Werner Liepolt lives in the Bridge Street Historic District. Valerie Seiling Jacobs is a member of Save Westport Now.
Both have closely followed deliberations over the future of the 135-year-old Cribari Bridge. Long stalled — like traffic heading to it — the state Department of Transportation has recently shown new interest in a replacement. Werner and Valerie write:
We’ve all seen it: traffic backed up on Bridge Street across the Cribari Bridge, distracted drivers with out-of-state plates checking their smartphones, and the line of cars clogging Riverside Avenue and Greens Farms Road.
It was bad in 2015, when the Connecticut Department of Transportation first started talking about fixing the historic swing bridge. But it’s only gotten worse since COVID.
The stream of traffic coming from I-95 is remorseless, especially in the morning. Pity parents trying to shepherd their youngsters across the street to catch the school bus. or commuters trying to get to the railroad station. A drive to Compo Beach during the summer can put you on Bridge Street for half an hour.
Bridge Street traffic: 7:40 a.m., May 29, 2025. (Photo/Werner Liepolt)
You know all this. You live here. And that’s exactly why Jim Marpe, our former first selectman, refused to vote to release the money for a DOT study.
He recognized that DOT was likely to recommend building a new, state-of-the-art bridge, one that would be tall enough to accommodate 18-wheelers and thus invite even more I-95 spillover and Waze traffic.
But here’s the rub: our current first selectwoman seems oblivious to the problem. Last year she voted to release $4.1 million to the DOT to begin work on the project.
On May 15, DOT held its first meeting in Westport about the bridge since 2018.
William F. Cribari Bridge. (Photo/Ferdinand Jahnel)
Of all the neighbors, only registered “stakeholder” Werner Liepolt was invited to attend, although the public was not. In the invitation, the DOT noted that there had been “significant developments” concerning the project.
At the meeting, however, we learned the only “developments” appear to be that:
- The DOT has been asked by Tooker to do a traffic study on the Saugatuck side of the bridge only, presumably to accommodate the proposed Hamlet development, which she supports; and
- DOT is now officially recommending that we build a new, bigger bridge — one that will be weight-bearing and tall enough for 18-wheelers.
Needless to say, the stakeholders in the room were outraged. We reiterated what we had said in 2018: that a taller bridge will invite more traffic and trucks when I-95 backs up.
Matthew Mandell, a Representative Town Meeting member, wanted more information on how to obtain an exemption from current building specs, a request that Valerie Seiling Jacobs of Save Westport Now echoed.
She also asked if DOT had considered the impact of increased traffic on air quality — especially given Westport’s ongoing ozone issues. (They had not.)
Maggie Dallal and other young mothers described how difficult it is to cross Bridge Street to get their kids to the bus stop.
School bus crawls along Bridge Street: 7:47 a.m., May 29, 2025. (Photo/Werner Liepolt)
John Suggs, of the Westport Preservation Alliance, reminded DOT that the bridge is listed on the National Register of Historic Places, and that Bridge Street is an official “Scenic” route, 2 designations that entitle us to special dispensation.
And Paul Lebowitz, chair of the Planning & Zoning Commission, reminded everyone that the traffic and truck problem had been discussed at the 2018 DOT meeting.
A potential solution had been floated then: building a bridge that would look like the current bridge (e.g, it would have ornamental trusses), but would not be tall enough to accommodate 18-wheelers.
What happened to that idea? Lebowitz wanted to know.
The DOT seemed flummoxed by the crowd’s reaction, perhaps because none of them had been at the 2018 meeting (all those folks have since moved on).
Still, they insisted that a new bridge would not invite more truck or other traffic. In fact, they claimed that a new bridge would actually speed up traffic and reduce idling time, apparently ignoring the fact that everyone would still need to get through the intersection at Riverside and Bridge Street.
Moreover, they seemed to think that trucks would not choose this route even if I-95 backs up.
The Riverside Avenue side of the Cribari Bridge.
Are their memories so short that they do not recall how the fiery crash on I-95 in 2024 prompted hundreds of trucks to cut through Westport? Everyone in the area remembers how our police department had to stop truck traffic due to 18-wheelers jumping the sidewalks.
It’s true that the DOT reps at the front of the auditorium “duly noted” many of the concerns we raised, implying that they would look into those matters. At the very end of the meeting however, in a complete ambush, the chief DOT engineer for the project — who had apparently been in the audience all along but had not previously identified himself — took the microphone and made it clear that DOT intends to build a new bridge that will accommodate all truck traffic — thereby making a mockery of his junior colleague’s “duly noted” promises.
At this past Thursday’s Traffic and Pedestrian Safety meeting, we stood together with residents of the area and insisted that the Westport Traffic Authority demand comprehensive surveys and plans for traffic abatement and resident safety from DOT before any decision is made about the Cribari Bridge.
We must stand together as a community, and tell our first selectwoman and DOT that anything less is unacceptable.
We deserve to have a voice in what happens in our community.
(If you agree, please email contactsavewestportnow@gmail.com to add your name to the roster of residents who will save the town from this hasty, dangerous, foolish plan.)
(The Opinion pages of “06880” are open to all. Please send submissions to 06880blog@gmail.com)
To let Jen Tooker and the DOT replace this bridge would be a big mistake. Tooker will always side with where she can get political coin. Typical of republicans that don’t listen but just act to the detriment of the people
🤮
Of the available options, weather restoration, conservation, or replacement—other than “paint, duct tape, and hope”— all will accommodate legal loads. Please take a moment to acknowledge that.
The $4.1 million in funding for the planning study that was “removed” several years ago has merely postponed the inevitable and contributed an additional $60 million to the overall budget. Initially set at $40 million for any of the options, the projected cost has now increased to $100 million, in part due to the input from your group.
Additionally, why is it environmental and safety hazards seem to be a concern only for your side of the river? Is Bridge Street special? Are the health concerns for families on Riverside Avenue not as significant? My girls need to cross the street to go to KHS. Are the children in the less fortunate communities of westport being undervalued?
While we also made the choice to live near I-95, should we also be expected to accommodate all overflow?
Please focus on the facts. the bridge rating is a barely a three on a 1 to 10 scale, it needs to be addressed now, before it fails.
As CTDOT made clear none of the studies the $4.1 million First Selectwoman Tooker released was used as intended: to fund comprehensive traffic and environmental studies BEFORE deciding on a plan.
FSW Tooker did request studies for the commercial side of the river… NOT Imperial Ave, South Compo, Underhill Parkway, Saxon Hill, or Greens Farms Rd–“special” if one must address your derogatory tone because people live there.
CTDOT conducted a READY, FIRE, AIM meeting on May 15 with a decision based on apparently nothing and certainly not reflective of the Planning Advisory Committee’s work which you and I and a number of other “stakeholders” invested our time in.
This decision seems to have the imprint of the First Selectwoman’s whim and reflects no concern for the already unmanageable I-95 WAZE-fueled overflow.
Robbie, trying to turn this into a class warfare exercise is not credible. Could you expand on how your marina property north of the bridge might benefit from a larger and possibly higher bridge?
What more can be said… it’s clear that all maritime activities and private property owners will benefit from a higher air draft. Would you like to check with the VFW if they want the D.O.T to correct the ‘mistake’ caused by the poor design issues from the 1990s “resto”?
Moreover, it’s not just the VFW… the mansion, the rive.bistro, and the new dock currently in the permitting process behind the Aerzzos*, along with rumors of a new dock behind JRs, and the town landing at the library, are all part of this and will benifit. In fact, the entire boating community could have access with similarly sized vessels like whats located behind the whelk. Should I go into detail about how this would enhance the Saugatuck riverfront and boost the downtown economy?
My environmental comment is based on the out cry for safer roads and better air quality. This is important, but please don’t forget about us on the west bank if that’s your stance.
What about the fire department, EMS, and the police? They are asking for a span that allows safe passage for all emergency vehicles, both old and new.
It’s clear that no matter which bridge option option is chosen, all heights of 13′ 6′ will have access. Given this clear statement from D.O.T, which shouldn’t be surprising, wouldn’t you prefer improved sidewalks, a slightly wider roadbed for bicycles and vehicles, and a higher air draft?
You want trucks to avoid crossing the bridge, yet you’re okay with all of them passing by my home?
During the meeting, I asked if local government could establish a permanent no-through truck ban like the one in Rowayton on the east side town roads. The answer was very clear. 100% yes and as soon as Monday.
This brings me to wonder why the traffic lights from the exit 17 off-ramp to the bridge have never been synchronized or why the crosswalk button at the bridge square hasn’t been repaired. It’s these simple straightforward improvements that the “old guard” in control have neglected, which leads me to favor younger, more progressive thinkers… Hopefully, they will take the lead.
There it is! The Westport-is-a-destination” plan:
“…the mansion, the rive.bistro, and the new dock currently in the permitting process behind the Aerzzos*, (sic) along with rumors of a new dock behind JRs, and the town landing at the library, are all part of this and will benifit(sic). In fact, the entire boating community could have access with similarly sized vessels like whats located behind the whelk. Should I go into detail about how this would enhance the Saugatuck riverfront and boost the downtown economy.”
This is not the Hudson River, or the Detroit River, or the Mississippi. This is the Saugatuck. Fragile but home to much wildlife. Just how much new river traffic are we looking at here? Is a Boblo Boat ferry next?
I for one like the zen of the Saugatuck without a lot of commercial boat traffic.
Big wheel keep on turning. Proud Mary keep on burning. Rolling on the river…
Westport has an absolute gem of a waterway and can certainly take steps to make the harbor, downtown, and saugatuck, a boater destination. This would directly lead to significant revenue generation for local businesses. I have utilized the Westport waters for 30+ years and also traveled to dozens of harbors up and down the east coast. I have volunteered many times to help draft a harbor management plan. Westport’s harbor and waterways are underutilized. There are smaller scale things that can be done and major things that can be done. Major could involve breakwalls at the harbor entrance protecting the harbor and expansion of the mooring field. Protecting the harbor from adverse weather/wave action not only benefits boaters, it can benefit homeowners substantially too. I actually think a more substantial breakwater existed off of cedar point many moons ago and was allowed to whither away.
Interesting perspective. The water is why I moved to Westport. And I am not a regular boater, but I live boating. Still, I do not see how increasing boat traffic, or identifying as a boating destination, improves the quality of life for most Westporters and most local businesses, which do not on the river. The damage to the environment, however, would be irreparable imo.
Nothing…. Nothing in the area supports 18-wheel trucks… not intersections at any intersection approaching the bridge or departing the bridge… turning radii and traffic signals would need to be reworked as well…
Not to mention further eroding of the “town” environment that is being eroded at every turn…
The fix that seems most appropriate is making the bridge for cars, small van deliveries, and school buses…. Larger vehicles should be banned from the bridge and along Bridge Street between Compo and Riverside…
Why be hell bent on further destroying the very fabric of this town?
If 4.2 million needs to be spent for whatever the reasoning, step up real flood control initiatives by real experts that understand the gravity of flood control initiatives Westport…. Not “studies”to suit fanciful developments and pretty pictures….
Or—— get a real and applicable focus on Main Street retail infrastructure and building positioning and help these merchants survive
It’s crystal clear Westport’s ‘problems’ are not a ‘what’ but a ‘who’
Vote more carefully
I shudder to imagine what DOT will do in this situation. I’m still reeling from their clear cutting a huge area on Hillandale Road making it hideous, tanking home values and causing general chaos without any thought whatsoever—all in a couple of days this spring. They removed old trees and (only when shocked Greens Farms neighbors called to protest) offered a (probably straight) line of non-native green giant arborvitae… sometime, maybe. These people are not who we want coming up with “solutions.”
While I agree that a comprehensive traffic assessment is long overdue and would even take it a step farther by banning trucks on Greens Farms Road and Imperial Avenue in the vicinity of the bridge, I think that the traffic issue has to be considered apart from the bridge. It’s not the bridge that is responsible for the traffic problem and the proposed new bridge need not exacerbate the problem and might even improve matters by providing a more efficient flow of traffic by providing right and left turning lanes to Riverside Avenue.
I too was at the recent hearing and thought that DOT laid out the options very well and explained persuasively why it had landed on its “preferred option”. Members of the audience made innovative suggestions for rendering a new and improved bridge design unavailable to large truck traffic, suggestions which I endorse.
The bottom line as I see it is that a safer, more efficient bridge would be a substantial contribution to moving traffic more smoothly; that the concern about large trucks can be addressed in a number of ways; and that a comprehensive traffic study is needed without regard to and separate and apart from whatever may be the fate of the bridge
A hands-on and in-person visit any day to the intersection of Bridge Street and Riverside will demonstrate the inadequacy of CTDOT’s traffic “solution.” You’ll see 9 out of 10 vehicles wanting to turn left, leaving those who wanting to turn right waiting on the bridge. Add trucks and the problem becomes incrementally worse… never better.
Many suggest that banning trucks would be a solution. Indeed. I challenge you to find one local or state politician, on CTDOT who can and will do it.
Restrict the height of the bridge similar to the bridges on the Merritt Pkwy, thus restricting any truck with too much height. Tall enough for a fire truck but not more.
The present bridge prevents use by large trucks. That is an important, possibly crucial positive. The present bridge generates traffic calming, yes, there are scrapes, but slow and careful are good. The present bridge is historic. That should mean something to many. The one change that would be good would be a wider walkway for pedestrians and cyclers.
You want to keep the bridge? I have a solution. Rename the bridge “The Trump Memorial Bridge “ and I’ll guarantee NO ONE will ever touch that famous bridge! I think I can get Eric to attend the name changing ceremony!!!
And the trophy for the most pointless, worthless comment of the day (so far), again goes to (drum roll)….JACK BACKIEL!
Connor, You probably haven’t read Eric Buchroeder SHS ’70 comments about me when he has written, “Jack, YOU DA MAN.”
Jack,
I was referring to your gender.
XOXOXOX
Eric
Eric Buchroeder SHS ‘70, You’re the Mount Everest of flattery.
I appreciate the compliments Jack but as we both know, “pointless and worthless comment”(s) don’t pay the bills. Consider making a contribution to my sub blog: 06880 – Bizarroland edition. It pops up right here just when/where you and Dan least expects it. As Steve Miller once sang: “Your cash ain’t nuthin’ but trash.” But it can buy a lot of Starbucks. Love U Man!!
I salute the fact that many concerned residents and businesses of Westport take a wonderful involvement in major issues and new developments in the town. This involvement and dedication to these issues is unique in most of America today.
The problem with this type of concern and call to action and direct involvement is best described many times by the old saying ” A LITTLE BIT OF KNOWLEDGE IS A DANGEROUS THING!”
What is going on on major issues in Westport such as “Hamlet”, “Cribari Bridge” are becoming victims of this knowledge shortfall.
I have been following and studying the Cribari bridge replacement since 2015 and have had direct conversations and correspondence with the original project manager for DOT with questions and trying to gather the real facts and information about how to try and solve the possible repair, restoration or replacement of that wonderful Westport historical landmark. I can tell you that as much information and knowledge I have learned over these 10 or so years is still somewhat inadequate for the best answer to this perplexing issue.
As an example how many of all the involved and concerned Westport individuals, officials and even up to possibly this point know that under the “Bipartisan Infrastructure Act” put into law and funded in 2020 the Cribari Bridge replacement CTDOT project would be fully funded by this act and the City of Westport would just have a small start investment which has already been qualified under the act with the towns $4.1 million set aside.
I asked this very question of the DOT project manager in 2022 and to this day have never received and answer if this Act is now the driving force behind DOT’s current push to make this project a reality, or did they even use this wonderful funding to make the State and Westport almost entirely free of the huge cost of this replacement.
This is just one of the many lack of direct knowledge that so many involved and concern individuals have any idea of what is lacking here.
Some very important knowledge about the bridge project that needs to be disseminated for a good outcomes here.
1. The Cribari Bridge is and has been certified as STRUCTURALY DEFICIENT! This means it is not when it will fail but that it WILL Fail. Just try and imagine what a disaster for Westport, Connecticut, residents, businesses, visitors and traffic that event would create and realize it would take years to repair and restore the area and cure huge economic losses!
2. There is no available real estate to create turnout areas or larger radius turns to accommodate 18 wheel big trucks or heavy equipment trailers beginning or ending turns onto this or even a new wider Cribari Bridge!
3. The bridge THANKFULLY is an historic landmark and so it must be replaced with a new bridge that preserves its historic look and feel.
4. Bridge street and Greens Farms Road areas could not safely accept or incorporate 18 wheel semi truck traffic and to provide that traffic onto these streets and roads would not be approved under traffic safety codes and laws..
5. CTDOT has already designed and created preliminary drawings for what would be a beautiful historic replacement for the bridge with all its historic structure and that drawing has never been given to Westport citizens or officials to show that the new historic look bridge is a pretty simple replacement and solves the major issues and concerns as long as the overhead cross beam heights are maintained at 14 FEET!
These are just a few of the examples of the “MISSING KNOWLEDGE” that is delaying, and giving DOT the tacit approval to now ramrod this project thru after they have taken over 15 years to move this badly needed bridge replacement to completion.
This is also why Westport must take a more confrontational approach to dealing with CTDOT! This is Westport’s Bridge!
I for one want what’s best for Westport and not what’s convenient and best for CDOT!
With over 40 years experience in trying to get the best for Westport and residents affected by the Cribari Bridge, I invite you to send an email to:
Contactsavewestportnow@gmail.com
You will be able to participate in efforts to protect Westport, influence CTDot and find the best solution for the I-95/Cribari Bridge dilemma. http://www.savewestportnow.com
Save Westport Now founded in 1980 has been a strong advocate for community involvement and has addressed this issue often.
Well said, Valerie and Werner.
We suppose it was inevitable that some would forget about, ignore, or simply not know of the agreement regarding this bridge which was reached between Westport and the DOT in the late 80’s.
Back then, in response to long-standing local concerns that a new span would trigger additional traffic problems – as well as the desire to preserve a historic landmark of national significance – the DOT agreed to retain the bridge’s geometry (width and clearance height) and character defining, pin-connected wrought iron Pratt trusses. Also saved: the patented die-forged eye bars which the bridge’s engineer, Charles Kellogg, developed to yoke the two 71 foot movable sections of the 1884 bridge together.
To address structural issues, the bridge’s old deck was replaced with a modern, self supporting steel version. This took the strain off the historic wrought iron trusses.
Essentially, DOT carefully hid a modern support deck beneath a historic span – a common and accepted way of preserving important historic bridges in Connecticut (see: Covered Bridge, Cornwall).
This agreed upon approach simultaneously addressed the preservation issue while also responding to residents’ traffic concerns. The bridge’s most significant historic components were restored and the traditional, non-standard clearance height was retained to act as a kind of vehicular filter. To this day, the latter works 24/7 to keep most 18 wheelers out of the village of Saugatuck.
So that was the agreement we made with DOT back in the day. And, of course, the very same concerns still stand – at least on our end. To protect a beloved part of Westport’s historic landscape and hold the line on traffic, the DOT could simply enter into a new memorandum of understanding with the town – one which continues to respect the long held position of Westport residents. The DOT even has a current name for this treatment: The Conservation Option.
Whether it likes it or not, the DOT is the steward of what is now the oldest, active pin-connected swing bridge in America. Respectfully, we feel it needs to take that to heart. And it also needs to be responsive to the voices of the citizens whose security and quality of life are directly at stake.
Morley Boyd
Wendy Crowther
John F. Suggs
Westport Preservation Alliance
Although interesting, this description is somewhat inaccurate and shall I say “Polished”. The old trust system, incapable of supporting the weight, was effectively “burned off”! Rather than meticulously reconstructed, a completely new span was built using huge 36″ I-beams with a new pier for support. These I-beams reduced the air draft by 3′. The only element preserved was the beat-up truss, which was plopped on the new span merely as decoration and to satisfy preservationist. Consequently, the reduced air draft contributed to a huge loss of boat access for homeowners and northern marinas, obviously devastating. Additionally, the temporary span, in place for over three years, obstructed sailboats wintering upriver. All of this marked a final blow at Fred and severely impacted my place, Northrop’s, the vfw, rive* and the mansion marinas.
First in my previouz post I mentioned thst top crossmembers of a new bridge be 14 feet, I gave this dimension in errror. This dimension should be 13 feet to the bottom of these members.
I know Werner and others have been dedicated to the bridges preservation and have put in great time and efforts to pre
serve and justify this wonderful over 125 yesr old historical bridge.structure and neccessary vehical transportation asset for Westport. I salute and congratulate them for their contributions and efforts.
Thd problem seems to now be that DOT has given Westport and its officials and residents to much time to create a single clear answer to what thdy would accept as a replacement for the Ctibari Bridge. DOT now appears to be using this percieved stall to blame Westport for not finalizing an approved bridge and instead want to replace Cribari bridge with a size and type that makes DOT’s job easier.
Mark my words, unless we take a hardline stand with DOT and push them to design and build a good working Historically proper replacement ASAP! our current 15 plus year form of committies, public input, and let them solve it, DOT is just going to build a godawful concrete monstrosity with addquate 18 wheel semi truck usage and damn the Historical requirements and the Town of Westport. People it is a state highway and DOT will be allowed to do what thdy want.
“Rome burned while nero fiddled!”
Ray, there are some errors of fact in your post. I’m not inclined to address all of them. Or even most of them. Instead, I will simply let you know that ANY new span constructed with federal pass thru dollars will have to accept “all legal loads”. That means tractor trailers. We don’t get to pick the clearance height on a NEW bridge from a menu. Trust me, DOT has never, ever, ever waivered on that point. Ever.
As an aside, the bridge may be listed on the National Register but that designation is mostly an honorarium. It’s not protected in the way that something in a Local Historic District is. Nor is there any real obligation by the bridge’s owner to construct a facsimile of the extant bridge. It merely has to wait out the obligatory Sec. 106 review. In any event, there’s no such thing as a “historic replacement”. You can preserve history. But you can’t replace it.
Thanks for bringing folks back to reality but I am curious how the mentioned Rowayton bridge restricted truck thru traffic?
Some AI research suggests:
There is a stretch of road in Rowayton, Connecticut (part of Norwalk, adjacent to Darien) where through truck traffic is prohibited. Specifically, this restriction applies to Route 136 from Woodward Avenue in Rowayton to the I-95 on-ramp on Tokeneke Road in Darien. The prohibition was implemented on August 21, 2007, following a prolonged community effort spanning over two decades. 
The ban was enacted by the Office of the State Traffic Administration) in response to persistent advocacy from local residents and officials. Concerns centered around safety issues posed by large UPS, FEDEX and other trucks using the narrow, residential Route 136 as a shortcut between South Norwalk’s industrial area and I-95. Residents highlighted the road’s unsuitability for heavy truck traffic due to its winding nature and residential character.  
The movement gained momentum in 2005, with significant contributions from individuals such as Commissioner Mike Barbis and resident Andy Glazer. They were supported by Norwalk General Counsel Peter Nolin, Norwalk Mayor Dick Moccia, Darien First Selectperson Evonne Klein, and Darien Police Chief Duane Lovello. Their collective efforts led to the State Traffic Commission’s decision to designate the specified section of Route 136 as a “No Thru Truck” zone. 
The “No Thru Trucks” designation prohibits trucks that are merely passing through the area without any scheduled stop within the locality. However, trucks that originate or have a destination within Norwalk or Darien are exempt from this restriction. Enforcement of the ban requires cooperation from both Norwalk and Darien authorities to ensure compliance and address any violations effectively. 
In addition to the truck ban, infrastructure modifications have been made to discourage large truck traffic. The Rowayton Avenue underpass was reconstructed with a lower-than-standard clearance to preserve the neighborhood’s character and further deter large trucks from using the route.
Was the bridge in question built with federal funds?
I believe the bridge in Rowayton was an I-95 underpass. whose height limit was lowered.
Analogy?
Rowayton I-95 underpass: South Norwalk::Cribari Bridge: Saugatuck
There is no bridge on the Route 136 stretch of Rowayton Avenue and the Tokeneke I-95 underpass accommodates legal loads with a clearance 14′ feet or more. That being said, the ban was highly effective.
Additionally, local roads differ from state and often simpler to implement. Perhaps traffic on the east side use Exit 18? just kidding.
However, I am serious about the traffic study including Riverside, Treadwell, and Saugatuck ave.
And if it determines that a “no thru truck” policy redirects overflow traffic in front of my home, then I must say, carry your load like the rest of us who chose to buy next to I95.
Another thing I’ve been thinking of is the heavy use of salt during snow and icing conditions. I have a bad feeling that our infrastructure is crumbling internally more than anyone knows or realizes… I remember when trucks just put dirt down on the roads or dirt with very little salt.
My counter to Morley Boyd and Darien situation from Werner Liepolt is simply” when there is a will, there is a way”
Ray, I would encourage you to join the side you’re on. There’s a will alright. And there’s a way. The latter has already been identified right here for your reading pleasure by those of us who have been at the ramparts for years. Here it is again: consistent with the MOA we previously reached with DOT, address the extant bridge’s (deferred) maintenance, upgrade systems as needed and maintain its existing geometry.
As someone who lives on Bridge street I witness the traffic and speeding every day. There has to be a focus on pedestrian safety. There are multiple young families who live on bridge street. The traffic and speeding is already out of control before any changes to the Bridge as cars and trucks use greens farms road and bridge street as a 95 alternate. We need to make it safer for all pedestrians now including children waiting for the bus or trying to cross the street. That also needs to be taken into account with any of the proposed bridge changes. A study on current traffic and how any of these proposed changes will affect them needs to happen.
DOT was able to restore the 130 year old swing bridge in East Haddam … they can do so in Westport…
https://portal.ct.gov/dot/ctdot-press-releases/2025/ctdot-announces-reopening-of-east-haddam-swing-bridge-following-major-rehabilitation?language=en_US
F.T.R. , East Haddam swing has a posted 14’6 truck height and 30+ feet of air draft and opens on call every hour…. apples and oranges.
As a relatively new resident I have been shocked at the traffic in Bridge street and the speed that drivers exceed the posted limit. I walk to the train and home nearly every day and often am concerned about a car jumping the sidewalk and hitting me. I lived in Manhattan for 49 years prior and my concerns and the traffic here are worse. How is it possible that the town doesn’t recognize the danger of having cars diverted from the largest highway in the northeastern United States onto the streets of a residential neighborhood. The impact to safety, the environment, the health and wellbeing of the kids in the community should not be subservient to the traffic on a nearby highway. The town should do everything possible to deter highway traffic from our local roads and ensure that streets are safe for pedestrians, including speed bumps, rules and regulations and maintain a bridge that does both accommodate 18 wheelers.
Where are the cars and trucks going to go? What do you do when you travel, there’s a backup and GPS diverts you?
Wepo’s not the sleepy suburbs, it has both I95 and the MP cutting across it, and drivers are going to do what drivers are going to do.
Bridge Street, while lovely, is a cut thru. Still shocked people pay what they pay to live on that road, but there’ll always be newcomers I guess.
As one of the young mothers mentioned here, I want a safe bridge of course, but I also want my kids to safely catch the school bus, not be terrified every time I have to back out of my driveway, and be able to drive to preschool without 30 minutes of commuter traffic which should not be on my road. The locals stop at the crosswalks, the commuters blow through.
Both of these can be accomplished if only our elected officials would try to solve this problem – other towns have brought issues to Waze and had the algorithm changed to not direct commuter traffic to a road with approximately 18 bus stops between two exits!
Last summer while working in my yard, I chatted with a couple in a white convertible sitting in traffic for long enough for me to learn WAZE had directed them to me on the way to Armonk, NY…
In various efforts to get home post COVID I find myself in a long line of traffic on Park Lane trying to get onto a both-ways-backed-up South Compo Rd.
At last Thursday’s Traffic and Pedestrian Safety meeting an Imperial Ave resident near Gault Drive, complained their are many mornings when she can’t turn right because the traffic is backed up for a half mile to Bridge St.
There is nothing in CTDOT’s plan that will fix this, in fact their fixation on a Robert Moses solution will just add more larger vehicles to the jam.
All of Werner’s and Valerie’s comments are well made, and were well made years ago, too. As to traffic, “If you build it, they will come” applies here, as it always will anywhere. Regarding the traffic problems already, what DOT offers is a “cure” worse than the “disease.” Unless, of course, the people who live in the town and will live with the consequences don’t count. This is a case where doubt and caution have a clear place.
We need to ask why the CT-DOT did the extensive major rehabilitation in 1993 and 24 years later finds the need for replacement. Then goes silent for 8 years.
I have heard blame for high water ingress due to super storm Sandy is one of the problems. Come on, the water was record high but the design and build should have been more robust.
Should we trust this next generation of CT-DOT engineers to do any better, using modern design tools to spec the minimums.
24 years is a ton of time. and its in a road salt AND saltwater environment . patch jobs dont last forever.
The reason was that preservationists protested and even hired a third study to manipulate the argument—classic Westport. Consequently, the DOT conceded, went with using parts of the supports, a new span, and placed the truss to appease opposition. What I find notable is that the kind gentleman who led the preservation effort stood up in townhall 24 years later, explained his position, and then stated, on video record, that it was a mistake and should have been replaced. Remarkable.
Classic Westport? You mean standing up for what you believe in? And standing up for your rights? Robbie, have you considered running for the RTM? You might fit in well with that gang.
It was a mistake John…. lets not repeat it.
As I mentioned in the recent Town meeting on downtown meeting, this public needs project is suffering from CONSTIPATION, self induced.
Strong action and results are just like the downtown parking issue, 20 years and no real progress!
Westport is doing the same things and still expecting the same RESULTS! Time to put a top priority and nearly emergency status on a serious solution for this Cribari Bridge dilema!
What happened when that Norwalk I95 crossover bridge was destroyed by the fuel truck burn?
A NEW BRIDGE WAS UP AND WORKING IN ABOUT THREE MONTHS! Never say never!
I am very grateful for ALL the comments on Valerie’s and my oped, and especially appreciative of the overwhelming support our invitation to email Save Westport Now received. I know Valerie is, too.
If you want to influence or be informed about developments related to the Cribari Bridge, related traffic, and CTDOT’s plans, please send an email to contactsavewestportnow@gmail.com
Westport requires less focus on the DOT and its decisions which obviously we can’t influence, and more focus on Westport’s own local legal remedies which are powerful, such as the Planning and Zoning Cmsn. Even If we can’t beat them, we can outsmart them, and I have written a resolution for P & Z and will forward if anyone has an interest. Cribari himself, as a Veteran, would approve a strategy that when one assaults an enemy bunker, you take it from the rear and not from the front where they are expecting it.
What are you waiting for? Why not get a group together who will support your resolution and then take it to the P&Z?
I live near Bridge Street as well and the spillover from I95 has gotten way out of hand, as we all know. The bridge, to me, is a separate issue from I95 spillover. I’m all for replacing the bridge with a more modern, safer bridge that doesn’t allow big trucks on it, but I’m surprised nobody has tried to attack the source of the traffic problems – I95 spillover. So here’s an idea, which will never happen because it’s a good one. Charge a toll at exits 17 and 18. Use the modern overhead/EZ Pass system to charge non-Westport residents $20 to cut through the town during morning and evening rush hours. The toll system can easily be programmed to exempt people whose cars are registered in Westport, so only the highway shortcutters will be charged. When they enter or leave town via exits 17 or 18, during rush hours, they’re charged 20 bucks. Times five times a week. Times twice a day sometimes. Who’s going to want to pay $400+ a month to cut through Westport? Over time, this would reduce the number of people cutting through our town AND will allow the town to make some money off the deal. Again, this will likely never happen because it’s actually a workable idea.
We would probably need to secede from Connecticut to make that happen. But awesome idea.
what about the business owners, employees, and contractors that enter into the town to work and earn a living? a bigger better idea: add lanes to i95… long overdue… even simpler is converting the shoulders to lanes that can be used during peak times… like many other states already do!
Business owners, employees etc would be exempt. The problem with adding lanes to a highway is that, as studies have shown, within a few years those new lanes get filled beyond capacity. The answer is to get people out of their cars but we don’t do mass transit in America.
Great job Werner and Valerie ! Thanks for your focus here.