Calcium chloride’s effect on our safety and checkbooks

On Tuesday, Council faces critical decisions about the City’s snow and ice policy, including the use of an anti-icer calcium chloride solution. I want to take this opportunity to explain where I sit with the issue and what my main concerns are about the proposal to restrict its use. With the motion before council, not using the calcium chloride solution on our roads means:

1. More accidents and poorer traffic safety results. Without the calcium chloride solution we’ll be unable to reach and maintain bare pavement the way we could last year; bare pavement is the safest condition for motorists and pedestrians. The calcium chloride solution the City used in its pilot prevents the snow from sticking to the pavement, helps roadways to stay clear longer and makes snow removal easier and faster. Maintaining bare pavement has been proven to reduce all collision types (i.e. injury and property damage collisions) on roads between intersections in the range of 13.7 to 19.7 percent, and it has been proven to reduce injury collisions at intersections by 12.5 percent. It goes without saying that a significant reduction in collisions has clear benefits to Edmontonians. The proposal therefore is squarely counter to our Vision Zero goals. 
2. A significant property tax increase to pay for more plowing. The initial estimate could be 2.2% more on your taxes, which would take next year’s tax increase from 2.6% to 4.8%, which I can’t support. This cost would be driven by the need to use more plows to try to keep the roads clear, and that the plows we have will run slower and be less efficient because snow and ice will adhere more strongly to the road without the anti-icing brine. If we are okay with stopping the use of the anti-icer calcium chloride solution, then we need to be okay with paying more to have our roadways cleared, even though the roads will still be less safe (see point 1).
3. We’d become more reliant on the wrong salt. Here are the facts, as determined by various third-party organizations the City hired to carry out testing on the effects of the snow and ice program on safety, infrastructure and the environment: the anti-icer solution the city uses is a calcium chloride solution with an added molasses-based corrosion inhibitor. The calcium chloride solution we use is less corrosive than traditional sodium chloride road salt, which is mixed into the road sand that Edmonton has used for many years. The motion before council creates a heavier reliance on Sodium Chloride, which is more corrosive and less effective at lower temperatures than Calcium Chloride. It is a compromise that will leave us worse off in my view.

For these three reasons I’m extremely concerned that Council appears about to remove the anti-icer calcium chloride solution from the City toolbox. And that is just what the calcium chloride solution is: one tool in the toolbox. It is not the only method we use to combat snow and ice — in fact last year it was only used twice, for a total of 617,171 litres (for context, Calgary used 900,000 litres of it last year). Any City needs to consider what tool is right for the right condition to achieve the safest possible results for all transportation network users. 

I understand that people have very strong feelings on all sides of this debate. We’ve all had personal experience around traffic safety on a winter street. I also understand people’s concerns around infrastructure and vehicle rust. If the reports are read in full however, it is clear that we can prevent most of the corrosive effects of calcium chloride (CaCl) by adding an inhibitor, which we already do. I’ll also note that if we vote to continue to use the CaCl solution, City administration will continue to monitor its effectiveness and the impacts it, and other snow and ice removal methods, will have on infrastructure, the landscape and our watershed. 

Snow and ice has and will continue to be a reality of life in Edmonton. As a council we need to commit ourselves to piloting innovative solutions to dealing with our weather conditions — just as we did with CaCl. It’s sad to see that this debate has polarized Council, but on Tuesday I urge my council colleagues to reconsider their position one more time because Edmontonians’ checkbooks, and most importantly, our safety is on the line.