Last week’s Friday’s Flashback — a look at the 1985 effort to save the Bridge Street (now Cribari) Bridge from a state Department of Transportation plan to replace it with a larger span, allowing tractor trailer traffic — drew over 2 dozen comments.
Many hoped for a similar response today. Forty years later, the future of the Cribari Bridge is still in doubt.
Larry Weisman is not sure that’s the right reaction.
The longtime attorney and town observer writes:
I think that the enthusiasm for saving the Cribari Bridge — which reached its peak in 1985 — is outdated.
It should be replaced by an effort to improve the safety and efficiency of the bridge, preventing its use by oversized vehicles, and preserving what some value as its aesthetic properties.
That is exactly what the state – which owns the bridge – is trying to do.
Below is a chart that outlines 6 carefully considered alternatives, as well as DOT’s preference among them.
As can be seen, the options in the two righthand columns headed “Replacement”, (one with “Alignment” — the preferred alternative — and the other without), check all the boxes for the thoughtful criteria in the left-hand column.
Click on, hover over or pinch to expand.
If the bridge is replaced in accordance with the preferred alternative, the results would include:
- Increased horizontal and vertical clearance, with electrical equipment located above 100 year flood elevation
- Safe bicycle and ADA compliant pedestrian passage
- Safe guardrails and roadway barriers
- Increased clearance when closed, reducing frequency of openings
- Compliance with historic criteria
- Right and left turn lanes at the Saugatuck end of the bridge.
It seems to me that ConnDOT has done a conscientious job of establishing reasonable and realistic criteria; assessing available alternatives, and the need for structural and operational improvements, and has listened to and taken into account public concerns expressed in earlier forums.
This is not to say that there are not traffic issues on the roads leading to and from the bridge.
But those problems must be addressed separately, and apart from any decision about the bridge itself. The bridge is not the only problem.
The town controls all of the roads that affect bridge traffic, except for Compo Road South (Route 136). The town is in a position to prevent or limit truck traffic on Imperial Avenue and Greens Farms Road. Along with height and weight warnings and alarms, that would go a long way toward effectively addressing the concern about 18-wheelers.
We only have 3 ways to drive across the river. It is imperative that each of them operates safely and efficiently for cars, bicycles and pedestrians.
I believe that the “preferred alternative” shown below in the second column from the right is the best solution. It should be widely supported — even though it would be difficult to synthesize on a t-shirt.
(Our “06880” Opinion pages are open to all. Email submissions to 06880blog@gmail.com. To make a tax-deductible contribution, clikc here. Thank you!)
Nope. DOT has repeatedly stated, on the record, that if it replaces the bridge, the new span will be capable of accepting “all legal loads”. Everybody knows that means tractor trailers. And the State, obviously, controls the (state) route which includes the bridge. There’s a reason that Westport’s leaders have fought off the DOT all these years. Wisdom hasn’t become “outdated”. Yet.
Sounds reasonable, Larry… Maybe we can consider it?
AFTER the town and state guarantee there will be no I-95 truck traffic allowed on our residential streets.
Remember when Larry’s pro-density party, the Coalition for Development, ran a bridge hater for Planning & Zoning? That went well. Except not at all.
Any Guarantee from any State or Local politician or legislation or act can always be changed. Laws are temporary; structures and the laws of physics are permanent. Relying on any political promise or legal gimmick is the wrong way to go. Restore the bridge and let’s move on. Any other position is tantamount to accepting the inevitability of tractor trailers on the bridge.
Gee, we’re gonna need a little more room to make the new bridge wide enough for those 18-wheelers. Hope the nice people on the left side of the ironically named Imperial Landing get good eminent domain legal representation. And the ever-so-quaint #12 Bridge St. And Rainbow Thai’s landlord. The eponymous “The Bridge at Saugatuck” restaurant may manage to keep half its parking, but will likely need a new logo.
Eisenhower built the Interstate system for military maneuverability and all side roads were to be brought up to a standard. The beautiful bridge does not meet this requirement so it’s not if but when. Time to work towards a solution rather than fighting change.
Oh, we have the solution – one that works for Westport, not the state or federal government: restore the bridge.
Agreed. Military maneuverability in urban downtowns is of primary importance.
Since it’s likely that the 8-30g Barracks at Saugatuck will go in before the state gets its bridge, the serendipitous solution will require the demolition of a good part of the barracks so those 18-wheelers have a reasonable straight shot to Exit 20-something (Old Exit 17).
Reality is a new bridge will REQUIRE land to be taken on both sides to facilitate (eminent domain WILL happen after YEARS of legal challenges), and the town will NOT be able to prohibit trucks and other types of traffic from the bridge and access roads. Much like the Hamlet and other developments proposed for Westport, requires change and withOUT every citizens’ opinions being realized in the final product.
I think we should preserve the bridge for pedestrians and bicyclists and install a new bridge to facilitate traffic.
It’s incredibly hypocritical for anyone to complain about traffic in Saugatuck when opposing development while simultaneously arguing for preservation of a bridge (and road system generally) that significantly worsens traffic because of its narrow width and precarious access points.
BTW, I saw a very large semi truck go over the bridge just the other day, so it’s happening now. The difference is the truck held up traffic on both sides of the bridge as it crawled across, with an inch or two to spare.
By preserving it for foot / bike traffic, that means two bridges will need to be opened every time there’s boat traffic.
David, you left Westport for the Utopia that is Fairfield, and constantly remind us why Westport is such a terrible place. Why do you continue to post here?
No land for two bridges! You’d also have twice the maintenance & repair considerations, and operational concerns with marine traffic. It’s either renovate a decaying bridge that will eventually require replacement in time, or replace sooner and bite the bullet.
Move it somewhere north of the Post Road bridge providing an attractive pedestrian crossing there. That frees up the Post Road bridge for protests only.
Please see the revised residency comments before posting.
Just exactly how would the town limit the Tractor Trailer traffic on Greens Farm Rd, and Imperial Avenue? Road Signs? I’m sure that will work well when the trucks get off at Exit 18 and their WAZE or other GPS devices tell them that the Saugatuck Bridge can handle their height and weight. We all believe that, right? And exactly what type of alarms can be used on those roads to prevent that? A flashing warning sign? Let’s be real here. If an 18 Wheeler can get over it, they will use it. Regardless of the traffic nightmare they will cause in Saugatuck.
I suspect a police car and someone directing traffic away on the random occasions it might be a problem would work.
Like 2am three out of four nights. Trucks right now regularly try to cross the bridge and have to back up.
During the Norwalk bridge repair a parade of trucks ran over sidewalks until residents called police.
Your idle airy fairy speculators have little contact with reality. But hey what else can you do?
Trucks regularly try to go up the Merritt and have to back up. In about a week, there will be a half dozen or so trucks pretending to be sardine cans on Storrow Drive. So what?
I thought you were worried about a parade of trucks regularly taking that route when traffic is stopped dead on 95 adding to the already bad traffic in Saugatuck. That should generally be able to be managed by the police. At any point this summer there seem to have been plenty of them to deal with all the construction traffic.
Airy fairy speculators? Mirror anyone?