Highlands Bridge advocates decry earlier project start date DOT claims contractor changed staging schedule BY MELISSA KARSH Staff Writer The timetable for replacement of the Highlands Bridge has changed and the existing bridge may be dismantled as early as June 1, according to a March 12 letter from state Attorney General Anne Milgram. Highlands Bridge The news about construction work starting earlier than projected on the approach span of the bridge was revealed during a case management conference. "This change … is due to the new construction plan proposed by the contractor which was not anticipated by the New Jersey Department of Transportation. Since the contract allows the contractor to make such staging changes, and because it serves the public need to accelerate the completion of the new bridge, this change is being approved by the department,"Milgramwrote in a letter to U.S. District Court Judge Joel A. Pisano about the scheduling change. Construction to replace the bridge that spans the Shrewsbury River to connect the boroughs of Highlands and Sea Bright began in February with the beginning of work on a new fixed-span bridge over the Shrewsbury River adjacent to the existing bridge, according to the New Jersey Department of Transportation (DOT). The DOT had previously informed a federal court judge that by 2009, upon completion of the new structure, the 75-year-old drawbridge would be demolished and replaced with a 30-foot-higher fixed bridge. Opponents of the bridge replacement are challenging the start of the project a year earlier than stated. "TheNew Jersey DOT informed the federal judge that there was no reason to grant an injunction because the bridge would be left alone for over a year. Now that that appears to be incorrect, there must be a government investigation to determine how it is that this incorrect information was given to a federal judge right before the judge decided to deny the group's request for an injunction," said the attorney for a group opposed to the bridge replacement project. "These plans were clearly not developed at the last minute and it is very difficult to understand how this kind of mistake could have been made in good faith," said Stuart Lieberman, attorney for local grassroots group Citizens for Rational Coastal Development (CRCD). Attorneys for the borough of Sea Bright and CRCD filed an injunction in December to stop the DOT from going forward with the bridge replacement, but a federal judge denied the request Feb. 4 in U.S. District Court based on the DOT's representation that the bridge would remain untouched untilMay 2009, according to Lieberman, of Lieberman & Blecher. According to a Feb. 26 CRCD press release, titled "Citizen group says that state lied," the "CRCD is appalled by this turnabout because a federal judge recently denied their request for an injunction to cease any construction activities in part based on the representation of the DOT that the bridge would not be touched for over a year." Opponents of the bridge replacement filed another request for an injunction, this time in the state court Appellate Division and a similar request in the Superior Court, Monmouth County. The former was filed against the State House Commission, which allowed Highlands to convey GreenAcres property to the DOT, and the latter was filed to invalidate those property transfers, which allowed the agency to move ahead with the project. The injunctive request in state courtAppellate Division was denied last week, according to Lieberman. The DOT started accepting bids in November after receiving all necessary local and environmental approvals to move forward on the project and awarded the contract to low bidder J.H. Reid General Contractor of South Plainfield for $124.5 million, according to DOT spokeswoman Erin Phalon. According to a March 3 letter from Lieberman to Pisano, who presided over the injunction hearing, the approach span of the bridge will have to be worked on in the near future. "We cannot prove wrongdoing on the part of the NJDOT at this time, but it does appear very possible that the state of New Jersey engaged in a deliberate effort to mislead this injunction application.We respectfully urge that additional information be elicited from the NJDOT and that all construction related activities on the bridge be stopped until this issue is resolved," wrote Lieberman in aMarch 14 letter to Pisano. Included with Milgram's letter is a declaration from project manager Richard D. Crum. "Subsequent to the issuance of the Notice to Proceed on Jan. 30, the contractor informed the NJDOT of its intent to proceed with a different and extremely aggressive construction schedule based upon a concept its engineers devised," Crum said in his declaration. He said the original staging plan called for the existing bridge to remain intact until the fall of 2008 by building the new bridge fromthe center of the river outward toward either end of the bridge (abutments) where the connections would be made to the existing roadway. "The contractor's staging plan differs significantly from the plan outlined in the contract documents in that it calls for advancing the approach span and roadway construction concurrently with the main span construction and therefore before fall 2008. This includes dismantling portions of the approach spans of the existing bridge," said Crum. "Essentially the contractor proposes to build the bridge fromeach side of the river out to the center of the river. Under this staging plan it is necessary to make the physicalmodifications to the existing bridge much earlier in the construction schedule. The contractor's proposed plan calls for this work to begin on June 1, 2008." According to Crum, since there is nothing in the contract precluding this type of implementation from being used the DOT would be liable for financial damages if the plan was not accepted. Lieberman said there are some questions that still need to be answered by the DOT in this matter. "How can it be that just two weeks ago they [DOT] were telling everybody that this bridge wasn't going to be touched in a year and a half and now it's going to be touched in a month?" asked Lieberman. He continued, "Since when does a contractor start telling DOT when they are going to schedule construction?" In hisMarch 14 letter, Lieberman wrote, "Furthermore it is frankly difficult to believe that the state would allow a contractor to have almost unilateral discretion in determining a construction plan for a roadway that is used in part as an emergency evacuation route." He added, "It does not seem probable that the original declaration could have beenmade in good faith because the affiant did know or should have known that the NJDOT's perception of the construction schedule was largely irrelevant." Lieberman is urging that the New Jersey Attorney General's Office review the DOT's actions to determine where this information came from, according to the CRCD press release. According to Phalon last week, "DOT has not altered its plans for the Route 36 bridge.We are working with the contractor for the project to determine the schedule and as soon as that is finalized we will release a detailed schedule." Lieberman said he does not know what will come out of his inquiries and the decision is ultimately up to Pisano. "We don't have a right to expect anything but I would hope that the state at least provides a response," said Lieberman. "I think the state owes my clients and all the people who live in that area an explanation."