Open or treed median: Which do you prefer?

[1995hoo]

I think vdeane makes a valid point about how an extended period of a densely-treed median can be boring. I-85 in southern Virginia is boring in my opinion, although it's also a nice respite of calm after I-95 if you're heading south. But the question wasn't necessarily what sort of median is more interesting–it's which you prefer on the whole.

Of course, it's perfectly valid to say "I prefer no trees because I find all trees to be boring." It's equally valid to consider other factors to be more important, such as headlight glare (as in "I find it boring but headlight glare bothers me more than boredom") or fear of deer (as in "I like trees but my area has a lot of deer and I worry about hitting one").

Certainly the removal of trees can change a road's character considerably and not necessarily for the better. Anyone who's been on I-95 from Dumfries to Aquia in Virginia, where they built the HO/T lanes, has seen what I mean because of the loss of the heavily-treed median. It was an important project for traffic reasons, but there's no denying it feels like a very different place now.

[vdeane]

This is idiotic debate because it is all about tastes, but I have driven between New York and Boston hundreds of times.  For me, the leg between New York and Meriden, Connecticut, generally involves 95 or the Merritt Parkway.  I prefer the Merritt primarily because with trees "photoshopped all the way down the road" there's no visual marker of progress, and thus less stimulus for my mind to go to that awful "Damn, I'm only at Stamford," or "I expected I'd be in Bridgeport by now" place.  Particularly at night, my mind goes to other things–the radio, or simply driving–and the route with less to see goes by much faster. 

I do feel like life's too short to let the lack of a view get to me.  I've hiked many miles where the only "view" was a brief reward at the end, and they were mostly enjoyable and worth the investment of so-called monotony.  Not that I feel like trees are a lack of a view, but whatever.

I guess we're opposites on that.  I prefer to have lots of visual markers of my progress.  Otherwise I feel like I haven't gone anywhere.

[1995hoo]

This is idiotic debate because it is all about tastes, but I have driven between New York and Boston hundreds of times.  For me, the leg between New York and Meriden, Connecticut, generally involves 95 or the Merritt Parkway.  I prefer the Merritt primarily because with trees "photoshopped all the way down the road" there's no visual marker of progress, and thus less stimulus for my mind to go to that awful "Damn, I'm only at Stamford," or "I expected I'd be in Bridgeport by now" place.  Particularly at night, my mind goes to other things–the radio, or simply driving–and the route with less to see goes by much faster.

I do feel like life's too short to let the lack of a view get to me.  I've hiked many miles where the only "view" was a brief reward at the end, and they were mostly enjoyable and worth the investment of so-called monotony.  Not that I feel like trees are a lack of a view, but whatever.

I guess we're opposites on that.  I prefer to have lots of visual markers of my progress.  Otherwise I feel like I haven't gone anywhere.

Heh. On the I-95 corridor in Connecticut, visual markers often just serve to reinforce your LACK of progress and to underscore that you really haven't gone anywhere!