go around a block or take one of several exits, but they all lead back to the same road you entered the area on.

That's how I interpret it, but then there's this No Outlet sign on 80th Avenue.  I don't know if it's used properly as you can continue forward, make a left on Forestview, then continue north on 82nd Avenue.  It does have an outlet.  After Forestview to the north, there are two properly placed dead end signs.  This road has both.  For what it's worth, this is a county level road through Orland, Tinley, and Frankfort.

[MNHighwayMan]

I don't even get how there's a debate here. The difference is right there in the MUTCD.

There shouldn't be.  A dead end requires a u turn, 3 point turn, or some offroading to get out and you have to go back the way you came.  A "no outlet" situation gives all of those options, plus you can go around a block or take one of several exits, but they all lead back to the same road you entered the area on.

That's how I interpret it, but then there's this No Outlet sign on 80th Avenue.  I don't know if it's used properly as you can continue forward, make a left on Forestview, then continue north on 82nd Avenue.  It does have an outlet.  After Forestview to the north, there are two properly placed dead end signs.  This road has both.  For what it's worth, this is a county level road through Orland, Tinley, and Frankfort.

It should not be there, since there is a second outlet, as you describe. That sign's likely intention (IMO) is to keep through traffic out, however incorrect that usage is. Or, as Baloo points out, it was once correct and is no longer.