5 ms·

It wasn’t one reason. Some of it came down to liability (buckling sidewalks, falling limbs in storms, pruning), public safety (baddies can hide under trees and

by mc32 3y ago

It wasn’t one reason. Some of it came down to liability (buckling sidewalks, falling limbs in storms, pruning), public safety (baddies can hide under trees and away from choppers before FLiR), impact on utilities (100+ years ago maybe there was a sewer line and maybe a water line, but not much else in most places).

barbazoo 3y ago
You're not wrong but man have we unlearned in many parts of the world how to live alongside nature.
Guvante 3y ago
It can cost tens of thousands to remove a single tree. No shot those reasons would justify millions in tree removal fees. However the huge budgets for roads could do it trivially. You underestimate the impact of measuring fatalities as the only way of verifying success of transportation policy... Certainly if other benefits were weighed properly it might not happen but if you ignore the upsides... (certainly we historically ignored shade for pedestrians).
- CaliforniaKarl 3y ago
  Closer to where I work, over the four-year period ending one year ago, we had one tree per year fall during the Winter season. The period ended when the campus arborist did a detailed check of all the trees in the immediate area, and a number were removed. In the wider area, this part Winter had multiple trees fall. Not tree limbs, entire trees. One came down in front of a minivan carrying a local bus driver & his supervisor. I've got pictures. I'm a pedestrian: I own neither a car nor a bike. But I understand why some trees are removed. I don't think the trees here are not watered deeply enough, so they don't have a deep hold on the ground.
  - Guvante 3y ago
    I don't mean never remove trees. I mean that we removed healthy trees in the name of safety. Certainly verifying the health of trees and removing those that aren't healthy is a good thing. My point is removing all trees within X distance on a non-highway was common practice. Certainly clearing for highways is good as well.

by mc32 3y ago

barbazoo 3y ago

You're not wrong but man have we unlearned in many parts of the world how to live alongside nature.

Guvante 3y ago

It can cost tens of thousands to remove a single tree. No shot those reasons would justify millions in tree removal fees. However the huge budgets for roads could do it trivially. You underestimate the impact of measuring fatalities as the only way of verifying success of transportation policy... Certainly if other benefits were weighed properly it might not happen but if you ignore the upsides... (certainly we historically ignored shade for pedestrians).

CaliforniaKarl 3y ago
Closer to where I work, over the four-year period ending one year ago, we had one tree per year fall during the Winter season. The period ended when the campus arborist did a detailed check of all the trees in the immediate area, and a number were removed. In the wider area, this part Winter had multiple trees fall. Not tree limbs, entire trees. One came down in front of a minivan carrying a local bus driver & his supervisor. I've got pictures. I'm a pedestrian: I own neither a car nor a bike. But I understand why some trees are removed. I don't think the trees here are not watered deeply enough, so they don't have a deep hold on the ground.
- Guvante 3y ago
  I don't mean never remove trees. I mean that we removed healthy trees in the name of safety. Certainly verifying the health of trees and removing those that aren't healthy is a good thing. My point is removing all trees within X distance on a non-highway was common practice. Certainly clearing for highways is good as well.