Nine prominent Westporters — longtime contributors in local government, real estate and law — firmly believe that the William F. Cribari Bridge in Saugatuck should be replaced.
Lawrence Weisman, Ken Bernhard, Ross Burkhardt, Ron Corwin, Michael Dinshaw, Marcia Falk, Roger Leifer, Mike Nayor and Denise Torve have — among other things — served in the Connecticut legislature, and on the Planning & Zoning Commission and Zoning Board of Appeals.
They wrote to the Western Connecticut Council of Governments, which is taking public comments for the Connecticut DOT:
As long time Westport residents we would like to comment, for ourselves and for many of our neighbors and friends, on the state Department of Transportation’s plan to improve the Cribari Bridge.
The immediate question is whether to restore or replace the existing structure. After carefully examining the issue, we strongly favor the replacement option.
The William F. Cribari Bridge … (Photo/Nancy Lally)
The Cribari Bridge plays a critical role in maintaining traffic flow in the congested Saugatuck area of Westport. Its importance cannot be overstated. It is one of only 3 vehicular crossings of the Saugatuck River in Westport, and for many it provides the closest access to the railway station, Norwalk Hospital and the interchanges with I-95.
In the not too distant future, 2 significant projects will place additional stress on the Cribari Bridge. It will become the primary river crossing for 2 large new developments in Saugatuck area — the Hamlet (a large hotel, office, retail and housing project) and the soon-to-be-completed development on Hiawatha Lane comprising approximately 150 residences.
In addition, the Saugatuck River is scheduled to be dredged, which when completed will result in increased boat traffic, particularly during the summer months when Westport is most congested.
If the bridge remains as is, large boats passing through the Saugatuck area will need the bridge to be opened, bringing all vehicular, pedestrian and bike traffic to a stand still for considerable periods of time.
Opening the Cribari Bridge.
Traffic flow in and around the Saugatuck area is already poor and, as noted, will inevitably become worse. Even now, at times, the congestion and lack of alternative routing is dangerous.
It is imperative that the Cribari Bridge be replaced with a more appropriate design so that it can better handle vehicular traffic of every kind, and provide safer pathways for pedestrians and bicyclists.
The arguments for opposing replacement of the bridge were once understandable, but they are no longer persuasive. The existing bridge has served its purpose. But now its limited size and proportions do not accommodate the long-term safety and capacity needs of our community.
The Saugatuck side of the Cribari Bridge. (Photo/Lynn Untermeyer Miller)
Consider the following facts about the bridge as it exists today:
* The deteriorating condition of the bridge has led to the imposition of weight restrictions, threatening its use by school buses, fire engines, snowplows, and the like.
* The bridge will not be able to accommodate the increasing use of the structure by pedestrians and bicyclists.
* The clearance between the bottom of the bridge and the river’s height at high tide is minimal for boat traffic.
* The width of the lanes is inadequate for today’s larger automobiles.
* The bridge frequently gets stuck in the open position. Even when operational, it takes 25 minutes to open and close, causing untenable backups and delay.
* At the 2 other Westport bridges crossing the Saugatuck River (the Post Road and Kings Highway North), where traffic congestion is notable, new development is being constructed, making the Cribari Bridge an even more important traffic relief point.
The Cribari Bridge is one of 3 bridges connecting both sides of the Saugatuck River. (Drone photo/Brandon Malin)
One of the principal arguments against replacing the bridge is an apprehension that a larger bridge will attract unwelcome truck traffic. That concern can be managed and discouraged in any number of ways.
For example, the bridge could be designed with limitations on height. Additionally, the town and state can place truck restrictions on the feeder roads (Greens Farms Road, Imperial Avenue and Bridge Street) and on state Route 136, as has been done in Westport north of Coleytown Elementary School, in Darien, and in the section of Norwalk adjacent to Rowayton.
A second argument made for restoring the existing bridge, rather than replacing it, is the perception that the existing bridge has historic and aesthetic value.
While we naturally share the desire to preserve Westport’s past, in this instance we think that the need for safety and efficiency far outweighs any historic considerations.
Regarding aesthetics, Westport can rightfully insist that it should have a voice in the design of the bridge to include appropriate decorative elements such as lighting fixtures and structural enhancements, to make the new Cribari Bridge attractive.
The Cribari swing bridge is over 130 years old. (Drone photo/John Videler for Videler Photography)
When the town of Westport twice had the opportunity to improve the intersection of Route 33 and US 1 (Riverside Avenue and the Post Road), it failed to act.
The DOT now rates it as one of the worst functioning intersections in the state. Let’s not make a similar mistake again.
In conclusion, for the reasons stated and with an eye toward the future, we strongly support replacement of the Cribari Bridge with a modern structure that will serve Westport’s needs now and in the years to come.
To do anything less would be irresponsible.
Lawrence Weisman
Ken Bernhard
Co-authors:
Ross Burkhardt
Ron Corwin
Michael Dinshaw
Marcia Falk
Roger Leifer
Mike Nayor
Denise Torve
(Residents can send comments on the Cribari Bridge to plan@westcog.org. The deadline is April 1.)
I do not know why the authors if this piece (members of a local pro-development group known as The Coalition for Westport) think that we have the ability to prevent a replacement span – built with federal funds – from becoming an alternate I95 truck route. CT DOT has, if nothing else, been consistent on that point and it’s a matter of record. It’s not going to spend 40 million or so on a new span that, as it explained at the PAC meetings, isn’t “accessible to all legal loads”. If you want its Frankenbridge you get everything that comes with it. Period.
With 150 new residences , offices and a hotel coming, this is a no-brainer. It actually should have been done 40 years ago! It’s probably not a shock that this post comes 48 hours after the tragedy of the Key Bridge in Baltimore! A structure that had 31,000 daily cars and trucks travel across it! You think you have problems? I’ll have to leave tomorrow to arrive at Dan’s Compo Beach Party on July 25th because the backups are so bad at the tunnel. How are those 31,000 daily vehicles going to maneuver? Get it done! It should have been done 40 years ago.
Morley, Don’t use Federal funds. Use taxpayers’s funds and you won’t be beholden to anyone. You’re willing to spend 110 million or more on Long Lots for a new school, rather than a 35 million renovation. Here’s the Math: 45 million + 35 million = a new bridge and a renovated school. I just got both structures done and saved you 30 million dollars!
Jack, thanks for your well intensioned advice. To clarify, the bridge at issue is no longer owned by the Town of Westport. We transfered it to the State of Connecticut some time ago.
Morley, Although I’ll be 77 soon, maybe I should move back to Westport and run for First Selectwoman in two years? I wouldn’t run as a Republican or Democrat; I’d run on the “Bring Him Back(iel) Party. Pay attention Ms Tooker.
Morley, If you tear it down, and build one 200 feet away, and rename it, it’s not Connecticut’s problem anymore. I’m sure the state would agree to get rid of the financial burden of spending 45 million.
April Fools Day is approaching and with it the April 1 deadline for submitting letters to the Southwest Regional Planning Association and the Western Connecticut Council of Government for the use of $4,000,000 to study the options for the William F. Cribari Bridge, Westport’s National Landmark iconic gateway. You can submit your opinion at plan@westcog.org
There were nine recognized groups of stakeholders holders who spent considerable time working with CTDOT to eventually hammer out five consensus-agreed-upon courses of action for the bridge.
No build,
conservation,
rehabilitation,
replacement (on alignment),
replacement (off alignment).
They are thoroughly discussed on the project website. https://portal.ct.gov/DOT/Bridges/Project-Pages/Project-No-158214
One of the letter writers participated in the ConnDOT Project Action Committee, Ron Corwin represented the Coalition for Westport. He represented the point of view expressed in the letter, a pro-commercial, high population approach.
I represented the Residents of the Bridge Street Neighborhood. From our point of view, the state’s studies should determine not only what solves Westport’s traffic problems—bumper to bumper traffic, heavy diesel air pollution— but what will also improve them. Why build something that makes our problems worse?
The letter suggests modifications that will widen the roadway and add pedestrian and cycling lanes, but fails to discuss how and why they argue for right of way and eminent domain but gloss on the fact that their pipe dream will be built on the front yards of two dozen private residences and The Saugatuck cooperative complex.
The letter suggests vague ways in which I-95 truck traffic will not be allowed on Greens Farms Road or Bridge St… but as CTDOT pointed out many times… federal money spent upon a replacement bridge REQUIRES that all vehicles that travel on I-95 travel on Westport’s residential streets.
The letter suggests a high rise bridge so boat traffic won’t stall car traffic… high rise to where? What goes up ought to have a place to alight. CTDOT is capable of some pretty crazy things… look up “the highway to nowhere.” CTDOT too 11 years to build the Stamford RR station! And CTDOT proposed a high rise replacement in the 1970’s which the school PTA’s had to organize to stop.
The nutty pie-in-the-sky predictions in the letter are appropriate for April Fools Day. The long delayed river dredging seems to conjure in some heads a Nile-like idyll fit for oligarchic pharaohs, the seven storied towers of the Hamlet conjure images of posh casinos and cocktails, but a thorough, realistic study must guarantee that CTDOT’s study does not sacrifice residential life for the real people of Westport.
Since I just saved you 30 million dollars. (Read my second comment.) Perhaps a small portion of the savings could go to the State of Connecticut to sweeten the deal? I would rather the State not be spending 45 million on that dilapidated bridge and shore up funds at the Connecticut Teachers Retirement Board so they can keep sending me thousands of dollars every month for the rest of my life and the rest of my wife’s life! Fortunately for all you readers, I’ve reached my comment limit.
As Morley points out, this group of writers is actually the Coalition for Westport, the same group that has advocated for parking structures by our train station and directly sponsored and supported Desegregate CT’s desire to have as of right housing density of 18 units per acre a 1/2 mile from these stations.
The biggest miss here is that WestCOG, who they have written to, is not deciding on the bridge itself. The comment period is solely about accepting the DOT’s list for federal funding for infrastructure projects called TIP (Transportation Improvement Plan).
The issue I had brought forward earlier this month was the DOT, in their draft list of scores of projects, had used the word “Replace” on their list for a request for design money. In actually DOT has agreed that “Restore” and “Rehabilitate” were still concepts on the table and would be returning to Westport for discussions on how to actually proceed after they had done their environmental study (6 years in the making). The wording was a simple clerical oversight that needed to be addressed. We are talking use of Federal money.
First Selectwoman Jen Tooker spoke with DOT and the TIP draft will now say “Bridge Improvements” which is all we had requested to allow for the flexibility that all parties had agreed to in 2018. This wording was actually suggested by the Executive Director of WestCOG and encompasses all possibilities.
Clearly, these writers and advocates for urbanisation and greater density of our town saw an opportunity to stir the pot. But this was misplaced in this venue, other than to throw this out into the blog world.
There were five concepts on the table when we left off back then ranging from a full historic “restore,” to full “replacement.” There was also one in the middle of “rehabilitation” that would address many of the issues on both sides of the issue. The process is ongoing and I for one look forward to DOT returning to the table in Westport to find the best solution for our town.
Matthew Mandell
RTM D1
Um, what about the eminent domain demolition around BridgeSt & RiversideAve that would be required? Since it seems the proponents (do they in fact live anywhere near there?) want to avoid having to inconvenience traffic with an operable replacement bridge, it will have to be tall enough for sailboats to pass under. Then, simply demolish most of downtown Saugatuck to accommodate the required bridge ramp and connect it directly to Exit 17. Job done.
I wonder how many in this group of signers are investors in “The Hamlet”.?
Why not? Who gives a damn about the home owners on bridge street who have put so much of their love and money into some of the oldest and historic homes in Westport. Take their property to expand the thoroughfare to the new Uber bridge to nowhere. Nowhere be cause once the traffic flow increases it will have nowhere to go. But wait there is more! The same individuals that push Uber bridge and their developer friends will push ideas like the new 4 lane road directly to exit 16 through some of Westports best loved restaurants and neighborhoods. This has been seriously proposed and talked about so don’t go. Oh no . Or will it be the two or three rotaries that were proposed at one point to move the massive amounts of cars through maybe. Westport is a small town they don’t make more land and you can only squeeze so much onto it. The days of quaint Westport are gone as our many of us that loved it so much. here’s hoping some people care a bit more about character than crowds.
I don’t mind at all that my point of view is challenged by others, but it does not advance the discussion to paint one another with a broad brush as favoring development on the one hand or as diehard preservationists on the other. The pressure for development is relentless and has to be acknowledged, confronted and planned for on a case by case basis. I opposed and worked -unsuccessfully as it turned out – to thwart the Hiawatha Lane project and have spoken out against other proposals which seemed to me to be out of scale or otherwise inadvisable. But to bury one’s head in the sand and fall back on an all or nothing preservationist or pro development characterization as a recent commenter has done is to ignore reality and discourage sensible planning for the inevitability of growth.
When two attorneys pen a lengthy proposal for replacing a bridge in an area where there is commercial development looming a vast scale and the list of co-signees includes prominent, major commercial property landlords, well, who wouldn’t come to the conclusion that you are pro-development?
Regardless, can you apply the Coalition for Westport’s prescience about the relentless pressure for development to show us what will likely happen to the east bank of the Saugatuck?
The pressure for commercial development in a neighborhood where roads are widened, front yards are taken for pedestrian and bike lanes, and already small front yards disappear might be, as you say, our inevitable reality.
And it wouldn’t be a far reach to get the Planning and Zoning that radically altered the zoning in Saugatuck to extend a commercial zone along Route 136 and Greens Farms Road, would it?
From the Cribari Bridge to the DDD zoned Greens Farms Office building? To the Nyala Farm complex? Stores? Strip malls? Afforable housing? Pleasure palaces? Something modeled on Route 123 in Norwalk?
I was very surprised to see this post and even more surprised to see the names on the list. I’m sorry to say that I think you’ll be on the wrong side of Westport’s rich history with this. What a shame.
I’d like to see the existing bridge adaptively reused as a pedestrian/bike span (doesn’t have to be in the same location; it could be the proposed pedestrian bridge connecting both sides of the river downtown, if lengthened with a pier on either side), and a new functional vehicle bridge to replace it (whether in this exact location or somewhere else). The fact is, this is a terrible bottleneck, both dangerous and ineffective. While no one wants truck traffic on their street, that is what you sign up for when you buy a house on a busy state road that is basically underneath I-95 – and it’s why you pay a discount for your house in the first place. And trucks are a fact of life – they deliver things to people and businesses. What is the alternative? What you see in Europe, which is staging areas outside of the cities to transfer packages from trucks to delivery vans? Good luck with that!
You can’t have it both ways: complain relentlessly about traffic and then oppose any means of ameliorating it. I would think most adults would have learned by now that life is compromise.
Thank you Richard. I fully agree with your suggestions and comments. I hope someone will pay attention
I’m not so sure about this… build it and they’ll come. CTDOT is not an adherent of the induced demand concept… but it’s not the bridge that is the bottleneck, it’s the two lane streets on the West Bank.
It should be noted that when you email plan@westcog.org, keep in mind this group is only voting to fund research of possible options.
This includes renovation or replacement feasibility studys and potential designs that could work and how they will affect the area.
This funding to gather critical data was stripped away almost a decade ago by the previous town administration for fear of losing control and to manipulate the outcome, basicly forcing the community to bury our heads in the sand so the “anti replacement” crowed could pat each other on the back.
It was praised as a smart tactic. I’d argue it was a selfish political move and put every person who used the span in danger. Imaginge how much worse the span is now so many years later.
I urge both sides to email and ask for this funding to be passed, and let’s get on with this, before the span is de-rated further or worse, fails completely.
I’m all for making the Cribari safer, but making it bigger is going to create more problems than it solves. I lived on Underhill for 15 years and am well-acquainted with the traffic patterns and issues with the Saugatuck pinch point, as well as the frequent excitement on 95 in that area as well (the S/B approach to the freeway bridge is a site of frequent accidents). A “bigger, better” bridge will make traffic on Bridge Street worse, not better, and will make an already congested residential neighborhood even more unlivable.
As others more knowledgeable than me have pointed out above, the CT DOT, which is the final word here, won’t allow a Cribari replacement that doesn’t allow trucks. So we can probably end that pipe dream here, and from some of the comments above it seems like the authors should have known better when they suggested that limiting trucks could be an option.
When we lived in Saugatuck, any disruption or congestion on 95 resulted in massive congestion on Bridge Street between exits 18 and 17 – sometimes backing up all the way to the Sherwood Island connector. As a Saugatuck resident, you learned pretty quickly that sometimes it was faster to go up Compo to the Post road to get to Norwalk than try to fight the traffic over the bridge. As dynamic re-routing became more popular (Waze) this situation only got worse. The only saving grace was that the truck traffic, air brakes and all, was limited to the freeway, and didn’t join the already too frequent truck traffic down Underhill coming from the water treatment plant and the boat ramp. As a resident, the choice between a nice new bridge with semi traffic on Bridge street, vs. our forlorn little Cribari with some traffic challenges was a no-brainer: keep the tractor-trailers on the freeway where they belong. And keep in mind that once that route becomes viable for trucks, congestion on Bridge street won’t be limited to daylight hours when the cars are redirected off the freeway to avoid logjams – Bridge street will be a line of tractor-trailers anytime there is any issue (construction, accident, lane closure) on 95 – including the wee hours when Saugatuck, finally, is actually quiet.
It’s also important to note that in 15 years I NEVER saw Bridge street back up on the Northbound side. Why? Because the real pinch point isn’t the bridge, it’s the traffic patterns on the south side of the bridge – specifically the several traffic lights and turns from Bridge to Riverside, to Charles, to Park, to Saugatuck, and back to I95. I’m not prone to conspiracy theories, but the authors seem like they should know this fact, so what’s the plan here if not to dynamite a path through Rizzuto’s straight to Saugatuck Ave? Because otherwise, building a nice 4-lane bridge with sidewalk that entices Wazers to bypass the daily I95 logjams will be like trying to fit a fire hose onto a cocktail straw, and good luck with that. And I can tell you, as a resident who no longer lives in Saugatuck, those problems will not be limited to Bridge street residents – traffic patters in the whole town will be affected.
For these reasons and others, the town took the decisions they did in 2018, and relitigating those conclusions now is a disservice to the hard work and diligence that was required to make them.
I’m not fan of the current bridge. Treating a part of the infrastructure as a historical artifact worthy of preservation seems disingenuous to me.
BUT, Greens Farms Road has become the well-traveled short-cut from Norwalk to Fairfield, when I-95 and Post are backed up. This is a stretch that is residential. Needless traffic (commercial or otherwise) shouldn’t be encouraged upon the area. And if state or federal mandates would require a bridge that would encourage that, then renovation of the current structure should remain the primary option.
As a resident of Bridge Street, who lives up the hill from the Bridge, my overwhelming concern is adding any more traffic, particularly commercial traffic, on 136!!!! Efforts to effectively “manage” current traffic congestion on this road have failed miserably!!!!!!! Given this history, saying that additional increases in future traffic can be “controlled” is a LIE!!!!!
When Marty Hauhuth was First Selectman (woman) there was a temporary bridge constructed while the swing bridge was repaired. The temporary bridge was wonderful and many of us regretted having to go back to the swing bridge. I have continued to cringe when a large truck is passing me when I’m driving on the bridge. Fortunately Gault no longer has the garage and oil depot in Saugatuck. When they did there were even more large trucks on it.
Surely an exception can be prenegotiated to say no heavy loads.
Tractor trailer traffic would be disastrous.
And quite honestly because of Waze, IF tractor trailers are to start using that bridge the gridlock we have presently will look like nothing by comparison.
So surely to God, there can be a tractor trailer exception made ?
If there cannot be, then the bridge has to stay as is.
I lean towards restoration and improvement – the I95 truck traffic scenario would be the last straw for Saugatuck. And I would hope restoring the bridge can be done faster than replacing it.
I find the arguments in this letter unpersuasive. Addressing each of the specific facts mentioned:
The deteriorating condition of the bridge is obviously the heart of the issue. It doesn’t de facto support a full replacement scenario.
I don’t understand the pedestrian or cyclist point – I’ve biked this bridge for years and have never had a problem. In fact, the narrowness serves to slow traffic to a safer speed which makes me feel more comfortable crossing it. And there are no attempts to pass cyclists as there isn’t room. I can’t understand why pedestrians have or will have a problem with it.
Clearance under the bridge is tight. Most boats can pass with proper planning. I can’t imagine a new bridge design that would allow sailboats to pass without opening the bridge so that scenario will not go away.
Accommodating large cars? Does that mean allowing them ample room to drive faster over a 100 yard bridge? I’ve never seen any issue with passing cars in over 20 years of using it and don’t see this as a pressing priority. Driving slowly and carefully seems to do the trick.
We certainly don’t want a bridge getting stuck. Again, this doesn’t automatically make the replacement scenario more attractive. Any restoration scenario would have to address this.
There also seems to be an underlying expectation in this letter that a new bridge will facilitate higher traffic capacity in Saugatuck and somehow miraculously address the expected, additional traffic challenges that these new, very large development projects will bring. I don’t get that at all – the bridge still has two-lane roads on either side of it. Really wish we had thought this through more carefully before approving these large Saugatuck projects.
Todd: I’m with you on 90% of this – all except for your comments about biking across the Cribari. I bike commuted over that bridge for years and I have been passed – mid-span – more times than I can count (always southbound, btw). I have friends who still bike commute over that bridge and they have had the same experience. And this is despite my precautions – I would stay hard right and slow until the road narrowed, let any closely following cars pass, then I would hammer it at about 25mph (which is the speed limit, btw) and move to the middle of the lane. Still, there were enough yahoos who passed me on the bridge – TO GET TO A RED LIGHT – that I finally gave up the bike, since if someone pulled into the N/B lane from the DD at that point, I knew that the driver’s choice between a head-on with an SUV and knocking me and my bike into the river would be pretty easy.
Sorry for the rant, but, as many of my friends, and my long-suffering wife, know, this is a pet issue of mine. Perhaps YMMV if you are riding off-hours – the morning commute traffic is probably a bit more aggressive. But the solution to this problem, as we seem to agree, isn’t a bigger bridge. It’s a bit more consideration and maybe some PD enforcement.
Serious question: Why not just walk your bike over the pedestrian bridge section adjacent to it?
Hi Dan! If I had to I would have for safety reasons, but in the end it was easier to just become yet another car commuter. Other considerations included the fact that I commuted in four seasons, and often the sidewalk was unplowed and icy – or covered with leaves – for weeks while the roadway was clear, the trip was 10 mins fully on the bike vs 15 walking the bridge, and the principle of the thing…
It’s insane that traveling the speed limit on the road on a bike is unsafe due to the actions of aggressive drivers. I mean, these guys would never pass a Harley going 25 on that bridge, but somehow the fact that I’m legging it makes some drivers think they are entitled to pass. And besides, a biker crossing the bridge, even at 20 or 15mph or 10mph, costs the autos absolutely nothing – literally zero delay. Most of the times I was passed I caught them at the red light about 10 seconds later (and yes it was red when they passed – they weren’t trying to beat a yellow, not that that would excuse anything).
Also, I’ve found that pedestrian path narrow enough that walking it next to a bike isn’t exactly easy, either (but safer).
Bottom line: If we are going to encourage bicycle use around town, we need better protective enforcement. Again, apologies for the rant. Seeing your life pass before your eyes a few times – for nothing – winds one up!
Thanks, Richard. Makes plenty of sense to me. That’s why I asked!
Thanks Richard. Sorry to hear of your experiences there – they are not too surprising given the declining driver etiquette out there with respect to cyclists. I also tend to move out and ‘take the lane’ before the bridge but I think I have been fortunate. Getting passed in that situation is pretty nutty.. Stay safe.
IMO saugatuck as we have known it is over. the huge development proposed on the water aka the hamlet and summit saugatuck. the traffic nightmares ahead as well as public safety concerns are just going to mount imo. why not just throw commercial/truck traffic into it with a new bridge at this point?
This is a genuine question: Why do some people seem to think that not repairing/replacing the bridge so that large trucks can traverse it is an option? The state owns the bridge, not the town. The bridge needs to be repaired/replaced for safety reasons. And when it is repaired/replaced, the state will do it in a way that will enable trucks to pass over the new bridge. The state has said as much. What is there to argue about? I guess some might successfully delay the repair/replacement, but it is happening eventually. What is the point of any of this dialogue?
Christine, tractor trailer trucks can (just) pass over the bridge right now. And exactly zero people are arguing to leave the bridge unrepaired. But quite a few are arguing that the bridge’s non-standard geometry should be retained for reasons which obviously require no mention.
I guess my point is that it is the state’s bridge. They might solicit some input but realistically they’re going to do what they want with it. The arguing here seems to imply that we have more control over the outcome than we actually do. If the state is going to use funds to correct its problems – which they have to at some point – I don’t see any realistic scenario where they don’t expand it as well. If it isn’t too much trouble/expense for them to make the new bridge have echos of the old bridge, maybe they will. But there’s no realistic scenario where the bridge is just repaired and left as is. So what is the purpose of this dialogue?
No local control, you say? You must be new.
A few years ago, we got ALL the money DOT wanted for the bridge project stripped out of the state TIP via a unanimous vote at WESTCOG because DOT refused to disclose what its plans for the bridge were. It said “give us the money and then we’ll tell you what we’re gonna do”.
Right.
Westport may not own the bridge, but we built it and, with leaders that don’t run up the white flag because things look difficult, we can certainly continue to influence this matter for our community’s benefit.
I think I was on the RTM when what you’re referring to occurred. Listen, to me this is the same kind of magical thinking that had people believing they were going to win 8-30g cases in court and no large developments would be built. The efforts you refer to might delay the building of a substantially larger bridge, but it’s inevitable.
That’s the spirit, Christine.
I have lived on Imperial Avenue for 52 years. The possibility of replacing the Cribari Bridge with a higher, larger span saddens and angers me. Traffic in Saugatuck when trains arrive in Westport is already very heavy. I’m concerned that a larger bridge In addition to The Hamlet will overwhelm Saugatuck. Surely the money earmarked for creating a safe bridge can be used to design a safe rehabilitated Cribari Bridge.
Since I no longer live in Westport I try to refrain from commenting on the posts that impact everyday Westport. HOWEVER (caps intended) I remember when I95 was developed and the Eminent Domain taking over and the tears that were shed. Do be careful what you wish for. Look at as many alternatives as you possibly can and think the whole process through. Traffic through Westport has been a problem since before I graduated from Staples in 1958. Even in the days before GPS in your car it wasn’t at all difficult to figure out how to bypass the toll both in Westport on I95.
Bill O’Brien
I have written opinion pieces on the replacement of the Cribari Bridge and viable option comments for the last two years on 06880 until my fingers ache.
There are some major players in this disjointed ballet:
1. DOT Connecticut not even applying for a 100% federal funding this needed project via the NEW multitrillion Bipartisan Infrastructure Law. No lets Connecticut pay millions and Westport chip in their funds and turn this way overdue dangerous condition to continue and not use the Federal funds already set aside for a projects like this. What a travesty!
2. DOT really wants the BIG OUT, a large concrete bridge with the aesthetic of a concrete storm drain! DOT really does not want to look at and solve any of the big traffic problems on the Saugatuck Ave approaches to the current bridge or what the Online APP WAZE is creating at this bridge and feeder streets!
3. Not many of the members of the public committees really studying all of the issues and total needs of the residents and commuters in Westport.
They all looked at the project over the last 5 years looking through their microscopes only concerned about their particular needs or wants without looking at the big picture and considering a wide swath of needs both present and future.
But, Hey this satisfies all those public input bullshit requirements to push these projects thru the pipe.
4. Town officials other than JIm Marpe have about as much knowledge of what’s best for Westport or the real existing and future traffic nightmare issues at Saugatuck!
Now we have nine or ten influential Westporters pushing an idea with their new opinion piece that we should totally disregard and abandon the Historic importance and cultural aspect of the Cribari Bridge because we can’t have a historic look and operation to the new bridge if it is going to satisfy the current traffic needs and future local transportation issues! Sorry but these individuals have not done their homework or studied the possibilities of what can really be done to address all the issues, traffic, historical preservation, costs and minimum traffic disruptions.
They also have half a can of knowledge of the specific aspects of the Saugatuck River, it’s dimensions, depths, and any idea that the dredging project about to begin hopefully in our lifetimes will solve the navigation issues. Do they know the dredging will only take place between the Highway1- Steinkrause Cohen Bridge down to RIVE Bistro ! NO, not even to the Cribari Bridge!
Do they realize or know that with the river width, existing restricted approach areas the height of the lower cross beams of a new bridge can only be about 7 feet above the Mean Low Water elevations! NO
This is why the new bridge needs to still be a swing open bridge to make the upper Saugatuck River to town area accessible to even small cruising powerboats and sailboats. The Federal emergency access laws and rules require emergency marine vehicles have accesses via a swing bridge clear height!
Bottom line here is :
1. The Cribari Bridge is currently in a dangerous poor condition!
It could fail catastrophically now or in the very near future especially since even non-18 wheel big trucks are crossing over daily with weights in excess of 20 tons and the volume of vehicle crossings daily is probably double today versus in 2016 when the condition of the bridge was rated POOR!
It gets stuck open because swing mechanism is SHOT! and the piers and supports underneath are so deteriorated and in need of total replacement. Come on folk look at and read the 2016 -2019 inspection reports and pictures. The Cribari Bridge is a ticking time bomb!
The Cribari Bridge can be replaced with a new modern safe operation swing bridge with wider lanes, bicycle and pedestrian walkways and still posses the original Historic truss look. It can also be set with a 12 ffot max clear height traffic lanes that will preclude large 18 wheel semi-trucks use and weights.
This new Cribari bridge can be constructed with slightly offset approaches on both sides of the river with the old bridge still in place and in use to make the transition from old to new as short as possible.
Well I am not making any friends here but I just want to see the Cribari Bridge replaced with a great look and service to the town of Westport and it’s residents, businesses and future times! Let’s hope this pound it down and get something done anyway, anyhow does not end up a short sighted solution with poor value in so may areas!
Briefly: I’m in total agreement that we should be careful what we wish for: a bigger bridge could lead to results such as Greens Farms Road (along with a bigger bridge) being an alternative route whenever traffic on I-95 backs up. How can the town get written guarantees that this would not happen, or that 18-wheelers would be prohibited from using Greens Farms and a newer bridge as a detour? Purported promises need to be written down in solid guarantee, not vaguely alluded to.
Here’s an out-of-the-box thought: Would it be possible to make the portion of the river between the Cribari Bridge and downtown a no-motor zone, or in some other way eliminate or minimize the need to open the bridge?
I hope that Westport will continue to support strengthening the bridge, but at the same time making sure that the town won’t come down with a case of the solution becoming worse than the problem.
Keep restricted height.
Allow Class B single axle trucks to cross over, which are usually under 20,000 pounds but allow home heating oil/fuel box trucks to cross. (They can now but some are restricted by weight
The height protects tractor trailers with the standard 53’ box trailer and 25’ tractor from entering a constricted and tight area where they do not have the space or crab, pivot, drag, or drive on the outside to swing turns.
The current pitch of the road, from Bridge St to the actual intersection of Peters Bridge, pitches low. The bridge structure could be lifted, with the road being regraded at a higher level, to also prevent future flooding, and allow more access under the bridge without calling for an opening.
The same design, but wider to accommodate the average lane width of 12’ and even 14’ feet as opposed to the current 11.5 foot wide lane.
Increasing the height of the bridge, will invite tractor trailers to the area. However, only the height will accommodate them, not the current topography of roadways before and after the bridge.
Urbanization while destroying history is self destructive to the cultural identity of Westport.
I have spoken publicly in favor of rehabilitation, restoration, and even a rebuild that features the original design.
I am eager to see what the state proposes to us.
I have lived 2 minutes away for 25 years, I cross it multiple times a day more than most I think. I have never seen it stuck open. I have never had a problem other than minor inconveniences which are rare. Not much time for public comments on this.