Response to the Montego Drive Roading Report by Noel Hall
Good afternoon, Mayor, Councillors, Marty Grenfell,
Further to my previous communications on the subject of Montego Drive Resealing, I offer the following comments which also take account of personal comments from an ex-work colleague and Civil Engineer.
A copy of the subject TCC report was requested by several people, on a number of occasions over the past few months. Only in late December was it received by PRRA. The report was dated 17 June 2025.
While the report and following comments specifically relate to Montego Drive, I would expect that similar reports have been, and will continue to be, produced (and acted upon) as part of TCC’s Policy. These comments, therefore, may also be applied, as appropriate, to other roads under current consideration for resealing.
The report includes several graphs of different parameters on a longitudinal scale ranging from 0.0 to 0.55. While no units are given, these are obviously units of kilometre, as the length agrees with Google Maps. Based on the measurements mapped and my personal observations that the most extensive cracking (see rutting and NAASRA graphs) was adjacent to Nos 5 to 9 Montego Drive, I can only presume that the “zero point” of the graphs is at the western end of Montego Drive (i.e. furthest and from Fashion Island). This seems to be illogical when house numbering goes the opposite way. Can you please confirm?
Design Life
This is stated as 20 years, and the road has not suffered any major failures of the underlying foundations after 30 years. Unless there is specific evidence of impending serious failures relating to safety, a competent engineering designer would be still within his Engineering Competence to keep on adding to the design life, provided that annual inspections were carried out which prove that complete (or partial) replacement is not required.
Drive-over Comments
The comments state that “Longitudinal and transverse cracking has been observed throughout the site”. This general statement suggests that the numbers of longitudinal and transverse cracks are roughly in the same order of magnitude. As observed by me on 19 January 2026, no more than 5% of cracks (most of which have been sealed) were transverse. An estimated at least 95% were longitudinal cracks.
In response to then statement about bandage sealing of cracks, a supplementary question must be asked – should the bitumen sealing be applied in summer (when almost all cracks have closed up) or in winter (when some of the bitumen will more readily find its way into the then “maximum width” cracks)?
Site condition parameters
Rutting
This parameter is presumed to reflect the width of individual cracks.
The graph only includes one point over the “up to 10 band” in the first half of the road.
Over the second half of the road, all points are less than the “10 band” and I would expect that based on these points, they may be cases to watch for any growth regularly.
When one examines the trend graph and the results from four previous examinations, several points emerge:
In the middle of the year (temperatures lowest) the visible cracks are at their widest because the seal shrinks generally as compared with summer conditions.
Conversely, in higher prolonged road surface temperature conditions, the seal expands and closes the cracks. This has been most evident in the summer of 2025/26 where almost all cracks have been observed to have closed up.
Unfortunately, the average air (or other) temperature is not recorded, so the results are partially meaningless. All they show is that cracks are lower width in the heat of summer and wider in cooler winter temperatures. Other than that, there is no conclusion which can be taken that cracks are getting wider with time.
Roughness
The results show very few “spikes” of NAASRA values over the whole length of road, and except for beyond the 500m distance, no two consecutive measures significantly higher than others. However, all results could be considered as “low” and not contributing to any consideration of a complete road re-seal.
Trend ranges do not show any increase over time (other than what may be temperature-related), and in fact show a general reduction between 2017 and 2023.
Texture
The definition of parameters of this graph is not known to me. Sufficient to say, though, that there are no significant points (more than “one-off” occurrences of higher values) which suggest that the road needs to be completely re-sealed on account of this parameter
If the parameter relates to observable deterioration at the surface of the hotmix, I have seen no such evidence of this anywhere along the length of Montego Drive.
In the report, the need for resealing appears to be based entirely on two factors referred to in TCC’s Resealing Policy – the age of the seal and its design life. While the policy talks about an engineering report, there is nothing in the subject report which identifies a need for any specific treatment (such as total over-seal, or location-specific repair to certain areas) which is based upon the report’s recorded parameters.
The Road Resealing Justification Report appears to have been produced predominantly because it was required by the specific TCC Policy. Subsequent proposed action by TCC (defined by previously scoped and signed contracts for resealing) suggests that there was never any intention to use this report to analyse what other remedial action may be more appropriate – such as further sealing of individual cracks or even digging up and repairing small sections exhibiting excessive local longitudinal and lateral cracking. Widespread sealing over such cracked areas just ends up temporarily hiding a potential problem – as evidenced by recent resealing of Gloucester Road.
It is my opinion, as a retired professional engineer, that I see nothing in the Justification Report or by a visual assessment of the entire road surface that warrants an immediate re-seal of all Montego Drive.
Kind Regards,
Noel Hall