Rubber Chip Seal Failures and Cape Seal Pilot
At a glance
Based on auto-generated captions; details may be misheard.
- What: problems with last year's rubber chip seal pavement preservation work (loose stone, shoving) and what DPW and the Department of Transportation and Mobility will do instead or differently.
- Where it stands: discussed 2026-08-25 as part of the 2025 Pavement Management Plan review. Chip seal money for this year was put on hold and is funding a cape seal pilot that has gone to bid.
- Next: revised specifications; inspection of roads councilors say failed; the pilot results.
What went wrong (per Jay Mello)
- Excess loose stone, worse on the city's steeper slopes.
- Street parking reduced the effectiveness of post-application sweeping; unswept stone then collected where cars were cleared in winter and was thrown onto lawns.
- Some shoving on steeper streets when applied on very hot days (near 90 degrees).
- Meant to be cleaned up by sweeping at day one, a week and a month; DPW said there was no major rise in catch basin cleaning (sewers staff report).
Response
- Remedial specifications are being drafted with the contractor, DPW, the Department of Transportation and Mobility and the consultant.
- Cape seal pilot (rubber chip seal followed by microsurfacing) out to bid, paid from the chip seal budget line; costs about two to three times chip seal and limits later treatments.
- Microsurfacing and ultra-thin bonded wearing course are smoother but crack at the surface; cracks are crack sealed.
- Some already treated roads may take a cape seal or microsurfacing over the top.
- DPW asked councilors to send locations where chip seal failed so it can inspect and involve the contractor; it does not believe every road failed.
Council views
- Luis A. Ojeda and Robert A. Bilotta favor moving away from chip seal, citing storm drains and cleanup.
- Tony Economou asked about cape sealing or microsurfacing roads that did not hold, and about inspecting failed chip seal.
- A closing speaker still favors chip seal where it works, calling the failures a roll of the dice.
Discussion time
About 21 minutes across 1 meeting (from transcript timestamps; approximate).
| Meeting | Minutes |
|---|---|
| 2026-08-25 - Public Works and Traffic and Parking Joint Committee | 21 |
Log
- 2026-08-25 - Public Works and Traffic and Parking Joint Committee — Chip seal failures explained by Mello; cape seal pilot funded from the chip seal line; hot-in-place recycling dropped; councilors asked about alternatives, storm drains and fixing failed roads; DPW asked for failed-road locations.