Studded tires increase road costs. Those who use them should help pay.

People have put their studded tires on their vehicles; this is evident when walking or biking near any major thoroughfare. The road noise from a vehicle with studded tires is significant, announcing the onset of winter like the termination dust on the Chugach Mountains.

Alaska allows the use of studded tires depending on location between Sept. 15 and May 1 (above 60 degrees latitude) and Sept. 15 to April 15 (below 60 degrees latitude — think of a line through Ninilchik and Seward). The Municipality of Anchorage cut the studded season by two weeks last year, so now studs cannot be installed until Oct. 1. This year’s early snow prompted an early season for studded tires.

The problem with studs is that, while they increase traction, they cause considerable wear to road surfaces, reducing pavement life. Additionally, they wear ruts in the road surface which contribute to hazardous driving conditions (causing tires to hydroplane) during heavy periods of rain. A third problem with studded tires is that they impact the road surface, increasing road noise for drivers — witness how quiet it is when vehicles pass over a new section of asphalt.

The Alaska Dept. of Transportation published a report in 2019 entitled, “Survey and Economic Analysis of Pavement Impacts from Studded Tire Use in Alaska.” In studying the impact on the 3,025 miles of paved highway, the conclusion was that the annual damage associated with the use of studded tires was found to be $13.7 million. There is $5 tax per tire on studded tires assessed at the time of purchase meant to defray the damage caused by their use. However, the annual damage done by the tires is 42 times larger than the fees collected. There is no accounting of other costs associated with crashes and other safety aspects caused by the ruts.

The use of studded tires is extensive throughout the state. The study did two different surveys — one in some of the major parking lots in Anchorage, and a second 800-household survey in all of Alaska’s major cities (Anchorage, Palmer, Wasilla, Fairbanks, Juneau and Kenai). The Anchorage parking lot survey suggested that studded tires were used on 35% of the vehicles, and statewide, this increases to 48%. The use of studded tires is prolific.

However, there are alternatives to studded tires. Tire manufacturers are using advance rubber compounds or additives that increase traction in winter driving conditions. Among the most popular studless winter technologies is Blizzaks by Bridgestone, but there are other similar manufactures that are producing studless tires that are getting closer to studded tires performance. In fact, the major situation in which studded tires perform better than studless tires is on smooth ice — in other situations the performance between the two is much closer.

There are any number of policy prescriptions for dealing with the $13.6 million expenditure for annual damage to paved highways. Besides the $5 tax per tire, other options are available. One solution would be to phase out the use of studded tires, which smacks of the heavy hand of government dictating behavior. Drivers in Alaska face very long winters, and would be unlikely to acquiesce to such a change. Another possibility is to educate drivers as to the benefits of studless tires, but in some circumstances, there may be extreme circumstances that cause users to cling to their studded tires. As a way of minimizing damage, the studded-tire season could be shortened, and consumers could be subsidized to purchase alternatives to studded tires.

However, first and foremost, it must be recognized that the $13.6 million is an expenditure that is made to appease or satisfy a large user group. This is an expenditure that could be driven almost to zero if the use of studless tires were to replace studded tires. It is useful to view this $13.6 million as a tax on all drivers, as this is a large amount of funds that cannot be spent on other transportation improvements, but are instead spent on fixing the damage done by studded tire users.

Consider a user fee or a license type fee for using studded tires — in this instance, the user pays for the damage they inflict on the paved highways. Think of the road system as a public utility — the principle of “the user pays” could be invoked. This is like flipping on a light switch — the user knows they are going to be charged for their use. When drivers mount their studded tires in the fall, they could flip the switch at the DOT website and be charged a daily fee for using studded tires. Drivers could go online at DOT and register their studded tires, paying a daily fee for their use. This would cement in their minds that tires do significant damage. The most positive aspect about instituting a use fee is that it would directly encourage drivers to switch to studless traction tries and the damage to the roads would decrease. They could switch the license to “on” when studded tires are mounted and switch it off when they are removed in the spring. Actually, users could switch the fee off and on as much as they wanted, but would need to be switched on whenever they are driving with studded tires.

The enforcement of a studded tire license or user fee would need to be done by law enforcement. It would require the design of a computer-based system whereby users would register and be charged a daily rate (ideally, it would be better to design the fee based on the number of miles driven with studded tires, but that is a much more difficult task without significant technological improvements). Whenever a vehicle was involved in a traffic stop for any reason (also vehicles at parking meters), it would be a simple matter to check using the license plate number to see if the driver had invoked their studded-tire license and was paying the studded-tire fees. This would not involve traffic stops to see if drivers have paid the fee, but just checking when stops are made for other reasons. The daily fees would be small (in the $0.10 to $0.25 range), and could be adjusted downward as more drivers switched to tires that inflicted less damage to the roads.

There would need to be a substantial fine for drivers with studded tires who have not registered their studs into the system; more than just a nominal token fine. It would need to be enforced unlike laws concerning tinted windows and loud mufflers, or the current fines for using studded tires out of season — very few, if any, tickets are written for these infractions (though currently, there is no way to know how many). The important thing here is to put a price on the use of studded tires, so people will start to change their behavior and there will be less damage to the roads. In addition, there would still be a mechanism for those few who really need studs to still be able to utilize them.

P.J. Hill is a retired professor of economics who taught at the University of Alaska Anchorage for 34 years.

The views expressed here are the writer’s and are not necessarily endorsed by the Anchorage Daily News, which welcomes a broad range of viewpoints. To submit a piece for consideration, email commentary(at)adn.com. Send submissions shorter than 200 words to letters@adn.com or click here to submit via any web browser. Read our full guidelines for letters and commentaries here.