We have some pretty ugly scenery along the the urban and suburban portions of our interstates. There are so many miles where it's just brown grass and a chain link fence. It would look much better with trees or some other vegetation. Do we have some regulation or rule in Oklahoma that prevents us from having trees planted at a safe distance from the roadway?

In particular, why aren't all of the clover interchanges covered with trees? Some are (like in Moore), but most aren't. It just seems like an easy way to beautify, clean the environment, and lower maintenance costs (e.g., mowing)

The city I grew up in participates in some sort of beautification program where throughout the spring they won't mow along the rights of way, rather they have an abundance of wildflowers that come back every spring and it really is beautiful. You know, I've always noticed since moving here all the right of way the state purchases for interchanges, etc., IMO it's way way too much leaving a ton of space to mow and maintain.

I240 is an area that could really use some beautification. They don't even mow most of the time.

I240 is an area that could really use some beautification. They don't even mow most of the time.

ODOT has corridor beautification coming up on I-240 in the 8 year plan. I believe it is scheduled for 2018 or so.

ODOT has corridor beautification coming up on I-240 in the 8 year plan. I believe it is scheduled for 2018 or so.

I think I remember that now that you say that. I just wish in the mean time they'd at least mow and try to keep up with the area. All it does is push those of us that already live South of that area to go to Moore instead, even though everything on 240 is closer.

The city I grew up in participates in some sort of beautification program where throughout the spring they won't mow along the rights of way, rather they have an abundance of wildflowers that come back every spring and it really is beautiful. You know, I've always noticed since moving here all the right of way the state purchases for interchanges, etc., IMO it's way way too much leaving a ton of space to mow and maintain.

Where did you grow up?

We have some pretty ugly scenery along the the urban and suburban portions of our interstates. There are so many miles where it's just brown grass and a chain link fence. It would look much better with trees or some other vegetation. Do we have some regulation or rule in Oklahoma that prevents us from having trees planted at a safe distance from the roadway?

In particular, why aren't all of the clover interchanges covered with trees? Some are (like in Moore), but most aren't. It just seems like an easy way to beautify, clean the environment, and lower maintenance costs (e.g., mowing)

I've often wondered the same thing.

Why not plant trees in the depressed areas of land around/in between the interchanges in such a way that (some) water from the roadway could be diverted to the trees (thus increasing their odds of survivial)? I have no idea what ODOT's rules/regulations are regarding distance between trees and roadways, but I bet that some such regulation exists.

In terms of lowering maintenance costs, I've also wondered why some of the medians along our freeways are so large (I particularly think about this driving I-35 South when going to DFW). It seems to me to be a waste of time/money in terms of maintaining those tracts of land. Maybe safety is the primary reason (i.e. minimizing the chance of drivers crossing over into oncoming traffic?

I was just in Kansas City. They have nothing on us. The only attempt at making highways look better were some plantings and metal cut-out sculptures near the ball stadiums. All of those were so grown over you could barely tell they were there.

Where did you grow up?

Early years in Midland then my teen years in North Dallas. Richardson is the area in which I'm referring. Usually they don't start mowing until the mid-summer when the temps are so hot the flowers scorch then just look like a tall mess.

I think most of our freeways need beautification, but I think I-35 between I-40 to around Shields Blvd in Moore really needs it.

Early years in Midland then my teen years in North Dallas. Richardson is the area in which I'm referring. Usually they don't start mowing until the mid-summer when the temps are so hot the flowers scorch then just look like a tall mess.

That makes a lot of sense. Let it grow and then mow once when it starts to get insanely hot.

I think I remember that now that you say that. I just wish in the mean time they'd at least mow and try to keep up with the area. All it does is push those of us that already live South of that area to go to Moore instead, even though everything on 240 is closer.

I agree that it is not the most attractive aesthetic, but why exactly does overgrown grass "push" you to go to Moore? That seems like a very arbitrary decision. My friends and family that live within a mile or so south of the area certainly don't go to that extreme, unless they plan on visiting the many retailers that simply don't exist on 240.

Just my .02 cents. Not that I disagree with the point being made about the lack of beautification, because it is definitely something I look forward to as well. It just doesn't affect my shopping and commuting patterns.

That makes a lot of sense. Let it grow and then mow once when it starts to get insanely hot.

Yes, and it's really pretty all spring and into the summer. Click the link below and the City of Richardson has a picture of one of the parks with wildflowers. When you look at it, imagine all medians and rights of way looking like it. It really is pretty. Then once they mow it, they keep it mowed until the following spring when the flowers start coming back up.

http://www.cor.net/index.aspx?page=1660

Years ago, Okc and Odot both did experimental wild flower plots around town. I don't know what ever happened to those programs, but they were pretty when in bloom.

"Highway Beautification" is kind of an oxymoron around here.