The cost of driving 55 mph in snow and ice: Professor details effect of road salting

[Woodly]

Chains sure change a car. One won't want to drive fast but they'll get you through mud and snow that would stop you otherwise and they really aren't expensive.
Smart truckers carry them, school bus's have them, loggers put them on skidders which should say something, they are required in the rockies during snowstorms, farmers put them on tractors, and even on garden sized tractors where they might be only used for aeration, the traction they give is awesome.
Too, nothing stops a vehicle on ice/slippery snow like chains, even studs which I run every winter.

And even the cheap chains where only 2 to 4 pieces crossover the tread can get you out of a jam.

[Wldrns]

I lived in Ohio (yuk) for a while when in the military. Their answer to their pitiful snowfall accumulations a few times a season was to dump massive amounts of salt on the road, rarely with any sand included.

Most of my cars of more than a few years ago could not use chains due to wheel well clearance. I did have a geo quite a while ago. My house now is up a somewhat steep driveway with a slight curve on it, requiring a turn not quite 90 degrees from the road to ascend. There was a critical speed to turn off the main road with my Geo when it was snowy or icy that would work. I did not have chains for it. Too fast and I'm slid off into the lawn. Too slow and I'm stuck part way up the hill going nowhere. Just right, Goldilocks, and I'm in the garage if it was not too slippery or snow too deep. Then I bought my first Subaru. Amazing. It virtually walked up in deep snow at any (slow) speed I liked. I'm now on my fourth Subaru between me and my wife with two Foresters in the garage.

Anyone interested in purchasing a new Subaru should look into the Subaru VIP program, wherein if you are a member of one of several outdoor related organizations (LNT, Ski Patrol, ASPCA, etc.), you get a no questions asked considerable discount (2% below invoice, whatever than means). Joining LNT for a small annual contribution has saved me many thousands of dollars over recent years with each Subaru purchase.

[DSettahr]

Tire chains?

I had a pair for my old car, which was a little 4 cylinder, 2WD Geo. They were amazing- once the chains were on, that car could go uphill through 4-5 inches of fresh powder with out a problem. It definitely made me question why, as a society, we ever shifted from tire chains to salting the roads to oblivion (I guess folks like the convenience of driving at normal speed on bare pavement).

Now I drive a Subaru, and don't get me wrong, it's a great car- but apparently tire chains are not recommended for use with Subarus (I guess they don't have enough space in the wheel well, and the tire chains can apparently mess with the AWD?). Sometimes, though, I do miss my little 2WD Geo with the tire chains.

[MTVhike]

Tire chains?

[Woodly]

Deer like salt. Does this relate to deer coming to road sides at all?

At times yes

[Bunchberry]

Deer like salt. Does this relate to deer coming to road sides at all?

[St.Regis]

I would suspect that some invasive, salt-tolerant species have benefited - either having soil and H2O chemistry altered in their favor or less competition from impacted non-tolerant natives or a combo of both. Phragmites comes to mind.

[Woodly]

I remember when much more sand and/or cinders was used in the ADKs and we drove around just fine in rear wheel drive vehicles but tourists demand their ability to speed.

[BigDan93]

That's really interesting. Thanks for posting. Now that you mention it, I've often wondered about the impact that all that salt has. I've often thought about the negative impact on my own vehicle as I drive over it, and splash it all over my undercarriage. But, I also do occasionally step outside of my own sphere of concern, and consider the other impacts, like on the surrounding environment. So, this article is a much needed discussion on that.

[Frankonix]

Definitely learning a lot from here. Thanks, fellas!

[Woodly]

I believe much NYS salt also comes from south of Retsof NY. I say south because the century old mine took on water a few years back but its the same deposit...they just mined elsewhere. Same Deposit is also mined near Scranton PA.
Interesting that with modern technology filled cars and radial tires we need so much salt, yet I remember driving 45/55 with the old bias ply tire in cars with no computerized technology.
People are spoiled now and must do, demand being able to, 65 and faster.

[tiogaguy]

All of New York's salt come from under Cayuga Lake. Cargill Salt Co. has 13,000 acres of mines under it. It makes $10's of millions for the state in wages and collateral income. Cargill pays minimal state taxes as a company since the are a mining operation. They keep $3.5 million in escrow for any environmental mishaps. I have to keep a $1 million liability policy on a hunting lease!!! Being they are one of Cuomo's rich friends, how are you going to convince them salt is a bad idea? I just read an article where Chlorides/Sulfides were linked to algae blooms in Texas. New York has had issues with widespread blooms, especially the past 5 years or so, I wonder if chlorides are the smoking gun now that they are building up in NY waterways. They been trying to pin it on farming, but farmers have been using many of the same chemicals for years. Could be the chlorides are changing how these chemicals behave in the water? This issue is flying under the radar as an impending environmental disaster.

[Schultzz]

The state has insalted us all. New England uses a lot of sand. It takes a lot of sand to use that much salt. The answer? educate the people. Especially the very rich very influential people who have the Governor's ear

[TCD]

This is an interesting issue, because it involves several dimensions: Safety, Cost, Environment, and Culture. Successful approaches to this will be guided by an understanding of all four of these.

For some history, here's a link I found that has a helpful review, free of the "advocacy distortion" that's so common:

http://onlinepubs.trb.org/onlinepubs/sr/sr235/017-030.pdf

Notable from the link:

"Before the 1940s, highway departments relied mostly on plowing and abrasives..."

"During the winter of 1941–1942, New Hampshire became the first state to adopt a general policy of using salt..."

"After World War II, as the expanding highway system became essential to the public and the national economy, road salt use began to soar. The bare-pavement concept, under which motorists could expect snow- and ice-free pavements shortly after storms, soon became a policy in most cities and their suburbs."

"Road salt use has leveled off during the past 20 years."

So nationwide, this is not a new issue. But after a few decades, environmental effects are (rightly) becoming a concern.

Important to note in this is that the expectation of dry roads is not being driven "top down", but rather has become part of the culture. Of course you can always find Luddites to say "just drive slower" and "just be late" and "I walked ten miles to school every day through waist deep snow." But these folks are a tiny minority. The cultural needle is not going to move back to 1940. The expectation of dry roads on the part of most of the public will remain.

Further, travel safety has become a legal liability expectation. If someone is hurt or killed in an accident, and their attorneys are able to link that to "inadequate ice removal from roads" then the municipality or other government will have a big legal problem n their hands. No government today wants to risk that. So as with the culture, the legal liability needle is not going to move back to 1940.

Now environmental concerns are widely considered to be important by a large part of the population. And experience has shown that people are willing to pay more in order to protect the environment. This is where the comparisons that are made between road salt and acid rain actually have some validity. Acid rain was largely resolved. It cost money to do that, and people showed that they were willing to pay. This is the avenue today for success with the salt issue.

What people today are NOT willing to do (by and large) is: 1. to be inconvenienced; and 2. to have their safety compromised.

So all this analysis offers some guidance to those who are advocating on the road salt issue. Coming to this issue from a point of trying to change the culture, or doing anything that risks safety, is a guaranteed losing approach. Advocates will expend all their political capital, and then one company moving out of state because it's employees can't reliably get to work, or one traffic death lawsuit, and the whole program will be out the window, with advocates cast as "tree huggers who don't care about jobs or safety."

The successful path here is to focus on the available technology to maintain the now required "dry roads" but with the use of less salt. Many technologies are out there which the earlier links don't discuss, including pre-brining, better timing of treatment, improved design plow blades, different chemical mixtures, etc.. The public has shown that they are willing to spend some additional money to protect the environment, and developing and implementing some of these better technologies is a program that can be sold to the public.

[Banjoe]

It's not just what the salt is doing to the plants and water near the roads either. Salt reacts with so many things in many ways that end up causing more problems. A good synopsis of this was published a couple weeks ago on the Revelator:

https://therevelator.org/water-salinity-chemical-cocktails/

And it not just so we can drive 55. My street has a limit of 30 mph and during the recent storm I noted salt being applied four times/hour.