Why pull plug on de-icer until all the facts are in?

2013-07-26T05:00:00Z Why pull plug on de-icer until all the facts are in?DAILY SUN EDITORIAL Arizona Daily Sun
July 26, 2013 5:00 am  • 

What price safety?

Or, put another way, how many fewer vehicle crashes on Flagstaff streets during the winter are worth hundreds of dead pine trees?

And of those crashes, how serious do they have to be?

Those are the key questions the Flagstaff City Council was considering earlier this month when it asked for an update on the city practice of applying tree-killing chemical de-icer instead of cinders to some city streets after a snowstorm.

After an hour of testimony and discussion, the council decided to pull the plug entirely on de-icer this coming winter.

Our question to the council: What was the rush? It’s not as though the next blizzard is right around the corner. And as the council itself acknowledged, the data had a lot of gaps that could stand to be closed.

The biggest problem with the city’s study was a lack of specificity. It used police reports of vehicle accidents on streets treated with de-icer on what it considered “snow days,” but it didn’t break down the severity of the crashes, the location or the amount of snow that fell.

Further, there was no comparison with comparable streets that weren’t treated with de-icer during the same storms.

And although the study covered more than a decade, it failed to adjust the accident rates for the increase in traffic during a period in which Flagstaff’s population grew by more than 25 percent.

None of this is really the fault of the public works employees who gathered the data. They are not, after all, statisticians.

But the city does employ people with those skills, and the council acknowledged during its discussion that it would have liked to have seen just the kind of details mentioned above.

As it was, the key figure of crashes-per-day did show a trend toward lower numbers after de-icer began to be applied in the winter of 2007-08. The previous two winters of all cinders had crash-per-day figures that were, on average, about 30 percent higher than in the succeeding de-icer winters.

But it’s also true that the number of crashes never rose above single digits on any given day, pre- or post-de-icer. Meanwhile, tree deaths from the chemical are estimated at more than 600, and the city has said that about 200 of those are on private property and not the responsibility of the city to remove.

That seems a little callous — if a private citizen caused the death of a city tree in a park by, say, running into it in a parking lot, we’re pretty sure the city would charge the citizen for the cost of removing it.

Also, according to the city, because city crews are already equipped to do the job, the annual cost to remove a total of 200 dead pines has amounted to just $10,000, far cheaper than a homeowner would have to pay.

We’d much prefer to see the city gather more specific data on locations and conditions where de-icer is much more effective than cinders in increasing safety — not just by a factor of 30 percent but perhaps 100 percent. These might include hills and higher-speed roads like Butler and Forest.

Given the fact that ADOT will continue to apply de-icer on state roads within the city like Route 66 and South Milton, drivers will need to adjust anyway to a mix of de-iced roads and those without the chemical. Going cold turkey on de-icer without all the facts seems premature, especially when we’re at least four months away from our first snowstorm of the winter.

Copyright 2015 Arizona Daily Sun. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.

(7) Comments

  1. Doney Park
    Report Abuse
    Doney Park - July 30, 2013 1:48 pm
    Slow down, leave lots of room to stop, and give yourself plenty of time to get where you’re going. That’s the way to reduce accidents. Salt is for margaritas not the roadway. And for those that advocate magchloride (ADOT already uses this on the roadways), Colorado State University studied the biological impact to plants & trees and found that it can contribute to chloride toxicity. There is no environmentally safe & cost effective chemical deicer.
  2. FWIW--
    Report Abuse
    FWIW-- - July 29, 2013 8:24 pm
    Mag Chloride and Cinders....exactly what's already being used right here in Flagstaff....but what....dead trees? Yes, the difference is CO gets a LOT more snow.. That is why salt is not so much of a problem there. In less arid climates the salt impacts to vegetation are tempered when it can be flushed out with adequate moisture. Something we lack.
  3. Bob Swift
    Report Abuse
    Bob Swift - July 29, 2013 5:17 pm
    Matthew Quigley-

    Well said. I’m with you 100% on this one!
  4. Matthew Quigley
    Report Abuse
    Matthew Quigley - July 27, 2013 5:41 am
    Wait for the facts? De-icers reduce the service life of asphalt and concrete. Road salt corrodes steel structures - bridges, approaches, and cattle guards. Damage to vehicles is impossible to calculate. The premature failure of the carrier bearing on my truck was directly attributed to road salt. It leaches into the ground, spreading over the passage of time. It also becomes more concentrated during years of low precipitation. Environmental extremists are silent. Care to guess why?
  5. dr phil
    Report Abuse
    dr phil - July 26, 2013 10:21 pm
    Why the rush decision? They don't buy it from the local retailer. It probably takes a while to show up. Why didn't they have better data? That was a political answer by passing the blame! They could have had the best data and would have passed the blame on someone else. All the while, I am glad to see the deicer gone, just frustrated with foolish questions.
  6. Judy__
    Report Abuse
    Judy__ - July 26, 2013 8:31 am
    I think it is wise to go back to the cinders. People need to be able to plan ahead for orders and expenses. And there is no real benefit to the chemicals - cinders work well and are known to be benign. They also tend to make people drive slower.

    We also see dead pines where ADOT uses chemicals. And in rainy years like this one the chemicals diffuse far further than just to the trees near the roads. Why kill off the very things that make us want to live in Flagstaff???
  7. Jody Cody
    Report Abuse
    Jody Cody - July 26, 2013 8:22 am
    The verdict is already in....use magnesium chloride if you want to de-ice without significant harm to vegetation. Steamboat Springs, Colorado uses this and they get a LOT more snow than Flagstaff. They use a combination of cinders and magnesium chloride.

    The environmental devastation far outweighs the cost of removing the trees. It is time for the city council to do the right thing to protect our fragile ecosystem. Once it's gone, there's no getting it back.
Add Comment
You must Login to comment.

Click here to get an account it's free and quick

Featured Businesses