For those of you following the ongoing chip-seal debate/discussion, I’ll paste below the latest from Hugh Walton. Hugh has spearheaded the effort to initiate a conversation with the Colorado Department of Transportation, as well as the Boulder County Department of Transportation, regarding the impacts of chip-sealing on cycling.
To review, BCDOT has chip-sealed several major cycling thoroughfares (Nelson Road, Olde Stage, and Highway 36) in the past few weeks. The Nelson Road resurfacing used a 1/4″ aggregate and a “fog seal”, which (according to Hugh) rendered the surface smooth and bike-friendly. The 36 section, however, turned out much rougher, with a less bike-friendly feel.
Dan Rowland at the County and Al Roys and CDOT have been kind enough to answer many of Hugh’s questions and they’re our ongoing contacts with those organizations. Hugh is trying to get the state to adopt a standard in chip-sealing when it comes to bike-frequented areas, so let’s stay tuned and offer our support when the time comes.
Below is Hugh’s latest recap. Thanks Hugh!
1. Roughness: That new section of chip seal is significantly rougher than the chip seal section of US 36 north of Nelson Road and almost all other State maintained roads with chip seal. Based upon my conversation with Al today, it sounds like the intent was to not make it so rough, but that is what the aggregate came out as due to some internal bidding issues and the like.
2. Boulder County Chip Seal: Boulder County has very recently (last week) chip sealed Nelson road from US 36 at least to 75th. I rode on that section a couple times and I have to say that the smoothness is very acceptable and a big relief to us cyclists. According to Dan, it’s 1/4″ aggregate with a fog seal on top. Based upon the relative smoothness of the road AFTER the chip seal, I’d have to say the fog seal is not just cosmetic.
3. Standards: It does not sound as though CDOT has a standard for chip seal that meets the needs of CDOT and all it’s constituents including car drivers and cyclists. Let’s work together to set a standard.
4. Fixing 36: I am asking CDOT to redo the new section of chip seal north of Boulder on US 36 with either a fog coat that smoothes things over (not sure that will do the trick) or with a “racked in seal” or a “cape seal”. I know this is more expense but given the extremely rough nature of the surface now and the extreme bike traffic there on 36 I think this is required.
5. Cross-Purposes: The State of Colorado is working hard to encourage cycling. Governor Ritter is a cycling enthusiast. He even participated in the recent announcement of a world-class bicycle stage race for Colorado next year. (I raced the Coors Classic a couple times). It would seem completely counter productive to have one arm of the State working to encourage cycling and having another arm of the State doing things that discourage cycling to the extreme.
6. Harm to Cyclists: Given that US 36 north of Boulder is perhaps the most heavily traveled CDOT-maintained bike route in the state, it makes sense to do the chip seal correctly. After all, even as an experienced cyclist, I have to say that my feet and hands were “ringing” and “vibrating” after riding on this for even a short amount of time. I have no doubt (but no proof right now) that such a rough surface is harmful to the health of bike riders.
7. Downsides?: There seems to be no downside in regards to safety, durability or cost in going with the 1/4″ aggregate with a fog seal. It is extremely unlikely that the wear-and-tear on such a chip seal would be significantly different from what has recently been put down there.
