More street connections = less cut-through traffic



The argument that connecting new neighborhoods to existing ones causing cut-through traffic is only true if there are limited street connections in the transportation network in the first place. If a community has a well-planned, interconnected transportation network then more route options become available to drivers and they no longer have a reason to search for or take cut-through routes.

The grid street network pattern (or modifications thereof) offers the most route options to drivers. Each time a part of the grid is de-coupled or disconnected, the number of route options is reduced and traffic is forced through a more congested network.  The more self-contained neighborhoods, cul-de-sacs, loops, dead-end streets, or vacated roadways, the greater the chance for increasing cut-through traffic. It becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy that honors the car instead of the human.

This is why it is imperative for transportation planners and community leaders to take long-term view and not fall prey to NIMBY (Not In My Back Yard) concerns about connecting neighborhoods.  Other benefits of an interconnected street network beyond reducing cut-through traffic include:

  • Less congested/concentrated traffic on primary routes as more options are available.
  • More efficient usage of roads instead of concentrating wear and tear on the primary roads.
  • Quicker and more efficient access for emergency services, school buses, garbage pick-up, mail delivery, and snow removal.
  • Shorter trips between neighborhoods, which increase pedestrian and bicycle trips.
  • Lower overall community carbon footprint.
  • Lower energy usage as non-motorized options become more advantageous and drivers do not have to follow circuitous routes to get from one neighborhood to another, even an adjacent one.
  • Improved health and fitness as cars become less necessary for short trips.
  • Reduced urban sprawl.

The best way to start healing a broken, disconnected street network is to stop allowing disconnected residential developments. Reversing past mistakes is harder, but can include buying properties and then adding new street connections. The important thing is to take a long-term view and to not expect overnight healing of a broken transportation network. Eventually, the system’s connectivity will improve and the benefits will become visibly apparent.

This entry was posted in Active transportation, Advocacy, bicycling, Biking, Cars, cities, civics, environment, fitness, geography, health, humanity, infrastructure, land use, Maps, placemaking, planning, spatial design, sprawl, sustainability, traffic, transportation, urban planning, walking, zoning and tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

4 Responses to More street connections = less cut-through traffic

  1. Has the author come across the concepts of Fused Grid and Filtered Permeability? Both of these resolve all the tensions he describes. Not all streets need be for all modes, some they can exclude cars, as in many city centers in Europe. That is filtered permeability.
    Both ideas can be found on the web and there are books about them.


  2. Christopher Wilcott says:

    A well connected neighbourhood is typically more pedestrian friendly as well which reduced the need to drive in the first place, especially if there is a mixture of complimentary land uses like residential and commercial.


  3. Darryl says:

    Some interesting points made. Did you manage to find any literature of interest on the above ideas?


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.