It is supposed to snow this weekend, so a couple of days ago I drove to the central Oregon Costco to have my all-weather tires replaced with snow tires. A lot of other people had the same idea so I got to go shopping for several hours while I waited. Walking through the parking lot from the Barnes & Noble to the Whole Foods, I met several cars that audibly had studded tires, and every time I did, I would get a little angry.
First used in the U.S. in the 1960s, studded tires were supposed to provide better traction on ice than all-weather tires. However, they actually provide worse traction in most other pavement conditions. Meanwhile, “traction tires” or snow tires, whose rubber is softer than all-weather tires, work as well as studded tires on ice but much better than studded tires in other conditions. Snow tires were once much more expensive than studded tires, but now are competitively priced.
Studded tires impose an externality on other highway users. Anytime you see road ruts that match the track widths of automobiles (as opposed to trucks), you are probably looking at studded tire damage. Highway experts say 100 percent of the damage you see to concrete pavement and 60 percent of the damage to asphalt is caused by studs.
Oregon, Washington, and other western states say they spend at least $10 million a year repairing this damage, so the total west-wide cost must be something like $100 million or more per year. The actual damage may be even greater than the amounts the states can afford to spend on it.
I choose to viagra from usa http://www.icks.org/data/ijks/1483111470_add_file_3.pdf pray during my R&R time. Specialty Pharmacy Services Specialty Pharmacy Services involve professionals http://icks.org/n/data/ijks/1483475739_add_file_2.pdf tadalafil generic 20mg who handle the organization and dispersion of specialty drugs that need extra care. This method allows for more http://icks.org/n/bbs/content.php?co_id=FALL_WINTER_2004&mcode=40&smcode=40t0 levitra prescription spontaneity because it can lead to car accidents and property damage. Do not consume more than prescribed dose, as overdose causes drug reactions. http://icks.org/n/bbs/content.php?co_id=Fall_Winter_2010 cialis 20 mg For this reason, a number of states have banned studded tires. Unfortunately, most of them are southern states that rarely have ice and snow issues. Many western states ban studded tires from April 1 through October 1, but there are many days of bare pavement between October 1 and April 1.
One company has introduced a tire with retractable studs. But I don’t see the point. Drivers have to retract them by remote control, and since they have to refill the air in their tires after every 25 retractions, there is no guarantee they will bother to retract the every time they reach bare pavement.
Frankly, I’ve driven in all sorts of conditions on all-weather tires with only a couple of very minor mishaps. I wouldn’t bother with snow tires at all except that it saves me the trouble of putting chains on during the worst storms when the state closes the mountain passes to anyone who doesn’t have “chains or traction devices” (meaning snow tires plus 4-wheel or all-wheel drive).
Costco no longer sells studded tires. But I understand that other tire dealers have lobbied state legislatures to keep them from banning studded tires. If so, I don’t know why, since they ought to be able to make as much or more money selling snow tires, which wear faster than all-weather tires.
In any case, studded tires are an obsolete technology. As a good free marketeer, the Antiplanner would support proposals to tax the use of studded tires. Any tax high enough to cover the costs might make the tires prohibitively expensive, but if it does, then that is the best solution.
ROT: In any case, studded tires are an obsolete technology. As a good free marketeer, the Antiplanner would support proposals to tax the use of studded tires. Any tax high enough to cover the costs might make the tires prohibitively expensive, but if it does, then that is the best solution.
THWM: This isn’t being a free marketeer, this is just being punitive.
Studded tire users should pay for their choice and the damage they do to roads. Transit users should pay at the fare box the cost of their choice in transit.
“As a good free marketeer, the Antiplanner would support proposals to tax the use of studded tires.”
Highwayman, do you know what “free market” means?
Dear O’Toole,
Your double standards tire 😉 me. To quote you:
“Studded tires impose an externality on other highway users…” So they should be taxed/we should restrict the freedoms of those who choose to use them. This coming from a man that thinks that the “true” cost of roads are paid for using user fees, refusing to take most of the externalities associated with auto use in his equations.
At first I thought that O’Toole was a concerned libertarian attempting to voice an objective argument bout the failures of government planning. I’ve enjoyed engaging in the debate. But now I see what the highwayman means by vulgar libertarianism. O’Toole you are willing to restrict all sorts of freedoms of others in order to preserve you own personal freedoms. Me me me! You are basically saying that people that use studded tires should pay for the damage they do to the road, but people that use cars on the roads shouldn’t have to pay for the damage they do to the air, ecosystems, watersheds, etc.
I grew up at 8,000ft elevation. We had a 1981 toyota landcruser we used as a plow and used studded tires because they worked better then snow tires (this was in the 90’s). Now we almost never drove those tired on dry roads, for reason you mentioned. But you can give me all the numbers and studies you want, I know from experience that studs work better on packed snow than other snow tires. I mean by you logic we should tax everybody who drives in the winter because he salt on the roads rust out cars, or the gravel breaks our windshields. I could play this game all day. I guess my point/question is, where is the appropriate place to draw the Govt. planning/taxation/freedom restriction line? You obviously think it should be done when it affects you. Now that is as elitist as it gets!
“Studded tire users should pay for their choice and the damage they do to roads. Transit users should pay at the fare box the cost of their choice in transit.”
People that drive muscle cars, big pick ups, and suvs (or I suppose any non-hybird/alternative fuel vehicle) should have to pay for the damage they do to the air and water.
The problem with studded tires is not with the users that use them in the snow. It is with the users that put them on their cars in November and drive with them until March but rarely drive on snow or ice.
When are transit users going to pay for the air pollution they create using diesel and coal powered plants for light rail?
When are transit users going to pay for the damage that buses do to the roads because of their weight.
Studded tire users should pay for their choice and the damage they do to roads. Transit users should pay at the fare box the cost of their choice in transit.
Excellent. Using the same logic, autos should pay for their choice and the damage they do to the air, children’s/asthmatics/the elderly’s lungs, ambient noise, receiving waters, habitat, road kill, etc.
DS
Excellent. Using the same logic, autos should pay for their choice and the damage they do to the air, children’s/asthmatics/the elderly’s lungs, ambient noise, receiving waters, habitat, road kill, etc.
DS
———————–
I don’t see where there is any logic in the above post. it looks more like a rant.
Craig,
Your standing on both sides of the gun. Your questions are completely valid, but you inability to apply the externality scenario to (non-snow tire) automobile use is not. So where do we draw the line? Should the antiplanner be the only one who decides what externalities are accounted for? You said. “The problem with studded tires is not with the users that use them in the snow. It is with the users that put them on their cars in November and drive with them until March but rarely drive on snow or ice.” You could say that the problem with SUVs and big pickups is not the people hat use them as a tool, but the people that use them s a status symbol or to feel safe on the highway.
Here is the point. The pro-planners are willing to fork over their own money (in the form of taxes most likely) for the externalities that come from their consumption and others as well. The antiplanners only want other people to pay for the externalities that affect them directly. There are antiplanners on this blog that argue that auto emissions are not harmful let alone that their externalities are accounted for, and here we have a post about the adverse impact of snow tires?!?!?!? WTF! If you want to have a conversation about paying the true cost for things and mitigating externalities then fine, but why should we exclude auto emissions and other road pollution? Why is normal auto use off limits?
When are transit users going to pay for the air pollution they create using diesel and coal powered plants for light rail?
They should be!
When are transit users going to pay for the damage that buses do to the roads because of their weight.
As soon as you can quantify the amount of damage busses do as opposed to other heavy vehicles.
As soon as you can quantify the amount of damage busses do as opposed to other heavy vehicles.
———-
I often see asphalt smashed up against the curb at bus stops and bus stops that now have concrete pads, that would be a good start. In Oregon, heavy trucks pay a weight and mile taxes I’m assuming publicly owned buses don’t.
I think going after air pollution as if it was totally clean before today’s trucks and cars are a straw man argument. Before we go there I want to know, is the air cleaner than it was 20, 30 or 40 years ago? Or is this a way to just kill the industry by way of regulations.
I’m happy we don’t have 100,000 polluting horses and mules on the roads.
Which would be worst.
Craig:
Are you asserting in your argument that there are no negative public health externalities from autocentric land-use and auto transport?
That is: why do you choose to focus on a minor externality as worthy of our umbrage, but totally ignore a major externality? Do you not want to pay your fair share for your choice?
DS
Are you asserting in your argument that there are no negative public health externalities from autocentric land-use and auto transport?
no
I’m thinking that Randal is on vacation today and his neighbor (the one with the blacklit “greenhouse” – not the one who sees the black helicopters all the time) is ghost writing for him. Nothing else makes sense.
Dan wrote:
“Excellent. Using the same logic, autos should pay for their choice and the damage they do to the air, children’s/asthmatics/the elderly’s lungs, ambient noise, receiving waters, habitat, road kill, etc.”
The situation may very well be different in the USA, bu in the UK buses produce more pollution per passenger mile than cars. Partly, this is because bus engines are one generation behind car engines, and partly because bus companies want to maximise their income at the least cost to themselves, hence running old buses.
Some buses, diesel-electric hybrid and trolleybus are much cleaner, but require state legislation to enforce their use – as no bus company will volunteer to use more expensive buses.
It is becoming as clear as day the arguments on this site is getting pretty repetitive.
The pro-transit + pro-government planners argument works like this:
“We only ask for fairness.”
“If you consume X then you pay X.”
*repeat argument until (Ad nauseam)*
here’s my reply? —> Bull Sh!t
Who should have the authority to calculate externalities?
The pro-planners have appointed themselves this position.
How’s that any different then self-appointing oneself the sole power to dictate what is OR is not appropriate?
It is obvious that pro-planners only want to FORCE their ideological bias onto others, despite their claim otherwise.
I’ve heard enough repetitive lies from the pro-planning crowd, thank you very much.
*waves good bye and leaves for good*
ode,
This blog is dedicated to dictating what is or is not appropriate. In fact, the choice that is given the readers of this post is to ban or tax the free choice of individuals. This is what I find ironic about the antiplanner stance around here. You commit the act that you accuse the planners of. O’Toole, Karlock, Foxmarks and others spend most of their days attempting to impose their ideological bias onto others. I’m not saying that the planners are totally objective and are always agenda free, but your the pot calling the kettle black.
Secondly, the only place where planner self appoints themselves to determine anything is on this blog. Again, many of O’Toole’s post are solely focused on the externalities associated with rail transit. Now, he is master of his own blog but to accuse planners of being elitist for pointing out the externalities of auto use/road building is a double standard.
Who should have the authority to calculate externalities?
The pro-planners have appointed themselves this position.
No.
This is for the field of ecological economics.
The rest of the argumentation is so puerile as to be ignored.
DS
Francis King Says: The situation may very well be different in the USA, bu in the UK buses produce more pollution per passenger mile than cars. Partly, this is because bus engines are one generation behind car engines, and partly because bus companies want to maximise their income at the least cost to themselves, hence running old buses.
THWM: You don’t need whole new buses, you just have to re-engine the worse buses of your fleet.
You change the burnt light bulb, not the lamp.
bennett: I mean by your logic we should tax everybody who drives in the winter because the salt on the roads rust out cars
THWM: A friend of mine did some thing really smart, she covered the bottom of her car with stainless steel.(You’ve got to admire a woman with a plasma torch in her garage.) Her car is from the 1980’s and it’s still running fine, it’s never had any rust on the bottom.
I use to fabricate auto parts for living, car companies don’t really make their money from selling cars, so much as servicing them. In the auto business we don’t call it “planned obsolescence” for nothing!
craig: I’m happy we don’t have 100,000 polluting horses and mules on the roads.
THWM: I can’t think of any one here that has pushed for a vast return of draft animals.
Alhough the police still use horses at times.
http://www.portlandonline.com/Police/index.cfm?c=30981
Higwayman wrote:
“THWM: You don’t need whole new buses, you just have to re-engine the worse buses of your fleet.
You change the burnt light bulb, not the lamp.”
Some of the trains in the UK have been re-engined for exactly these reasons.
Unfortunately, I don’t see how that would work with buses. Even the very best conventional diesel bus engine produces more emissions that the modern cars. From observation, the bus companies have figured out that it makes more economic sense to run the buses into the ground.
Antiplanner wrote:
“Costco no longer sells studded tires. But I understand that other tire dealers have lobbied state legislatures to keep them from banning studded tires. If so, I don’t know why, since they ought to be able to make as much or more money selling snow tires, which wear faster than all-weather tires.”
As an aside, in the UK, we don’t have too much snow and ice, and so most car drivers use the standard summer tyres in winter. This is very different to the continental europe practice, where special tyres are more common.
Gee, bennett, I’m honored that you’ve called my name. I’m not around here much anymore for reasons similar to ode. Even jerking around slobbering dan gets old.
So, anyway, wrong again. The antiplanning crowd, or the libertarian crowd, is opposed to dictating anything. We negotiate. Ideally everybody pays their own demonstrable costs and those with demonstrable harm are compensated. Eliminate the commons to eliminate its â€Âtragedyâ€Â, etc.
But you’ve heard that a zillion times. You don’t care. Your continued existence saps my share of our communal resources. Please report to the extermination chamber, or voluntarily stop breathing. The environment needs you–to vanish.
The concept of “calculating externalities†implies a planner’s arrogance. If only we knew everyone’s complete set of preferences, we could from above calculate and impose. But we don’t. Better language might be to “estimate externalitiesâ€Â. And from those estimates, we can negotiate.
Thus, an offer: I’ll commute via human-powered transport for a month, provided bennett, “highwayman†and slobber boy drop dead. Eliminating their external costs is worth at least that much inconvenience to me. I await your counters…
prk166: “As a good free marketeer, the Antiplanner would support proposals to tax the use of studded tires.â€Â
Highwayman, do you know what “free market†means?
THWM: A true “free market” is pretty much a free for all.
This would also imply that there are no such things as lobbyists, so then ROT would have to find a real job.
Pingback: Charging for Pollution » The Antiplanner
ROT most of what you write is outrageous & bogus!