Salt Treatment for Snow on the Trails?

[baiskeli]

@Tim Kelley 103956 wrote:

That is something that DES and DPR are aware of and have taken into consideration when clearing trails.

How?

The salt goes down on the trail. It leaches into the soil as the snow melts, and then ends up in the soil and the streams. I don’t see how you can mitigate it, other than by using less.

[Tim Kelley]

@baiskeli 103959 wrote:

I don’t see how you can mitigate it, other than by using less.

Exactly. Or not using it when it isn’t necessary.

[baiskeli]

@Tim Kelley 103960 wrote:

Exactly. Or not using it when it isn’t necessary.

I’d like to know how that works though. If it’s not necessary in some places, why is it necessary in others? Isn’t it possible to not use it at all, or perhaps use an alternative? Does using less really matter if the amount used is still too much for a stream or soil area to handle?

[Tim Kelley]

@baiskeli 103961 wrote:

I’d like to know how that works though. If it’s not necessary in some places, why is it necessary in others? Isn’t it possible to not use it at all, or perhaps use an alternative? Does using less really matter if the amount used is still too much for a stream or soil area to handle?

I would suggest following up directly with DPR if you are interested. From the meetings I was in, it was definitely a consideration and something they are aware of.

[dasgeh]

@baiskeli 103961 wrote:

I’d like to know how that works though. If it’s not necessary in some places, why is it necessary in others? Isn’t it possible to not use it at all, or perhaps use an alternative? Does using less really matter if the amount used is still too much for a stream or soil area to handle?

You have to look at the reason you’re using it. If it will get people biking instead of using cars, it will will have a net positive impact on the environment. Sometimes the choice is the best of two evils.

[baiskeli]

@Tim Kelley 103963 wrote:

I would suggest following up directly with DPR if you are interested. From the meetings I was in, it was definitely a consideration and something they are aware of.

Okay. I’ll do one better than that – I’ll get my wife/head of Arlingtonians for a Clean Environment to check on it.

[baiskeli]

@dasgeh 103964 wrote:

You have to look at the reason you’re using it. If it will get people biking instead of using cars, it will will have a net positive impact on the environment. Sometimes the choice is the best of two evils.

But we haven’t even reached that point yet. It may be possible to adequately plow using no salt, or less salt, or a different substance.

And it’s hard to make comparisons of different environmental issues (water quality, air quality, forest and wildlife health) and lump them as net positive or negative, let alone measure the impact of perhaps hundreds of pounds of salt going almost directly into streams vs. a small number of cyclists not driving cars on one or two days a year. You have to look at more details than that. We can’t automatically assume that we know which evil is lesser.

[dasgeh]

@baiskeli 103970 wrote:

But we haven’t even reached that point yet. It may be possible to adequately plow using no salt, or less salt, or a different substance.

And it’s hard to make comparisons of different environmental issues (water quality, air quality, forest and wildlife health) and lump them as net positive or negative, let alone measure the impact of perhaps hundreds of pounds of salt going almost directly into streams vs. a small number of cyclists not driving cars on one or two days a year. You have to look at more details than that. We can’t automatically assume that we know which evil is lesser.

We can’t assume, but your posts make it sound like you are assuming that what ArlCo did yesterday was wrong. Honestly, for me, brining is not only about the environmental impact of shifting people out of cars, but also the physical safety of those who bike. I am all for finding a way to ensure the safety of cyclists with low environmental impact, but the fact that something that increases the safety of cyclists has some environmental impact does not make it a deal killer. If that is ACE’s position, then I am disappointed in them.

[Edit to add] Given that people who know more than me about parks, trails and environmental impact of these chemicals (not to mention how much of the chemical they actually used) actively considered this issue and decided to use what they used, I’m inclined to trust them.

[DismalScientist]

@baiskeli 103970 wrote:

And it’s hard to make comparisons of different environmental issues (water quality, air quality, forest and wildlife health) and lump them as net positive or negative, let alone measure the impact of perhaps hundreds of pounds of salt going almost directly into streams vs. a small number of cyclists not driving cars on one or two days a year. You have to look at more details than that. We can’t automatically assume that we know which evil is lesser.

We are going to make you an economist at this rate. Bwahahaha.:rolleyes:

[DismalScientist]

@dasgeh 103973 wrote:

.I am all for finding a way to ensure the safety of cyclists with low environmental impact, but the fact that something that increases the safety of cyclists has some environmental impact does not make it a deal killer.

Just lock them in their houses. That’s the environmentally-friendly way to keep them safe.

[ShawnoftheDread]

@DismalScientist 103982 wrote:

Just lock them in their houses. That’s the environmentally-friendly way to keep them safe.

As long as those houses are small and “sustainably” built.

[DismalScientist]

Their houses are a sunk cost in this analysis.

[TwoWheelsDC]

@dasgeh 103964 wrote:

You have to look at the reason you’re using it. If it will get people biking instead of using cars, it will will have a net positive impact on the environment. Sometimes the choice is the best of two evils.

I would disagree with this reasoning, but I don’t necessarily think you’re wrong on the bigger point…but I am very conflicted about the pluses/minuses of salting roads and trails. Although automobiles have a big impact on the environment, it’s more of a matter of their cumulative emissions impact on global CO2 concentrations rather than direct pollution of the local environment. Treating roads, however, does cause direct harm to the local environment, which can have a cascading effect on larger ecosystems. Frankly, if I had to give my ideal solution from an environmental standpoint, roads/trails would be plowed but not treated, and employers would institute more liberal work policies during inclement weather. This would minimize driving (and emissions) and increase safety for workers, while mitigating the impact to local ecosystems. Of course, that’s not totally realistic, so we end up treating roads/trails so people can get around because many times they don’t have a choice…and like you said, that’s probably the lesser of two evils (dangerous roads vs treated roads). That we have to make that choice, however, frustrates me greatly.

As an aside, the scale of transportation emissions, even just in Virginia (transportation accounts for roughly 51% of VA GHG emissions), means that getting a handful of people out of cars and onto trails has basically zero net positive environmental impact. That’s not to say that bike commuting is completely devoid of positive environmental impact (just mostly ), but we should all remember that, if we want to see progress on things like climate change and air pollution, it’s going to take more than slightly modifying our lifestyles and we are going to need major shifts in our environmental policies at the state and federal level. Getting more people off the roads is a good thing, but for bike commuters who do it partly based on environmental concerns, we need to be realistic about the impact we have. From an environmental standpoint, I do it to have a slightly clearer conscience and to show people that cars aren’t the end-all and be-all of transportation. It’s also fun and convenient, which are much bigger motivators for me.

[mstone]

@baiskeli 103961 wrote:

I’d like to know how that works though. If it’s not necessary in some places, why is it necessary in others? Isn’t it possible to not use it at all, or perhaps use an alternative? Does using less really matter if the amount used is still too much for a stream or soil area to handle?

One reason things would be different in different places is sun & shade. Another is runoff patterns. There aren’t any great alternatives. In the end it’s weighing an impact to the environment against human health & safety. In general, if anything inside of a major metropolitan area is going to collapse solely due to salt on a MUP, it’s already doomed anyway.

[mstone]

@TwoWheelsDC 103992 wrote:

As an aside, the scale of transportation emissions, even just in Virginia (transportation accounts for roughly 51% of VA GHG emissions), means that getting a handful of people out of cars and onto trails has basically zero net positive environmental impact.

Similarly, the 10 pounds of salt dumped on a MUP are insignificant compared to the truckloads of salt dumped on the adjacent streets.

[Author]

Posts