The interstates in Connecticut need a few improvements...
- Mileage marker signs are absolutely worn and alot of places are missing them. Also there needs to be more consistency with them. Other states have clear green mileage markers every tenth or every 5 tenths all in consistent places on the right shoulder of the road. In Connecticut, there are a lack of signs, mileage markers bolted to light poles in the median of the highway like on I-91 through Hartford and Windsor. I-84 between Southbury and Danbury have consistent markers throughout.
- The visibility on the on-ramps suck. In other states, North Carolina for one, the exit ramps are so long and the visibility is excellent so people travelling down the highway can see a long time in advance cars coming to merge on the highway. For example, try driving I-395 North in Norwich and try getting onto Route 2 West at rush hour. The lane to exit, you have cars coming onto the highway at the same time you are trying to take the exit to Route 2.
- I absolutely hate the "reassurance" interstate shields in CT having the state name on them. I have strong beliefs that these are Interstate Highways, not state routes and the state shouldn't be able to post their name in a U.S. Interstate shield. These interstate shields are like official memorablia for collectors too, and it seems like the state wants to make these signs too proprietary.
You have a valid point about the mile markers on I-84! I was told about many of the signs being replaced recently from the state line in Danbury, heading east to about the Housatonic River. I haven't been on I-84 west of Exit 35 (New Britain/Plainville town line) this year. The last time I checked, however, there were small little 1/5 mile markers from the area of the Housatonic River up until about the CT Route 69 exit in Waterbury.
As for I-91 mile markers, it varies. The markers in the center concrete median, on or near the streetlight posts, begin once you're north of the I-84/US 6 | Trumbull Street exits (Exits 32 A|B) in Hartford. That ends at the MA state line in Enfield. The center median continues until about MM 3 in Longmeadow, MA. However, the Massachusetts MM signs, whole and fractional, are on the right shoulder. Any MM signs I've seen south of Hartford are on the right shoulders. One notable sign missing heading south is MM 25 in Middletown, just after the town line with Cromwell.
As for the state name on the reassurance shields, I see that as no big deal. Don't most states do it that way?
It depends on each state DOT to determine which style Interstate signs they put up. I have been across the country, but only started taking a close eye at the signs a few months ago and that is when I noticed the state names. Connecticut is the only state I have seen that almost every interstate sign on the highway and signs off of the highway directing you to the highway all have Connecticut on them. New York and Massachusetts don't, Pennsylvania is spotty, I have seen them in New Mexico.
You also know that a lot of I-95 and some of I-84 are older than the interstate highway system. Thus they are no where near interstate standards in some places. Same thing in Houston with the gulf freeway portion of I-45, they started that in 1946 and didn't finish it until the 90s! They kept trying to redo the older and older parts to interstate standards.
Quote from: highwayroads on April 21, 2012, 01:12:41 PM
- I absolutely hate the "reassurance" interstate shields in CT having the state name on them. I have strong beliefs that these are Interstate Highways, not state routes and the state shouldn't be able to post their name in a U.S. Interstate shield. These interstate shields are like official memorablia for collectors too, and it seems like the state wants to make these signs too proprietary.
IF every state all adopted the Neutered Interstate shield it would be BOOOOOOOOOOOO--- RINNNNNNNNNNNNNG
That's one of the damn few things I like about CT signage, they continue to keep the state name shields alive. Though the interstate highways receive an enormous amount of federal funds, they ARE still state maintained roads in each state. The federal government doesn't OWN the roadways. There are federal Interstate standards that are set and federal funding for their maintenance and construction, etc is contingent upon meeting those standards. The state named interstate shield is great. It's got the commonality of a uniform interstate marker from coast to coast, and each state can put it's little stamp on it without taking away from the easily recognizable colors and shape.
Please don't tell me you think that every state highway should use the FHWA default, New Jersey shield! :sleep: .... although that's hardly ANY worse than the CT Square.
Quote from: highwayroads on April 21, 2012, 01:12:41 PM
I have strong beliefs that these are Interstate Highways, not state routes and the state shouldn't be able to post their name in a U.S. Interstate shield.
Your strong belief is incorrect. They ARE state routes. They were built and are maintained by the states -- with federal funding, yes, but they are state routes.
Guys, is there any web page that kinda gives a general idea to which states have neutered interstate signs and which ones don't? I know it's not a perfect science, but for the most part, one of them dominates the state. For example New York and Pennsylvania I have seen have much more signs missing the state name.
Or can anyone help me out with their knowledge? Thanks.
I will miss the non-bordered exit tabs. For a couple years there CT was doing alligned-non-bordered exit tabs (ala I-95 in Fairfield County) and it looked really sleek.
I am more concerned with the lack of widening on CT interstates. The only well built interchanges are I-84/I-691, I-84/I-291/I-384 and I-91/CT20.
If I-95 between New Haven and NY were in TN, or TX that would be 10 lanes wide plus and nobody would complain.
Quote from: hbelkins on April 23, 2012, 09:47:54 PM
Quote from: highwayroads on April 21, 2012, 01:12:41 PM
I have strong beliefs that these are Interstate Highways, not state routes and the state shouldn't be able to post their name in a U.S. Interstate shield.
Your strong belief is incorrect. They ARE state routes. They were built and are maintained by the states -- with federal funding, yes, but they are state routes.
HB is correct. Each state paid between 10 and 25 percent of the cost of each of its interstate highways. Plus they managed their design and construction. Why
shouldn't the state put its name on the shields? (You could even say that the state name only takes up 10—25% of the total area of the shield. Seems appropriate to me... :-D)
Quote from: highwayroads on April 24, 2012, 07:30:30 PM
Guys, is there any web page that kinda gives a general idea to which states have neutered interstate signs and which ones don't? I know it's not a perfect science, but for the most part, one of them dominates the state. For example New York and Pennsylvania I have seen have much more signs missing the state name.
Or can anyone help me out with their knowledge? Thanks.
I think there's a thread on this in the General Discussion section, but as far as New England is concerned:
Neutered (no state name): NY, RI, MA, VT, NH
With State Name: CT, ME <- in fact, ME even replaced the shields on BGSs on the non-turnpike portion with state name shields
Quote from: doofy103 on April 24, 2012, 09:00:55 PM
I will miss the non-bordered exit tabs. For a couple years there CT was doing alligned-non-bordered exit tabs (ala I-95 in Fairfield County) and it looked really sleek.
I am more concerned with the lack of widening on CT interstates. The only well built interchanges are I-84/I-691, I-84/I-291/I-384 and I-91/CT20.
If I-95 between New Haven and NY were in TN, or TX that would be 10 lanes wide plus and nobody would complain.
New guide signage in CT does not include the state name. Perhaps there's a different policy for reassurance markers, but it seems the trend is towards shields without the state name. The days of large scale highway building and widening in Connecticut are pretty much over unfortunately. It's mass transit or bust now as we've simply run out of space for any expansion.
Quote from: connroadgeek on April 28, 2012, 08:52:54 PM
Quote from: doofy103 on April 24, 2012, 09:00:55 PM
I will miss the non-bordered exit tabs. For a couple years there CT was doing alligned-non-bordered exit tabs (ala I-95 in Fairfield County) and it looked really sleek.
I am more concerned with the lack of widening on CT interstates. The only well built interchanges are I-84/I-691, I-84/I-291/I-384 and I-91/CT20.
If I-95 between New Haven and NY were in TN, or TX that would be 10 lanes wide plus and nobody would complain.
New guide signage in CT does not include the state name. Perhaps there's a different policy for reassurance markers, but it seems the trend is towards shields without the state name. The days of large scale highway building and widening in Connecticut are pretty much over unfortunately. It's mass transit or bust now as we've simply run out of space for any expansion.
ON Blanket signing projects (engineering standard), State name is on all reassurance interstate markers and neutered on all BGS's. This is true for the new project on 84 from the state line to newtown, and it's true on CT-20 Bradley connector project (the "to I91" reassurance shields in the assembly w/ the CT20 shields). Sometimes when the state puts up an interim reassurance marker to replace one that was damaged damaged... well THAT's where lately i've notice some real atrocities, not just neutered, but off center and not meeting their one current TYPE IV sheeting standards.
We haven't run out of space for expansion, we've run into NIMBYism, lack of funding due to diversion of money from CONNDOT to the general fund, and we've run into special interests and whacko political agendas.
Quote
We haven't run out of space for expansion, we've run into NIMBYism, lack of funding due to diversion of money from CONNDOT to the general fund, and we've run into special interests and whacko political agendas.
Bingo. The NIMBYism is the killer. Especially when deep pockets are involved.
There are tons of places to widen and improve the highways in CT. I think only people along the coast think of the state as crowded. Much of it is really very rural. A lot of the interstate miles besides 95 are nowhere near maxed out as far as what could be done. I will grant that 95 west of New Haven is a bear but even then there would be opportunities if people would be able see past their own backyard.
It is perfectly physically feasible for I-95 to be 8 lanes from the state line to New Haven. Note that it already is in Bridgeport now (nicely done).
The problem is that a wholesale widening of the highway in that area would generate too much opposition to be politically feasible. As you say, NIMBYs. Although, in this case, it isn't so much "I don't want (more of) a highway in my backyard" as it is "carbon emissions! We need to spend that money on public transit instead!"
Of course, if you think the situation with 95 is bad, don't even talk about the Parkway, which could also stand to be widened...
If I-95 could be doubled in size in East Haven, it could be widened anywhere.
I drove on the I-84-I-91 flyover today and noticed the flyover seems to be built for two lanes with no shoulders. of course it's striped as one with shoulders. It should be two lanes b/c basically that flyover ramp replaced the northwest beltway. That and the 4th lane from the aetna viaduct to the I-91 ramps on I-84 EB.
Also, I-91 north of Hartford and I-84 east of hartford were nicely widened a few decades ago. Imagine if they weren't widened b/c of nimbys.
There's also been an effort from some people to get rid of the Aetna Viaduct. Good luck with that one! I-84/US 6 would never work at street level in that vicinity!
Quote from: doofy103 on May 02, 2012, 09:26:51 PM
If I-95 could be doubled in size in East Haven, it could be widened anywhere.
True, especially the section through the "Annex" (New Haven East).
Here's what I'd like to see happen:
On the Turnpike:
Spot improvements between Greenwich and Fairfield: Closure of some exits/entrances, improvements through Norwalk (that is planned), replacement of the rest of the median and conversion to center lighting. Perhaps widening from Westport down to Norwalk would help out.
Reconstruction in West Haven area to New Haven including interchange consolidation. Planned.
Major reconstruction/widening: From Branford to East Lyme.
Bring back tolls and the turnpike trailblazer (:-). Now I'm not talking all the barriers we used to have. But simply: Greenwich, Westport area (maybe), Madison, Plainfield. Maybe entry tolls where I-95 meets the turnpike, definitely on the Mohegan-Pequot "Spur" (Exit 79A), elsewhere?
On [Eastern] I-95:
Reconstruct and widen from the turnpike to New London - not a big deal, as most has a wide median.
Then continue the job from eastern Groton to Route 78. Yes I know, Route 78 will never get built, but seems like it'd be a good transition point (traffic split between "inland points" and "coastal points").
On I-91:
Don't think there's much you can do, outside of some tweaking around the Charter Oak Bridge area. Commuter rail by 2016 would help as well. Overall, its not THAT bad.
On I-84:
Reconstruction/widening from Danbury up to Waterbury, starting with the 2-lane section in Waterbury. Something should be done through West Hartford/Hartford. Way too many curves and left exits cause issues. But what is the easiest solution through there? East of Hartford, you're in pretty good shape.
In the Year 2030 (or later):
Fix the exit numbering on the parkway to a mile-based system. Eventually, switch over entire state this way.
Fix CT 9 in Middletown NOW.... send it to Portland and back via two new bridges. Costly? Yes, but Middletown can reclaim its waterfront.
Finish CT 11.... enough said.
I-84 to Providence? Would be nice! Old I-84 can become I-384/CT 15.
Build the "Super 7".... yeah I know, not gonna happen.
Widen the Merritt? Yeah, in the year 2100 maybe.
I agree w/ any and ALL highway expansion projects in CT because there is so much need for the capacity......
.....except the Merritt. Leave the Merritt be. It really is a piece of history and it's extemely unique. It's not NIMBYism because it's not in my back yard, but I drive it several times a year, it's just that The Merritt is nationally know for being... The Merritt. It's dangerous as fuck... but it's The Merritt.
Quote from: wytout on May 03, 2012, 06:42:46 PM
I agree w/ any and ALL highway expansion projects in CT because there is so much need for the capacity......
.....except the Merritt. Leave the Merritt be. It really is a piece of history and it's extemely unique. It's not NIMBYism because it's not in my back yard, but I drive it several times a year, it's just that The Merritt is nationally know for being... The Merritt. It's dangerous as fuck... but it's The Merritt.
I will always say there's enough room in that corridor for 6 to 8 lanes but would never advocate for it. The Garden State Parkway has been utterly ruined for most of its length (basically Exit 80 north).
Quote from: Steve on May 03, 2012, 07:07:58 PM
I will always say there's enough room in that corridor for 6 to 8 lanes but would never advocate for it. The Garden State Parkway has been utterly ruined for most of its length (basically Exit 80 north).
Exactly my point, Most people these days could never imagine the former beauty of the Garden State, another important piece of our highway history, but driving it today, you could never imagine what it started out as.
Quote from: wytout on May 03, 2012, 07:09:57 PM
Quote from: Steve on May 03, 2012, 07:07:58 PM
I will always say there's enough room in that corridor for 6 to 8 lanes but would never advocate for it. The Garden State Parkway has been utterly ruined for most of its length (basically Exit 80 north).
Exactly my point, Most people these days could never imagine the former beauty of the Garden State, another important piece of our highway history, but driving it today, you could never imagine what it started out as.
Well, you can, but you have to drive south and realize that's what it was like all the way north until Union/Essex.
As a person that used to drive the Merritt every week, that highway needs more lanes. Its goes from slow to bumper to bumper from Greenwich to Milford from 2:00pm to 7:00pm. Esp if you go on a Friday. That isn't rush hour that could be half of an afternoon spent just trying to get to a friend or families place.
Does it? Perhaps widening I-95 and building a 4-lane HOT freeway parallel would work. Or a HOV requirement during rush hour. I-66 within the capital beltway is actually more congested outside of rush hour due to the HOV restriction.
Quote from: Steve on May 03, 2012, 07:07:58 PM
Quote from: wytout on May 03, 2012, 06:42:46 PM
I agree w/ any and ALL highway expansion projects in CT because there is so much need for the capacity......
.....except the Merritt. Leave the Merritt be. It really is a piece of history and it's extemely unique. It's not NIMBYism because it's not in my back yard, but I drive it several times a year, it's just that The Merritt is nationally know for being... The Merritt. It's dangerous as fuck... but it's The Merritt.
I will always say there's enough room in that corridor for 6 to 8 lanes but would never advocate for it. The Garden State Parkway has been utterly ruined for most of its length (basically Exit 80 north).
One likely reason why the Merritt was left alone was because I-95 (CT Turnpike) is in close proximity, basically runs parallel to it and picks up the truck and and any extra traffic that the Merritt couldn't handle. The
likely thought was that if any highway widening in that area was to take place; it would be along I-95.
OTOH, one does not necessarily sees a
continuously parallel highway that's in a reasonably close proximity to the GSP. As a result, the only to address any capacity issues associated with the GSP was indeed to widen it. Sad but true.
I dunno about comparing the GSP to the Merritt. The GSP never had ornate bridges the way the Merritt does. No other highways do. The Merritt really is unique and irreplaceable.
But, the Merritt already is a shadow of its former self, simply because the area that it runs through is now far more densely populated than it was when it was built. It was designed as a stroll through the countryside. That doesn't exist in southwestern Connecticut anymore.
And, there is enough demand that is closer to the Merritt than 95 that 95's ability to pick up traffic from it is limited. Sure, 95 will carry the long distance traffic, but anyone who lives north of the Merritt is likely going to be getting on it rather than driving passed it to go to 95.
I don't think it all needs widening, though. Only north of exit 34 or 35.
Quote from: deanej on May 04, 2012, 12:03:59 PM
Does it? Perhaps widening I-95 and building a 4-lane HOT freeway parallel would work. Or a HOV requirement during rush hour. I-66 within the capital beltway is actually more congested outside of rush hour due to the HOV restriction.
At one point a few years ago, there was some sort of failed proposal for a 3rd road, between the Merritt and the Turnpike, but logistically I just don't see how they could possibly afford all the land needed to accomplish that sort of road, much less the NIMBYism.
At some point, they'll be faced with the prospect of trying to figure out how to double-deck I-95 through Fairfield County. There's some room for widening at least one extra lane in some spots, but will it ever be enough?
Only if Bill Gates has about 4 billion dollars burning a hole in his pocket can they build in the area the highway system needed to fix it. Or use said money to pay off the Merritt tree huggers to expand the road with the extra right of way to build wider.
I-95 will never be significantly widened through Fairfield County. Never. There aren't even informal plans to do so. Everyone knows capacity is tapped out and there's nowhere to build. It's why the state is focused on busways and more rail cars, because they already know Connecticut is done with expanding its highways (save for route 11 and widening in the east). People need to get used to using mass transit or have fun sitting on the highway staring at the bumper in front of them during their ever lengthening commutes. The state is better served upgrading the parking and train stations (which they have been over the past several years) than attempting half-baked widening of highways at this point. To do it right would require 3 or 4 express lanes and 2 local lanes (maybe even a 3rd exit-only local lane in spots to allow multi-lane ramps for the busier exits where traffic frequently backs up onto the highway) in each direction from Greenwich to Bridgeport which would essentially double the footprint of the highway.
I-95 was congested ALL day today (Saturday) around Exits 12-15 in both directions for about 10 hours. I sat in it and also kept tabs on traffic cams b/c I was curious to see how long it would be.
I do not see how mass transit would help that today. People today aren't commuting to their jobs they are doing leisure activities or going to graduations. Mass transit can't help stuff like that. Who is going to take mass transit when they want to see friends in Norwich or Bristol? Especially when mass transit doesnt serve those areas.
However, if the highway was expanded to let's say 4 lanes or 5 lanes in each direction I would like to think the congestion would be 7 hours rather than 10 hours. Is it perfect? no. but it would help.
Mass transit is the politically correct answer to give to shut up the vocal minority that tend to get the attention of all the press.
Also, there IS room to widen the highway. If they can widen I-95 in East Haven, they can widen it anywhere. Btw: There was room to add in a 4th lane SB between Exits 10 and 8. I don't see people's driveways chopped off anywhere.
Quote from: doofy103 on May 12, 2012, 10:13:38 PM
If they can widen I-95 in East Haven, they can widen it anywhere.
Why do you believe this? Land in East Haven costs about 1/4 (maybe even less, East Haven is no Greenwich) of what it does in Fairfield County.
Quote from: connroadgeek on May 12, 2012, 10:24:30 PM
Quote from: doofy103 on May 12, 2012, 10:13:38 PM
If they can widen I-95 in East Haven, they can widen it anywhere.
Why do you believe this? Land in East Haven costs about 1/4 (maybe even less, East Haven is no Greenwich) of what it does in Fairfield County.
I didn't say anything about price, I was just talking space.
Speaking of widening along I-95: I refer to the Quinnipiac River Bridge ("Q" Bridge) project in New Haven. Once that whole thing is finished, how far north (east?) of that bridge will the widening get?
Also, I wish they could widen sections of I-95 between Old Lyme and Waterford to at least three lanes. It's always a huge bottleneck from May to September on most weekends.
Quote from: KEVIN_224 on May 13, 2012, 10:54:50 AM
Also, I wish they could widen sections of I-95 between Old Lyme and Waterford to at least three lanes. It's always a huge bottleneck from May to September on most weekends.
I think they are supposed to but not sure if they started the EIS yet. They were supposed to start it but I think it was delayed b/c of funding.
Of course when the widening does come through they will have to tear up the new median jersey barrier they just installed b/c it's not exactly in the center, which is kind of stupid. They also left grassy areas there too. I have no idea why they didn't do it the same way the previous media projects were done in Fairfield County.
There is no simple answer, but mass transit and busways are part of it. Either the Merritt or I-95 needs to be widen, no if ands or buts about it. Traffic can't use just those routes. Then you have the rail system. Its nice, but its design is to go to and from NYC. What if someone is going to Storrs? What if someone is going from New Canaan(by Talmage Hill) to Danbury? What about going from Stamford(Cove area) to East lyme? Mass transit isn't the simplest answer. The state needs to think about which one to bite the bullet on. The cheaper answer is the Merritt but that is only because they own the land. Lawsuits, that is a different story.
Quote from: Perfxion on May 13, 2012, 01:37:44 PM
There is no simple answer, The cheaper answer is the Merritt but that is only because they own the land. Lawsuits, that is a different story.
Just think the Merrit/US 7 interchange actually started in 2005 and would have been complete by now if not for the Merrit Pkwy Conservancy. They sued and stopped construction, now it's back at the beginning. No funding, nothing. It's totally stupid! They single handedly stopped the project. It would've been complete by now. In fact,the state had to spend more money to put back the road the way it was before construction started.
Quote from: doofy103 on May 14, 2012, 02:44:26 PM
Quote from: Perfxion on May 13, 2012, 01:37:44 PM
There is no simple answer, The cheaper answer is the Merritt but that is only because they own the land. Lawsuits, that is a different story.
Just think the Merrit/US 7 interchange actually started in 2005 and would have been complete by now if not for the Merrit Pkwy Conservancy. They sued and stopped construction, now it's back at the beginning. No funding, nothing. It's totally stupid! They single handedly stopped the project. It would've been complete by now. In fact,the state had to spend more money to put back the road the way it was before construction started.
The interchange would have been complete a lot sooner than 2005 if not for the Conservancy. But the state went ahead with construction without going through procedures first - so it's their own fault. There's a reason the Conservancy exists, and it's so the Merritt doesn't look like just any other road out there. There have been a lot of concerns with the US 7 interchange starting way back when the 7 freeway was first built (1960s to exit 2), and then when it finally pushed past the Merritt in the 80s. The current half-interchange was a major concession just to have any connection at all with the Merritt, and/or just to get the damn thing built at all. Personally, I'd rather they extend the 7 freeway versus completing the Merritt interchange :P but both seem to have an equal likelihood of happening in our lifetimes.
CT needs to pull a Texas and ask for forgiveness rather than permission. The problem is that the state is bending over backwards for this group rather than the majority of the people who actually use the road. The other major problem is I-95 would be the road the Conservancy wants expanded, but that is too expensive due to land value and everything built up to the highway. Merritt does have at least 75 feet of open paid for room to work with.
Quote from: Perfxion on May 14, 2012, 07:31:27 PM
CT needs to pull a Texas and ask for forgiveness rather than permission.
Last time they tried that, they got sued and the court ordered them to stop work before much had gotten done. See above discussion of Merritt/7 interchange.
Quote from: Perfxion on May 14, 2012, 07:31:27 PM
CT needs to pull a Texas and ask for forgiveness rather than permission. The problem is that the state is bending over backwards for this group rather than the majority of the people who actually use the road. The other major problem is I-95 would be the road the Conservancy wants expanded, but that is too expensive due to land value and everything built up to the highway. Merritt does have at least 75 feet of open paid for room to work with.
Texas and Connecticut: two states that could not be more different. The land along the Merritt isn't much cheaper, and the state already knows it will never change that road anyway. I do wish they would complete that interchange with U.S. 7 though - seems like it should be easy enough - the Conservancy notwithstanding.
According to another thread, Texas has no way of preserving ROW from development. Insert political statement.
Quote from: connroadgeek on May 15, 2012, 10:26:04 PM
I do wish they would complete that interchange with U.S. 7 though - seems like it should be easy enough - the Conservancy notwithstanding.
You know, I used to think that as well, but as long as the US 7 expressway ends about 1/2 mile north of the Merritt, I really don't think it's 100% necessary. Maybe just a loop ramp from the parkway SB to US 7 SB.
In fact, the DOT tried to push through a cloverleaf design for the interchange just to satisfy the MPC. They even used alleged examples of where colverleafs work well. Thank god nearby residents said no b/c the cloverleaf would have taken a larger footprint of land. Now, the new design is similiar to the original with flyovers or flyunders.
It does seem the DOT wants to kiss **s for the MPC. On another twist, the DOT is cutting down trees along state highways big time, but the road where people have actually died from falling trees, the Merritt, they are planting new ones!....in the median!!
The MPC wants it to be 1938 again, well it isn't. Look at the members, I don't think any of them use the Merritt during rush hour.
Quote from: doofy103 on May 16, 2012, 05:19:30 PM
It does seem the DOT wants to kiss **s for the MPC. On another twist, the DOT is cutting down trees along state highways big time, but the road where people have actually died from falling trees, the Merritt, they are planting new ones!....in the median!!
Is THAT what they're doing? All I noticed is several miles of median clearing, and I thought, "well, there goes the aesthetic neighborhood." If they're actually replanting... well, why the heck not just keep the trees that were there in the first place? :hmmm:
They have to replant every tree they take out, a lot of the trees they been taken out have been dead due to the extreme about of over watering Mother Nature did last year. I read something to the tune of 90 to 110 inches of rain and snow last year. That isn't good for an area were the root system has nowhere to go. So it almost up roots from too much water. Thus falling killing people. It isn't so much the trees as they kind of help keep the lights from the other side of the median showing. Its the amount of dead wood that needs to be removed. If you cross a forest under a bunch of dead trees, that isn't the safest thing to do.
Indeed. Storms are always more destructive in early spring than in summer for this reason: lots of trees in clayey, rocky soil, can't get a strong root hold. When it rains a lot before things are growing and blooming, all that water turns the ground to mud and the wind knocks trees over by ripping them out of the ground, roots and all, rather than by snapping them.
Quote from: Perfxion on May 17, 2012, 06:25:16 AM
They have to replant every tree they take out, a lot of the trees they been taken out have been dead due to the extreme about of over watering Mother Nature did last year. I read something to the tune of 90 to 110 inches of rain and snow last year. That isn't good for an area were the root system has nowhere to go. So it almost up roots from too much water. Thus falling killing people. It isn't so much the trees as they kind of help keep the lights from the other side of the median showing. Its the amount of dead wood that needs to be removed. If you cross a forest under a bunch of dead trees, that isn't the safest thing to do.
The More I Know. Thanks.