Soapbox Monday: Tell us what you think about highway trees

In this morning's newspaper, I wrote a story about the conflict over trees along highways.

Highway engineers and agencies look at them as safety hazards that must be removed.

That view has always rankled those who love trees, but perhaps never more so than now, when the public has an increased awareness not just of the beauty of trees, but of all the things they do for us.

Chiefly among them, they remove carbon dioxide from the air, which we now need more than ever in the face of mounting concern over climate change.

The case illustrated in the story was the trees being cut along the Pennsylvania Turnpike near the Morgantown Exit. The state's district forester Joe Frassetta, felt the turnpike commission was being too aggressive, that not all the trees had to come out.

One reader question I'm getting this morning is about what happens to the cut trees. Who gets the money?

The commission says that the contractor gets the trees. Any money realized from their sale would have been factored into the bid the contractor made to get the job.

In the end, the question probably comes down to risk: How much risk should we accept along the highways? Given that the trees are OFF the highways, the most likely scenario for a driver hitting one is that the driver is inattentive, exceeding the speed limit, impaired by drugs or alcohol, fatigued, using a cell phone or has fallen asleep.  Then again, a driver might swerve to miss an animal or another vehicle. A tire might blow.

So how much risk should we assume to lessen the number of trees that need to be removed? Or, conversely, how many trees should be removed to lessen the risks of driving on high-speed highways?

Please share your thoughts by commenting below or emailing me, sbauers@phillynews.com, or on Twitter: @sbauers.