Fighting global warming... The easy way.
 By Mark ForsytheThe Kansas City Post We're blessed with a temperate climate here in Kansas City. Granted we have our stretches of brutal cold in the winter, and blistering heat in the summer, but we have enough of a growing season to have beautiful lawns, ornamental trees and a variety of native flowers and grasses. With all these natural amenities it seems ironic that so much of our public land is underutilized. Consider our highway medians. For the most part they're planted with what I call pasture grass. Thick bladed and full of weeds, this ground cover serves no other purpose than to reduce soil erosion. Consequently, it must be mowed frequently during the growing season. Basically we have large stretches of land that serve no other purpose than to separate roadways and require constant maintenance with pollution producing mowing equipment. Many states have programs that encourage the planting of trees in their highway medians and other public land. Requiring little if any maintenance, these more progressive governments have embraced the idea of urban forestry as environmental stewardship as well as practical fiscal responsibility. From an environmental standpoint, there is no real downside to planting a tree. According to the USDA, over a 50-year lifetime, one tree generates $31,250 worth of oxygen, provides $62,000 worth of air pollution control, recycles $37,500 worth of water, and controls $31,250 worth of soil erosion. From a fiscal view, the reduced amount of maintenance, sound absorption qualities and cooling effects have real impact on our urban trafficways. As Arbor Day approaches I think we should all take time to consider our options when it comes to public land. As the old saying goes, the best time to plant a tree is twenty five years ago. The next best time is today. |
posted by Mark at 3:03 PM
Comments on "Fighting global warming... The easy way."
-
brent said ... (10:25 AM) :
-
Mark said ... (10:58 AM) :
-
Stacey K said ... (12:39 PM) :
-
Michelled said ... (1:49 PM) :
-
iDan said ... (8:59 PM) :
-
Anonymous said ... (10:29 PM) :
-
Mark said ... (9:02 AM) :
-
Anonymous said ... (7:40 PM) :
post a commentThe other thing that I think we WAY underutilize is natural prairie grasses. Natural prairie grasses grow easily (they're natural) and take no maintanance and are usually quite pretty.
The only concern is that they provide natural environments for wildlife -- which isn't idea close to highways, but there is so much other public land that we should be utilizing this way...
Brent,
I agree about the natural prairie grasses. I just didn't have enough time, Photoshop ability, and space to come up with an entire plan!
As far as the wildlife close to highways thing, I thought about that too. The states that do plant in their medians don't seem to have an issue. I imagine it's because the noise of a highway makes for an undesirable place to live for wildlife?
I can't imagine that there isn't an issue with wildlife, it just may not increase a whole lot. After all New York City is pretty noisy around the clock and they have an increasing problem with deer and wild turkeys. However if wildlife is a concern I'm sure you can find other easy maintenance free ground covers that are less attractive to animals.
Hwy 71 already has huge medians with lots to eat - do they have a problem (other than stray dogs living there)? I can't see how planting grass you don't have to mow would attract significantly more animals that grass you do have to mow and mowing causes tons of polution. But again, being behind the times on everything I'm sure some other city has done a study on this and has already come up with a good answer.
OK, just to complain. Someone (or someones) around the Linwood and Troost area thinks it funny to break off tree branches - many trees in our neighborhood and along Troost have been vandalized. What a jerk!
Trees in a highway median and autos traveling 80mph seem like a bad idea. With wide enough medians I think you could do it but the grass medians in KC are pretty narrow. The right-of-way adjacent the roadway would be a good place if you had enough safe clear zone, but then you have to mow around the trees, increasing the labor effort and amount of fuel spent mowing.
And don't discount the importance of erosion control. The EPA has tougher and tougher erosion control regulations every year. Erosion control is a primary reason for planting an appropriate and hardy vegetation. Keeping streamways clean is paramount today.
One thing the State of South Dakota does is to allow the interstate right-of-way grass to grow long. It increase wildlife habitat. And they lease the right-of-way to farmers and ranchers to bale the grass to use to feed livestock... which I am sure in itself angers some Meanie Greenies. However, it is an innovative way to meet the needs of the citizens and earn money for the state.
The #1 reason you don't see trees in medians is b/c traffic engineers discourage any and all trees near roadways. They term them FHO's - Fixed Hazardous Objects.
Kevin
Kevin,
If traffic engineers are against it then I know it must be a good idea! ;-)
Years ago I was struck by driving through Florida and how they have trees and vegetation in their highway medians. It creates a completely different feel and makes for a much more pleasant drive.
As far as FHO's, I find trees much less dangerous than concrete barriers.
Florida even has a complete highway landscape guide.
www.dot.state.fl.us/EMO/beauty/landscap.pdf
I'm not saying your wrong - it's just the common thinking of the everyday engineer. Some states do indeed allow landscaping. But then, they might actually have a revenue stream to do these things. MO doesn't have much of one, at least right now (which I consider a blessing).
In some circumstances, MODOT has done highway landscaping in and around the City, but the problem often becomes they find a grant somewhere for the initial planting, and then don't have the $ for maintenance. Witness Highway 71.
Kevin