🚀 go-pugleaf

I ride a bicycle almost everyplace I have to go within ten miles of here.
Lee County (Ft Myers) Fla. is pretty good at including us in their road
plans. I'm all for it.

Regards, Benny

Anybody that likes dogs and kids cant be all bad!!


Cycle America <NBG@BikeRoute.com> wrote in message
news:NBG-1208991905480001@adsl-63-193-113-239.dsl.snfc21.pacbell.net...
> THX for all the help here Mark! I had needed it asap for a story the "Good
> Times" is doing on our National Bicycle Greenway as it relates to the
> 8/5  SCCRTC decision to build a bike trail to the Pajaro River and our
> upcoming 8/20 Swing for NBG (http://www.bikeroute.com/Swing) that is going
> to rock BIG TIME.
>
> I was on the phone with long time bike industry advocate Andy Clark of the
> Association of Pedestrian and  Bicycle Professionals (http://apbp.org/)
> who was, as he said, "buried deep within the belly of the Federal Hiway
> Admin" in Washington, DC when your post came over the transom. What's more
> is that Andy faxed me an additional 4 pages worth of studies that
> reinforce the Harris Poll notion below.
>
> One fact, in the Harris Poll that also bears mentioning is that 72% of all
> Americans would like a community based planning structure which make
> walking, running or bicycling an integral part of their area's
> transportation system. And this percentage climbs to 82% when the
> residents are from city center/downtown areas!
>
> A 1997 study by Lake Sosin Snell and Associates found, among other things
> that 64% of the voting public supports using money from federal gas taxes
> for bike trails, bike lanes and sidewalks. A majority who do not ride
> bikes or have anyone in their household who does in this survey also
> supported using their fuel tax for such non car-related infrastructure!
>
> Another study done in 1993 by American Lives, Inc., found that almost
> equally ranked  to open space the most important feature that home buyers
> want in their community is not libraries, churches, schools, shopping
> centers, parks, etc, but **walking and bike paths**!!
>
> > Can anyone tell me the exact # of Americans who say they would bike if
> > there were safe places to do so?
>
> Here's some data off the web.  I get the sense these are all referring to
> the same poll, but the dates conflict.
>
> >From http://www.fampo.state.va.us/clrp/bikes.htm
>
>   Numerous surveys note the popularity of bicycling in the United States.
>   Specifically, a 1991 Harris Poll noted that 46% of all adults aged 18
>   and older (82 million Americans) had ridden bicycles in the previous
year.
>   Of those responding to the survey:
>
>   o 46% said they would sometimes commute to work by bicycle if safe
bicycle
>     lanes were available;
>   o 53% would ride a bicycle if they had safe, separate designated paths
on
>     which to ride;
>   o 45% would ride a bicycle if their workplace had showers, lockers, and
>     secure bicycle storage; and
>   o 47% would ride a bicycle if their employer offered financial or other
>     incentives.
>
>
> >From http://www.transalt.org/blueprint/chapter4/
>
>   A 1992 Harris poll commissioned by Bicycling magazine found that
>   one-quarter of respondents would bicycle to work if safe bicycle lanes
>   were available. [3]
>
>    [3] Bicycling's 2nd Annual Harris Poll on Bike Commuting, May 18, 1992,
>        reported that of the 46% of adult Americans who rode a bicycle in
the
>        previous year, 53% "would sometimes commute to work by bicycle if
there
>        were safe, separate designated bike paths to use." The product of
46%
>        and 53% is 24%, or approximately one-quarter. Zero interest in bike
>        commuting was assumed among non-cyclists - a conservatism.
>
>
> Other links of interest:
>
>
>
http://www.trans.ci.portland.or.us/Traffic_Management/Bicycle_Program/BikeMa
sterPlan/endtrip.htm
>
>   http://www.nd.edu/~ktrembat/www-bike/BCY/LABCommEmployer.html
>
>   http://www.demographics.com/publications/ad/95_ad/9503_ad/9503AF03.htm
>
> --
>             M a r t i n   K r i e g
>                Attacking with Love
>       Coma, Paralysis, Clinical Death Survivor
>     '79 & '86 TransAm Vet, "Awake Again" Author
>    TransAm w/us in 2000: http://www.BikeRoute.com
>   N A T I O N A L   B I C Y C L E   G R E E N W A Y

There is one (bike paths) on 275 in Detroit.  Are there any others along
current expressways?  Post away.  It would be neat to know where some are.
Hmmm.  Why not.  Let's have bike routes following our interstate system.
Get out there and bike and see America!

Heck, lets plant trees in open areas like in GA.  75 is gourgeous with trees
all along the sides basically all the through the state.

"A GREENER AMERICA!"

Maybe by planting trees and landscaping in metro and rural areas would
slightly ease the "environmentalist concerns" on interstates????  LIke
Atlanta!  Does anyone know of any similiar projects that have happened in
metro areas to "beautify our interstates".

There was almost a move backwards--the Oleanders along the median
of Interstate 5 through San Diego were, at one point, to be removed.
I'm glad to see that they're still up in many places.  They make for a
more eye-pleasing oncoming-headlight-glare-blocker.

Dino Hill wrote:

> Maybe by planting trees and landscaping in metro and rural areas would
> slightly ease the "environmentalist concerns" on interstates????  LIke
> Atlanta!  Does anyone know of any similiar projects that have happened in
> metro areas to "beautify our interstates".

"Dino Hill" <Galvatron3@acd.net> wrote:

>Maybe by planting trees and landscaping in metro and rural areas would
>slightly ease the "environmentalist concerns" on interstates????  LIke
>Atlanta!  Does anyone know of any similiar projects that have happened in
>metro areas to "beautify our interstates".
>
Landscaping is always included in interstate projects, especially the
urban ones where the formula is  higher than on rural projects. As
long as the trees remain outside the clear recovery zone for the
highway, I would love to see slopes and wide areas reforested. 

Of course, NCDOT also has a popular and successful Wildflower Program,
where we plant native wildflowers in open areas along the interstates
and other freeways. I've even heard some surrounding states (VA, SC
and GA for example) copied us when they began their programs.

John Lansford, PE

The unofficial I-26 Construction Webpage:
http://users.vnet.net/lansford/a10/

On Sat, 14 Aug 1999 21:24:30 -0400, "Dino Hill" <Galvatron3@acd.net>
wrote:

>Maybe by planting trees and landscaping in metro and rural areas would
>slightly ease the "environmentalist concerns" on interstates????  LIke
>Atlanta!  Does anyone know of any similiar projects that have happened in
>metro areas to "beautify our interstates".

That's one of my gripes against Virginia DOT's plan to widen the
Capital Beltway: Yes, they own most of the right-of-way alongside, but
trees have either grown up alongisde the road in the past 35 years,
or, more often, are older growth. Removing them would be a depressing
exercise, and there would be no room to plant new ones as a buffer.
This is one of the reasons why the GW Parkway is such a nice drive,
instead of looking at sound barriers and strip malls, you see heavy
forest on one side and the river on the other. Very relaxing.
--------
Bentley - Alexandria VA
Entropy isn't what it used to be.

Dino Hill wrote:
> 
> Maybe by planting trees and landscaping in metro and rural areas would
> slightly ease the "environmentalist concerns" on interstates????  LIke
> Atlanta!  Does anyone know of any similiar projects that have happened in
> metro areas to "beautify our interstates".

That's been done on the curved section of the Gardiner Expwy. in
Toronto, going around the Humber Bay.  That section has a sort of
cliff/embankment, with a narrow strip before the lake which contains the
Gardiner, as well as a major rail line and Lake Shore Blvd.  The
embankment used to be an eyesore... people would just dump all sorts of
trash down there.  Some businessman or something (i.e., not the city
gov't), tired with the idea that THAT was the first impression of
Toronto for all traffic coming eastbound into downtown, came up with an
idea and put a bunch of money into cleaning it up and landscaping it.

One aspect of the project which was quite unique at the time (may be
done now in other cities, I don't know, but the only other place I've
ever seen it is along the 401 south of the Toronto airport) was the idea
of having landscaped billboards.  Basically, local corporations who have
very strong public service and charity records have their logos made out
of shrubs, flowers in the summer, etc. - i.e., no product advertising. 
Since it's an embankment, it both allows for planting of shrubs, flowers
etc., and for visibility of the actual message from ground level.  It's
quite unique and now creates a new, very favorable, first impression of
the city on your way in.  Very aesthetically pleasing.

I've been trying to find some info on the city's website
(http://www.city.toronto.on.ca) and I have been unfortunately so far
unsuccessful...

Brent

Dino Hill <Galvatron3@acd.net> wrote in message
> Maybe by planting trees and landscaping in metro and rural areas would
> slightly ease the "environmentalist concerns" on interstates????  LIke
> Atlanta!  Does anyone know of any similiar projects that have happened in
> metro areas to "beautify our interstates".
>
My state came up with a "Naturalized Area" program.  Under it the DOH puts
up brown "Naturalized Area" signs and doesn't cut the grass or clip the
trees and such.  Looks like what it is, an undermaintained ROW overgrown
with weeds.

I disagree with premise for 2 reason.

1) what could be more beautiful than a interstate in the first place?

2) the idea that environmental extremists can (or should) be appeased is
just wrong.  If all government wanted to do was A there will always be an
extremist saying do A - 1.  If they wanted to do A -1 the extremist would be
for A - 2.

SP Cook

John Lansford wrote:
> 
> "Dino Hill" <Galvatron3@acd.net> wrote:
> 
> >Maybe by planting trees and landscaping in metro and rural areas would
> >slightly ease the "environmentalist concerns" on interstates????  LIke
> >Atlanta!  Does anyone know of any similiar projects that have happened in
> >metro areas to "beautify our interstates".
> >
> Landscaping is always included in interstate projects, especially the
> urban ones where the formula is  higher than on rural projects. As
> long as the trees remain outside the clear recovery zone for the
> highway, I would love to see slopes and wide areas reforested.

I like how the German Transport Ministry allows the trees and other
vegitation to grow right up to the back side of the guardrails and
'Jersey' walls on their Autobahns.

> Of course, NCDOT also has a popular and successful Wildflower Program,
> where we plant native wildflowers in open areas along the interstates
> and other freeways. I've even heard some surrounding states (VA, SC
> and GA for example) copied us when they began their programs.

NCDOT has a booth at the Experimental Aircraft Association convention
(Oshkosh, WI) every year.  Yes, they mainly tout the G.A. airport
facilities in the state, but they also hand out highway maps and the
like, too.  Last year, they were also handing out little packages of
wildflower seeds.

-- 
____________________________________________________________________________
Regards,

Michael G. Koerner
Appleton, WI

***NOTICE***   SPAMfilter in use, please remove ALL 'i's from the return
address to reply.   ***NOTICE***
____________________________________________________________________________

On Sun, 15 Aug 1999 15:16:46 -0400, "SP Cook" <PACEFSC@prodigy.net>
wrote:


>I disagree with premise for 2 reason.
>
>1) what could be more beautiful than a interstate in the first place?
>
>2) the idea that environmental extremists can (or should) be appeased is
>just wrong.  If all government wanted to do was A there will always be an
>extremist saying do A - 1.  If they wanted to do A -1 the extremist would be
>for A - 2.

actually, I agree with this. high-speed roads are heavy-duty
infrastructure.. let's not pretend that they are 'pretty'. Besides..
no one is looking. Next time you stop on a heavily traveled road..
look out your window at the ground... planting pretty flowers next
to a ditch full of trash, cigarettes, etc ....kinda ironic...

the medians would be much better used if they were engineered
as bio filters to help filter the runoff... and use jersey barriers
between the shoulder and the median.

SP Cook wrote:

> Dino Hill <Galvatron3@acd.net> wrote in message
> > Maybe by planting trees and landscaping in metro and rural areas would
> > slightly ease the "environmentalist concerns" on interstates????  LIke
> > Atlanta!  Does anyone know of any similiar projects that have happened in
> > metro areas to "beautify our interstates".
> >
> My state came up with a "Naturalized Area" program.  Under it the DOH puts
> up brown "Naturalized Area" signs and doesn't cut the grass or clip the
> trees and such.  Looks like what it is, an undermaintained ROW overgrown
> with weeds.

It may be trendy, but I don't mind the "naturalized area" phenom--and to simply
dismiss it as weedy disarray seems to me like dismissing abstract art as
paint-roller junk.  OTOH, to impose "naturalized areas" upon places where a
certain "grooming" has always been part of the aesthetic--say, a few Moses-era
parkways--is definitely taking a good thing too far.

> I disagree with premise for 2 reason.
>
> 1) what could be more beautiful than a interstate in the first place?

You've *got* to be ironic with that statement.  Or an Italian Futurist.  Or
something...

> 2) the idea that environmental extremists can (or should) be appeased is
> just wrong.  If all government wanted to do was A there will always be an
> extremist saying do A - 1.  If they wanted to do A -1 the extremist would be
> for A - 2.

Sometimes, "extremist" policy is just that--extreme.  Other times, it can
trickle down to the mainstream (as with "naturalized areas").  And we're not
necessarily the worse off for the fact.  Leftward "extremism" or rightward
"extremism" alike...

In article <37b6eedc.49644475@news.erols.com>,
sarcastro@mindspring.com.nyetspam wrote:

> On Sat, 14 Aug 1999 21:24:30 -0400, "Dino Hill" <Galvatron3@acd.net>
> wrote:
> 
> >Maybe by planting trees and landscaping in metro and rural areas would
> >slightly ease the "environmentalist concerns" on interstates????  LIke
> >Atlanta!  Does anyone know of any similiar projects that have happened in
> >metro areas to "beautify our interstates".
> 
> That's one of my gripes against Virginia DOT's plan to widen the
> Capital Beltway: Yes, they own most of the right-of-way alongside, but
> trees have either grown up alongisde the road in the past 35 years,
> or, more often, are older growth. Removing them would be a depressing
> exercise, and there would be no room to plant new ones as a buffer.
> This is one of the reasons why the GW Parkway is such a nice drive,
> instead of looking at sound barriers and strip malls, you see heavy
> forest on one side and the river on the other. Very relaxing.

And now for the other viewpoint...I hate driving through there
because of all the damn trees.  You cannot see anything.  It is
like driving through an endless tunnel for mile after mile, almost
to the point of making me car sick.  Lets level the trees so there
is something to look at while traveling.

-john-

-- 
====================================================================
John A. Weeks III          612-891-2382              jweeks@visi.com
Newave Communications  FAX 612-953-4289  http://www.visi.com/~jweeks
====================================================================

"Michael G. Koerner" <mgk920@dataex.com> wrote:

>John Lansford wrote:

>I like how the German Transport Ministry allows the trees and other
>vegitation to grow right up to the back side of the guardrails and
>'Jersey' walls on their Autobahns.

We don't let the trees grow right up behind the guardrail since it has
to deflect a little (about 5' generally), but past that point we don't
do anything. Jersey barrier, of course, doesn't deflect so trees can
grow right behind it.

>> Of course, NCDOT also has a popular and successful Wildflower Program,
>> where we plant native wildflowers in open areas along the interstates
>> and other freeways. I've even heard some surrounding states (VA, SC
>> and GA for example) copied us when they began their programs.
>
>NCDOT has a booth at the Experimental Aircraft Association convention
>(Oshkosh, WI) every year.  Yes, they mainly tout the G.A. airport
>facilities in the state, but they also hand out highway maps and the
>like, too.  Last year, they were also handing out little packages of
>wildflower seeds.

Neat! Now that's a good way to get the message out!

John Lansford, PE

The unofficial I-26 Construction Webpage:
http://users.vnet.net/lansford/a10/

"SP Cook" <PACEFSC@prodigy.net> wrote:

>
>Dino Hill <Galvatron3@acd.net> wrote in message
>> Maybe by planting trees and landscaping in metro and rural areas would
>> slightly ease the "environmentalist concerns" on interstates????  LIke
>> Atlanta!  Does anyone know of any similiar projects that have happened in
>> metro areas to "beautify our interstates".
>>
>My state came up with a "Naturalized Area" program.  Under it the DOH puts
>up brown "Naturalized Area" signs and doesn't cut the grass or clip the
>trees and such.  Looks like what it is, an undermaintained ROW overgrown
>with weeds.
>
>I disagree with premise for 2 reason.
>
>1) what could be more beautiful than a interstate in the first place?

An interstate that has lots of wildflowers blooming along it in the
medians and outside recovery areas, or trees growing right up to the
recovery zone.

>2) the idea that environmental extremists can (or should) be appeased is
>just wrong.  If all government wanted to do was A there will always be an
>extremist saying do A - 1.  If they wanted to do A -1 the extremist would be
>for A - 2.

NCDOT doesn't plant flowers and trees due to environmentalist'
concerns. We do it because the public likes it, the areas of
maintenance are reduced, and because it looks nice.

John Lansford, PE



The unofficial I-26 Construction Webpage:
http://users.vnet.net/lansford/a10/

John A. Weeks III wrote:

> And now for the other viewpoint...I hate driving through there
> because of all the damn trees.  You cannot see anything.  It is
> like driving through an endless tunnel for mile after mile, almost
> to the point of making me car sick.  Lets level the trees so there
> is something to look at while traveling.

What?  Concrete sound barriers?  Between those and trees, guess which I'd
take...

New Jersey plants a lot of Forsythia bushes around, especially within the
median of the highway as well as near overpasses.  Cheap and since the
branches tend to re-root themselves, they expand even further.

On Rt. 55, for about a 2 mile area just above Exit 27 (Rt. 47), signs in the
median say 'New Jersey's Beautiful - Naturally'.  This refers to the tall
weeping grass that grows within the median for this stretch.  I wonder
though if it was just an excuse not to cut the grass in this area :-).

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Jeff Taylor
khjc@jersey.net
http://www.jersey.net/~khjc
Homes for:  Rt. 42 & The 295/76/42 interchange


David Keenan wrote in message <37B69985.9BF2F21A@pacbell.net>...
>There was almost a move backwards--the Oleanders along the median
>of Interstate 5 through San Diego were, at one point, to be removed.
>I'm glad to see that they're still up in many places.  They make for a
>more eye-pleasing oncoming-headlight-glare-blocker.
>
>Dino Hill wrote:
>
>> Maybe by planting trees and landscaping in metro and rural areas would
>> slightly ease the "environmentalist concerns" on interstates????  LIke
>> Atlanta!  Does anyone know of any similiar projects that have happened in
>> metro areas to "beautify our interstates".
>
>
>

On Sun, 15 Aug 1999 18:15:31 -0500, jweeks@visi.com (John A. Weeks
III) wrote:

>And now for the other viewpoint...I hate driving through there
>because of all the damn trees.  You cannot see anything.  It is
>like driving through an endless tunnel for mile after mile, almost
>to the point of making me car sick.  Lets level the trees so there
>is something to look at while traveling.

I can honestly say I've never thought of that side. Scratch that, in
winter, when the sun is low and the trees are bare, the
flash-on-flash-off of bright light can give me a headache. Otherwise,
I honestly thought everyone liked trees.

Tabling their visual impact on roadsides, surely we can agree that
they serve other useful functions?
--------
Bentley - Alexandria VA
Entropy isn't what it used to be.

John Lansford wrote:
> 
> Landscaping is always included in interstate projects, especially the
> urban ones where the formula is  higher than on rural projects. As
> long as the trees remain outside the clear recovery zone for the
> highway, I would love to see slopes and wide areas reforested.
> 
> Of course, NCDOT also has a popular and successful Wildflower Program,
> where we plant native wildflowers in open areas along the interstates
> and other freeways. I've even heard some surrounding states (VA, SC
> and GA for example) copied us when they began their programs.

Michigan also has (at least on a limited basis) a Wildflower Program.  The only place I've
seen it (at least marked) is on M-14 at I-96 in Plymouth, Michigan.  I don't know how long
it has been there, or if they copied from anyone else or not.

Dyche Anderson

In article <37b75b19.77357564@news.erols.com>,
  sarcastro@mindspring.com.nyetspam wrote:
> On Sun, 15 Aug 1999 18:15:31 -0500, jweeks@visi.com (John A. Weeks
> III) wrote:
>
> >And now for the other viewpoint...I hate driving through there
> >because of all the damn trees.  You cannot see anything.  It is
> >like driving through an endless tunnel for mile after mile, almost
> >to the point of making me car sick.  Lets level the trees so there
> >is something to look at while traveling.
>
> I can honestly say I've never thought of that side. Scratch that, in
> winter, when the sun is low and the trees are bare, the
> flash-on-flash-off of bright light can give me a headache. Otherwise,
> I honestly thought everyone liked trees.
>
> Tabling their visual impact on roadsides, surely we can agree that
> they serve other useful functions?

Did you notice John Weeks' current area code?  612 -- Minnesota.
This isn't the first time I've heard the same comment from someone
out West.  The view of the horizon over open plains or wheat fields
in the mid-west, the view of mesas over expansive desert, the view
of soaring blue white-capped mountains in the distance, and the
view of the ocean along California's coastline (where people
actually live and work, not just vacation to) all causes these
people to, when they come to the East Coast, feel claustrophobic by
what we consider to be vibrant lush greenery that masks out ugly
buildings, signs, cars, etc.

It's still difficult for me to comprehend, but they feel like the
trees are in the way of their view, even if that view is the back
of an Exxon.

--
Michael Malak
malak@claygency.com


Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Share what you know. Learn what you don't.

John Lansford <johnl@vnet.net> wrote in message >
> >> Of course, NCDOT also has a popular and successful Wildflower Program,
> >> where we plant native wildflowers in open areas along the interstates
> >> and other freeways. I've even heard some surrounding states (VA, SC
> >> and GA for example) copied us when they began their programs.

We (WV) do that.  If you plant 'em, how are they wild?

SP Cook

In article <7p8rme$t05$1@nnrp1.deja.com>, Michael Malak
<malak@claygency.com> wrote:

> Did you notice John Weeks' current area code?  612 -- Minnesota.
> This isn't the first time I've heard the same comment from someone
> out West. [The broad vistas you find along the highways of the Midwest
and West induce claustrophobia in motorists from those regions who drive on
East Coast highways.]
> 
> It's still difficult for me to comprehend, but they feel like the
> trees are in the way of their view, even if that view is the back
> of an Exxon.

ISTR that the stretch of I-55 in Mississippi that was completed ~1973 was
lined with evergreens mainly to block the view of the (fairly
poverty-stricken) farmland of the Delta.

And after experiencing a spasm of nostalgia while driving along PA 283 from
Harrisburg to Lancaster, which passes through farmland closely resembling
what you find in western Missouri or eastern Kansas, I can understand your
point.

However, I must also agree that the trees you find along East Coast
expressways are usually preferable to what you'd see otherwise.  Consider
the Connecticut Turnpike^W^WI-95 from New Haven west as a counterexample.

Unfortunately, in some states -- Pennsylvania (surprise!) is particularly
bad in this regard -- an endless parade of billboards over some of the
highways spoils the effect of the trees.  NJ isn't as bad in this regard.

-- 
Sandy Smith, University Relations / 215.898.1423 / smiths@pobox.upenn.edu
Associate Editor, _Pennsylvania Current_          current@pobox.upenn.edu
Penn Web Team -- Web Editor                       webmaster@isc.upenn.edu
I speak for myself here, not Penn         http://pobox.upenn.edu/~smiths/

"Some are born great, some achieve greatness, and some hire public
relations officers."
---------------------------------------------------------Daniel Boorstin--

This Wins the "Dump Question I Have Always Wanted To Ask" award!!!  ;->  How
*ARE* they wild if you plant them?
SP Cook wrote in message <7p8qj5$27bi$1@newssvr03-int.news.prodigy.com>...
>
>John Lansford <johnl@vnet.net> wrote in message >
>> >> Of course, NCDOT also has a popular and successful Wildflower Program,
>> >> where we plant native wildflowers in open areas along the interstates
>> >> and other freeways. I've even heard some surrounding states (VA, SC
>> >> and GA for example) copied us when they began their programs.
>
>We (WV) do that.  If you plant 'em, how are they wild?
>
>SP Cook
>
>
>
>

On Mon, 16 Aug 1999 06:52:25 -0400, "SP Cook" <PACEFSC@prodigy.net>
wrote:
>
>We (WV) do that.  If you plant 'em, how are they wild?

it's marketing guys? it sounds so appealing to some folks to 'think'
that right in the middle of all that heavy duty infrastrusture that
'wild' flowers could actually grow!!!!

On Mon, 16 Aug 1999 11:12:19 GMT, Michael Malak <malak@claygency.com>
wrote:


>Did you notice John Weeks' current area code?  612 -- Minnesota.
>This isn't the first time I've heard the same comment from someone
>out West.  The view of the horizon over open plains or wheat fields
>in the mid-west, the view of mesas over expansive desert, the view
>of soaring blue white-capped mountains in the distance, and the
>view of the ocean along California's coastline (where people
>actually live and work, not just vacation to) all causes these
>people to, when they come to the East Coast, feel claustrophobic by
>what we consider to be vibrant lush greenery that masks out ugly
>buildings, signs, cars, etc.
>
>It's still difficult for me to comprehend, but they feel like the
>trees are in the way of their view, even if that view is the back
>of an Exxon.

I've heard this too from folks who moved here from out west.
Last year.. we spent six weeks out West and when we returned we got 
a 'flavor' of what they meant. The East felt oppressive and closed in.
It did not help that the temp and humidity were also way up there.

On Mon, 16 Aug 1999 13:30:16 -0400, smiths@pobox.upenn.edu (Exile on
Market Street) wrote:


>Unfortunately, in some states -- Pennsylvania (surprise!) is particularly
>bad in this regard -- an endless parade of billboards over some of the
>highways spoils the effect of the trees.  NJ isn't as bad in this regard.

King George County in the Nortern Neck of Virginia recently outlawed
Billboards.. completely! They _did_ grandfather the old ones.

Paint all overpasses green.  :-)

--Brian Purcell
The Texas Highwayman
San Antonio, USA

E-mail:
  mailto:hiwayman@express-news.net
Web site:
  http://www.enconnect.net/greengrl
  Includes:
    -San Antonio Freeways/Texas Highways
    -Getting Around Germany