UPDATE: Ed at Hotair makes some good points. I just think they’re cheap in Seattle.
It seems that the powers that be in Seattle have, after a major snowfall, decided that using salt to help clear the roads is bad for the environment. Instead, they’re using sand, and trying to pack the snow solidly to make road surfaces drivable. This might work in northern Maine, say, or Michigan’s Upper Peninsula, or even the wilds of Minnesota, where the weather stays resolutely below freezing for months at a time.
Sadly, it also seems that Alex Wiggins, chief of staff for Seattle’s Department of Transportation doesn’t understand that Seattle’s average winter temps hover around 40 degrees, This makes the viability of hard-packed roads difficult at the best of times. According to the Seattle Post:
“If we were using salt, you’d see patches of bare road because salt is very effective,” Wiggins said. “We decided not to utilize salt because it’s not a healthy addition to Puget Sound.” [Emphasis mine.]
By ruling out salt and some of the chemicals routinely used by snowbound cities, Seattle has embraced a less-effective strategy for clearing roads, namely sand sprinkled on top of snowpack along major arterials, and a chemical de-icer that is effective when temperatures are below 32 degrees.
Seattle also equips its plows with rubber-edged blades. That minimizes the damage to roads and manhole covers, but it doesn’t scrape off the ice, Wiggins said.
That leaves many drivers, including Seattle police, pretty much on their own until nature does to the snow what the sand can’t melt it.”
No salt. Rubber-edged plow blades. I’m speechless. Sounds like Seattle officials are more concerned for the health and safety of Puget Sound than they are with Seattle’s citizens… Or are they?
Many cities are moving away from sand because it clogs the sewers, runs into waterways, creates air pollution and costs more to clean up.
Its main attraction is that it typically costs less than one-fifth the price of salt, according to [Diane Spector, a water-resources planner for Wenck Associates, which evaluated snow and ice clearance for nine cities in the Midwest]. [Emphasis mine again.]
So here’s the question: are Seattle’s powers that be really concerned with the local environment? Or are they just cheap bastards? You decide.
Stoutcat
December 23, 2008 at 4:13 pm |
[...] Read the rest of this superb post right here [...]
January 30, 2009 at 12:21 am |
That’s not really an appropriate response. I applaud the city’s new salt policy. The fact is salt is MEAN, man! It strips car to their bare bones. I spent a summer rebuilding an old truck, part of which involved meticulously stripping and repainting every last component of the suspension. After a single season of light commuting to and around Pullman, all that work went down the toilet. The thing was stripped. Needless to say, I was a little miffed at the local media jerkwads who couldn’t change their oil but freely misinform everyone that salt is “easy” on automotive components. “Easy”? Like, it has an effect that you don’t deny, so yo downplay it? And here I thought conservatives were the macho types who knew cars–or basic chemistry…
January 30, 2009 at 1:47 pm |
So you’d rather that the city jeopardize the lives of its citizens in ice-related traffic accidents than treat their roads properly in icy conditions? Well, I’m glad I don’t live in your town.
January 31, 2009 at 12:54 pm |
Funny, cuz I’m glad you don’t live here either.