Salt Treatment for Snow on the Trails?

[Vicegrip]

@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 use ice melt products as part of my work and spent quite some time looking into the best materials and methods to produce the required results with the least harm to our environment. Ice melt products can be used with little harm or can be abused. The mag chloride stripes is a good example of using the min to get the most result. There are many to pick and chose from and there is no best or safest product. A “safe ” product that is out of range for the temps is a simple waste and chemicals into the environment.

I only deploy ice melt products when it is the right materal and the only method that will work, not the cheapest. We remove all loose ice and snow before carefully applying any chemical melters and then only if non use will result in unsafe conditions. Melter can be deployed so it breaks ice from the tarmac readying it for mechanical removal rather than fully melting to a high concentration brine that contaminates the ground and water. Most apply melt products at too high a ratte.

Plow, broadcast light application let sun and melter work together plow round 2 and touch up to clear to bare pavement. If done right there is far more ice dislodged than the melter could have reduced to liquid on its own.

Funny thiing people used to dress and adjust activities more for the conditions. Now the conditions are expected to be corrected so most people can go on as if weather is not to be considered. Roads to bare pavement asap = blast it with chloride. Better living through chemistry!

[KWL]

@baiskeli 103954 wrote:

Sounds like it would have a horrible environmental impact on trails that run through parks and/or next to streams.

Like the treated Mt Vernon Parkway does?

[baiskeli]

@dasgeh 103973 wrote:

We can’t assume, but your posts make it sound like you are assuming that what ArlCo did yesterday was wrong.

No, they don’t. I wrote them very carefully to avoid just that impression. I was very clear that I haven’t made a conclusion.

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.

Again, you need to reread my post. I didn’t say we shouldn’t use salt on the trails.

If that is ACE’s position, then I am disappointed in them.

ACE has no position on this, and I didn’t say anything close to implying that it did.

[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.

I find that disappointing, since we cyclists are the first to complain, cajole, pressure and otherwise question the way that our infrastructure is handled rather than just trusting the authorities to know more about bike trails and bollards and stop signs and lights, etc. than we do.

[baiskeli]

@KWL 104053 wrote:

Like the treated Mt Vernon Parkway does?

Possibly. Salt in general is bad for water, but I wonder if it’s even worse near a waterway, especially a small one that doesn’t have as much water to absorb and dilute the salt and doesn’t flush it out as fast.

[baiskeli]

@DismalScientist 103979 wrote:

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

Hey, insults aren’t allowed on this forum!

[baiskeli]

@Vicegrip 104026 wrote:

I use ice melt products as part of my work and spent quite some time looking into the best materials and methods to produce the required results with the least harm to our environment. Ice melt products can be used with little harm or can be abused. The mag chloride stripes is a good example of using the min to get the most result. There are many to pick and chose from and there is no best or safest product. A “safe ” product that is out of range for the temps is a simple waste and chemicals into the environment.

I only deploy ice melt products when it is the right materal and the only method that will work, not the cheapest. We remove all loose ice and snow before carefully applying any chemical melters and then only if non use will result in unsafe conditions. Melter can be deployed so it breaks ice from the tarmac readying it for mechanical removal rather than fully melting to a high concentration brine that contaminates the ground and water. Most apply melt products at too high a ratte.

Plow, broadcast light application let sun and melter work together plow round 2 and touch up to clear to bare pavement. If done right there is far more ice dislodged than the melter could have reduced to liquid on its own.

Funny thiing people used to dress and adjust activities more for the conditions. Now the conditions are expected to be corrected so most people can go on as if weather is not to be considered. Roads to bare pavement asap = blast it with chloride. Better living through chemistry!

Cool, thanks for the expert input. I was vaguely aware that there are products and techniques that have low impact on the environment but work well.

My question is whether the people treating the trails have the same knowledge you have and are being as responsible as you are.

[baiskeli]

@mstone 103997 wrote:

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

Not if the salt is dumped on a trail that is right next to a waterway or other sensitive area.

The county has spent alot of effort and money building up buffer zones around waterways like Four Mile Run to try to mitigate runoff from roads, including salt. That could be ruined if you dump the salt inside the buffer zone.

[baiskeli]

@mstone 103996 wrote:

One reason things would be different in different places is sun & shade.

Yes, good example. So I’d like assurance that the county is treating sunny areas differently from shady ones.

There aren’t any great alternatives.

How do you know this?

We know from this thread that there are different chemicals and different ways of using them. We cannot simply declare that this issue is settled.

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.

If we used the same defeatist attitude in bike advocacy, we’d all be driving to work. But I didn’t say it might collapse – every little bit makes a difference. If we can have BOTH environmental protection and clear bike paths, let’s try. Just declaring that nothing can be done and bikes win because they are more important and I need to get from point A to point B without being bothered is, well, how motorists think.

[mstone]

@baiskeli 104113 wrote:

Possibly. Salt in general is bad for water, but I wonder if it’s even worse near a waterway, especially a small one that doesn’t have as much water to absorb and dilute the salt and doesn’t flush it out as fast.

Where do you think the salt on the roads/parking lots/sidewalks goes? Generally, into a pipe that discharges into a small waterway.

[mstone]

@baiskeli 104121 wrote:

We know from this thread that there are different chemicals and different ways of using them. We cannot simply declare that this issue is settled.[/quote]

There are no benign and effective ice treatments. There are various grades of bad, in which you can sometimes substitute one problem for another. In the end, the percentage of chemicals used for treatment of MUPs vs those used for treating everything else is so insignificant as to make one wonder why this would be an area of focus.

[baiskeli]

@mstone 104125 wrote:

Where do you think the salt on the roads goes? Generally, into a pipe that discharges into a small waterway.

Like I said, the county, like communities nationwide, have spent a great deal of time and money reversing that. Instead of allowing runoff to flow directly into streams, they have built things like buffer zones, retention ponds, etc. to reduce the amount of water flowing straight from pipes.

Look at the little pond on the W&OD at Bluemont Park for an example. It was built with the extension of the bike trail to capture runoff and let it soak into the ground or be soaked up by water-loving plants before entering Four Mile Run. The same systems are used for road and yard runoff, such as Sparrow Pond, also on the W&OD. You see retention ponds and buffer zones in new home construction all the time. In Arlington, it has required slower retrofitting, but it is happening. Existing pipes have been diverted to filter the water in similar ways. So less and less water flows directly from roads to pipes, and this has been a deliberate and sometimes expensive process.

However, alot of our bike trails run right through the buffer zones that are designed to mitigate water flowing from roads, and don’t have retention ponds or other systems to handle their own runoff. So salting them might have a much bigger impact than road salt. The salt might enter the waterway faster, causing higher concentrations of salt.

[TwoWheelsDC]

@mstone 104126 wrote:

There are no benign and effective ice treatments. There are various grades of bad, in which you can sometimes substitute one problem for another. In the end, the percentage of chemicals used for treatment of MUPs vs those used for treating everything else is so insignificant as to make one wonder why this would be an area of focus.

I generally agree with you on that point, although Baiskelli offers some compelling counterarguments. My issue was the assertion that the environmental impact of treating the trails is “offset” by allowing a few extra cyclists to ride rather than drive, and that it’s probably not the type of metric or line of reasoning we should be using to evaluate and justify our bike infrastructure policies.

[baiskeli]

@mstone 104126 wrote:

There are no benign and effective ice treatments. There are various grades of bad, in which you can sometimes substitute one problem for another.

Exactly my point. I was asking if we are using the best chemicals and best techniques we can.

In the end, the percentage of chemicals used for treatment of MUPs vs those used for treating everything else is so insignificant as to make one wonder why this would be an area of focus.

I have explained above why they are not necessarily insignificant. We simply don’t know. Bike trails are inside the systems designed to mitigate runoff. It’s like dumping a truckload of salt directly into a stream – you wouldn’t want to do that, would you? You wouldn’t justify it by saying that the salt on the roads is going to be washed into the stream anyway, would you? It’s a matter of how fast the salt rushes in. Putting salt right next to a waterway has a different effect from spreading it on roads farther from the waterway.

[baiskeli]

@TwoWheelsDC 104131 wrote:

I generally agree with you on that point, although Baiskelli offers some compelling counterarguments. My issue was the assertion that the environmental impact of treating the trails is “offset” by allowing a few extra cyclists to ride rather than drive, and that it’s probably not the type of metric or line of reasoning we should be using to evaluate and justify our bike infrastructure policies.

I would add that even if it is a good metric, we can’t just conclude that the issue is settled.

[jabberwocky]

@mstone 104126 wrote:

There are no benign and effective ice treatments. There are various grades of bad, in which you can sometimes substitute one problem for another. In the end, the percentage of chemicals used for treatment of MUPs vs those used for treating everything else is so insignificant as to make one wonder why this would be an area of focus.

Yeah, it seems sort of ridiculous to be concerned about the tiny surface area of area MUPs compared to the truckloads of salt and chemicals dumped on, say, 495. Ultimately, runoff is ending up in the bay either way. But every square foot of asphalt from every MUP in the entire DC metro area added together would be a tiny fraction of a major highway like 495 or 66, not even considering the thousands upon thousands of miles of smaller roads in the area.

Sure, salt isn’t great for the environment, but the decision should be based on whether we treat MUPs as transportation routes or not. If we do, they should be handled the same way as other routes (plowing, clearing and treating as conditions warrant).

[Author]

Posts