The City will hold a public meeting on June 28 (7PM at the Waban Library Center) about the DPW’s proposed removal of trees on Beacon Street and plans for replacing them. In the case of trees in Newton, “replacing” is not really replacing — unless you’re willing to wait one or two generations.
Newton’s ordinance for tree replacement — and the City’s equivalent policy for replacing trees removed from City land — calls for replacing the aggregate diameter of removed trees with the same aggregate diameter of new trees. Usually a tree is replaced with multiple smaller trees that add up to the same total diameter. This has a devastating effect on our tree canopy because diameter is an inadequate measure of area, much less volume. When a large, old tree is replaced by several thin, new ones with the same aggregate diameter, the aggregate trunk area of our trees is not held steady but decreases by 65% to 90%. And since the new trees are much shorter than the trees they replace, the volume of our tree canopy decreases even more drastically.
Yes, the replacement trees will grow. The ordinance and policies require that they survive for 18 months, and it can take a generation or more for canopy to be restored.
This article outlines a wide range of benefits of a city’s tree canopy, including stormwater control, reduced greenhouse gases, cooling through shading, higher property values, reduced noise, more community congregation, and better health.
Very interesting Bruce.
I wasn’t aware of this.
Thanks for sharing the info
Bruce -What is the cost of replacing a tree with one of an equal diameter?
I’m as unhappy as the next when I see a tree removed. However, it also saddens me to see a person with mobility issues using a busy street because the sidewalks on Beacon St. have been upended by the root system of the Norway maples planted in the 1950’s.
As Jane points out, these trees appear to be Norway Maples. I’m no arborist, but my quick research says that if they were planted in the 50’s, they are on borrowed time based on life expectancy and application. Would we rather leave the trees and let them die soon, or remove them, correctly address our sidewalks, and plant a few hundred new trees that multiple generations can enjoy?
Why do we have to choose between the existing trees and sidewalks? The city says that there are more than 20,000 street trees(most of which are Norway Maples), and the they have committed to repairing our crumbling sidewalks, which in many cases are crumbling because of the species and placement of trees. We could ask them to work around the trees, but we’ll just be setting ourselves up to have ongoing maintenance issues, and ultimately needing a new sidewalk much sooner.
I can’t imagine the cost to plant a 12-36 inch caliper tree, but I do know that it requires a crane, and the root ball would be anywhere from 8 to 24 feet wide. If we tried to plant this in an 18 inch berm between the sidewalk and the street, we would need to dig up the sidewalk, street, and abutting property in order to plant trees of this size.
Compromise and balance will be needed on this one. One such compromise might be to estimate what the annual repair cost of working around the existing trees would have been, allow the trees to be removed and replaced inch for inch, and take those avoided annual repair costs and put that into planting more trees. We get new sidewalks that don’t get damaged by the trees, we get an inch for inch replacement of the trees, and we get a financial commitment to planting more trees around the city.
Judicious removal of street trees is entrusted in the expertise of Tree Warden Marc Welch. Perhaps in some application, a public/private agreement siting street trees on the landowner property might work. When sidewalks are too narrow, when property owner is digging new service of water, sewer, gas, an opportunity to increase citywide canopy without full financial effect exists. Show us the money in the shade..
Is it possible to elevate the sidewalk above the roots? Or would it that not be practical or safe to have such a high step-off to street level? I’m not sure how much it would need to be elevated to get over these root systems, but would guess it is only a couple inches.
Steve Jobs once said, “The most amazing thing about trees is it doesn’t actually matter how rich you are: You can never buy a really old, beautiful tree.”. And he was right. You can’t transplant big trees.
That means that if you want to have a row of trees of the same type and same age, at some point you have to take the majority of them down and replant with saplings.
Luckily, urban forestry has advanced considerably since when most of Newton’s canopy was planted. That’s especially true when we can rebuild the tree pits. We can minimize sidewalk damage. Having a heterogenous mix of trees is another way to avoid replacing all trees at once (or losing them to disease or pests).
Newton is moving slower than other communities in reclaiming groundwater and runoff as part of complete streets. This is a great way to solve multiple problems at once, and “The Garden City” should be at the forefront of this effort.
@Jane and @Randy: I don’t know the cost of replacing such large trees with equally large ones, but I know the cost is prohibitive. My point was not about “trees vs. sidewalks” — or about the notion of replacing trees 1-for-1 by size — but about the net loss of valuable tree canopy when we follow a tree-replacement policy that provides for only 10% to 35% replacement of the trunk area of trees removed. (And of course the percentage of the volume of tree canopy replaced is much less than that.) More new trees will be needed to achieve anything close to canopy parity for the next generation (of people, not trees).
@Randy: I think that the set of 25 or so trees on Beacon that are subject to the public notice excludes all trees that, in the judgement of our Tree Warden, are expected to die soon.
We have a Norway in our yard and appreciate the shade it provides in the summer. However, the root system is so dense and close to the surface that little to nothing grows within about 8 feet of it. In addition, this is a highly invasive species and we’re constantly pulling up mini maples.
Unfortunately, these trees were planted at about the same time (the 1950’s) and are approaching their expected life span. Anyone old enough to remember how Dutch elm disease destroyed the tree population throughout New England in a very short period of time can understand why communities chose to plant the fast growing, hardy Norways. However, now we have to deal with the results of that decision.
Even if you did spend the money to relocate a tree half the size of these Norway maples, it would be nearly impossible place them on the curb!
You’d have to excavate the street, curb, sidewalk, private property for nearly 20 ft in diameter for the root ball and surrounding fertilizer & watering to encourage root establishment. It would need to be propped up with cables including some blocking the street, which would require diverting traffic for months. Plus there are utility concerns underground and the real kicker: the electric utility lines!
The long term opportunity here is to plant trees that grow into smaller specimens under the power lines, e.g. European Beech of 30-40 ft. which still grows into power lines but won’t have structural branches that high.
I get the issues, I get the tradeoffs -still it is a bit unfortunate that the beautiful, shaded tree lined streets of 100 years ago, with big trees on either side and a nearly enclosing canopy is no longer practical due to electric wires and sidewalks.
Most off what gets planted today won’t grow so big and many of the existing older bigger trees regularly get hacked up so that they don’t interfere with the electric lines.
In the words of our president – #sad
@jerry, it is sad. Completely agree. But the future starts today. We can have have bigger trees and wider, safer sidewalks, at least for future generations. But that means narrower roadways, rainwater management, and undergrounding.
These are big investments, but they are forever.
When I see beautiful old municipal buildings and grand public spaces, I think of the people who proudly thought about and invested in the future. Too often, we abdicate our role as stewards of the future of our public places and infrastructure, the things that benefit us all, rich or poor, resident or visitor.
We could do it right. We could do it well. We could do it with foresight, with eyes to those that come after us.
But that’s too grand, they’ll say, too big thinking. And it costs too much. A boondoggle.
#sad.
Even as a kid, I was moved by a sense of loss when the Elms blighted and disappeared from Lincoln Street. I’ve got a suggestion that may or may not have merit based on what has stuck in the back of my mind since I helped organize last fall’s Tree Conservancy planting program on Dickerman Road.
Why does this have to be an either or situation when it involves whether or not to plant trees on berms or in areas of private property adjacent to berms and the sidewalk? What I’m suggesting is a tree planting plan of action for each street that would consider a number of variables when recommending where to plant trees and what size and height they should be.
I’ve identified several homes with narrow berms on Dickerman Road and on adjacent streets where it would be almost impossible to plant trees without digging up the whole walkway and starting from scratch. There are other berms where we can’t plant tall or big trees because of overhead wires, but where it might still be possible to plant a large shade tree on an adjacent front lawn that would be close enough to provide shade during hot weather, but far enough away from a berm so as not to interfere with overhead wires or cause damage to the sidewalks.
My own home fronts on the south/sunny side of the street. We have no trees on the berm since the Norway Maples were removed 5 years ago. The City wouldn’t plant trees last fall because there is a gas leak that could kill a newly planted tree, but it’s not big enough for National Grid to put on its priority list for fixing.
The summer sun beats down merciless on our house and front lawn. We have several low hanging overhead wires, so the Tree Conservancy wouldn’t approve a tall tree and a smaller, shorter tree (think pear) wouldn’t shield our property from the summer sun. The solution would seem to be to plant two potentially taller trees on both sides of our lawn, parallel to the two sides of our berm area, far enough away not to interfere with the wires, but close enough to provide much needed shade to our yard and sidewalk. The house across the street has no overhead wires and is located away from the sun. Trees were planted in the berm last fall and seem to be doing well. I’d like to plant tall trees on our lawn as a countermeasure. I’d like the City and the Tree Conservancy’s involved before I do anything. It’s not the cost of doing it myself that’s the problem. The problem would be to make certain that we have enough different kinds of tall and short trees to provide the diversity that’s needed to ward off various blights that seem to occur when too many trees of the same species are planted together.
One size or location doesn’t fit all. Let’s consider some alternatives based on a street by street assessment and the willingness of homeowners to accept City trees on their front lawn.
The Beacon St. sidewalks need to be passable and have curb cuts for people with mobility issues. I don’t know what the solution is, but it sure can’t be having people in wheelchairs navigate down the a busy street because the sidewalks are unpassable. What’s the point of putting in curb cuts in the sidewalks if people who need them can’t use them?
No one is talking about cutting down every Norway in the city though they’re likely to reach their expected life span in the next few years. I often walk on side streets and find it to be perfectly safe, but busy streets such as Beacon need passable sidewalks. This is a piece of making Newton accessible to everyone.
Bob – I remember the rampage of Dutch elm disease when I was a child and it was awful. If anyone wants to see what many New England communities looked like before the elms dies, visit Castine, Maine. Over 300 elm trees line the streets, parks, etc. Beautiful.
@Jane. I’ve seen the elms in Castine, Maine and they are true gems. I’m almost certain they are spinoffs from the Princeton, New Jersey elms. This was a strain that somehow withstood the blight. Can you imagine what Lincoln Street would look like if the Princeton variety had been planted there in the 30’s or even 40’s. And the lifespan of elms and oaks are far longer than Norway Maples. The Norways in front of our house were planted and then died in the time we have been here. The oaks in our back yard were mature when we got here and they are still going strong.
Bruce, thank you for the post. Your observations about diameter, cross section and volume were exactly the reaction I had, how may years ago I’d have to check (15?) when I went to a Programs & Services Committee meeting for something else — as I recall it was spousal benefits for gay couples which I supported, but didn’t want extended to unmarried straight couples who after all, could get married. The original Tree Preservation Ordinance was being discussed, and I thought, diameter, that’s a bit wussy, and wrote a letter making the point that tree benefits were really two- and three-dimensional. That led to my getting involved in the Urban Tree Commission, because before that I had not realized how many trees were being lost, and I thought ‘trees, that’s a manageable, discrete thing I could help with.’ Hah!
People are correct, there’s no way to physically get the roots of anything much bigger than 2″ caliper trees in our two- or three-foot-wide berms. The new trees on Adams Street will be 3″ caliper balled & burlapped, but they will be creating new tree wells for them. Large trees can be moved, at great expense, but you need to keep as many roots as possible, and have a large area to move them to. A 10-story sequoia was just moved in Boise. I hope it survives! http://www.idahostatesman.com/news/local/article158181954.html
It’s true we have about 20,000 street trees — there will be a new count done this summer. However, we once had over 40,000, and it has been declining every year. Under current planting standards (staying 5ft from underground utilities, 10ft from hydrants, 15ft from streetlights, 8ft from other utility poles, etc.) a more realistic target is probably 30,000 to 35,000, allowing for people who have plantable spots but don’t want trees. Over 1,000 trees were removed in FY17, and that pace is expected to continue for the next couple of years. The Norway maples are depleting rather quickly on their own!
Meanwhile, the city and Newton Tree Conservancy combined can plant about 600 trees per year, with our respective number of bodies.
As of last fall, the last time I asked, the city’s cost to buy, plant and water a 1.5″ caliper tree was $250-275. That’s doing it in-house. It would cost more for a contractor to do. There is a backlog of trees owed for the Zervas and Angier tree removals, as well as other DPW projects like Auburndale Square (linden and ash removed), and some sidewalk projects like on Aspen Ave. To the extent that Forestry’s capacity to plant is limited, any replacements for Beacon and elsewhere delay plantings that would otherwise occur as part to the urban forest restoration plan for streets most in need of trees.
Also, while builders or homeowners who get permission to remove a street tree pay the full cost of the removal and replacement trees, and that’s real plus money to the city, the school projects only pay for the tree and watering, and DPW only pays for buying the tree (about $100). And in the latter two cases, it’s all city money, just taken from one account and put into another account.
And on Adams Street, as I noted in that post, DPW was not even replacing all the diameter inches removed. And that was before they requested to remove the remaining ten trees on that stretch. (If you want to see what want to what starting from scratch looks like, walk down that stretch.)
I’m sure Waban will end up with nicer trees than the rest of the villages… Ha, just kidding… Is it Friday yet?
After many dollars are spent replacing the sidewalk, it will still be unusable in the winter because nobody will clear off the snow and ice.
Just for kicks, here is how Lincoln Street in Newton Highlands looked about 100 years ago:
http://www.newtonma.gov/images/area_councils/newton_highlands/lincoln_street.jpg
Julia,
In what year did Newton have 40000 trees?
This this is irrelevent unless we know the population and land used for commercial use.
If one were to overlay a graph of trees vs population or trees vs land use, Newton only had half of today’s population back in 1920
http://worldpopulationreview.com/us-cities/newton-ma-population/
If peak trees was in 1920, The Newton has managed its tree population quite well. Unless of course you want to close the door to new residents for the sake of the trees?
At Julia,
So we are losing 1000 trees a year.
And we are planting 600 trees annually. That’s an annual loss of 400!
We have 310 miles of city streets.
That works out to about 2 trees per mile being replaced and that’s only on one side of the street.
And we call this the garden city ?
@Bugek, it was in the 1970s. And the number refers to just street trees, not trees on private land that would be cut when houses were built. For example, when Oak Hill Park was developed in the ’50s, that would have increased the number of street trees, since a lot of streets were created and planted (as well as the paths, which still have some of their lindens from that era).
What if the berm was wider than 18″? I know of two places where it is: Chestnut St between Amherst and Oliver?? and also on Wyman St (on both sides at some places).
What if the sidewalk could be moved one foot onto owners’ property? Every time a fence is replaced, move the lot line over? It would take a while but maybe by the time the sidewalks need to be replaced, they could all shift over.
Just trying to think outside the box!!
Or else, encourage homeowners to plant trees in their front yard, as Bob mentioned, which is what Wellesley is doing; I believe the town provides the trees and maybe the planting (not sure).
@Jane: Lake Ave was fully reconstructed 2 years ago: new water main, new gas lines, new curbing and new sidewalks. No trees were removed (or killed!) and our sidewalks are fully accessible to all. The street is full of people of all abilities who enjoy walking, running & biking under the mature tree canopy.
Sidewalks can be made ADA compliant without clear-cutting.
isabelle
“What if the sidewalk could be moved one foot onto owners’ property?”
I would take this trade if Newton took over the snow plowing responsibility infront on my house….
If we had equal enthusiasm and expended at least equal resources for tree replacement as we did for removal, I’d feel better about the future of the city. But that is clearly not the case. Add to that the clear cutting and McMansioning of many lots and the net result is a hot sea of asphalt. Saw this happen to my town on Long Island in the 80s….it sucks.
If the city can’t figure out how to plant real trees in the berms, why not pay homeowners to plant big canopy trees in their front yards relatively close to the sidewalks?
@Denis. I made the same suggestion a while back in this post. I do think residents should be encouraged to plant trees where placing them on a berm isn’t practical but I’m in a bit of a Catch 22 with this. I helped organize last fall’s tree planting by the Tree Conservancy on Dickerman Road, but the Conservancy was unable to put trees on our berm because they detected a small gas leak. Gas leaks do kill trees so that was clearly understandable. The Catch 22 is that the leak is so small that it is way, way down on National Grid’s priority list. They tell me they may never get to it unless the leak gets worse which they don’t suspect it will. I’m planning to plant something on my property this fall that will, hopefully, be close enough to the sidewalk to eventually provide some summer summer shade. Unfortunately, that probably won’t materialize until way after they shovel me into the grave.
@Bob, I see that a few folks suggested the ‘on property’ approach, i didn’t read through all the posts prior. Seems like something that solves a bunch of problems with our berm limitiations. Not sure of the legality/details about keeping the trees there though. But the initial goal should be getting as many good trees in as quickly as possible…..
Here’s an update on the Beacon Street tree situation. The many letters that apparently were sent, and the comments at the June 28 public meeting at the Waban Library clearly had an impact. (Globe coverage of meeting here: https://www.bostonglobe.com/metro/regionals/west/2017/07/06/tree-lined-streets-straight-sidewalks-newton-must-choose/T3qpxrR3HRKDnWmgTJE5RM/story.html and audio here:
http://yourlisten.com/NewtonTrees/beacon-street-tree-meeting-june-28-2017# with the usual caveat about yourlisten — close all the spammy popups.)
The number of trees DPW is now requesting to remove, of the 29 previously requested, is now down to three! The rest will be “ramped over” with asphalt. And one of those three, a 22″ Norway maple at 1275 Beacon Street, was marginal enough due to utility pruning and a dead/dying limb that I wouldn’t object anyway. That’s the good news.
Unfortunately, the other two are the two London plane trees that I thought were among the trees most worth keeping. Rather than sidewalk issues, their offense is that their trunks lean toward the street, causing “vertical clearance issues.” (This might be said of many trees around the city.) One is a 15″ London plane at 1265 Beacon (my notes say “Lean toward street. Existing sidewalk in good shape – all concrete, 1/2″ lift on newer section by tree. Tree canopy mostly healthy.”) The other is a 30″ London plane at 1392 Beacon; my notes are “Nice! Full canopy. Leans toward street. Asphalt around tree. New concrete either side.”
You can read Jim McGonagle’s letter here: http://newton.business/village14/wp-content/uploads/sites/2/2017/04/Beacon-Street-Construction_072417-McGonagle-letter.pdf
These trees will remain posted until July 27, when DPW will appeal to the mayor to remove them. Separately, there is a new request by the Public Buildings Department to remove an 18″ maple on the Beacon Street side of 7 Beethoven Ave., which is in the way of a relocated crosswalk for the Zervas School. Deadline for objections to that removal is 8am August 3.