In particular, the groups cited the NJ Department ofTransportation’s failure to adhere to the law’s requirements for fixing halfof the state's structurally deficient roads and bridges and for building1,000 new lane-miles of bicycle paths in five years. The groups also challengethe diversion of $90 million from the Transportation Trust Fund to the GeneralFund by Acting Governor DiFrancesco and the Acting Treasurer. 

    “The Governor and DOT are violating the law,” Janine Bauer,Tri-State Campaign executive director told reporters. “Voters approved addingmoney to the Trust Fund on the pledge that our roads and bridges would befixed. There is enough money to fix half the bridges and build the bikelanes, but it is being spent elsewhere.”

   “When they pull stunts like diverting the $90 million, it’s likesaying to people ‘Hey, we got ya again.’ Do you blame people for beingcynical?” Sam Perelli, state chairman of the United Taxpayers of New Jerseytold the Courier News.

   The Trust Fund vote last November was the second time in twoyears New Jersey citizens had approved more money for the Department ofTransportation. In 1999, NJ voters supported the Local Bridge Bond Act, whichallowed $500 million in new bonding for the DOT half for the repair ofmunicipally-owned structurally deficient bridges.  In both cases, the administration’s campaign for voter approvalspotlighted the need to repair aging roads and bridges.

    The law requires the DOT to prepare a “Capital InvestmentStrategy” that lays out capital spending plans towards meeting the goals.However, the Capital Investment Strategy DOT submitted to the legislature in Marchdismissed the bridge and road repair goals as “not feasible.”  No further plan for meeting the goals wasset forth and current allocations are not sufficient.

    The legislature also included directives in the Trust FundReauthorization Act for building an additional 1,000 lane-miles of bicyclepaths within the next five years. The DOT now claims to have completed manymiles towards this goal.  But some ofthe projects DOT is counting are not improved bikeways, but simply roads andhighways where DOT has placed signs declaring a bicycle route. Manyother construction projects are not new, but rather have been in planning since1998.

    “Simply putting a ‘share the road’ sign on a road does notmagically make it safe for cyclists,” said John Kaehny, executive director ofTransportation Alternatives. “The law directs the DOT to construct 1,000additional lane miles for the exclusive use of bicycles, that means a stripedbicycle lane or a path separated from traffic.”

   In response to questions about the suit, a spokesman for theDepartment of Transportation told the Bergen Record that the Departmentbelieves that the 2002 capital program “not only meets the spirit of trust fundrenewal, but the letter of the law.”  Aspokesman for the Governor’s office used similar phrasing, telling the CourierNews that the Governor “supports the budget.”  A Treasury Department spokesperson defendedthe $90 million diversion by saying only, “From time to time its done as afiscal management tool.”

   The groups filed suit following meetings, legislative hearings,and other attempts at negotiation in the preceding months.  They will ask the Court to resolve theirconcerns prior to the June 30th deadline for legislative approval of the statebudget.