Commission presses engineers on 30% design, funding sources and traffic options ahead of bridge repairs

The commission devoted substantial time on Sept. 17 to the toll bridge renovation design, state funding status and traffic solutions to reduce delays during future bridge closures.

Commissioners asked H and H (the engineering team) to clarify which tasks are on the project’s critical path as the project nears the 30% design submittal milestone; they also discussed the township’s $5 million budgetary request from the state and whether state or federal conditions could invoke the Davis‑Bacon prevailing‑wage rules.

The engineering and transportation discussion covered foundations and underwater inspections, schedule slips caused by incomplete utility responses, and traffic‑management alternatives that could reduce queues when the free bridge is closed for construction. Commissioners sought clearer sequencing from engineers so schedule risk and potential added costs are visible before funding or contract actions.

Engineering and foundations: commissioners reviewed a pre‑purchase underwater inspection referenced in the commission packet. Members noted the packet shows piers/abutments 2–5 and the pivot foundation are illustrated as poured concrete to rock, while pier 1 and 6 are described as pile foundations; commissioners asked staff to confirm whether piers 1 and 6 still exist in the configuration shown or were modified when the causeway was constructed. The commission also asked staff to confirm inspection records related to the spans that suffered historical vessel strikes (Span 3 was mentioned in the engineering notes) and to request any additional detail H and H used to assess underwater conditions.

Funding and procurement effects: staff said the township submitted a $5 million budgetary request to the state; commissioners discussed that if state or federal funds are attached, Davis‑Bacon or Buy‑American provisions could add cost or procurement constraints. The commission was told a decision point tied to the state budget cycle occurs around Oct. 1, and engineers said prevailing‑wage requirements would be reviewed if and when federal/state funding is confirmed. Commissioners asked staff to continue working with state legislative contacts handling the request.

Traffic and operations: commissioners and staff reviewed a Clark Dietz traffic memorandum that evaluated pay‑lane and pass‑lane layouts. The commission discussed three alternatives: pay‑by‑plate (which staff warned would likely require third‑party citation enforcement and have drawbacks), two pay lanes (longer queues), and a two‑pay/one‑pass configuration developed to reduce queuing. Commissioners suggested possible short‑term measures such as converting the existing bridge‑pass lane to a pay lane, staggering gate openings, using cones to separate flows, temporary changes to Jefferson turning patterns, and coordinating with Wayne County on potential shoulder paving or lane reconfiguration. The commission agreed that any lane or roadway work in the county right‑of‑way would require county coordination and that engineering and construction budgets would need to account for additional roadway work if pursued.

Operations and technology: commissioners asked about tag replenishment, auto‑replenish rates, and the point‑of‑sale system used for toll accounts. Staff reported new account features allow users to see balances and update payment info but that some operational “bugs” remain to be worked out; commissioners asked operations staff to recommend communications (email/text) and system tweaks to reduce in‑lane payment declines and improve traffic flow.

Schedule: staff and engineers noted the 30% design submittal is an upcoming milestone and that some schedule slips stemmed from incomplete utility coordination; commissioners asked H and H and Clark Dietz to identify which items are critical path items and which are contingency items so the commission can better assess risk to an estimated summer construction window. No final commitments were made; commissioners asked staff to raise the specific critical‑path and utility coordination questions at the next engineering progress meeting and to report back to the commission.