Northbound Gold Star Bridge project to begin this spring 

Kimberly Drelich

A long-planned project to repair and strengthen the northbound span of the Gold Star Memorial Bridge is slated to begin this spring.

The span, which carries nearly 60,000 vehicles each day between Groton and New London, is rated in poor condition and is in need of work but poses no safety risk to the public, according to the state Department of Transportation.

The recent collapse of a bridge in Pittsburgh put renewed focus on the safety of bridges and infrastructure across the United States.

Bart Sweeney, transportation division chief of the DOT's bridge unit, said the Gold Star, the longest bridge in the state, is inspected every two years and no deficiencies were found that would require the bridge to be more frequently inspected or closed.

"If the lowest rating is greater than or equal to 7, the bridge is classified as Good; if it is less than or equal to 4, the classification is Poor. Bridges rated 5 or 6 are classified as Fair,” according to the Federal Highway Administration. The Gold Star's northbound span's deck and superstructure received a 4, or "poor" rating, while its foundation received a 5 or "fair" rating, after the inspection done in 2019.

Sweeney said the "poor" rating serves as an indicator that a bridge needs repairs or replacement and is the reason why DOT initiated the project for the northbound span. "Generally speaking, once a bridge becomes poor, it has many, many, many years of safe service life ahead of it is but that is the indicator we generally use to initiate projects," he said.

"Structures can be in poor condition for decades and still carry all traffic safely," he added. "We don’t like them to stay in poor condition for very long so that’s why we get a project initiated, and we try to advance it as quickly as possible. This bridge poses no threat to the public at all as far as the safety of the bridge."

He said the state agency adheres to national standards and the comprehensive inspection program entails examining all over the bridge, including the foundation, superstructure, deck and joints.

The project will address the poor condition of the bridge and also the strength of the bridge so it is able to carry permitted loads. Currently, heavier vehicles that require a permit, such as fully loaded dump trucks, have to bypass the Gold Star and take a 17-mile detour, he said.

Project to repair and strengthen the northbound span

The DOT is tentatively eyeing a 2030 completion date for the nearly $300 million project to repair and strengthen the northbound span. The span was built in 1943 and underwent a rehabilitation project in the 1970s, with additional maintenance performed over the years.

The project will have three phases. The first two will focus on strengthening the bridge so it can carry heavier loads, as well as addressing deteriorating or corroding components, Sweeney said.

The first phase, "Phase 1A," calls for strengthening and improving the condition of the truss spans, he said.

DOT awarded a roughly $50 million contract to Aetna Bridge Company of Warwick, R.I., for the initial phase, DOT project engineer Keith Schoppe said. The company is preparing to set up staging areas underneath the bridge in anticipation of starting the project on April 1, though the date depends on the weather.

The initial phase, which will include winter shutdown periods, is anticipated to be completed in June 2025.

Schoppe said DOT does not expect the construction to have a significant impact on drivers nor create traffic delays. 

To take some weight off the bridge during repairs, the DOT expects to close a right lane and shoulder — with traffic drums and signs — while it works on the right side of the bridge and then switch to close a left lane and shoulder when it works on the left side, he explained.

Cranes, lifts and other machinery stationed on state property underneath the bridge will be used to offload materials up to access platforms; the work will be visible from the water or underneath the bridge, but not to people driving across the bridge, he said.

That phase will be followed by "Phase 1B," which calls for improving and strengthening the girder spans. DOT also anticipates much of that work will be performed underneath the bridge and will not have a significant impact on traffic.

The final phase, "Phase 2," calls for replacement of the bridge deck, among other improvements. Traffic restrictions will be determined during design development.

Though it's still too early to know details, the last two phases are expected to each take about two to three years, and DOT would aim to start them on the heels of the prior phase or possibly slightly overlapping with the prior phase, Sweeney said.

While DOT initially had anticipated starting the project yeas ago, it said the timeline was pushed out due to the complexity of analyzing the structure and designing the project to ensure the bridge would be strengthened appropriately.

Sweeney said the project, which will receive a combination of state and federal funding, was planned prior to the new infrastructure law and was going to move forward regardless of the bill's outcome.

Meanwhile, DOT finished in 2018 a large-scale maintenance project on the southbound span, which was built in the 1970s and underwent a rehabilitation project in the 1990s, Schoppe said.

The southbound span is in "fair" condition, or in a state of good repair, with the superstructure and the deck rated 5 and the foundation is rated 6, according to DOT. 

Multiuse path feasibility study

The DOT is studying the feasibility of adding a multi-use path to the northbound span or widening the existing path on the southbound span, Sweeney said.

DOT found that widening the current northbound span for a multiuse path would add too much weight to the structure to be feasible. A multiuse path could only be accommodated within the existing width of the bridge, such as by narrowing lane and shoulder width and/or by removing a lane, so there are a lot of "undesirable aspects" of adding a path, he said. It would cost between $17 million and $20 million.

Before concluding its feasibility study, the DOT decided to also study the feasibility of widening the 5-foot path on the southbound span to 8 feet. DOT is expecting that option would be more cost-effective and feasible but it won't know until the study is finished, Sweeney said.

Once the DOT wraps up its study, it will look at the pros and cons of each option and determine which one to recommend for advancing as a project, he said.

"They're still both on the table," Sweeney said. "We haven’t discounted the northbound yet but it's got to be looked at with the southbound before we make a decision."

State watchdog criticizes Connecticut Port Authority, offers recommendations

Greg Smith

The Connecticut Port Authority was already facing a public perception problem, having faced criticism and scrutiny from state lawmakers over past financial and personnel issues.

A new report issued by a state watchdog group, the State Contracting Standards Board, is unlikely to change that perception.

The board said it has identified issues and possible violations of state statute committed by the Connecticut Port Authority during its time working toward the redevelopment of State Pier in New London.

The Connecticut Port Authority and Office of Policy and Management both dispute some of the findings, and are at odds with the board on the question of whether the port authority even had the legal authority in 2020 to enter into a public-private partnership and sign the development agreement for State Pier.

The board released a report on Friday with a list of recommendations and concludes, among other things, that the port authority should adopt ethics and communications standards to limit any real or appearances of conflicts of interest.

That specific recommendation stems from the board’s examination of the circumstances surrounding a $523,000 success fee that was part of a $700,000 payment to Seabury Maritime Capital, a contractor hired by the port authority in 2018 to help find an operator — Gateway Terminal, which also operates New Haven's port — for State Pier.

Henry Juan, an employee of Seabury, was a port authority board member until about a month before Seabury was chosen by the port authority to conduct the work. Juan was present for discussions leading up to a vote to hire Seabury.

“While he abstained from the vote, he did not recuse himself and there are questions included in the report about whether or not he had any knowledge that would have changed or helped his company’s bid in that work,” said State Contracting Standards Board member Lauren Gautier, who authored the report.

Additionally, Seabury ultimately was paid a $523,000 success fee, which did not appear in the original solicitations for bids for the work but later was included in Seabury’s contract.

“Meanwhile other prospective bidders thought this wasn’t even an option,” Contracting Standards Board Chairman Lawrence Fox said. “It’s just terrible in terms of open, fair bidding. I mean, I can’t think of anything that’s less fair.”

The board also questioned if the success fee was even legal, since there is a state statute prohibiting so-called finders fees.

“One could make an argument a success fee is a finder’s fee by another name,” Fox said.

And while the port authority officials argue success fees are common in their industry, the Contracting Standards Board in its report said it “does not believe that they are appropriate for government contract work.”

The board discussed the report at a meeting Friday and renewed a commitment to work with the port authority to develop comprehensive procurement procedures. It already has compiled a draft manual in concert with the port authority.

The investigation taken up by the board was prompted by a 2020 complaint about the port authority's practices and focused on the authority's procurement procedures “and its accountability to the citizens of Connecticut” related to the State Pier development, a $235.5 million project that is well underway on the Thames River in New London.

Fox reiterated that the port authority, a quasi-public agency with two paid employees, is underfunded as is his own board. “There is an underinvestment by the state in the infrastructure for the agencies that have to do it (procurements) and there’s certainly an underinvestment by the state for the watchdogs that are supposed to watch it," he said. "What could possibly go wrong?"

State Sen. Cathy Osten, D-Sprague, co-chair of the Appropriations Committee, said she intends to restore the additional funding to the State Contracting Standards Board that was stripped from the budget by Gov. Ned Lamont last year. The board was to get about $450,000 to add staff. She said that will be a topic of discussion during the upcoming legislative session but the money was critical to helping provide oversight.

The report also calls into question whether state statute gives the port authority specific authority to execute public-private partnerships.

That might be a question for the state legislature, some members concluded, since the port authority argues the Harbor Development Agreement falls outside the parameters of the statute.

“The CPA is making infrastructure improvements to its own facility at the State Pier, with a portion of the capital funds coming from private sector partners,” the port authority asserts in a rebuttal to the report.

The port authority is no stranger to controversy and was heavily criticized following a whistleblower complaint and reports of financial misconduct under former Executive Director Evan Matthews and former authority board Chairman Scott Bates. The result was hearings, state oversight of the port authority and recent legislation that demands more reporting to the legislature as work at State Pier proceeds.

In a statement, port authority Executive Director John Henshaw, who was hired in 2020, and current authority board Chairman David Kooris responded to the report and questions from The Day.

"As a result of OPM's consultant's work in 2019 and early 2020, the CPA Board adopted several updated policies and procedures designed to address concerns raised in the multiple outside audits conducted at that time,” the statement reads. “The SCSB has identified additional general concerns and we continue to express our willingness to advance additional policy and procedure updates to our board pending detailed recommendations from them."

State Sen. Heather Somers, R-Groton, issued a statement critical of the port authority and said “there is zero excuse why a quasi-public entity cannot follow its own procedures.” She said the report raises questions and requires further investigation and legislative reform to ensure compliance and prevent any misuse of funds.

“As lawmakers, we have worked in a bipartisan fashion to craft and pass legislation to reform the authority, but this latest report proves we have more work to do,” Somers said, in part.

“This is more than just not following simple procedures. This is about a few individuals entrusted with millions of taxpayers' money, making crucial decisions which have long-term impact on our region and entire state. There is so much at stake ... that it is without question the public must have confidence the CPA is following procedure to the letter of the law. The report clearly shows this is not the case,” Somers said in a statement.

In response, the port authority issued a statement saying it disagrees with Somers’ characterization that the Contracting Standards Board’s report identified significant ongoing problems at the authority.

“The procurements that the SCSB was looking at happened years ago before our policies were updated," the statement reads.