The convention in the USA for old urban centers and new suburban sprawl is to construct a street or road with a crown that drains rainwater to gutters along both sides of the road, then have storm drains to convey the water from the gutter to some nearby creek or tributary. But why?

Wouldn’t it be easier to construct the road in a roughly canal shape, so that rainwater drains towards a single V-shaped gutter at the road’s center? This would cut the number of storm drains by roughly half, prevent leaves from falling directly into a drain and clogging it, make it possible to clear a drain by driving a streetsweeper over it, and also prevent a clog from flooding adjacent properties, since the road itself can temporarily impound more water until municipal authorities can clear the blockage (whereas side gutters would invariably flood the sidewalk and carry sharp debris that would damage tires entering a driveway).

Furthermore, a center drain can be built once and then retained as-is each time a suburban arterial needs expanding – “just one more lane, bro” – whereas side gutters are regularly demolished and rebuilt to accommodate additional lanes. By routing water away from the edges of the road, sidewalks avoid freeze/thaw cycles, and the road surfacing can be continuous from the curb: no more bike lanes in the gutter. As a convenient benefit, the “drop” off at a curb-cut from a driveway to street level would cease to exist.

And where required to improve water quality due to runoff pollution, a center drain can be excavated and rebuilt as a linear stormwater retention pond, where moderate stormwater can filter into the local soil slowly, with a predefined overflow level that will drain to the existing stormdrain pipes. This is already done for both surface parking lots as well as Interstate highways, so it’s not an unproven design.

Narrow alleyways in older cities do use a central drain, so I can’t see why the idea stops making sense for larger streets and roads. The only drawbacks I can envision are aesthetic – a neighbor’s excessive lawn irrigation would draw a wet line across half the street – and that the center channel would also carry leaves and wayward soccer balls into the middle.

But even still, that doesn’t seem worse than the status quo: gutters attract all sorts of detritus, but it’s usually hidden beneath the wheels of parked cars until something punctures a tire. And at least in water-starved California, irrigation runoff deserves to be noticed and called out so that it gets fixed. There may even be some small road safety benefit from having a V-shape channel in the center, since it would unmistakably divide opposite sides of the street.

For larger arterial roads that have trees in the center, this seems like free irrigation and water pollution control. It even works when the center traffic lanes are converted for running a tram or light rail train.

What am I missing here?

  • Ellvix@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    10 hours ago

    This feels like the difference between cars vs pedestrians as the more important user. Having drains on each side means that even if there’s some good buildup of water, the crowned center means you’re more likely to be able to fit one car through, but you totally wipe out the sidewalks. I’m all for /c/fuckcars and would prefer sidewalk use, but I can see the other way winning in the US as roads are primarily designed for cars. Maybe dense city centers could prioritize sidewalks, but more rural stuff and stroads could prioritize roads.

    • litchralee@sh.itjust.works
      cake
      OP
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      10 hours ago

      The premise of my question is that it is a false dichotomy: there need not be tension between pedestrian and roadway users if the drainage system spread out the water over a larger area of already-paved surface. Everyone wins!

      In a rural area where roads are already narrow, this wouldn’t work and I acknowledged that in the title, limiting the inquiry to urban/suburban. I agree 100% that rural country roads built with ditches are entirely appropriate, cheap, and allow natural absorption into the soil. But urban streets aren’t just souped-up country roads and need to be constructed for the built environment.

      Whereas rural areas prioritize land, livestock, and the great outdoors, urban areas prioritize people. And that means pedestrian facilities are non-negotiable in my book.