TRENTON — They're like the cable guy who says he's going to be there between 8 and 5, then you wait at home all day and he never shows.

Some utility workers are delaying road projects — for more than three years, in the case of a Route 18 extension project in Piscataway — because there is no incentive to force them to be on time.

During a hearing before the state Assembly Transportation Committee this week, a state Department of Transportation official estimated the delays cost New Jersey tens of millions of dollars a year — money that could go to vital road and bridge projects.

In many cases, a road or bridge construction project cannot begin until electrical lines or other utilities are relocated.

"The sad fact is that for most of the department’s construction projects, delays due to utility relocations is the norm rather than the exception," DOT Assistant Commissioner Anthony Attanasio said. "And these delays are not minor — they can be in terms of weeks, months and even years."

Besides the Piscataway project, Attanasio mentioned a Route 3 Passaic River crossing project that has had utility relocation delays of 281 days and $1 million; four months and $975,000 worth of delays in the relocating of overhead wires on Routes 1&9 in Bergen and Hudson counties; and utility delays on the Route 73 and 70 Marlton Circle project that caused $6 million to $8 million in inefficiency costs, which the DOT is seeking from the contractor in a lawsuit.

Under a proposal before the Assembly Transportation Committee, utility companies would be responsible for the cost of delays. If the utility companies are too busy to perform the work, they would be able to recommend approved contractors to the DOT.

"It certainly seems like common sense — $50 million can help fix a lot of infrastructure out there," said Assemblywoman Linda Stender (D-Union), vice chair of the Assembly Transportation Committee.

Andrew Hendry, president of the New Jersey Utilities Association, didn’t dispute there were problems with delays.

But he said that on big construction projects, there are "a lot of cooks in the kitchen" and that delays aren’t always caused by utility companies.

2 trchristie HINDASH.JPG

CONNECT

WITH US

On mobile or desktop:

• Like The Star-Ledger on Facebook

• Follow @starledger on Twitter

And check out our redesigned mobile site by visiting NJ.com from any mobile browser.

He found the recommendations before the Assembly Transportation Committee were too punitive and gave unilateral authority to the DOT.

"The my way or the highway approach, pun intended, is not the way to solve this problem," Hendry said.

He took exception with the DOT being able to decide unilaterally who is responsible for a breakdown in work on a construction project.

"In a way, it’s almost like the plaintiff in a court case being able to decide that the defendant is guilty," Hendry said.

The Assembly Transportation Committee took testimony, but made no decisions. Chairman John Wisniewski, a Democrat from Middlesex County, said the committee wants to move the reform legislation but will listen to suggestions from the utilities association before then that "make this a better piece of legislation."

Wisniewski related his own aggravation with a construction delay in Middlesex County, when an intersection was ready to take on vehicle traffic after six months, but didn’t open for six more months after that because of a single utility pole that needed to be put in place.

"My frustration was that in having conversations, everybody swore that it was somebody else’s responsibility," he said.

RELATED COVERAGE

• Plan to close Pulaski Skyway in one direction for 2 years subject of hearing on Thursday

• Work has begun to ease traffic at Route 18 and N.J. Turnpike Interchange 9