A salt monopoly could spike car accidents in the Midwest | Hacker News Reader

A salt monopoly could spike car accidents in the Midwest

mattstoller.substack.com

250 pointsnew_guy337 comments

Many places in the midwest have actually switched away from using salt to melt snow because it does a lot of damage to concrete and vehicles. Sand is a popular alternative, but frequent ploughing is often enough to keep main roads clear. Raised vehicles like trucks and SUVs are also much more common in the midwest to avoid getting stuck in the snow.

> America tends to operate in just-in-time style inventory models instead of managing risk by storing surpluses of critical commodities

I don't think this a particularly fair criticism. Deicing salt works by absorbing moisture as it lands, before it can form a sheet of ice. It's useless if it gets wet before you use it. It's pretty dry in the midwest during the winter, but humidity spikes in the summer making deicing salt difficult to store in the off-season. Climate-controlled storage is expensive and deicing salt is quite heavy and bulky.

>> salt to melt snow

Who does that? Salt is used to melt ice, not snow.

>>Raised vehicles like trucks and SUVs ... to avoid getting stuck in the snow.

"Raised" vehicles are not tall because of snow. That clearance is for off-road driving, not snow on a road. Any public road would be closed long before snow became so deep as to actually require a car to have greater ground clearance. If anything, a taller vehicle is more of a liability on a slippery road. The ideal vehicle for winter on road driving is any 4WD/AWD car with some good snow tires and a modern traction control system.

The ideal vehicle for slippery conditions is actually rear wheel drive, with ABS brakes. RWD means that everything you do reminds you that it is slippery and so you never get going fast. 4wd/awd means that you get going fast enough that you end up well into the ditch instead of just stopped on the side of the road where you can push yourself out without a tow truck.

The above is partially tongue in cheek, but there is a point worth thinking about.

The ideal vehicle for any given amount of traction is going to look pretty close to the same regardless of the amount of traction.

Tell me you live in SoCal without telling me you live in SoCal.

Canada. BC and Alberta, the north bits. Wet mountain snow. -40 prairie winters. Have tire chains in my trunk. Have used them multiple times. Only -13c this morning but was -46c a month ago. Ya. I have done the winter driving thing. I did a bit of it this morning.

>Many places in the midwest have actually switched away from using salt to melt snow

They use salt to melt ice. They plow snow. The only times I've seen the midwest US use sand instead of salt is when the temperatures are below where salt is still effective.

Do you have a citation for this statement, because it is 100% the opposite of what I see in my day-to-day life.

Some area's won't be allowed to use salt, I know in Issaquah in Washington state they could not use salt upon the roads due to laws to protect the salmon streams.

Probably a fair few area's in which salt is prohibited for road use due to such things. So sand makes sense and for some that is all they will see in their area.

In the Seattle area, which Issaquah is part of, they use Sugar Beet Juice. Theres an interesting little article on it here: https://www.king5.com/article/news/local/bellevue/unique-mix....

(To help keep the salt stuck to the road instead of blowing away.)

To me, this is a much more restrictive claim than the original.

How much persistent snow does Washington state get though? The discussion is most relevant for places where snow falls and will stay where it is for months if something is not done.

Quite a lot, especially at higher elevations.

Issaquah is in the Puget Sound region, not the mountains. It has about as much snow as Seattle; i.e., some but not very much.

> How much persistent snow does Washington state get though?

At elevation, of course there's some that's persistent, but that's not much of the state at all. eg Crystal Mountain has snow in the winter, but is completely bare by the summer.

That's not even kinda the Midwest.

When you live in a coastal city everything outside the beltway is the midwest

That is pretty ironic that salmon are at risk of salt given they are famous for adjusting to the ocean. Even though they are essentially already terminally ill and falling apart when they head back into the river to spawn.

This may be about the other end of the cycle? The salt might harm microscopic things that salmon fry eat on their way downriver.

I presume the snow/ice was just a mixup, don't think there is much point arguing about it.

Yes, when I grew up in Sweden salt was everywhere as well. Then before I moved away the forbid salt in some places and replaced it with sand. If I recall correctly, erosion on cars and the effect on local fauna being the reason. I mostly saw sand being used instead of salt at that point. Now I don't know how it looks, as it was a couple of years ago, but I expect sand to be used even more now than before, as the country is getting more focused on ecology and sustainability.

In stockholm they use this relatively fine gravel now (at least the last 4 years I've been to Sweden in the winter). It's absolutely bloody annoying to walk on (and drag luggage near). But I suppose it's there to help the cars maintain traction in the ice/snow.

And I suppose you could sweep it back up again after the fact, etc. (there are piles of it left in areas for easy distribution I assume).

We use a mix by me. Sand goes for most stuff. Hills and dangerous intersections get salt. I think salt costs several times what sand costs, so it is only used where deemed necessary.

I don’t think public works and highway departments can really say “just get an SUV lol” unless they’re really rural. Plenty of small cars on the road in Milwaukee, Chicago, Minneapolis, etc.

Yeah, even in smaller towns there are a ton of people with Civics, Neons, and Saturns, and they have to get through all winter. You do need to carry a shovel in case the plow leaves a berm across your street or driveway apron though.

The remaining ones not destroyed by road salt rust.

Too late to edit, but now I understand why people on here use footnote numbers instead of asterisks. oops

My Civic does just fine in Michigan. The only time I got stuck was the one winter I didn't have snow tires.

SUVs actually often have worse traction because the larger tyres are more expensive so some buyers go with a single set of all-weather instead of a proper M+S tyre in winter.

I don't think I've ever met a non-enthusiast who had both summer and winter tires. Is that actually a thing? Maybe in the mountains? Here in Iowa, everything is pretty straight and flat, so you just need to leave more room to slow down.

I have winter tires for my Prius in Indiana. Makes a world of difference and I only use the snow tires for a month or two so they last a long time. The recommended tires on a Prius are these low-rolling resistance tires that are downright treacherous on snow.

Our Civic had some premium Michelin tires on it when we got it. They had zero traction in the winter. Slid through far too many intersections and was all too happy to see them go.

I have winter tires on because it’s the law 4-5 months per year but this isn’t the US. People in the north here use studded tires. Driving with summer tires in winter is extremely slippery, tires makes much more difference than road prep!

Similarly, in the northwest salt actually becomes a liability when temperatures are well below freezing. Using salt can actually increase the incidence of more compact, harder-to-see ice (aka black ice) because of the slight thawing and refreezing.

All our county plow trucks scatter gravel behind them. Only businesses seem to sprinkle salt around their entrances.

Madison WI still uses salt, but we also use a lot of a mixture of sand and salt, which looks like pure sand from a distance, and liquid salt solution sprayed directly on dry roads before snowstorms when possible. The city claims that both of these methods, while not eliminating salt, greatly reduce its use.

The city also puts out piles of sand-salt for residents to use, so I usually grab some at the start of the winter. The mixture is easier to store than either sand or salt by themselves. For instance, a pile of salted sand won't freeze solid.

Salt works by freezing point depression. You can throw salt on sheet ice and it will melt the ice, until it gets too cold. Calcium chloride works to even lower temperatures.

Does putting all this salt on the sidewalks and driveways of your house affect plants around your house? I would imagine that over the years the salt buildup in the soils around everyone’s house would be immense. In ancient times they would salt enemies agricultural land to prevent plants from growing. Do plants not grow near to sidewalks and driveways in the Midwest?

Plants grow anywhere in the Midwest, just not the ones you want. ;-)

Yes to some extent. We actually use the sand/salt quite sparingly, because shoveling usually takes care of things. Just a bit on the front steps, and in a couple places where it tends to ice up on the sidewalks in late winter.

Probably the main source of salt is what gets thrown from the street by the plow trucks.

The lot slopes down towards the street, which helps, and what happens to the grass on the boulevard, we basically don't care. The weeds seem happy enough. The University of Wisconsin has actually developed varieties of trees that are resistant to salt, and we have those varieties out front.

At my workplace they salt more heavily, and have had to re-sod the grass near the walkways. But I think that's the result of several factors, including over-fertilizing during the summer, and maybe having a variety of grass that's less salt tolerant than our weeds. We also don't fertilize or water our lawn.

Up here in the Fox Valley we've been using brine and selectively salting roads to reduce salt usage. There are concerns about sand usage adding sediment to storm drains and into Winnebago, but I think the same applies to salt as well.

> I don't think this a particularly fair criticism. Deicing salt works by absorbing moisture as it lands, before it can form a sheet of ice. It's useless if it gets wet before you use it

Over here deicing is frequently done with brine because it sticks better to the road and doesn't get blown away, so I'm very skeptical about the salt being useless when it's wet.

To add to this, there was a piece on NPR a few days ago where they talked about brine as a more environmentally friendly option to rock salt. De-icing salt gets into lakes and streams, and with brine you need much less salt to achieve the same results apparently.

The point was that rock/crystal salt is useless if it gets wet, because then it can't be reasonably used/moved/broadcast. If it turns into giant bricks of salt, it's impossible to work with.

When dry salt is disolved by water, it is brine.

> Deicing salt works by absorbing moisture as it lands, before it can form a sheet of ice.

That's...false? Salt gets spread on existing ice to melt it all the time. Where does the absorbed water go in this model? This assertion is so confusing.

As someone who grew up in a cold climate, the way I recall it is that the salt lowers the freezing point of water by forming a brine, allowing it to run off the road and/or be evaporated by the sun.

It's not quite as straightforward as "yes it does" / "no it doesn't." There's a temperature at which it's too cold for salt to work, and a great deal of the benefit of salt comes from friction as cars drive over it, crushing pieces of ice and forming that slush we all know and love, even at temperatures where it won't actually melt the ice.

> There's a temperature at which it's too cold for salt to work

Sure, brine has a freezing point.

> a great deal of the benefit of salt comes from friction as cars drive over it, crushing pieces of ice and forming that slush we all know and love, even at temperatures where it won't actually melt the ice.

What do you think slush is? It has liquid in it, and that's not molten salt.

> a great deal of the benefit of salt comes from friction as cars drive over it

You may have never tossed a handful of rock salt on steps that have a quarter-inch of ice on them and watch holes actually form in the ice within a half hour or so.

On thin ice, you can watch it form in real time!

Again, it's temperature dependent. Salt lowers the freezing point of water about 4 degrees (either units). Typically when it snows, it is close to freezing (if warmer it would rain, if much colder there wouldn't be enough moisture in the air for precipitation) so adding salt will melt the ice, but there's plenty of time when it's not in that narrow temperature range.

> before it can form a sheet of ice.

I think the person is just saying that pre-emptively salting the road (before snow/freezing rain actually lands) provides some additional level of safety because the road might spend less time with a frozen coating (as opposed to salting only after the surface is frozen over).

> "...but humidity spikes in the summer making deicing salt difficult to store in the off-season. Climate-controlled storage is expensive and deicing salt is quite heavy and bulky."

to provide some color, just-in-time doesn't literally mean holding no inventory and perfectly matching inflows to outflows. it means that stores of inventory and intermediate work product are minimized as much as possible in light of the typical mean and variance of a process, but not more than that.

in the case of a town, that means you'd likely size the salt store to be one storm's worth of salt and then trigger a replenishment as soon as a storm is imminent (just in time; that is, when necessity is established, but no sooner). you'd also likely try to deplete the store at the end of a storm season and replenish a storm's worth at the beginning of the next.

That's assuming you can get salt in time for the storm, or even at all at that point. At least on the consumer side, a lot of the manufacturing facilities that produce deicing salt switch over to producing fertilizer around new year's. A year or two ago we had a late winter storm and all of the stores in the area were out, and their warehouses too.

yes, good point. we base our statistical inferences on backward-looking data, but the future can change in ways we're unable to fully predict and account for.

this illustrates that just-in-time isn't an unalloyed good. it trades off resiliency for cost (and a bit of agility). it also introduces more structural variance in the supply chain, exacerbating supply issues, which isn't obvious on first blush (operations research coursework covers this).

And sand is becoming a precious resource. I believe it's been discussed on HN before.

https://www.bbc.com/future/article/20191108-why-the-world-is...

There is plenty of wind-blown sand, which I imagine is fine for this snow-on-road use. Rough river sand is getting more scarce and smooth, wind-blown desert sand should not be used for making concrete.

A lot of places are using things like beet juice in addition to sanding.

Curious would beet juice create red stains om the road?

Ive never noticed that on the roads here. You would think it would though eh, my hands are after cutting them

Could be sugar beet, which is white.

My late father worked in the salt industry. There is no cost effective substitute for salt. Sand is used for traction purposes, not to melt ice.

There are a number of chemicals that will melt ice though not as well as salt. But these alternatives are much more expensive, they get talked about a lot but haven't made a dent in salts market share.

For the non-americans here americans have a very 18thC view of their own geography - the "mid-west" is not in the middle of the west

My hometown used cinders. About the same as sand, but better at absorbing sunlight. No idea where they got them from.

It's useless if it gets wet before you use it

It's fine if it's wet as long as it can still be spread by the spreader. In fact, there has to be some moisture in order for the salt to lower the freezing point. It can't mix easily with frozen ice that has no free moisture.

"Pre Wetting" salt is actually a tactic used for snow/ice mitigation for this exact reason.

Minnesota pays 30-40% more per ton for salt than NY or Ohio. Midwest governments should be using their buying power and ability to control political subdivisions to make these mergers less profitable. For commodities, this is an area where government procurement shines.

In the absence of sane Federal regulatory action, consolidation of suppliers is best addressed by consolidating demand. A state like Minnesota should be forcing cities/counties to use a single state contract and leverage that demand to pull salt in from Canada, Western NY, wherever. Then use multi-state alliances to drive more demand and concessions from suppliers.

The downside is that winner take all procurement will put incumbents out of business, but that will happen anyway.

>> winner take all procurement will put incumbents out of business

The worst part isn't that companies go out of business, they probably won't, but that after a few rounds of one big state contract only one company will have the capacity to even bid for the contact. That one big company will then subcontract lots of little local delivery contracts. The one big company will have then effectively replaced the government in that it will manage salt delivery across the state.

Now do the same projection for government’s usage of cloud.

Who are the private organizations buying road salt/salting services to within even two orders of magnitude of municipalities/state govts?

That’s silly. A single buyer doesn’t have to buy the entire supply in one shot. They could easily say “We buy the cheapest marginal salt in any quantity until our total capacity is met. You must beat $CANADA_PRICE + $IMPORT_PRICE, as well as $NY_PRICE + $TRANSPORT_PRICE or we’ll have to buy from them instead”.

The parent spoke of "winner take all procurement", which is a very different concept than "single buyer".

I believe that's what your parent post is saying.

End of the day, the market is doing that anyway. Remember the private equity folks are buying up the means of production -- contracting out trucking or whatever is meaningless.

It's obviously building an old-school Trust, but under our current legal philosophy, as long the private equity / public companies slowly boil the frog and the commodity doesn't increase in price quickly, there will be no Federal regulatory action.

All of these things are re-treads of what happened between 1880-1920. The cost efficiencies driving profit are about using computer tech to reduce labor and other costs. In the old days, it was spinning machines powered by coal/gas/electricity displacing water or craft work. It's more profitable/lower risk to build a monopoly and slowly implement cost-cutting than to be forced to do so by a competitve marketplace.

Shouldn't low barriers to entry reduce these excess profits?

Most government bidding processes are, in and of themselves, a high barrier to entry.

Much of this is by design because the companies with the government influence to fix the problem are the ones who created it.

Yes, definitely.

Most government bidding processes would be improved by simplifying them drastically. Eg highest bidder wins. Instead of the beauty contests with lots of different factors that need evaluation by politicians.

The article claims it isn't economic to transport salt >150 miles over land.

So at the very least, you have to buy a salt mine in the right location. Maybe even start a new one, if the existing monopolists own them all.

Not exactly a low barrier to entry IMHO :)

Well, they should focus on reducing barriers to entry.

> The article claims it isn't economic to transport salt >150 miles over land.

The higher the excess profits, the bigger that radius gets.

Minnesota state procurement is seriously broken with residents now paying the second highest taxes in the nation (after CA). The only question is whether this should be attributed to incompetence via political appointments or straight up graft.

Check out the MNLARS project, if you’re interested in another excellent example. Pay attention to the insane dollar amounts involved and feel free to make up your own mind if the people in charge of that project were really that dumb or if there is something more sinister going on.

Minnesotans don't have much time for political nonsense. Taxes in Minnesota are not an issue. We have had the highest voter participation percentage of any state for a long time.

This is a great state to live in that cares about its citizens, people with disabilities and children. We also have great schools but we do have a large achievement gap. Another thing that bothers me are some of the inequities across counties. We also have a lack of affordable housing like everyone else does.

With respect to MNLARS you can read the report rather than speculate: https://dps.mn.gov/divisions/dvs/forms-documents/Documents/i...

Ah yes, the "Blue Ribbon Committee" organized by the same people who were responsible for managing the MNLARS project for the past decade. I'm glad there were able to put together this "independent" and completely bias-free review of this project so this can be put to bed.

Get real. I lived in MN most of my life and finally moved last year. I now reside in TX and keep much more of what I make. If you don't smell something fishy with this project and the way MN is managing tax revenue, they've got you fooled.

The politicians will hide behind very noble reasons to request more money from taxpayers. Perhaps there are some true believers, but they are only concerned with empire building, giving high-paying/do nothing jobs to cronies, and maximizing the amount of money flowing through their coffers.

People at all levels of government have few if any incentives to be results-oriented and efficient but are heavily incentivized to request more money, employees, etc. The unfortunate thing is that the people of MN have been easily manipulated via guilt, social justice, etc. into paying well more than their fair share. Maybe guilt is a cultural defect somewhat specific to MN, but it seems that the politicians have been quite good at exploiting it for gain.

> This is a great state to live in...

It _used_ to be a great state to live in. Below average wages, above average taxes. Keep buying into Minnesota exceptionalism and telling yourself that your quality of life is somehow better than other places in the US. It ain't.

> Get real. I lived in MN most of my life and finally moved last year. I now reside in TX and keep much more of what I make. If you don't smell something fishy with this project and the way MN is managing tax revenue, they've got you fooled.

Minnesota manages to keep the lights and heat on in the winter, how’s TX in that regard? You still pay taxes in Texas, just in different ways.

Road salt isn’t a complex delivery of services. It’s a pure commodity.

Large complex procurement fails or needs change orders frequently because they are large and complex. Buyers don’t understand what they want and sellers understand what they are told. More bidders often drive prices up.

Commodities are different. It’s driven by volume and competitive process. If 30 salt miners bid, you’re getting a good price. If 2 bid, your only path to better pricing is to go vertical to control demand. State governments are able to do that for this type of commodity. Supermarkets do the same thing with produce, although that was illegal until recently.

Buying salt is easy but delivering isn't.

Making direct comparisons among state income taxes is facile without acknowledging the marginalized rates. Do California and Minnesota have high tax rates? Yes, but only for high income individuals. California's highest bracket doesn't kick in until you make over $1MM and Minnesota doesn't until you make over $275k. Iowa's top tax bracket begins at $75k as an example. Someone making $80k per year would pay higher income taxes in Iowa than in Minnesota or California yet strangely the internet isn't full of people ranting about the tax rates in Iowa. If you compare effective tax rates versus median income, California and Minnesota aren't even in the top 20 most expensive tax states.

People in Iowa complain about their tax rates. If you don't live in Iowa, you don't hear about it. Iowa's population is too small to make the news for the most part (except at caucus time, but state taxes are not an issue in the national elections).

I live in Iowa. I've literally heard more people here complain about "Liberal California" tax rates than Iowa tax rates. Generally people just have a poor understanding of how taxation actually works. Most Iowa residents probably have no idea that they pay a higher tax rate they they would in California.

Exactly. I live in New York, which is definatly a high tax state. 51% of income tax revenues come from people making >$700k, and much of that money is transferred to people making <$32k. With refundable credits for children and property taxes, those folks have a near-zero or negative income tax rate.

It's hard to compare because it depends on you and policy.

Unless you have unusually high W-2 income, expensive or large property, etc most of the differences between states are pretty marginal when you net everything out.

Many of the "low tax" states have a catch, whether it be sales tax on food, school funding, high property taxes, local governance that encourages HOA, etc. At the end of the day, it doesn't really matter too much. People complaining about taxes is background radiation.

On the contrary, it really matters in some contexts, like for retirement purposes. Taxation of retirement income can really impact retirees.

Tax policy can also make a huge difference for whether rebalancing a portfolio is even viable.

I'll take your MN income tax if you'll take my NJ property taxes. Around here a typical middle class home is pushing $20k/yr.

Ohio has salt mines. Are there any in Minnesota?

Morton Salt from it's beginning led a charmed life. The company was so well managed that it was a Wall Street favorite. Then they got a young CEO in his thirties. He thought the company could be even more profitable if they got rid of everyone in the company over 55 years of age. Their replacements could be hired for much less money than they were making. This was before laws prohibiting it so he went ahead and did it.

My father who had spent a thirty year career at Morton Salt was suddenly out of a job after having the best year in his career. What the young CEO didn't realize is that in one swoop he got rid of some of the top performers while at the same time wiping out the people most responsible for maintaining the company's winning culture.

Within six months the stock collapsed, the young CEO had no answers and was fired. Morton Salt never recovered. They were merged with Thiokol and after the space shuttle disaster that merger was unwound. The once proud Morton Salt was passed around between different chemical companies until becoming part of Milliken's empire. All because of a single action by a young CEO.

Any recommended readings on this?

Morton Salt has whitewashed that part of their history. I know it because I lived it. If there wasn't a Harvard case study there should be.

Some of the employees sued though my father chose not to be part of the lawsuit because he had moved on. The company lost the lawsuit but I can't find any record of it on Google. I don't think that was a coincidence ;<).

What, roughly, was the timeframe for this? I'm presuming within the past 50 years or so?

Morton-Thiokol (I remember the name from the Challenger disaster, I didn't realise it was that Morton until, well, about 20 seconds ago) formed in 1982.

So that'd be 1970s / early 1980s?

It was I believe in the late seventies, 1976-77 perhaps.

According to [0], John Simmons became CEO in 1972 at age 53 and remained there until he stepped down for health reasons in 1980/81 (he died of cancer shortly thereafter) [1]

[0] https://www.nytimes.com/1972/11/16/archives/simmons-takes-mo...

[1] https://www.nytimes.com/1981/04/04/obituaries/john-w-simmons...

This story sounds highly suspect.

It'd be interesting to see a comparison between the various ways roads can be made safer for driving in wintry conditions. Plowing is clearly important, but putting down salt vs sand and gravel vs beat juice vs other solutions.

I want to see the performance of various types of vehicles on a test course when using different types of tires (all season vs winter tires at least) and the different salt-alternatives. For the cost of the alternatives, do any of them get close to the performance of salt?

Obviously salt is the cheapest, otherwise it wouldn't be in such high use. Maybe the price of salt going up will create a viable market for other solutions? Maybe some environmental concerns about salt use plus the cost going up will spurn development or cost reductions of competing solutions?

Markets being manipulated isn't always a bad thing. Sometimes people realize they don't need the thing whose market is being manipulated any longer as there's viable alternatives.

I'd be wary of say expending a lot more money on an alternative / more expensive solution... just because someone cornered the market.

You can use it as a scorched earth tactic. If the market disappears as soon as it's cornered, in the long term people will stop cornering markets.

But more importantly if you use a solution with a lot of known downsides for the sole reason that it's the cheapest, reevaluating that decision when costs rise is the prudent thing to do.

> in the long term people will stop cornering markets

I'm not at all convinced that is the case.

> if you use a solution with a lot of known downsides for the sole reason that it's the cheapest

I don't think your scenario means people will somehow consider something they didn't consider before. More likely in a disruptive event folks do whatever they can to fill the gap at the lowest price again ...

I think you're expecting efficiencies / consideration here that simply doesn't happen... or maybe already have.

This may just be a "Just-So" story, but in NZ we've found that Euro cars tend to go to utter shit after six years, requiring their purchase price and then some in spare parts to fix, and that this lifetime exists, because in Europe, after 5 or so years of driving on salted roads, they're corroded to shit, so the cars are engineered to go great for those 5 or so years because afterwards they'll be rooted so what does it matter.

Really want to clarify that this is an Aotearoa urban legend, and I have no idea if it's true or not. I will say though, that finding a running 2005 BMW that hasn't required multiple parts replaced is never heard of. Whereas a 2005 Toyota, no worries.

I guess I like this theory because the alternative is that Euro cars are just built badly compared to Jappas.

European cars, especially German ones, are built for company leasing markets almost exclusively. After the 5 year lease is up, it will be resold. To make more money for the manufacturer, it needs to start breaking down and requiring parts at that point. So everything is engineered to last exactly 5 years.

Huh, well that makes sense.

When I first travelled to München for work, I was amazed at the amount of luxury cars driving around Schwabing, until a German colleague mentioned that they were all most likely leased.

München is the most expensive city to live in in Germany. If you commute there you probably use public transport, if you life there you earn enough that you probably have a company car.

In Germany about 1/8th of all cars and 2/3 of all new cars are company cars.

I don't know about Germany, but The Netherlands has a significant market for second hand cars, and many cars, including German ones, are sold for serious amounts of money when they are 10 years old.

It is instructive to go to scrapyards. Typically many parts of a car are quite cheap. Some parts has some sort of design error and fail in almost all cars of the same model. However that varies from model to model and from brand to brand.

Of course, the lease market prefers low maintainance costs. So it makes sense for manufactures to optimize in reducing those costs during typical maintainance periods. But that does not imply that after 5 years or so, maintainance is suddenly sky high.

European cars are engineered to feel good while taking money out of your wallet. The 3 euro cars I owned all felt incredibly solid and substantial. They also were constantly in the shop and expensive to maintain. It has made me appreciate my Jeep and it’s less than solid build quality but still runs fine forever. Ironically my Jeep is based on a Mercedes Benz suv(Grand Cherokee shares some bits with the GLS) but hasn’t required the same monetary commitment to keep running.

A while after college, my wife moved to San Francisco from upstate New York. The first mechanic she took her car to asked whether she took the car to the beach a lot. He was not used to cars driven on salted roads.

European cars have more complexity, so more things that can break that requires expensive parts especially things that makes it more comfortable to drive on roads that are rarely flat or straight. There's less space for parking and more public transport in Europe so the second hand vehicle market is constrained so there's less incentive to make the cars last longer to retain resale value. Western European climate is wetter so corrosion used to be a big issue but it's much less so with modern materials. There's also a critical mass issue, e.g. Toyota is not so popular in some parts of Europe so the parts end up more expensive than say for VW parts.

My tip is to buy a car that's relatively popular where you are and in that area have a reputation for reliability and maintainability because this is actually different depending on where in the world you are.

For example I drive a first generation Land Rover Freelander in the UK that's 17 years old and it's the most reliable and maintainable vehicle I've had in the 5 different countries that I've lived in, but to most people around the world it would sound like I'm completely insane.

Living in upstate NY, it's rare to see cars more than 15 years old on the road. Metal cars rot out from corrosion to the point where they're not worth fixing after a little over a decade. For example, I used to own a 2005 VW Jetta which I really liked but I've not seen a VW Jetta or Golf of that vintage on the road in a long time.

It's not just the European cars which rot out due to corrosion around here, all makes and models do it. No one brand is terrifically worse than any other in terms of corroding away due to winter use.

A good number of people apply "undercoating" treatments to their cars around here. The creeping oil type treatments seem to provide a reasonable amount of protection with few downsides other than getting really messy when you need to work on the underside of the car. The rubberized types, if not applied properly and prior to any corrosion starting, seem to do more harm than good. But even undercoated cars will eventually succumb to corrosion. If you want a car to last here you store it away from about November till April.

In late 2019, I finally unloaded a 1997 2-seater I hadn't driven in the winter for quite a long time. The car was from the last model year (Honda del Sol) and was a minor cult thing. Latterly, the mechanics at the dealer always gathered round to look at it as basically you never saw them in the wild in the Northeast any longer.

Chiming in from the Midwest USA: cars manufactured with galvanized (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Galvanization) metal seem to fair better in my experience. That said, galvanization isn't terribly common and as you mentioned, if you really care about your car you should store it in the winter.

We just use the local carwash that blasts your undercarriage to get the salt off. Everytime it snows, the line at the carwash a few days later is long...

What I learned recently is that Japan (where I've only lived) is one of the country that has snowiest (not coldest) cities. I had thought norway or somewhere near is more snowiest but isn't. Maybe due to snower places aren't developed?

https://snownotes.org/japan-one-of-the-major-snowest-country...

Possibly it makes Japanese car relatively solid for snow. (But note that most car manufacturer's HQ/R&D isn't located in snowy city)

Sand isn't all that useful at temperatures near freezing- as the snow / ice melts a bit in the sun, it sinks in, and you end up with fresh glaze as it cools and refreeze. Using salt or similar to completely melt the cover allows it to drain off the road or sublimate, leaving the road dry.

Yeah, and I'd like to see a scientific study about this to show how it works and so people can understand it. A significant amount of money is spent on clearing and treating roads during wintry weather, I think it would be very beneficial to understand why taxpayers spend this money and what they get in return.

Additionally, if information such as "winter tires are X% better at stopping/turning than all season tires when treating roads with Y" could be presented, then maybe more people would opt to purchase winter tires (or maybe the opposite) depending on what types of solutions the local government uses.

Why tax payers spend the money: so roads are safe to travel on.

What they get: safe roads to travel on.

I don’t think we need a study here.

A brief google search brought up a PDF for winter tires from the traffic injury reduction foundation, with the basic conclusion that yes, they are better, but updated studies are needed for exact numbers.

Walk into any car tire store, and you will see displays for winter tires claiming anywhere from 25-35% improved stopping distance. Of course, with less frequent plowing, salting and sanding, these numbers likely go out the window. They get you better stopping distance, but they aren't magic and it is still worse than all season tires on a dry, summer road.

If you want safer winter roads, you use salt and / or sand and plow every time significant accumulation of snow occurs.

I drive on unplowed paved roads and I can tell you from first hand experience that there is a world of difference between snow tires and all season tires. The chemistry of the tire itself is different. All season tires start getting hard around 40F whereas snow tires stay soft/rubbery below 40F and colder. This is fundamentally why snow tires are superior for snowy/icy conditions. This is also why you should not use snow tires in summer because they will wear very fast due to the composition being soft.

The use of sand also requires extensive street cleaning each spring. Lots of the sand gets recovered, and is presumably re-used.

Reused? Ha-ha. Just swept somewhere out of sight.

Which is much better than the salts, because sand is mostly neutral, while salts, esp slow-dissoving stuff kills plant life long after the season ends.

Well, it's collected, and if they already have it in a dump truck, why wouldn't they re-use it? In the spring, the street cleaner cleans my whole street, and dumps each load at the dead-end. Later, it gets loaded into a dump truck and taken somewhere (3-4 dump truck loads in total, estimated).

The last few years they've used sand a lot more sparsely (only on intersections and hills), so I'm pretty sure the street cleaner only picks up one load and can carry it away without needing a dump truck.

It's not re-used. It goes to a landfill. There's too much street garbage mixed in by the time they sweep it up in the spring.

Sounds reasonable. But even as landfill I bet it gets reused as cover.

Maybe, but worth noting that both Vermont and Colorado (maybe more), have banned the use of salt on roadways due to environmental concerns. So to ops point, there are alternatives to using salt, even with near-freezing temperatures.

> So to ops point, there are alternatives to using salt, even with near-freezing temperatures.

in my experience here in colorado, the most commonly chosen alternative is "do nothing".

they dump the gravel/sand stuff out sometimes, but then it just accumulates near intersections, reducing traction in dry weather until the end of spring when they go sweep it off the sides of the roads.

Around here, they use grit instead of a fine sand. It doesn't matter as mcuh if there is a melt and freeze cycle. Since the grit is around the size of a pea, it leaves textured ice.

Don't get me wrong, you can still slip and fall, but I can catch myself more often and tires seem to do well enough.

We get a mix of grit and sand at intersections and steep hills, but it only lasts just so long- sand disappears and grit gets kicked off the road. It certainly beats salt alone, especially on a hilly gravel road and sharp turns and intersections, but I wouldn't advocate for it as a complete replacement.

> Obviously salt is the cheapest, otherwise it wouldn't be in such high use.

Not sure why you would assume that's obvious. The various solutions vary in effectiveness due to a number of factors, and are not equal in what they actually do. Sand doesn't melt ice, it provides traction. It's better when it's cold enough for the ice to stay ice. Salt melts ice, but is less effective in lower temperatures, and causes lots of fallout (corrosion, etc). Meanwhile plowing is the only real solution for heavy snowfall.

A small thing to add, not all road salt is the same. Some contain additional additives that allow them to be effective at lower temperatures. From what I recall, the low temperature salt is more expensive though.

Yup. They've got calcium chloride & magnesium chloride.

De-sugared beet juice is a common additive too

Oh yes, absolutely.

A possible solution is allowing studded tires and making snow tires mandatory at certain times of the year (Quebec does this). Studded tires would make driving a lot safer in icy conditions and snow tires are an incredible improvement over regular tires in wintry conditions (tradeoff is they tear up the roads). Winter Tire tech has vastly improved over the years and most manufacturers have added a feature for Icy conditions (sip their tires - https://www.discounttire.com/learn/tire-sipes ).

Salt may be cheap but there are environmental costs. Recently this news article was published about how Toronto rivers are seeing high levels of salt. If it's happening in Toronto, I'm sure it's happening all over the mid west and north east.

https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/toronto/road-salt-gta-water-1...

I think what might make this tough for midwestern states is that the snow doesn't stick around all winter. It's not unheard of to have 4-5 big snows that melt relatively quickly and most of the winter you're just dealing with cold weather. If you won't have a reliable snow pack you can guarantee you'll be driving on for three or four months it's hard to justify swapping out for snow tires or chains.

What will make it tough is that our roads already get destroyed every winter without the help of spiked tires.

In MN the entire summer is filled with road construction already. I wouldn't be that thrilled about switching my tires 2x every year either.

Get the winter set mounted on a second set of steel rims. It's a 45 minute job with the scissor jack that came with the car, less with anything better.

It's a nice excuse to spend a little time outside on a pleasant spring or fall afternoon.

This is exactly what I do. Just have your winter tires on another set of rims and use the jack that came with the car. I do have a impact driver to make getting the lugs on and off a lot faster though.

Exactly. My area gets snow 3-4 times per year, usually less than a foot. It is often gone within a couple of days. Our worst storm this year (roughly 15" of snow), the roads were cleared within a day or two. No way is it economical to buy snow tires; and snow tires damage roadways.

Snow tires do not damage roadways. Only studded tires damage roadways which are illegal in many states.

Studded tires destroy roads and are serious overkill, even for northern MI. (Not sure about CA).

Honestly, newer winter tires are amazing. I DD a newer Camaro with proper extreme weather tires. It's not fabulous in the handling department, but it will stop and go mostly straight.

But put those same tires on any modern family vehicle and you'll be all set. Even roads covered with a solid sheet of ice would be no problem in a FWD Camry.

> Even roads covered with a solid sheet of ice would be no problem in a FWD Camry.

I was with you till that last sentence. Have you ever actually tried to drive (or walk) on a solid sheet of ice? I was involved in a freak situation where the temperature plummeted suddenly after a few hours of mixed ice/water/slush precipitation. The roads and any other concrete flat surface were coated with smooth ice. We sat near a curve and watched all the 4WD vehicles come along and slide off the road. Wherever people were in town that evening they had to stay there until morning.

True sheet ice cannot be handled by any combo of FWD or 4WD without perhaps studs or chains. Even then it is sketchy. Fortunately, that kind of ice is fairly rare on a large scale. However, patches of ice are common and that creates many problems since drivers may not recognize it.

Yeah, I have, every year it's a problem because I live in a neighborhood where sump pumps dump onto the road, so ice dams forming and coating the entire road in smooth ice is common.

Modern extreme winter tires are designed for traction on ice. They are impregnated with this gritty stuff (made of walnuts shells, I think) which grips on ice. The grip is not great, but I can reliably get a RWD sports car up a modest grade in them.

Note that I'm not talking about the Mud and Snow tires that come on most vehicles. These have an indicator that is a snowflake in a mountain and usually can't be used above 60 degrees.

Here's a link to some examples: https://www.tirerack.com/tires/surveyresults/surveydisplay.j...

God help us if they start allowing studded tires in Michigan. I have a colleague who swears that some of the roads here are worse than where he grew up in an extremely poor, rural part of India.

Forcing everyone to spend hundreds of dollars each on studded or snow tires, to change them on and off, and to store them until next year would be prohibitively expensive for the the handful of days each year when the roads are actually snowy in the Midwest.

Yes car owners are rapidly hostile to actually directly paying the costs of their car use in the US.

I was amused when a Bernie supporter contacted me with the argument that Medicare 4 all would lower my car insurance rates. "Why is it a good thing to transfer costs away from drivers?" was my pretty immediate response.

Of course my 'libertarian' leaning state rep supports the same changes to vehicle insurance, except the costs would be dumped on Medicaid most likely.

In my situation, I would leave the Snows on from Nov-March and then spend the 20 minutes putting on my all seasons for spring summer and part of fall(both sets had their own rims). It was all a wash since the all seasons lasted about twice as long since I wasn't using them all year round. Insurance companies also give you a small discount if you have winter tires during winter.

Instead we push the cost off to being paid by everyone via taxes even if they don't drive.

> making snow tires mandatory

Why is this even necessary at all?

I'd like to see anyone who's got to drive a month or three on compacted snow or snow slush and not willing to switch to winter tires.

The car becomes uncontrollable at like 32 kph / 20 mph.

Back there in Finland they use crushed granite and it works just fine without corroding everything in sight and also killing plant life.

I lived in MN for most of my life and I never switched to snow tires. Some people I knew did, and I believe them when they say snow tires are better. However in the end traction just isn't an issue, nobody drives fast when it is icy and at slow speeds I did just fine.

Tread depth/design is king for the "not quite liquid, not quite solid" slush that most snow commuting is done in anyway. All that stuff has to go somewhere, preferably somewhere other than between your tread blocks and the pavement.

The chemical composition of snow tires is completely different compared to an all season tires. All season tires get hard whereas snow tires stay soft. That is why you can't keep snow tires on all year is because they will wear really fast in hot temps because the rubber is soft to begin with.

You can't really require studded tires in a place that can have 2 weeks of lots of snow, followed by 3 weeks of no snow and repeat.

You'd have to repave the entire city each year. And you can't expect motorists to keep adding and removing the studs as the weather changes.

Studded tires are only realistic in a place where you need them for an entire season.

Snow tires on the other hand can help a TON. But not everyone has room to store them in the off season.

Once you consider the environmental and health costs of studded tyres I am not sure if salt is all that bad. It's usually combined with small stones that increase road grip as well. Studded tyres grind the road down to small particles that contribute to the fine dust problem in cities and this also requires new layers of asphalt fairly often.

Well, you can design the roads better. Two primary ways are used.

The first is material properties. For example, it's possible to make roads using asphalt mixtures which naturally prevent ice from forming. I've heard a rumor that the Autobahn is made of such a compound, but I can't find corroborating evidence right now.

The second is shaping the surface. For example, leaving parallel grooves in the driving surface increases traction. See the first picture at this link for an example: https://www.concreteconstruction.net/how-to/construction/con...

The latter technique is used widely across the Midwest. I'm not certain about usage of the former, but road maintenance costs are significantly higher in the Midwest than other parts of the country thanks to multiple freeze-thaw cycles per year, so switching to a ice-mitigating compound may not be cost-effective when balancing multiple variables. If an ice-mitigating compound reduces roadway durability, you'll avoid it since you'll need to send a plow over the road anyways to clear the snow...

No, the Autobahn just doesn't typically get that cold and has highest priority access to snow plows.

"salt is cheapest" does not take into account all the associated damages they cause as well, from eating away at bridges, roads, and vehicles, to polluting waterways that are starting to kill off freshwater fish.

Why isn't tire chains solution for rarely snowed area?

Not a single mention about "positive" impacts that less road salting will have on aquatic ecosystems.. Interesting article though

This reminds me that this is what annoys me about comedians doing news. Everyone thinks their favorite late night talk show host is better news because they raise awareness in a digestible format. But they arent willing to realize that every single topic - if it is on their show - is presented in a pejorative view.

Between the quick cuts to “here’s a funny photoshop” (said in John Oliver’s voice), it should be a red flag that they aren’t actually balancing out the purpose of an organization or system or how it got to be that way

Its just “system you aren't a part of is bad, we raised awareness, we did it you’re informed!”

Trevor Noah, John Stewart, Steven Colbert, John Oliver, Hasan Minhaj, all do/did it the same

This bothers me. All part of the same polarizing filter bubbles we want to think that only people with different beliefs are in.

The news is more about cutting a good promo than informing the public.

Anyone who gets their news from comedians should be laughed at and any comedians who think that they are important should be ignored.

I don’t know how people can stand the John Oliver/Hasan Minhaj schtick. The shows are so formulaic with some out of context clip followed by a crude analogy. “That would be like if so and so did this and that and blah blah”.

Despite the misnomer title of his show, John Oliver has always done issue advocacy not weekly nor news.

I'm reminded of John Stewart on a Tucker Carlson show 15 years ago where Stewart had to explain the difference between his Comedy Central comedy show and Tucker's News show.

I didn't know all the right news was so non-pejorative. Maybe if they'd add a laugh track it would be more entertaining.

The point is that they aren't balanced either

It doesnt fix the adage: if you dont watch the news you are uninformed, if you do watch the need you are misinformed

Comedy news is not fixing this by presenting everything as the controversy of the day. They are all still omitting lots and are just aiming to rile you up like the others. “But its funny and feels good and isnt Fox or OAN so it must be balanced!” is really what many of the viewers feel.

> balanced

Said no viewer anywhere. I’ve never encountered anyone who thought Comedy Central was advertising a balanced view.

I initially dismissed this comment because the article was clearly about the market dynamics of an infrastructure-critical commodity.

But on reflection, I would say that this comment misses the point by less than I'd originally thought.

I would argue in response to it that every market-focused topic should include the key externalities associated with the topic.

Maybe the newly formed salt monopoly will increase prices, thus reducing use of salt on roads and reducing the impact on the environment. Win-win?

Maybe, just maybe, more people could start buying winter tires. I wish our local governments would require them during the winter.

Winter tires and/or tire chains were uncommon where I grew up in a midsized city of the Great Lakes region. We regularly got multiple feet of snowfall, and depended mainly on city plows and salt trucks. I only encountered tire chains with any frequency when I moved to the West Coast, mostly in the context of driving to Lake Tahoe.

Many Scandinavian countries require cars to switch over from summer to winter tires and the other way around in spring and in autumn. Some even allow tires with spikes, which damage the roads, but only in winter. Spikes allow you to drive on very icy roads when it is too cold for salt to work. Driving from Sweden into Denmark, they'd actually check your tires at the border in the winter sometimes because they do not want people damaging their roads with their spikes.

Kind of sensible to require cars have proper tires; also from an insurance point of view.

Many mountainous regions across Europe too, like the French region where I live. Tyres are potentially part of any routine police check. The region is a rather poor one, and many roads are simply not salted at all. With proper winter tyres (and AWD helps too, but it's not as important as tyres), you get through, albeit sometimes with poor elegance.

The amount of snow we get is never anywhere close to those American phenomena I see sometimes in the news, where snow gets half way up your front doors nearly overnight. Seeing that, I'm surprised to read that most people don't use snow tyres in such places : it feels like going against common sense even on an purely individual level.

In places that get a lot of snow we have good snow removal. Thus you don't need snow tires as you aren't driving in it much. You also learn to drive in snow, which mostly means slow down.

And conversely we read about what anyone in the Midwest would consider to be a minor snowstorm and it causes a catastrophe in the South. See for example this article about 3 inches of snow in Atlanta, Georgia.

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/atlanta-other-parts-of-south-pa...

That makes sense. Then there is still the problem of the cold tarmac, on which summer tyres are said to have poor grip, but that may not be as obvious to the average commuter as a road turned to thick white with two icy ruts to follow. And anyway I'm getting off topic regarding salt :)

In DFW this year it was -18c one day and two later it was 25c. That isn't normal but every year we have at most one or two periods where there is at most a week of frozen precipitation. The problem is we don't know which month it is going to happen in and it happens suddenly. Climate change made it worse perhaps, but it has been this way for at least decades. I rember waiting in line for santa it was a beautiful 22c, before we got to the front of the line it was -7c.

This is changing somewhat though. Several of the larger cities in Norway are struggling with poor air quality during winter, so studded tires have either been banned or require you to pay a tax in order to use them. [1]

This doesn't apply everywhere though, and people are require to use common sense and use the tires (and chains) that are best for where they live.

[1] - https://www.stavanger.kommune.no/en/waste-and-environment/mi...

How do studded tires harm air?

I could see higher rolling resistance leading to poorer fuel efficiency and greater exhaust emissions. Though, I imagine temperature inversions, home heating (particularly via wood), etc. have a much greater impact on Winter air quality.

Faster tire abrasion causes

a) more particulate pollution from tire residual (which can be massively worse than pollution from exhaust in cities)

b) more exhaust pollution from worse car mileage

This is more or less correct; a car with studded tires will average around 20kgs of asphalt dust over a normal winter season.

The dichotomy between Detroit and Ontario is interesting. Anecdotally my experience has been that folks in Ontario (Ontarians?) are much more likely to equip winter tires than my peers and neighbors here in Detroit.

When I lived in Detroit, I was happy when I would just have enough money to buy some (used) tires with tread on them at all. Another set just for winter was totally out of the question.

...and I wasn’t even the most broke of my friends, all of whom drove every day (because how else do you get to work?).

It might be a legality thing. I don't know about Ontario specifically, but I live in BC and there are a lot of roads that are closed to drivers without winter rated tires. Some places even require you to have chains in the vehicle.

In general owning a car in Canada is significantly more expensive than my experience in the states. Gas is currently $4.82USD. My insurance is close to double what it was in the US. And there is 12% sales tax on vehicles in BC.

The flip side is that in the cities, transit is much better. A lot of my Canadian friends (mostly Vancouver and Toronto) didn't get their first cars until their mid twenties because it is faster and cheaper to use transit for a lot of purposes.

I live in greater metro Detroit and I used to think the same thing, until I bought winter tires and tried to get an appointment to have them put on in mid-November -- Discount Tire and Bell Tire were both booked solid for weeks with everyone swapping to winters, so I think it's more common than you'd know just looking around.

That said, I didn't buy them until I had a long commute after graduating from college, since I could get around well enough in the college town only needing to go a few miles to the grocery store and such.

Now, mid and post pandemic, I'll probably only maintain a set for one vehicle since that's all I'll be driving in ugly weather, since I'll be staying home whenever the weather is even vaguely questionable.

My friend that lives in the mountains bought a set of cheap steel wheels to keep his winter tires on. That way he can swap them out without going to the tire shop.

In most of the northern US, that wouldn't make much of a difference without properly plowed and salted roads.

Winter tires are no help, for instance, when you're on what amounts to a sheet of ice.

They're also no help when you're in 2 feet of snow.

They're a big help at the margins, and it's definitely worth the investment in many, many cases, but they're absolutely no substitute for sufficient road treatment.

I have parked up on an icy carpark and could hardly stand up when I got out, had no problems driving off afterwards though.

They do, in fact, help on ice. There are plenty of youtube videos showing winter tire demos on hockey rinks.

And again, yes, they help substantially in 2 feet of snow.

I agree that properly treated roads are necessary, but we treat roads for the lowest common denominator. If we as a population properly prepared (say that three times fast) for poor road conditions, we and our environment would be way better off.

I've had winter tires, and tried to drive on ice (not intentionally). Were they better than all-weather tires? Maybe. Didn't try to do a direct comparison.

Did the experience suck hard? It really did. I happened to get really lucky, and there was no one around, and I just ended up spinning around and pointing the wrong way, so I very carefully turned back around and went on my way.

But however much they may help, trying to claim that winter tires are good enough that we can use them instead of proper road treatments is irresponsible and dangerous. And I say this as someone who is extremely upset at the environmental toll standard road salt takes every winter.

I'm surprised to learn that this is not mandatory

It depends on the region. In parts of the Rockies (and other mountainous areas of the US), they are seasonally required, sometimes only on certain roads.

I grew up in Colorado, and have never seen a tire requirement. I had all-seasons the entire time I lived there. I got my first set of snow tires in my 30s when I moved to Ithaca, NY.

I think they're saying M&S symbol is required for certain areas (not actual winter tires). Most all-seasons have that though.

Relatively recently. Portions of i70 across the Rockies have requirements on either chains or awd during certain periods.

Honestly. It makes a lot of sense.

Winter tires are great, but they aren't anywhere near as effective as salted roads.

Source: 3 decades living in Canada, with winter tires on my car 4-5 months per year.

Winter or studded tires make sense in flatland winter.

If you live around mountains, the high roads will be icy while the low roads have no snow.

When I lived in the hills in NZ, the road maintenance crews dropped grit on areas prone to ice, and we all carried chains, and blankets, just in case.

Winter tires are completely serviceable on dry pavement. I'm actually pretty surprised to read that people in the midwest don't regularly switch tires in the winter. The importance of winter tires comes just as much from their behavior in cold temperatures as it does from the different tread pattern. All-season tires use harder rubber compounds that lose nearly all their grip in the cold.

I run winter tires until lows in my area are mostly above freezing, regardless of whether there's any snow on the ground.

I live in an apartment with on-street parking. Where do you suggest I store these tires for the other seven months of the year?

I live in Canada and this is a common question! Most places that install tires will also store them for you. Tire stores, dealerships, etc.

In countries where winter tyres are comon, tyre shops that offer tyre changes also offer storage for your unused tyres for something like 30 Euro (for all 4) per season. Or 50 Euro and they'll even wash your tyres for you.

Yeah of course this doesn't exist in the US, but if they made winter tyres mandatory surely someone will start this business.

>Yeah of course this doesn't exist in the US

Where did you get this impression? This absolutely exists in the US.

Example that costs $99.

https://www.belletire.com/tires-and-wheels/off-season-storag...

So not only do I have to pay for tires, I have to pay for storage. If this is made mandatory, there's going to be a lot of people who can't pay.

Serious question, if you crashed in winter conditions, and you didn't have appropriate tyres or chains, would your insurance cover it?

Lacking a mandate to use winter tires, yes, they probably would.

Sweet, that makes sense. Thanks!

Definitely depends on the specifics of the individual policy, many policies (that I've had) don't list winter tires as a requirement for wintertime, but sometimes you can get a discount on your premium for having winter tires if you live in a snowy area, which then would have a tire requirement in the policy.

And your insurance would cost more to cover. Insurance isn't free.

But if you had an insurance deductible of $1,000 that $1,000 could well be enough to buy a set of winter tires and rims.

not to mention the injustice of having to pay for seatbelts!

sometimes safety isn't free.

You don't have to change your seatbelts with the seasons.

Dude, seriously? It's part of the cost of owning a car, cars are really expensive to own and maintain - that's life.

Winter tires are worth it if it snows regularly where you live, you'll probably save money in the long run by not crashing and your insurance might even give you a discount for putting winter tires on.

I don't put on winter tires nowadays because it only snows 0-2 times a year here so I simply don't drive in the snow instead. When I lived in a very snowy area I got winter tires put on every winter.

This likely doesn't apply to a lot of people here, but I have several friends for whom a new set of tires is a substantial portion of the value of your vehicle. When you're driving a $2,000 car, buying $600 worth of tires probably doesn't make a lot of sense.

Of course, you could buy used, but I would wager most of the things that make winter tires good in the winter tend to wear out by the time they make it to a used tire shop.

> Of course, you could buy used, but I would wager most of the things that make winter tires good in the winter tend to wear out by the time they make it to a used tire shop.

probably not. the main thing that makes a winter tire good in the winter is the rubber compound. as long as the tire has enough tread and is less than about six years old, it will outperform all-seasons in cold weather. every rubber compound has a temperature window where it performs optimally. too cold and the tire is like a rock; it doesn't grip well even on dry pavement. too warm, and the tire is too supple and will wear out much faster. if you expect to do a lot of driving in ambient temperatures much below 40F, you need winter tires. you might get away with all-seasons for a long time, but you probably don't realize how close you are to the tire's limits.

Look, when I was a poor college student my car was worth less than $2k, I still put winter tires on. Safety is a top priority and I'd absolutely needed to get to class in the snow.

Still a ton cheaper for those people than having their cars rust out on them, which is a larger lump sum even if it's a comparable cost over time (which it's likely not).

I store mine at the tire changing place down the road.

The tire store, same place everyone else stores theirs.

Ask the people of Montreal. They live in apartments and have a winter tire mandate in Quebec.

I will, thanks. Do you happen to have Montreal's email?

buy another set of wheels. swap the entire set twice a year. usually the shop will charge you less to swap a whole wheel than to swap the tires themselves (less labor). if you have a small apartment, the unused set can make nice stools for guests. if that aesthetic isn't for you, there are things called "storage units" that you can rent to store things you don't want to keep in your apartment.

hahahaha i'm guessing you're not currently cohabitating?

Nor experienced tire dust and winter tire grime.

they make bags for wheels.

nah but if I were, I suspect the excessive amount of computers, ethernet cables, and guitars would be a bigger issue than the "stools" ;)

but seriously, there is an observation to be made here about social norms around vehicle safety. all-season tires are not safe for winter use in large swathes of north america. why do we scoff at people who prepare appropriately?

the jab is in good fun. i've had some very...patient partners, lets say.

most people i know who drive in the northeast don't have any qualms with having a 2nd wheelset and storing it.

i think there's a rather NA quirk to GP's comment -- they live in a small urban apartment, with no storage space available, but still have to own a car.

If you can't store tires in the living room you're dating too high up the socioeconomic ladder.

Winter tires (not studded) really are amazing. I live near DC, so don't normally use them (we don't get enough snow to bother - just stay home for a day or two and it's melted).

But, when I had a Miata (small RWD sports car), I did use them and they made the car one of the best snow vehicles I've owned. Better than the AWD Lexus SUV we owned at the time for sure.

Yep; had an RX8 in Ithaca, NY. Had 2 sets of wheels + tires: one for summer and one for winter. The winter tires meant I was cruising safely and smoothly in a RWD car while regular vehicles with all seasons (and on occasion, Subarus with AWDs) were struggling to climb up or drive safely down (relatively) steep streets.. (Ithaca is a bit hilly)

Studded tires are even better.

I grew up in Minnesota and commuted on the DC beltway (Bethesda to Reston) for about 18 months for my first job out of college.

Drivers panic on the D.C. beltway the second a snowflake hits the pavement.

Good all-weather tires probably give you better average traction than winter tires in D.C., even in Winter.

All-weather tires will definitely be safer, since you will be less tempted to venture out into the apocalyptic hellscape that D.C. metro area roads turn into the second that drivers see a snowflake.

True, even with snow tires, it was safer to just stay home. Too many people who think AWD fixes snow or think they can drive well enough to take their Corvette out in a blizzard.

Studded winter tires are a major health hazard though[0][1]

[0] https://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2018-10/cuot-swt1001...

[1] https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2011/01/110105121137.h...

"Its [salt] main use is deicing our roads ..."

I thought this sounded surprising, salt is used for lots of things, and it'd be surprising if road use was the main one. So I went to look, found a bunch of sources, including [1] and indeed this does not look to be correct. Further down the article acknowledges that indeed only about 40% of salt is used for deicing roads, but it really annoys me when writers knowingly write misleading statements at the top of their piece for "impact".

The article also fails to mention that there are a number of alternatives available if it's infeasible to acquire salt in sufficient quantities, such as CMA[2]. Currently CMA is about 13x more expensive, but that would seem to put some sort of constraint on just how much price gouging is possible, especially as CMA and similar alternatives have a lot of significant upsides, such as much less vehicle damage and environmental impact.

1: https://www.grandviewresearch.com/industry-analysis/industri... 2: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Calcium_magnesium_acetate

To me "main use" only says it's bigger than any other single use, not that it's > 50%.

I agree that just writing "40%" would be more informative, but that's not how journalistic writing works, for reasons I don't fully understand.

I won't argue this specific case but, in general, terms like "most," "about half," a "significant majority," and so forth can be more readable for a general audience than spouting off a bunch of precise numbers (which may not really be that accurate anyway).

They actually gave the number lower down. “Roughly 40% of domestic salt, produced largely from mining, is used not for food or chemicals, but for deicing.”

So, I don’t know what the issue here as the term main use is as you say accurate.

In what possible world is a 13x priced chemical a meaningful rebuttal to the notion that this conglomerate would be free to gouge prices? It’s good to know it exists, but it’s a red herring from an argumentation perspective.

> Further down the article acknowledges that indeed only about 40% of salt is used for deicing roads

Isn't that the main use then? The article doesn't say the majority is used for deicing. It says it's the main use. Unless there is another use at 41%, then this is the main use.

I don’t think you’ve identified any criticisms here that negate the main points he’s making.

As others have already stated, though probably not the most informative, “main” is a reasonable choice in this context. Given that, your choice to label it as knowingly misleading for impact is itself more deserving of criticism than the thing your criticizing.

As a small fleet owner I would gladly deal with increased car accidents if it meant they didn't salt the roads.

I would gladly buy studded tires and chain up if they didn't salt the roads.

I would gladly deal with worse traffic in the winter if they didn't salt the roads.

I would gladly incur a greater risk of harm or death if they didn't salt the roads.

I would voluntarily pay more fuel taxes if they didn't salt the roads.

I would put up with all sorts of shit to get the state to stop chemically destroying my property. And pretty much everyone I know feels the same way.

When people complain about public policy written by people in ivory towers who are unaffected by their own policy this is the kind of crap they're talking about. To see such policy presented as though there are no tradeoffs what so ever just drives the point home.

Edit: Since apparently I didn't leave enough space between the lines for people to read, let me make this clear. I'm doing ok. I my fleet is N=6. I can play musical panel vans and station wagons as needed in order to keep costs down and put the wear and tear where I want it. That insulates me pretty well from vehicle maintenance issues. I can phase a vehicle out by neglecting it and then buy a replacement. Someone driving one old car to their job does not have this luxury. You're caught between several rocks and hard places with regard to transportation options. The state is raising the cost of you dragging your butt to your job and telling you its for your benefit. What's an annoyance for me is a serious financial problem for others.

As a small fleet owner, you are effectively the landed elite. Ivory tower nothing, this is money-before lives of others.

As a previously poor owner of a previously junky car that was previously leased by someone who appreciated salt on the roads ... I also appreciated salt on the roads.

In fact, I was recently back in MN, and my outright-owned, otherwise nice vehicle which did stand to take some damage from salt, but I appreciated when they salted the roads.

Salting the roads aren't doing junky car owners any favors. I've had to replace suspension components, fuel lines, entire frames for rust. These things need to be replaced to keep the vehicle going and are not cheap. Suddenly that $3k honda civic is looking at $3k worth of repairs unless you want to risk your life when you approach highway speeds. I'm always shocked how in California there are absolutely beat up cars from the 70s all over the roads still.

You're not wrong.

It's just the alternative proposed in above is not better. In fact, I assert it's worse.

I believe that a road made safer with salt and sand is better than requiring individuals to take the steps of adding chains, tire studs, etc.

I do not trust anyone to be so careful and intelligent and responsive to varying conditions.

I expect enforcement of a "chain proclamation" to be haphazard at best esp. because it would occur precisely when enforcing traffic laws is the most difficult due to adverse weather.

I assert that car maintenance is an acceptable price to pay to hedge against accidents and save lives through the widespread use of salt.

I'm just clarifying, I do agree with you about how expensive it can be and how nice it is to own a car in Cali or other dry, warm areas.

property > lives

You probably didn't read the memo that was presented to us repeatedly in 2020.

You would prefer more dangerous roads for _everyone_ if it made maintaining your fleet cheaper? Am I reading this right is that the reason?

My fleet is fine. I'm rolling in the dough (relatively to the average person who has to deal with these problems). My maintenance is done in house (mostly by me) at very low cost. I have a slow season to spend on preventive repairs.

The janitor driving a 1997 pile who gets to choose between $1k for a new exhaust or $2k to roll the dice on a replacement vehicle is the person who really gets screwed here.

As a Canadian who lives with salted roads all the time ... what are you talking about? There is nobody I know that wants this. Studded tires and chains chew up asphalt. No one wants to die on icy roads. No one wants to spend 6 hours stuck in cold weather hoping you don't run of of gas because of an accident caused by icy roads.

My last car, a Toyota Camry lasted 12 years without noticeable rust and, for all I know, is still running in the used market. My 2015 Prius is pristine. What "chemically destroying" is going on?

Salt doesn't make sense if you get a LOT of snow and have steady cold weather but for vast parts of Canada and the US it makes sense.

We moved to the next town over four winters ago. We still do all our shopping in the original place because that's where all the stores are and where I work.

Our ten year old car went from having no rust to having completely rusted out rocker panels in two winters.

Granted, they seemed to rust from the inside out, but over the course of the winter you can watch in real time as the rust spreads and dissolves more of the car.

I appreciate that the road is always clear and passable. That's great.

I wouldn't mind the rust so much except body shops won't touch the stuff. They only want to deal with fender benders and whatnot on new vehicles with fat insurance payouts.

Not much appetite for patching cars up and keeping them on the road.

Chains and studded tires lead to increased road wear. When I lived there the joke was MN has 142K miles of paved roads, but only enough asphalt for 100k.

> As a small fleet owner I would gladly deal with increased car accidents if it meant they didn't salt the roads.

> I would gladly incur a greater risk of harm or death if they didn't salt the roads.

Let's hope that people around you are smart enough to keep you as far away as possible from local government.

A lot of people have taken a rather negative interpretation of this post. I certainly see how it could be read that way, but let's for a second assume that maybe the author is just a little tone-def, perhaps didn't score top of the class in social awareness (a trait perhaps others here might share).

Perhaps what the author meant by saying that they are a small fleet owner is that they for professional reasons are highly aware of side=effects and negatives consequences of salting roads, things which also hit people who don't have a fleet of cars they are managing.

When you have a fleet, you have more data points than when you only have a single car.

And yes, I've been poor and homeless myself, so I am speaking from an understanding of what it means to be on the edge (and sometimes on the wrong side of the edge).

Where I used to live used crushed glass as part of a traction mix. They claimed there were no adverse effects on tires but there were many complaints from cyclists that their tires were popping regularly.

Seems if it sprays into the air and gets into people's eyes, that would be an even bigger problem.

Seriously. Sounds like a major public health crisis in a few decades.

Or gets into your lungs. I believe this is how Spinoza died.

this sounds horrible. what if you walk on it and track it home? then you get to walk on crushed glass with your bare feet? yikes

It's really not that different from walking on sand.

Crushed glass is silica which is a component of sand.

Naturally-weathered sand and recently-crushed glass can have very different surface properties (i.e. glass can be sharp!).

The stuff they use for roads is not sharp.

and it make the road so much noisier too.

I went from Ontario where salt is used to Alberta where grit (gravel) is used and I'd say grit is better. The downside is more windshield repairs, the upside is car underbodies last a lot longer and you don't have the slippery time after salt is first spread.

In the northeast US I think they typically use a mix of both sand and salt.

Alberta gets too cold for road salt to be used which is why they use gravel. Though, I agree and would like to see gravel used in Ontario as it is much better for the environment. We are seeing a significant rise in the salinity of our rivers and, more concerning, groundwater drinking wells.

In Ontario, sand is typically used outside of cities, at least in Simcoe County. It's remarkably effective at melting ice and snow.

Sand does nothing to melt ice and snow. It's used for traction.

Yes, it's used for traction, but sand will absolutely melt snow and ice. I know from experience. On my low-traffic street, the ploughs only spread sand on intersections and hills (to conserve it, I'm assuming), and when the rest of the street is hard-packed snow and ice, those spots are bare asphalt. It melts it by making it darker, thus absorbing more sunlight. This effect is less pronounced at extremely cold temperatures, and only works during the day.

Grit and salt are two tools used for different temperature.

Salt is better when the weather is close to 0 celcius. Grit is better when it's colder.

I believe salt stops being effective around -12C, so for colder places it's not an option.

"Salt is a regional business, it’s just not economical to move extremely bulky road salt over land more than 150 miles"

This is wrong. Here is a map of salt deposits and production in the U.S.

https://panethos.files.wordpress.com/2020/03/4mhrldi.jpg

As you can see there are vast areas of the country more than 150 miles away from where salt is mined.

That's a map of "major" deposits. I'm going to guess that there are either 1) smaller local operations outside of those areas or 2) the economics of transport raise the cost of sale significantly in those areas.

(or most likely, some combination of 1 & 2)

A big irony is how America got a salt monopoly, while China has just scrapped its own.

I believed China was the one, and only country in the world still left with a salt tax, and a salt monopoly.

I take issue with this view at the beginning of the article:

> They need salt. And not the kind of salt that flavors our food, but the kind that melts snow and ice. If we don’t have salt, no one can drive, because salt is what keeps our roads manageable.

Driving in snow/ice without salt is absolutely possible, but requires better driver education.

I may be wrong, but I heard that in certain Scandinavian countries (e.g. Norway) being able to control a skid is part of the driving test.

Driving in snow/ice, even snow/ice that is at the melting point and therefore extremely slippery due to the water, is absolutely possible without salt, but it requires your 'average Joe' to understand that they need to slow down, to leave 10* the space from the car in front, etc.

As many have noted, salt negatively impacts aquatic ecosystems, and also decomposes your shiny new car into a pile of rust.

Any situation that can be permanently resolved by education and intelligence, rather than by brute-forcing a constant 'workaround', would seem to me to be the best way forwards; but as is often the case, stupidity, laziness, resistance to change, and those who provide the salt being scared of the loss of revenue, win out...

/rant

Also in some places it's completely futile to keep adding salt(or it's simply too cold for salt to be effective) and grit is used instead. It's not an insurmountable problem. But yes, driver education is a huge part of it.

> Driving in snow/ice without salt is absolutely possible, but requires better driver education.

Good luck with this. If the past year has taught us anything, it's that Americans will fight tooth and nail against even the slightest hint of being told what to do.

Driving in snow/ice without salt is absolutely possible, but requires better driver education.

Can you elaborate on what the education would cover? My experience driving in the midwest for 30 years has been that if at any given moment, physics decides you, even as an abundantly cautious driver are going for a slip and slide, you're going for a slip and slide.

A sliding car doesn't have to be an uncontrollable car. When it's only snow on the road, it's just a bit of sliding here and there, but most drivers can still drive safely.

I consider myself a highly skilled driver but I agree that when there's a mirror-like icy spot hidden under the nice fluffy snow on top, and you hit it at the wrong moment, you're just going.

I completely understand that and agree with it.

It doesn't answer my question though. What kind of education, besides the education we already give about being a safe driver is the kind of education needed to be "good" at driving on snow and ice?

Asking as someone who is reaching a point where training a younger human how to drive is about to be a thing, and I'm always curious what others think of how to drive in this mess.

I've got all kinds of strategies and tactics passed down from my old man, and you know what? After researching I learned that almost all of them are orally traditional wives-tales and actually have more anecdotal histories of helping my dad avoid a tree than any actual real value when the rubber meets the ice..

The only thing that saves your ass when the rubber meets the ice (and your car's stability assist fails) are your own lightning fast reflexes and loads of experience.

There can be the usual "do this when the car oversteers, don't do this when it understeers", but it's crucial that the beginner driver experiences it all in a safe and controlled manner. A parking lot, an old airfield, a safe road in the middle of nowhere. Literally the fun stuff we did behind our parents' backs. Pulling the e-brake on FWD cars, drifting the RWD cars, getting a feel for the different sounds of different surfaces under the tires. When doing this on snow and ice it's not even that hard on the car and it's fun and also educational.

A car sliding a bit on a snowy road when you've been expecting it is a non-event. A car sliding unexpectedly with a beginner behind the wheel is a terrifying experience and often a dice roll between stuck-in-a-snow-bank or a head-on collision.

>What kind of education, besides the education we already give about being a safe driver is the kind of education needed to be "good" at driving on snow and ice?

You gotta drill into people's heads that "more of what you're already doing" makes losing traction worse instead of better.

If it were up to me the crappy driver's ed videos would have someone who's obviously really high telling people "you gotta just chill and go with the flow, man"

Scandinavia also has decent public transport and bicycling infrastructure available for those who fail driving tests and/or can't afford a course. And I imagine such a life is still pretty bad.

> Driving in snow/ice, even snow/ice that is at the melting point and therefore extremely slippery due to the water, is absolutely possible without salt, but it requires your 'average Joe' to understand that they need to slow down, to leave 10* the space from the car in front, etc.

Which means the highway has 20 times less carrying capacity because everyone is driving half as fast with ten times as much space between each vehicle, and your one hour commute becomes 20 hours. This is equivalent to the roads being unusable.

Another alternative would be to invest much more in rail-based transportation methods, because iirc they don't need salting. Also, they'd avoid the issue of needing to educate every driver on how to avoid slipping and sliding in the winter.

The trains shut down during snow storms on the East Coast. Plus, how would people get to the trains if the roads aren’t clear?

We shift the burden to the government when we should just all have better tires and learn to drive properly. But our current legal and insurance regime probably forces municipalities to salt.

> Any situation that can be permanently resolved by education and intelligence, rather than by brute-forcing a constant 'workaround', would seem to me to be the best way forwards

Hard disagree. You're essentially proposing the "solution" that nobody should ever make mistakes, and if someone does make a mistake, we should educate them to prevent the mistake in the future. In studies of disaster prevention, this has been shown to be ineffective time and time again: training does not always work in a real situation. Should every driver learn how to control a skid? Yes. Should we rely on that type of training as a substitute for other measures? Surely not, if only because the driving test doesn't have kids in the back or a fallen tree blocking the road.

The current solution is to adjust the environment in such a way as to make mistakes less likely and less damaging. This is what disaster prevention experts recommend. Now, salting roads is not the only way to do this: personally, I think snow tires, tire chains, and TCS software are all better interventions depending on the situation. Putting it all on training, on the other hand, will get people killed.

> Jeld-Wen makes what are called door skins, which make up the back and front of a door, and are expensive and difficult to produce. Jeld-Wen sold door skins to door makers, but Jen-Weld also made and sold doors as well. So it both sold to its door skin customers, and competed with them as the final buyer of doors.

Is there a typo here? It makes no sense to that Jeld-Wen would be a buyer of doors.

Yeah, that should clearly read "... and competed with them as the final seller of doors".

>One of the best ways of winning market share is to bid low, and then if demand is high, to simply not deliver to Commercial customers

Is there a contradiction between talking about the problem of an impending monopoly or duopoly and the problems currently caused by competition?

Could the consolidation be nature's way of solving the race to the bottom? Why not?

If you are wondering what its like running out of salt, look at the UK winter of 2010. I don't know exactly what went wrong, i think it was a combination of unusually cold/snowy weather for a prolonged period. I think the governments, both central and local didn't bother buying enough salt. But even more crucially, my local government didn't seem to have any grit spreaders. At all. For about a full week, the roads were lethal. Only people with 4-wheel drive contemplated doing more than the bare minimum of driving. But now my local council has learnt it's lesson. At the most remote forecast of snow, the grit spreaders are out and about, spraying salt everywhere. and then they wonder why there are so many potholes...

I would be fine if they stopped salting. Here in Michigan we are on top of one of the worlds largest reserves of salt and I believe it has led to over-use. It completely obliterates the metal on your vehicle.

It’s definitely time for an alternative solution, no pun intended.

Does salt stay around and damage your car if you don't drive in the snow? Or can you limit the risk by opting out on snow days?

The salt becomes a liquid and then splashes all over the undercarriage of your vehicle, into crevices and between surfaces. It is definitely better to avoid driving if you can.

Undercoatings can help, too, but they generally need to be applied annually.

The midwest should not be salting roads at all anyway. Its terrible for the environment, your car, and everything else. Salt use has been prohibited in northern climates such as Alaska for decades because of its damaging effects.

The problem is is that all the marketing for tire companies and their all season tires has convinced people that snow tires are not necessary. Every all season tire on the market starts to lose performance characteristics when the temperatures drops below 40F. You can not have both "long tread life" and good performance below 40F in the same tire. Even if you don't have snow the performance is worse below 40F for all season tires compared to "snow" tires.

USA uses too much salt anyway, it ends up in the soil and poisoning the groundwater. In much of Europe salt is banned. Get proper tires and shoes.

Salt is not banned in Europe, it is used extensively

I would argue that states and municipalities would continue to pay whatever was necessary to keep the roads passable for families and commerce. They’ll have to pass it on with tax increases or service cuts elsewhere. To allow the roads to get worse in the face of monopolistic pricing isn’t an option.

I remember when people used to use snow tires and it wasn't an issue. All-season tires provide relatively poor traction in snow and ice compared to snow tires. The compounds in all-season tires start getting hard below 40F whereas snow tires stay soft/rubbery.

> America tends to operate in just-in-time style inventory models instead of managing risk by storing surpluses of critical commodities

Does anyone know of some good readings about this? Seems intuitively true to me, but I haven't seen it discussed in-depth as a standalone topic.

Investment opportunity:

Find a hole in the ground, buy salt in the off-years, sell at peak.

God I hate road salt. My poor poor Jeeps! Perhaps this will spur a shift towards alternatives? I've heard beet juice of all things is effective but I have no clue if its economical.

Perhaps corn syrup would work too. If we take it out of our foods, then we can solve two problems at once.

My guess is that you'd run into problems with mold or bacterial growth pretty quickly if you spread glucose syrup on roads.

They already put corn syrup on the roads, mixed with salt.

Then we wouldn't be able to eat it off of the roads.

Not too mention animals eating the syrup from the roads.

There is already a problem in many places with deers licking salt of the road surface.

Just add a bitter chemical, like they do with the coating of medicine so that children don't think pills are candy.

In some areas they used to use cinders from the coal plants. They are black and soak up more heat from the sun and contain salts.

In my country, we use grit.

> https://www.odt.co.nz/news/dunedin/gritty-effort-keep-city-s...

Chicago has used a kind of beet brine for deicing. It's beet juice mixed with salt. It means you can use less salt, the sugar makes it more effective in colder temps, and helps it stick to the road so there's less waste. Also makes the road look red.

Was there not some concern about what to do with the salt from desalination plants? Could the brine from that become economical to recover?

I am a big curious, would the communities buying shares in the salt companies be an equivalent of storing salt for the winter?

Can the state governments start to charge the domestic mines extraction fees like they sometimes do for natural gas?

Why are cities buying salt in spot markets, when they have a mostly predictable consumption?

I'd rather have no salt vs rust.

The spice must flow

Reply on news.ycombinator.com