www.safety.fhwa.dot.gov

NOTEWORTHY PRACTICES

Roadside Tree and Utility Pole Management
ROADSIDE TREE AND UTILITY POLE MANAGEMENT

NOTEWORTHY PRACTICES 

2

2

Notice

This document is disseminated under the sponsorship of the U.S. Department 

of Transportation in the interest of information exchange. The U.S. Government 

assumes no liability for the use of the information contained in this document. 

The U.S. Government does not endorse products or manufacturers. Trademarks 

or manufacturers’ names appear in this report only because they are considered 

essential to the objective of the document.

Quality Assurance Statement

The Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) provides high-quality information 

to serve Government, industry, and the public in a manner that promotes public 

understanding. Standards and policies are used to ensure and maximize the 

quality, objectivity, utility, and integrity of its information. FHWA periodically 

reviews quality issues and adjusts its programs and processes to ensure 

continuous quality improvement.

Cover photo sources: left photo-Fotolia, top right photo-Wellesley, Massachusetts Police Department, bottom right photo-Thinkstock, 
 ROADSIDE TREE AND UTILITY POLE MANAGEMENT

NOTEWORTHY PRACTICES 

3

Form DOT F 1700.7 (8-72)

1. Report No. 

FHWA-SA-16-043

2. Government Accession No. 3. Recipient’s Catalog No.

4. Title and Subtitle 

Noteworthy Practices: Roadside Tree and 

Utility Pole Management

5. Report Date

September 2016

6. Performing Organizations Code

 

7. Authors

 Joseph G. Jones, P.E.

8. Performing Organization Report No.

9. Performing Organization Name and Address

Leidos

111251 Roger Bacon Drive

Reston, VA 20190 

10. Work Unit No. (TRAIS)

11. Contract or Grant No.

DTFH61-10-D-00024

 Task Order No. T-12-003

12. Sponsoring Agency Name and Address

Federal Highway Administration

U.S. Department of Transportation

1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE

Washington, DC 20590

13. Type of Report and Period 

Covered

Noteworthy Practices Guide

 July 2015 to September il 2016

14. Sponsoring Agency Code

HSA

15. Supplementary Notes

Joseph Cheung (joseph.cheung@dot.gov), Office of Safety (http://safety.fhwa.dot. gov/), served 

as the Technical Manager for the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA). The following FHWA staff 

members contributed as technical working group members, reviewers and/or provided input or 

feedback to the project at various stages: Frank Julian, Richard Albin, and Nicholas Artimovich. 

Additionally, many individual safety partners representing States and public private partnerships 

made significant contributions to this project: special thanks to Timothy Barnett (Alabama 

DOT); Jennene Ring, Ahmer Nizam, and John Milton (Washington State DOT); Jason Herschock 

(Pennsylvania DOT); Brian Hurst, and Brandon Darks (Tennessee DOT); Phil Tenhulzen (Nebraska DOR); 

Tracie Leix, Steve Shaughnessy, and Lynette Firman (Michigan DOT); Brian Hovanec, Mark Thomas, 

and Heath Patterson (Mississippi DOT); James Marino (Arizona DOT); Stephen Tartre (Main Turnpike 

Authority); and Charles Muller (Wyoming DOT).

16. Abstract

Crashes involving roadside trees and utility poles are the most prevalent among fatal, run-off-road, 

fixed object crashes. Nevertheless, these two obstacles remain among the least-treated on the 

roadside. As such, comprehensive research is both needed and frequently proposed in this area. 

This report is intended to provide agencies with examples of successful—immediately deployable—

tree and pole practices until such time as this research can be performed. These practices range 

from complex, multi-million dollar contract solutions to in-house efforts that can be accomplished 

with minimal resources, and have been drawn from every region of the United States as well as from 

previous research.

17. Key Words

Fixed object, Roadside, Roadway Departure, Severity, Tree, 

Utility pole

18. Distribution Statement 

 No restrictions

19. Security Classif. (of this report) 

Unclassified

20. Security Classif. (of this 

page) Unclassified

21. No of Pages

 32

22. Price 

 N/A

Form DOT F 1700.7 (8-72) Reproduction of completed page authorized.

Technical Report Documentation Page

 ROADSIDE TREE AND UTILITY POLE MANAGEMENT

NOTEWORTHY PRACTICES 

5

Table of Contents

1. INTRODUCTION...........................................................................................................7

1.1 Purpose.......................................................................................................................................7

1.2 Methodology..............................................................................................................................8

1.3 Organization.............................................................................................................................10

2. REACTIVE MANAGEMENT..........................................................................................11

2.1 Keep the Vehicle on the Roadway..........................................................................................11

2.1.1 Alabama: Applying Specific Countermeasures Corresponding to Individual Crash Types..............11

2.1.2 Washington: Targeting Locations through Network Analysis................................................................12

2.1.3 Pennsylvania: Increasing Safety in Culturally Sensitive Areas..............................................................13

2.1.4 Tennessee: Managing Roadsides with Environmental Constraints.....................................................14

2.2 Allow the Vehicle to Regain the Roadway..............................................................................14

2.2.1 Nebraska: Re-establishing Clear Zones during Resurfacing, Restoration, and Rehabilitation (3R) 

as well as Resurfacing, Restoration, Rehabilitation and Reconstruction (4R).............................................15

2.2.2 Michigan: Clearing through Informed Consent...................................................................................15

2.2.3 Mississippi and Arizona: Establishing and Maintaining Clear Zones..................................................16

2.3 Reduce the Severity of Crashes..............................................................................................17

2.3.1 New Jersey: Using Poles That Absorb Crash Energy..............................................................................17

2.4 Roadside Tree Management Practices for Reasons Other than Safety................................18

2.4.1 Alabama: Preventing Weather-related Tree Hazards............................................................................18

2.4.2 Maine Turnpike Authority: Increasing Natural Snow-melt.....................................................................19

2.4.3 Wyoming: Removing Dead or Diseased Trees To Mitigate Fall Hazards..............................................21

3. PROACTIVE MANAGEMENT.......................................................................................23

4. URBAN TREE AND UTILITY POLE RECOMMENDED PRACTICES....................................25

4.1 Lateral Offset............................................................................................................................25

4.2 Visibility......................................................................................................................................25

4.3 Weather....................................................................................................................................25

4.4 Maintenance............................................................................................................................26

4.5 Worker Safety............................................................................................................................26

5. CONCLUSION...........................................................................................................27

6. RECOMMENDED READING........................................................................................29

6.1 Trees..........................................................................................................................................29

6.2 Utility Pole .................................................................................................................................29
ROADSIDE TREE AND UTILITY POLE MANAGEMENT

NOTEWORTHY PRACTICES 

6

List of Figures

Figure 1. Infographic. Relationship of roadside tree and utility pole crashes to all fatal 

crashes..................................................................................................................................7

Figure 2. Photo. Utility poles and trees in close proximity to the roadway..........................8

Figure 3. Map. Distribution of states with noteworthy roadside tree and utility pole 

management practices.......................................................................................................9

Figure 4. Photo. Sycamore Allée near Halifax, PA..............................................................13

Figure 5. Photo. Yellow prismatic obstacle delineation around a roadside pole 

in Tennessee........................................................................................................................14

Figure 6. Photo. Composite utility pole undergoing strength testing...............................17

Figure 7. Photo. Before and after tree clearing along the Maine Turnpike.......................19

List of Tables

Table 1. NDOR Fixed Object Clearance Widths................................................................15

Table 2. Comparison of composite pole to wooden pole................................................18
 ROADSIDE TREE AND UTILITY POLE MANAGEMENT

NOTEWORTHY PRACTICES 

7

Tree or 

Pole

63%

FATAL 

CRASHES

56% 40%

Roadway 

Departure

Fixed 

Object 

Collision

Figure 1. Infographic. Relationship of roadside tree and utility pole 

crashes to all fatal crashes. 

1. INTRODUCTION

Roadway departures account for the 

majority of all fatal crashes occurring in 

the United States. In fact, 56 percent1 of 

fatal crashes fit the roadway departure 

definition: a crash which occurs after a 

vehicle crosses an edge line or a center 

line, or otherwise leaves the traveled 

way.2 Of this data set, 40 percent 

involved a collision with a fixed object.3

Roadside trees and utility poles comprise 63 percent of the fixed objects struck, making them the 

most harmful event in 14 percent of all fatal crashes.4

Given this overrepresentation, it is reasonable to suggest that managing roadside trees and 

utility poles would be common strategies to reduce fatal crashes; however most transportation 

agencies have indicated that they find it challenging to mitigate these obstacles.5 A few State 

departments of transportation (DOT) apply some level of roadside management in this area 

and their practices are examined here in greater detail. 

1.1 Purpose 

Mitigating tree and utility pole-related crashes could significantly support States’ efforts to reduce 

fatal crashes; however, these two roadside features are arguably the most elusive of all fixed 

objects to control for the following reasons: 

• Trees contribute to roadway aesthetics and their removal sometimes evokes deep 

sentimental and environmental concerns among agencies and stakeholders.6

• Utilities are usually privately held business enterprises that are not bound by State DOT 

policies. If they have rights regarding poles in public rights-of-way, they are allowed to 

ignore or reject requests for removal. 

Coupled with reduced maintenance and operations budgets and personnel within the 

DOTs, these reasons lead to tree removal and utility pole relocation becoming lower roadside 

management priorities. 

1 Federal Highway Administration, Office of Safety, “Roadway Departure Safety,” 2010-2013 last modified September 1, 2015. 

Available at: http://safety.fhwa.dot.gov/roadway_dept/.

2 Federal Highway Administration, FHWA Roadway Departure (RwD) Strategic Plan, (Washington, DC: March 2013), p.3.

3 Insurance Institute for Highway Safety Highway Loss Data Institute, “Roadway and Environment: Collisions with Fixed Objects and 

Animals,” last modified, 2016. Available at: http://www.iihs.org/iihs/topics/t/roadway-and-environment/fatalityfacts/fixed-objectcrashes.

4 Ibid.

5 Unpublished results from a Roadway Departure Focus States Initiative survey conducted under FHWA contract DTFH61-10-D-00024, 

Task Order 12-003 in October 2014.

6 Neuman, T., et al, NCHRP Report 500: Guidance for Implementation of the AASHTO Strategic Highway Safety Plan, Volume 3: A 

Guide for Addressing Collisions with Trees in Hazardous Locations, Washington DC: Transportation Research Board of the National 

Academies, 2003, pp.I-3, I-4.
ROADSIDE TREE AND UTILITY POLE MANAGEMENT

NOTEWORTHY PRACTICES 

8

A comprehensive investigation of roadside tree and utility pole management has consistently 

rated among the highest priorities of experts in roadside safety design. Problem statements 

pertaining to this subject matter, however, generally receive lower funding priority when presented 

to the transportation community at large, resulting in a shortage of available resources on the 

topic. This report is intended to provide agencies with examples of successful management 

practices until additional research is conducted. These practices range from complex, multimillion dollar contract solutions to in-house efforts that can be accomplished with minimal 

resources, and have been drawn from every region of the United States as well as from previous 

research. 

It should be noted that measures taken to reduce or eliminate tree and utility pole-related 

crashes will vary based on many factors, including location (e.g., urban versus rural), proximity to 

traffic, appropriateness of certain countermeasures, and environmental and historical factors.

1.2 Methodology

The practices described within this report are not all-inclusive; they are merely a snapshot of 

multiple methods gleaned from a cross-section of the industry. In a comprehensive roadway 

departure survey conducted by FHWA in 2014, States indicated their levels of engagement 

with all aspects of roadway departure, including crashes into trees, utility poles, and other fixed 

objects. Practices cited in this report were identified from the survey responses and through a 

limited literature review. 

Figure 2. Photo. Utility poles and trees in close proximity to the roadway. 

Source: Dan Woog, www.danwoog06880.com. Source: Joseph Jones
 ROADSIDE TREE AND UTILITY POLE MANAGEMENT

NOTEWORTHY PRACTICES 

9

Twenty-eight States 

and the District of 

Columbia responded 

to the survey. As a 

first pass, researchers 

selected the 15 States 

that responded to 

the tree and utility 

pole questions. They 

prioritized the States 

on this shortlist by 

applying a basic 

points system to the 

survey answers. 

Although the survey 

results were useful to 

help identify States 

addressing these 

issues, the survey itself was somewhat limiting. Although most questions had an “other” option 

and offered the opportunity to explain, few States provided additional information. For the most 

part, respondents seemed constrained by the multiple choice format. However, even with the 

limitations of the survey, it was reasonable to assume that the States most responsive with tree 

and utility pole countermeasures would be the most likely to yield best practices. 

To identify States with notable tree and utility pole management practices in addition to those 

participating in the survey, researchers conducted a limited literature review. This effort added an 

additional State to the draft list based upon a tree management program not disclosed within 

the survey.

Investigators were concerned, however, about the possibility of a best practice lying within a 

State that did not respond to the survey. For instance, neither a single State in New England nor 

a State in the Northern Mountain region answered a tree or utility pole question in the survey. 

Since these two regions are among the most densely forested in the country, it seemed likely 

that some best practice countermeasures would be present there. Through previous professional 

experience with, and additional literature search for this region, the team discovered the potential 

for additional best practices from a public-private partnership (P3) and an additional State.

Researchers conducted telephone interviews with officials in most of the states chosen from 

the survey, to learn about their tree and utility pole management practices in greater depth. 

One State submitted a written response to investigators and the team researched a few other 

resources independently.

WASHINGTON

OREGON

IDAHO

NEVADA

CALIFORNIA

UTAH

COLORADO

ARIZONA

NEW MEXICO

TEXAS

ALASKA

HAWAII

KANSAS

NEBRASKA

OKLAHOMA

MISSOURI

ARKANSAS

LOUISIANA

MISSISSIPPI

ALABAMA

GEORGIA

TENNESSEE

KENTUCKY

VIRGINIA

PENNSYLVANIA NEW JERSEY

CONNECTICUT

NEW YORK

VERMONT

MAINE

MASSACHUSETTS

NEW HAMPSHIRE

RHODE ISLAND

DELAWARE

WASHINGTON, D.C.

MARYLAND

OHIO

WEST

 VIRGINIA

INDIANIA

ILLINOIS

IOWA

WISCONSIN

MINNESOTA NORTH 

DAKOTA

SOUTH 

DAKOTA

MICHIGAN

NORTH CAROLINA

SOUTH 

CAROLINA

FLORIDA

MONTANA

WYOMING

Figure 3. Map. Distribution of states with noteworthy roadside tree 

and utility pole management practices.
ROADSIDE TREE AND UTILITY POLE MANAGEMENT

NOTEWORTHY PRACTICES 

10

1.3 Organization

There is a hierarchy of roadside safety countermeasures presented by the American Association 

of State Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO) “Roadside Design Guide” and generally 

accepted across the industry.7

1. Remove the obstacle.

2. Redesign the obstacle so it can be safely traversed.

3. Relocate the obstacle to a point where it is less likely to be struck.

4. Reduce impact severity by using an appropriate breakaway device.

5. Shield the obstacle with a longitudinal traffic barrier designed for redirection or use a crash 

cushion.

6. Delineate the obstacle if the previous alternatives are not appropriate.

For the purpose of this report, however, there are some significant differences that must be noted: 

• Neither trees nor utility poles are thought to be traversable in any form. 

• Mature trees cannot reasonably be relocated. 

Therefore, the AASHTO hierarchy will be distilled down to the following categories of 

countermeasures, in line with the FHWA Roadway Departure Strategic Plan.8

• Keep the vehicle on the roadway. A driver who is able to maintain a vehicle’s position in 

the travel lane greatly reduces the probability of a crash occurring. As such, the first 

priority of roadway departure safety is to keep the vehicle on the roadway. The 

countermeasures generally deployed to accomplish this include high friction surface 

treatments (HFST), enhanced signing, rumble strips, and object delineation.

• Allow the vehicle to recover and regain the roadway. If a vehicle is unable to maintain 

its travel lane and departs the roadway, the second priority is to allow it a safe 

opportunity to return. Agencies generally accomplish this by providing a forgiving 

roadside that is free of fixed objects and has shoulders and recoverable slopes. The 

Safety EdgeSM—a compacted beveled pavement edge treatment—can also assist drivers 

of errant vehicles in regaining the pavement without overcorrecting.9

• Reduce the severity of the crash. If a vehicle can neither remain on nor regain the 

roadway, the focus of roadside safety shifts to reducing the severity of any crashes that 

may occur. Energy-absorbing and breakaway devices make up the primary 

countermeasures that agencies use to reduce crash severity. 

Additionally, there are proactive and reactive measures that practitioners can implement to 

prevent or reduce tree and utility pole-crashes. Practices aligning with the three countermeasure 

categories above are presented as reactive in Chapter 2, as they are implemented or applied 

only after agencies have experienced crashes. Chapter 4 captures proactive practices that 

influence designs and mitigate safety concerns before they arise.

7 American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO), Roadside Design Guide, 4th Edition, Washington, 

DC: AASHTO, 2011, pp.1-4.

8 Federal Highway Administration, FHWA Roadway Departure (RwD) Strategic Plan, (Washington, DC: March 2013), p.2.

9 FHWA, Center for Accelerating Innovation-Every Day Counts, “Safety EdgeSM,” last modified: October 21, 2015. Available at: http://

www.fhwa.dot.gov/innovation/everydaycounts/edc-1/safetyedge.cfm.
 ROADSIDE TREE AND UTILITY POLE MANAGEMENT

NOTEWORTHY PRACTICES 

11

2. REACTIVE MANAGEMENT

In many instances, roadway safety may not have been expressly considered as trees and 

utility poles were located in close proximity to high-speed rural and suburban highways. Other 

trees and poles near the roadway may have been grandfathered in as early trails were paved 

and only enough right-of-way to encompass the steepest slope limits was acquired. Other 

routes—even those built with appropriate clear zones—have become overgrown with trees and 

undergrowth due to either unintentional or deliberate decreases in maintenance activities. 

Since most practitioners operate systems that are decades old, they can only manage the 

trees and poles as they currently exist. Most States have policies and standards that prohibit 

utility poles and trees of significant diameter from being placed near highways during future 

construction, but reactive management is the only way to deal with those already in place.

This chapter will focus on established roadways, illustrating practices appropriate for keeping 

vehicles on the roadway, allowing vehicles to regain the roadway, and reducing crash severity. 

2.1 Keep the Vehicle on the Roadway

The highest priority, and possibly the easiest strategy to address, is keeping vehicles from 

departing the roadway, as exemplified by the following four practices.

2.1.1	 Alabama: Applying Specific Countermeasures Corresponding to

Individual Crash Types10

Alabama’s roadside tree and utility pole management program is a direct product of FHWA’s 

Roadway Departure Focus States Initiative. This program identifies a State’s most critical crash 

types and identifies countermeasures that can be deployed to decrease fatalities and serious 

injuries. In response to FHWA’s analysis, the Alabama Department of Transportation (ALDOT) 

developed a program and funding stream to address over 400 areas in which roadside fixed 

object crashes were overrepresented. 

ALDOT established an open-ended program to focus on both curve and tree/pole problem 

areas. They retained two design consultants to more closely analyze each problem area and 

tailor a specific solution to alleviate the concern. This practical approach uses the data and 

context for each particular area to devise a solution rather than deploying a single treatment 

(e.g., clearing) statewide. 

While removal of trees is not ruled out—particularly those very close to the traveled way—the 

solutions are expected to focus on keeping drivers on the roadway, effectively preventing 

the trees and utility poles from being reached. This could be accomplished by installing HFST, 

enhanced signing or edge line rumble strips. Widening and/or paving shoulders may also be 

considered. 

10 Telephone Interview conducted with T. Barnett of the Alabama Department of Transportation, Office of Safety Operations, 

September 25, 2015.
ROADSIDE TREE AND UTILITY POLE MANAGEMENT

NOTEWORTHY PRACTICES 

12

The ALDOT program has the potential to realize all the benefits of a narrowly focused safety 

solution while still achieving the widespread advantage of a systemic deployment. Since tree 

removal is not expected to be the primary solution identified, ALDOT anticipates very little public 

opposition. If any promotional marketing does need to take place, however, the DOT plans to 

highlight the expected annual reduction of 40-50 fatal crashes.

While the activity described above is ongoing, ALDOT intends to accomplish most of its efforts 

within 5 years, as funding allows. 

2.1.2	Washington: Targeting Locations through Network Analysis11

Over half of the total land area of Washington State is forested. This vast natural resource 

has allowed the State to become the Nation’s second largest timber producer, supporting 

over 100,000 jobs in that industry.12 It also means that the Washington State Department of 

Transportation (WSDOT) owns hundreds of miles of tree-lined roads. For that reason, the DOT 

has had an active policy of careful roadside tree management for decades. Currently, a 

sophisticated strategy is in place as part of the State’s Strategic Highway Safety Plan (SHSP), but 

long before that, trees were dealt with as actual crashes revealed the need.

Eventually, the State’s paving program began to drive tree management efforts; roadside trees 

were considered for removal when they fell within the limits of a programmed resurfacing, 

restoration, and rehabilitation (3R) project. Though this was a step in the right direction, by the 

early 1990s the State realized an additional opportunity to manage hazards more efficiently and 

moved toward the program that is in place today.

WSDOT conducts a biannual comprehensive network analysis that identifies broader areas of 

potential safety enhancements, not only tree and utility pole issues. The current plan employs 

a systemic-targeted approach in which countermeasures are coupled with specific crash 

types, and deployed globally as needed. Since this approach focuses on system performance, 

crash types, and contributing factors; WSDOT is able to tailor appropriate solutions to individual 

locations. 

In the case of trees and utility poles, the countermeasures deployed are generally designed to 

keep vehicles on the roadway: rumble strips, enhanced pavement marking, edge delineation, 

and HFST. As such, trees are seldom removed, and although WSDOT has a contract mechanism 

by which timber can be harvested on right-of-way, it is rarely used. 

Occasionally, the agency shields the obstacles. When shielding is needed, the State takes a twopronged approach: 

• Older installations (50s, 60s and 70s) that may already be shielding obstacles are 

inspected to verify their performance. The agency upgrades these installations as 

necessary.

• Shielding is installed—as warranted—if none is currently in place. In some locations, the 

only significant work in recent history may have been 3R, the scope of which generally 

excludes additional guardrail.

11 Telephone Interview conducted with J. Ring, A. Nizam, and J. Milton of the Washington State Department of Transportation, 

September 23, 2015.

12 Washington Forest Protection Association, “Sustainable Forestry.” Available at: http://www.wfpa.org/sustainable-forestry/.
 ROADSIDE TREE AND UTILITY POLE MANAGEMENT

NOTEWORTHY PRACTICES 

13

WSDOT has experienced surprisingly little public opposition to their roadside tree and utility 

pole management strategy. This may be due to their performance-focused approach: working 

together with the public to achieve solutions instead of simply informing them of the plan. While 

satisfying the concerns of all transportation stakeholders rarely occurs, the agency has had 

success with achieving public consent with their analytical, data-driven approach.

2.1.3	Pennsylvania: Increasing Safety in Culturally Sensitive Areas13

The legislature in the State of 

Pennsylvania has, for over a decade, 

appropriated $10 million annually to 

fund the transportation-related “LowCost Safety Improvement Program.” 

The program’s funding is distributed 

among the Pennsylvania Department of 

Transportation’s (PennDOT) 11 districts. 

Each district further allocates the money 

to State routes within their portion of 

Pennsylvania’s 67 counties, which allows 

funding to be closely tied to the individual 

needs of each county in the State.

The scopes of projects within these counties vary greatly. Low-cost, systemic type projects such 

as HFST and rumble strip installations are most frequently undertaken, but more complex projects 

such as road widening or limited new construction are occasionally built. While this program is 

not limited to tree and pole mitigation efforts, that work is often accomplished as well.

While roadside tree removals are often part of the State’s efforts, one notable case caused 

officials to consider other countermeasures. Pennsylvania Route 147 in Dauphin County is 

nicknamed “Sycamore Allée,” for the nearly century-old mature sycamores that line its sides. Listed 

on the National Register of Historic Places, the tree plantings along this roadway segment north 

and south of Halifax have uncertain origins, though they are largely believed to have been a 

memorial to World War I soldiers from the county who were killed in action.14

When the mature trees along Route 147 were identified as an opportunity for safety improvement, 

PennDOT officials immediately knew that tree removal was not an option. Instead of introducing 

the increased crashes inherent in excessive shielding, the DOT decided to focus on keeping 

vehicles on the roadway. The Department accomplished this by designing HFSTs and 

superelevation corrections. The initial projects containing these countermeasures are presently 

under construction, so no performance data is available. Like many other transportation 

agencies, however, PennDOT has realized a pronounced decrease in roadway departure 

crashes—at other locations—resulting from HFST. 

13 Telephone Interview conducted with J. Herschock of the Pennsylvania Department of Transportation Office of Safety Engineering 

and Risk Management, September 23, 2015.

14 Pennsylvania Historic Preservation Office, “National Transportation Week: A Road to the Past,” last modified: May 15, 2013. 

Available at: http://pahistoricpreservation.com/a-road-to-the-past/.

Figure 4. Photo. Sycamore Allée near Halifax, PA.

Source: Friends of Fort Halifiax Park, Inc.
ROADSIDE TREE AND UTILITY POLE MANAGEMENT

NOTEWORTHY PRACTICES 

14

2.1.4	Tennessee: Managing Roadsides with Environmental Constraints15

The Tennessee Department of Transportation (TDOT) generally 

avoids removing either trees or utility poles from their rights-ofway or from adjoining properties primarily due to two factors: 

environmental concerns or public resistance. In Tennessee, 

removing trees or shrubs larger than 6 inches in diameter triggers 

additional environmental studies and impact statements. This 

is complicated by the state’s being home to at least three 

species of endangered bats and having an environmental 

requirement that root wads of cut trees be left in the ground for 

soil stabilization. In many cases, a new tree can re-grow from the 

root stock. Additionally, landowners in the state are very resistant 

to having trees on or along their property removed, regardless of 

risk to motorists.

Being cognizant of the risks that roadside trees and utility poles 

present, TDOT searched for a solution that could be deployed 

quickly and without generating undue environmental or public relations concerns. The answer 

was tree and pole delineation. 

The delineation consists of either a curved retro-reflectorized plate affixed to the tree or pole, or 

a standard ground-mounted flexible delineator installed near the obstacle. TNDOT began using 

this countermeasure with regularity in 2012. Given the low level of complication and intrusion 

associated with this product, the agency has not encountered any opposition on the part of 

transportation stakeholders or utility companies. TNDOT will only delineate utility poles that are within 

the clear zone, and furthermore, only those on the foreslope. This is specifically done to avoid drivers 

mistaking the delineation for channelization. Even with this policy in place, they field check each 

potential application site (in person) to determine the possibility of drivers being drawn off the road. If 

the team believes that possibility exists, the treatment is not used.

A few agencies nationwide have used this countermeasure but no research at this time provides 

definitive results. As such, no rating is included in the CMF Clearinghouse. 

2.2 Allow the Vehicle to Regain the Roadway

If drivers are unable to maintain their lane and vehicles leave the roadway, the next safety priority 

becomes allowing them a reasonable opportunity to regain the traveled way. This generally 

involves providing a forgiving roadside as illustrated by the following four practices.

15 Telephone Interview conducted with B. Hurst and B. Darks of the Tennessee Department of Transportation Program Development 

and Administration Division, September 23, 2015.

Figure 5. Photo. Yellow prismatic 

obstacle delineation around a 

roadside pole in Tennessee.

Source: FHWA.
 ROADSIDE TREE AND UTILITY POLE MANAGEMENT

NOTEWORTHY PRACTICES 

15

2.2.1	Nebraska: Re-establishing Clear Zones during Resurfacing, Restoration,

and Rehabilitation (3R) as well as Resurfacing, Restoration, Rehabilitation

and Reconstruction (4R)16

Nebraska Department of Roads (NDOR) policy stipulates that fixed objects within the rightof-way are to be removed for any project classified as 3R and higher using the minimum 

clearance widths shown below. The distance cleared is variable based upon roadway functional 

classification and average daily traffic (ADT).

Table 1. NDOR Fixed Object Clearance Widths

Functional Classification

Average Daily 

Traffic

Lateral Obstacle 

Clearance (ft)

Interstate All 35

Expressway All 30

Major Arterial ≥ 4,000 30

Minor Arterial 2,000 - 3,999 30

Major Arterial 400 - 1,999 23

Minor Arterial < 400 16

This practice has been in place since the 1980s, but has become especially important in recent 

years when Nebraska, like so many other States, changed its mowing policy. The department 

used to mow the entire right-of-way—from fence line to fence line—but now only mows a single 

pass adjacent to the roadway. This allows more substantial vegetation like trees and shrubs to 

take root and flourish. When adhering to NDOR’s policy, obstacles of this nature are removed or 

otherwise controlled on the normal paving schedule: about every 10 years. 

Since this policy is codified into State law, it is able to transcend any public opposition that may 

arise and, to date, the public has not voiced any opposition to NDOR concerning this practice. 

It is important to remember that NDOR’s policy goes beyond trees alone and applies to all fixed 

objects. Utility pole concerns within the above-specified clear recovery areas are handled on a 

case-by-case basis. A Roadside Safety Analysis Program assessment is usually completed and if 

a concern is detected, the department works with the utility company for relocation, or shields 

the pole.

2.2.2	Michigan: Clearing through Informed Consent17

The Michigan Department of Transportation (MDOT) practices roadside tree removal, but any 

safety benefit realized is strictly ancillary. The clearing effort is primarily a maintenance function 

performed for drainage improvements. 

There have been a handful of safety-focused tree removal projects, but they were few in number 

and implemented exclusively in reaction to crashes. These projects are generally the result of 

MDOT’s Local Safety Initiative, a program staffed by three engineers statewide for the sole purpose 

16 Telephone interview conducted with P. Tenhulzen,Nebraska Department of Roads Roadway Design Division, September 22, 2015.

17 Telephone interview conducted with T. Leix, Michigan Department of Transportation Local Agency Program Section, 

September 24, 2015.
ROADSIDE TREE AND UTILITY POLE MANAGEMENT

NOTEWORTHY PRACTICES 

16

of developing safety solutions for local roads. Even with the State’s leadership, however, most local 

jurisdictions follow the DOT’s lead with respect to clearing for safety in a reactive manner only. 

Lapeer County is the lone exception, having established a proactive tree-clearing program 

exclusively for enhancing roadside safety. The County has managed the public’s concerns about 

tree removals by conducting substantial outreach and meeting with adjacent property owners 

well in advance of clearing. The agency’s tree removal/trimming policy is publicly available on 

the County’s website and clearly outlines their responsibility and authority to maintain the safety 

of public roads.18

As an added benefit, the County makes the harvested wood available to adjacent landowners 

to supplement their home heating supply. MDOT believes this sort of outreach may serve as a 

model for them to ease the public opposition often associated with clearing operations, and 

plans to rely upon the positive rapport already established through their 22 Transportation 

Service Centers to do so. These local offices respond to the transportation needs of surrounding 

communities, and are strategically located throughout the state such that no resident lives more 

than an hour distant from one.19

2.2.3	Mississippi and Arizona: Establishing and Maintaining Clear Zones

Mississippi20

Mississippi’s tree management policy does not involve clear-cutting the right-of-way from fence 

line to fence line. Rather, the DOT clears the appropriate clear-zone width per the AASHTO 

Roadside Design Guide irrespective of right-of-way limits. For new construction projects, the 

contractor’s documents limit pay for clearing and grubbing to the clear-zone width only, leaving 

mature standing timber between that limit and the right-of-way boundary. Reconstruction 

projects are only subject to clear zone establishment on a case-by-case basis. This activity usually 

only takes place when previous crash problems have been identified. 

This policy has been part of the Mississippi Department of Transportation (MSDOT) culture for 

as long as current employees can remember, so it is hardly surprising that public discontent is 

a non-issue. In fact, the policy only ever becomes problematic when the DOT is perceived as 

clearing trees that pose no threat to drivers.

Utility poles are generally treated by the same set of rules as trees, but very few poles exist within 

the clear zone. Rather, they are located at the edges of the rights of way. Poles that are within the 

clear zone (e.g., signing, signals, and lighting) have breakaway bases and, accordingly, are left 

undisturbed.

18 Lapeer County Road Commission, Tree Removal/Trimming Policy, (Lapeer County, MI: January, 2015), Available at: 

http://lcrconline.com/323%20TREE%20REMOVAL%20TRIMMING.pdf.

19 State of Michigan, GIS Open Data, “MDOT Transportation Service Centers,” Available at: http://gis.michigan.opendata.arcgis.

com/datasets/efc29ee8220643ffbeac4b396c22ab16_4.

20 Telephone interview conducted with B. Hovanec, M. Thomas, and H. Patterson, Mississippi Department of Transportation Traffic 

Safety, September 24, 2015.
 ROADSIDE TREE AND UTILITY POLE MANAGEMENT

NOTEWORTHY PRACTICES 

17

Arizona21

Arizona’s roadside tree and utility pole management program is a direct product of the FHWA’s 

Roadway Departure Focus States Initiative. Specifically, the Arizona Department of Transportation 

(AZDOT) is piloting a project to remove trees from the clear zones of two State highways.

The original plan was to establish the clear zones and significantly thin the remaining trees 

back to the right-of-way limits. But due to the complex 

natural environment in Arizona, the DOT faced a myriad 

of challenges from the general public, Native American 

Tribes, the United States Forest Service, threatened and 

endangered species laws, and other regulations. For 

these reasons, the scope of the effort was scaled back 

to removing trees within the clear zones limits, and only 

thinning where a site-specific reason dictated.

2.3 Reduce the Severity of Crashes

If drivers are unable to regain the roadway, the third safety 

priority is to reduce the severity of any crashes that may 

occur. This practice is generally accomplished through 

roadside hardware that absorbs the crash energy or 

channels it away from the driver.

2.3.1 New Jersey: Using Poles That Absorb Crash Energy

Utility pole crash fatalities are disproportionate in New Jersey, a State that ranks 22nd in all traffic 

fatalities, but 8th in those involving utility poles.22 Approximately 260 sites have been identified 

statewide as having multiple utility pole crashes over a 3-year period. 

With this in mind, New Jersey Department of Transportation (NJDOT), in conjunction with 

researchers at Rowan University, developed the Pole Mitigation Program to identify and improve 

highest-risk utility pole crash locations. Twenty sites that are not part of any active design or 

construction effort have been selected for mitigation.23

Within the PMP there is an effort to pilot the use of energy-absorbing poles at some locations. 

These poles differ in many ways from their wood and steel breakaway counterparts. The hollow 

poles feature composite construction consisting of filament-wound fiberglass-reinforced polyester. 

They are 45 feet long with a wide octagonal cross-section on the lower portion that transitions to 

a narrow circular cross-section near the top.24 The poles are designed to collapse upon impact 

as opposed to breaking away and potentially falling into traffic. Analysts observed no excessive 

occupant risks factors in either of two separate crash tests.25

21 E-mail exchange conducted with J. Marino, Arizona Department of Transportation Project manager, September 21-25, 2015.

22 H. C. Gabler, D. Gabauer, and W. Riddell, Breakaway Utility Poles: Feasibility of Energy Absorbing Pole Installations in New Jersey, 

(Trenton, NJ: New Jersey Department of Transportation, 2007), p.8.

23 Foedinger, R., et al, “Development of an Energy Absorbing Pole,” (paper presented at the 82nd Annual TRB Meeting, Washington 

DC, January 2003).

24 Ibid., p. 28.

25 Ibid., p. 29.

Figure 6. Photo. Composite utility pole 

undergoing strength testing.23
ROADSIDE TREE AND UTILITY POLE MANAGEMENT

NOTEWORTHY PRACTICES 

18

As shown below, these poles offer several advantages over traditional wooden poles.26

Table 2. Comparison of composite pole to wooden pole.

Characteristic Composite Pole Wooden Pole

Weight 475 lbs. 1,000 lbs.

Service Life 80 yr. 

(consistent performance)

20-50 yr. 

(declining performance)

Maintenance None 5-7 years

While NJDOT initially experienced hesitation from the utility companies when they were invited to 

participate in the PMP, continued outreach eventually produced an agreement for replacing and 

installing fiberglass poles when possible in accordance with the policy. 

2.4 Roadside Tree Management Practices for Reasons Other than Safety

The preceding sections of this report have described States’ efforts to manage roadside trees and 

utility poles for the specific purpose of increasing safety. There are, however, tree-management 

practices whose goals lie outside the scope of roadway departure safety. Nevertheless, increased 

roadside safety is the inevitable byproduct of the thinning or outright clearing of roadside tree, for 

any reason. Simply put, fewer trees mean less opportunity for fatal and severe injury tree crashes. 

The following sections describe such efforts in two States and a public-private partnership.

2.4.1	Alabama: Preventing Weather-related Tree Hazards

An unusually severe ice storm caused $3 billion of damage across the southeast region of the 

United States in the winter of 1994. In northwest Alabama alone, there was approximately $500 

million in damages to homes, businesses, communication infrastructure, and electric utilities. 

Alabama had so many trees and limbs blocking the roads that travel was virtually impossible.27

A number of fatalities occurred as a result of weather-related crashes throughout the region, and 

in Alabama, one driver was killed by a falling tree.28

As a result of the storm, Alabama officials decided that clearing roadside trees would be a 

reasonable deterrent to future dangers posed by storms of this type. Ice events are normally 

confined to northern Alabama, but the southern part of the state experiences tree-related traffic 

dangers posed by hurricanes. For these reasons, the ALDOT Interstate Right-of-Way Clearing 

26 Foedinger, R., et al, “Development of an Energy Absorbing Pole,” (paper presented at the 82nd Annual TRB Meeting, Washington 

DC, January 2003), p. 28.

27 National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), The February 1994 Ice Storm in the Southeastern U.S., (Asheville, NC), 

Available at http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/pub/data/special/iwais96.pdf.

28 Richard Perez-Pena, “Surprise Storm Turns Much of South into Sheet of Ice,” The New York Times, February 11, 1994, accessed 

January 22, 2016. http://www.nytimes.com/1994/02/11/nyregion/surprise-storm-turns-much-of-south-into-sheet-of-ice.html.

“Simply put, fewer trees mean less opportunity 

for fatal and severe injury tree crashes.”
 ROADSIDE TREE AND UTILITY POLE MANAGEMENT

NOTEWORTHY PRACTICES 

19

Program was deployed across the entire State.

A typical clearing contract within the program consisted of clear-cutting 50 feet on either side of 

the traveled way—toward the median and toward the right-of-way boundary—in both directions. 

The specifications also required selective thinning beyond 50 feet. Projects were approximately 

5-miles in length and encompassed about 250 acres each. ALDOT solicited contract bids from 

timber companies to log the parcels, which were harvested for use as both dimensional lumber 

and pulp.29

While ALDOT’s Interstate Rights-of-Way Clearing Program has generally been considered a 

success, there were difficulties in its execution; chiefly, the unconventional nature of logging in 

a linear fashion close to live traffic, as opposed to working an isolated, local parcel. The logging 

contractors experienced both difficulty moving log trucks on and off of the roadway as well 

as increased complication in loading the trucks from a moving operation instead of a static 

landing.30 The high visibility of the inherently 

unsightly work led to complaints from travelers, 

environmental groups, and the general public. 

ALDOT officials dealt with this opposition by 

emphasizing the safety focus of the work. They 

reassured stakeholders that the worksites would 

look noticeably better when leaves returned to 

the remaining trees, and State forces cleared 

the contractors’ debris, redressed the slopes, 

and reestablished grass.31

During the years since the program began, 

ALDOT’s intent has been to shift its focus from 

clear-cutting to maintaining the previouslyaccomplished clearing using herbicides. 

Workers focus primarily on controlling the 

hardwood species that survive mowing 

operations, and pruning mature trees whose 

branches pose a falling hazard.

2.4.2 Maine Turnpike Authority:

Increasing Natural Snow-melt32

In 2012, the Maine Turnpike Authority (MTA) 

began a 5-year program of clearing trees along 

109 miles of its Interstate 95 corridor. The agency established the program as a way to reduce the 

29 “900 Legal Notices: Notice to Bidders Timber for Sale,” The GadsenTimes, September 12,1996, accessed January 22, 2016.https://

news.google.com/newspapers?nid=1891&dat=19960912&id=hQBHAAAAIBAJ&sjid=Bv4MAAAAIBAJ&pg=2493,1087990&hl=en.

30 Telephone Interview conducted with T. Barnett of the Alabama Department of Transportation Office of Safety Operations, 

January 21, 2016.

31 Associated Press, “Median Tree Cutting Turns into Eyesore, Sets off Criticism,” The Gadsen Times, December 31, 1996, accessed 

January 22, 2016. https://news.google.com/newspapers?nid=1891&dat=19961230&id=SMQfAAAAIBAJ&sjid=O9gEAAAAIBAJ&pg=

59823668742&hl=en.

32 Telephone interview conducted with S. Tarte of the Maine Turnpike Authority-Engineering and Building Maintenance, 

January 21, 2016.

Figure 7. Photo. Before and after tree clearing along 

the Maine Turnpike.

Source: Maine Turnpike Authority
ROADSIDE TREE AND UTILITY POLE MANAGEMENT

NOTEWORTHY PRACTICES 

20

salt used for snow and ice control by removing trees that shaded the pavement. The solar gain 

realized from clearing efforts resulted in pavement temperatures up to 10 °F higher than those 

with trees in close proximity. Warmer pavements inhibit the bonding of snow and ice, resulting in 

easier snow removal and less salt usage in winter weather events.

MTA also realizes other equally important benefits from its clearing program:

• Wider clear zones

• Increased driver reaction time during animal encounters

• Increased sight distances

• Decreased potential for tree fall on the roadway in ice events 

MTA crews cleared approximately 10 miles per year, removing all live trees and bushes, brush, 

downed timber, and debris within 100 feet of the center line of the traveled way in both 

directions. They ground stumps down until they were flush with ground level within the limits 

of the clear zone as well as within 15 feet vertically of the ditch line and within 3 inches of the 

grade in the remaining locations. Clearing contractors harvested the timber for use both as 

dimensional lumber and pulp.

MTA did not experience any appreciable opposition on the part of environmental agencies or 

the general public; this is likely due to their proactive efforts. The very impetus of the program

—decreased salt use—was an attempt to preserve Maine’s excellent groundwater quality. 

Additionally, the Authority exhibited responsible stewardship by leaving 25-feet tree buffers lining 

the banks of the streams that intersect the corridor.

Adjoining property owners had little opposition to the Authority’s activities within the right-of-way, 

but some parcels were more profoundly affected than others. Officials reached out to these 

owners with a letter and a brochure explaining the purpose and scope of the clearing effort. If 

clearing operations were to have completely exposed an otherwise shielded home, the Authority 

left a buffer of trees in place to preserve the visual screen between the structure and the highway. 

When leaving such a buffer was infeasible, they replanted trees of a smaller species. For instance, 

a 70-feet species may be replaced with trees whose mature height was only 20-feet. In this 

manner, the shadows on the roadway were still minimized.

Upon completion of clearing operations within a segment, the MTA’s focus shifts to maintaining 

the cleared area. This is accomplished by routine mowing and minor clearing using lighter 

equipment than that used in the initial operation. 
 ROADSIDE TREE AND UTILITY POLE MANAGEMENT

NOTEWORTHY PRACTICES 

21

2.4.3	Wyoming: Removing Dead or Diseased Trees To Mitigate Fall Hazards33

An extended drought around the turn of the 21st century caused an ongoing epidemic of 

Mountain Pine beetle infestations in Wyoming.34 These beetles kill trees by boring into and laying 

their eggs under the bark, introducing a fungus that hastens the tree’s death.35 The dead trees 

pose a significant threat to public safety by way of fueling wildfires and creating falling hazards. 

Beetle epidemics cannot be stopped by artificial means and only climatic changes—namely 

sustained colder winters—can bring them to an end.

High winds accelerate the downing of beetle-killed trees in Wyoming but in fact, every tree will 

fall within a decade of being killed, irrespective of the weather. Both the Wyoming Department of 

Transportation (WyDOT) and the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) Forest Service 

realized the potential hazard associated with beetle-killed trees and limbs falling onto roadways, 

vehicles, or fences. The danger associated with the latter is the possibility of livestock wandering 

onto the roadway. To proactively decrease the risks associated with deadfall, the agencies 

developed a program of selective tree thinning along roadsides.

Under the program, the DOT marks infested trees—dead or alive—then lets a contract for their 

removal. Contractors are free to dispose of the trees as they choose; most sell the larger trees for 

dimensional lumber, and the smaller for pulp or firewood. 

The program has been successful and, in a state that is among the hardest hit by the beetle 

infestation, there has been little opposition on the part of stakeholders. WyDOT has performed 

clearing contracts in various locations throughout the state. 

33 Telephone interview conducted with C. Muller of the Wyoming Department of Transportation-District 1 Maintenance Division, 

January 21, 2016.

34 USDA Forest Service, Medicine Bow-Routt National Forests & Thunder Basin National Grassland, ”Mountain Pine Beetle Epidemic.” 

Available at: http://www.fs.usda.gov/detail/mbr/home/?cid=stelprdb5139168.

35 Colorado State University Extension Service, Mountain Pine Beetle, Fact Sheet No. 5.528 (Fort Collins, CO: February 1999), p.2.

 ROADSIDE TREE AND UTILITY POLE MANAGEMENT

NOTEWORTHY PRACTICES 

23

3. PROACTIVE MANAGEMENT

Tree and utility management practices are generally reserved for rural areas and are largely 

reactive, in that, the safety practitioner has to manage a preexisting concern. Since no known 

States are intentionally introducing trees that mature to significant diameters into the clear zones 

of high speed rural routes, few—if any—standards governing the practice exist.36

The lower speed urban setting is much different. Trees, hardscape, and utility poles are routinely 

placed in relatively close proximity to vehicles. There are a number of reasons for this: 

• Aesthetics – A city’s identity is closely associated with the aesthetic presented. To many 

travelers, it’s the first indication of the community’s character that they will encounter.37

• Health – Studies suggest that urban vegetation may be associated with increased levels 

of physical activity38 and decreased levels of depression.39

• Environment – Trees improve air quality through temperature reduction, air pollution 

removal, reduced ultraviolet radiation, and carbon storage.40 They improve water quality 

by detaining and filtering surface run-off, and releasing it back into the atmosphere. Trees 

beyond the roadside clear zone are also vital to the health of pollinators such as bees, 

birds, bats.41

Urban landscaping and forestry are an increasingly noticeable element of urban design, and 

the benefits they are believed to provide maintain that prominence. Therefore, the design process 

must balance their benefits with the necessity for roadside safety.42

36 California Department of Transportation, Trees and Highway Safety, (Sacramento, CA: March 18, 2010), pp.13-21.

37 Federal Highway Administration, Urban Tree and Landscape Safety, Task T-06-005(McLean, VA: February 2, 2009), p. 85.

38 Ruth Hunter, et al., “The impact of interventions to promote physical activity in urban green space: A systematic review and 

recommendations for future research,” Social Science and Medicine, Volume 124, (January 2015): 246-256.

39 Hannah Cohen-Cline, Eric Turkheimer, and Glen Duncan, “Access to green space, physical activity and mental health: a twin 

study,” Journal of Epidemiology & Community Health, Volume 69, Issue 6, (June 2015): 523-529.

40 D.J. Nowak and G.M. Heisler, Air Quality Effects of urban Trees and Parks, (Ashburn, VA: National Recreation and Park Association, 

2010), p.3.

41 FHWA, Pollinators and Roadsides: Best Management Practices for Managers and Decision Makers, FHWA-HEP-16-020 (Washington, 

DC: December 2015). Available at: https://www.environment.fhwa.dot.gov/ecosystems/vegmgmt_pollinators.asp.

42 American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials, Roadside Design Guide, 4th Edition, Washington DC: 

AASHTO, 2011, p.10-15.

 ROADSIDE TREE AND UTILITY POLE MANAGEMENT

NOTEWORTHY PRACTICES 

25

4. URBAN TREE AND UTILITY POLE RECOMMENDED 

PRACTICES 

Urban practitioners have the opportunity to influence the design of highway and street projects, and 

mitigate safety concerns before they arise.43 The following section describes a number of practices 

for enhancing safety while introducing trees and utility poles into the urban roadside environment.

4.1 Lateral Offset

Utility poles and trees of mature diameters greater than 4 inches are recommended to be 

located at least 6 feet behind the curb of urban roadways. Lateral offset always need to be 

greater than 4 feet behind the curb. See also the AASHTO Roadside Design Guide for additional 

guidance.

4.2 Visibility

It is recommended that trees and utility poles be located so as not to restrict the drivers’ sight. 

Some suggestions for improving sight distance and visibility include: 

• Keeping intersection sight triangles clear of any visual obstructions between 3 feet and 

10 feet vertically.

• Placing trees and poles outside of established sight distance parameters for horizontal 

curves on ramps.

• Locating trees and poles where their presence will not obstruct regulatory, warning, or 

advisory signing.

4.3 Weather

It is also advisable to place trees where their shadows will not interfere with the solar impact of 

snow and ice melting.

43 Federal Highway Administration, Urban Tree and Landscape Safety, Task T-06-005 (McLean, VA: February 2, 2009), p.96.

“...the design process must balance 

[landscaping] benefits with the 

necessity for roadside safety.”
ROADSIDE TREE AND UTILITY POLE MANAGEMENT

NOTEWORTHY PRACTICES 

26

4.4 Maintenance

As plantings are considered, it is optimal to avoid tree species with the following characteristics:

• Their fruit, seed pods, brittle branches, or leaves would obstruct drainage facilities 

resulting in gutter spread into the travel lanes.

• Their fruit is edible and could attract humans or wildlife into the roadway, creating a 

safety hazard.

4.5 Worker Safety

Trees and shrubs need to be planted in locations where their maintenance will not place workers 

in close proximity to live traffic.
 ROADSIDE TREE AND UTILITY POLE MANAGEMENT

NOTEWORTHY PRACTICES 

27

5. CONCLUSION

The majority of fatal crashes in the United States involve roadway departures; nearly half of these 

crashes involve a fixed object, two-thirds of which are roadside trees and utility poles. Such an 

overrepresentation suggests that properly managing trees and utility poles will reduce fatal 

crashes. 

While this management has proven to be elusive on a national scale, there are a number of 

noteworthy management practices being accomplished by individual State, County and 

a public-private partnership throughout the United States.

These practices represent a variety of purposes and scopes for managing trees and utility poles 

that are already in place and may assist practitioners in handling similar situations within their 

jurisdictions. There are far more opportunities to manage the safety of these roadside elements if 

practitioners are able to influence the design before landscaping or utilities are installed.

Until more comprehensive research is performed in this area, the proven practices described 

within this report can be deployed on a smaller scale and tailored to fit individual agency needs.

 ROADSIDE TREE AND UTILITY POLE MANAGEMENT

NOTEWORTHY PRACTICES 

29

6. RECOMMENDED READING

As stated previously, this report is a snapshot of some best management practices—currently 

under real-world deployment—within agencies around the nation; it is not intended to be a 

comprehensive guide to managing roadside trees and poles. There have been a number of 

other works written about tree and pole management strategies and additional research is 

being proposed within the industry. In addition to the AASHTO Roadside Design Guide, the two 

works described and cited below are recommended reading for additional information. 

They are drawn from the NCHRP 500 series, a compendium of guidance to aid in reducing fatal 

and serious injury crashes within certain focus areas.

6.1 Trees

Report 500-Volume 3, focuses on lowering the incidence and severity of tree crashes, primarily by 

preventing trees from growing in hazardous locations in the first place, and eliminating existing 

trees or reducing the severity of crashes in which they are involved.44

6.2 Utility Pole

Report 500-Volume 8, focuses on lowering the incidence and severity of utility pole crashes, 

by preventing the placement of, and treating poles in high risk locations. It also examines treating 

several poles—corridor-wide—to decrease the likelihood impacting a pole in a run off road 

event.45

44 Neuman, T., et al, NCHRP Report 500: Guidance for Implementation of the AASHTO Strategic Highway Safety Plan, Volume 3: 

A Guide for Addressing Collisions with Trees in Hazardous Locations, Washington DC: Transportation Research Board of the 

National Academies, 2003.

45 Neuman, T., et al, NCHRP Report 500: Guidance for Implementation of the AASHTO Strategic Highway Safety Plan, Volume 8: A 

Guide for Reducing Collisions Involving Utility Poles, Washington DC: Transportation Research Board of the National Academies, 

2004.


FHWA-SA-16-043

SEPTEMBER 2016

For More Information:

Noteworthy Practices for Roadside Tree and 

Utility Pole Management, visit: http://safety.fhwa.dot.gov/