Longtime Bridge Street resident Werner Liepolt keeps a close eye on the Cribari Bridge project. Today he describes 3 meetings, over the past 2 years.
February 15, 2024
At a meeting of the Western Connecticut Council of Governments, former 1st Selectwoman Jen Tooker released Statewide Transportation Improvement Program funds of $4.1 million previously withheld by former 1st Selectman Jim Marpe, to the Connecticut Department of Transportation to start the Cribari Bridge Project.
May 15, 2025
At an “invitational” meeting in the Town Hall Auditorium, CTDOT, with Tooker in attendance, announced they were replacing the bridge with “a preferred option,” one that can accommodate all vehicles.
Invitations were based on the inactive-since-2018 Planning Advisory Committee list of stakeholders. This meeting was neither publicly noticed by Westport’s town clerk nor on the CTDOT Project page for the William F. Cribari Bridge. The few Westporters who learned of it had to request an invitation.
Cribari Bridge (Painting by Werner Liepolt)
December 18, 2025
At another “invitational” meeting held at 6 p.m. in Room 201 of Town Hall, Mandy Ranslow, supervisor, Cultural Resources CTDOT, confirmed their “preferred option” is to demolish the William F. Cribari Bridge. As CTDOT had determined this was an “adverse effect,” they offered to move it wherever the town wanted.
CTDOT officials said that tractor-trailer trucks would not be restricted by structural limits on the preferred option replacement bridge, and that it was up to Westport to deal with it.
Invitations to this meeting were sent to only a few consultants; several did not receive them. Attendance by elected officials depended on forwarded emails and word of mouth.
My published opinion piece in the Westport Journal and a sentence introducing Wendy Crowther’s tribute to the bridge in “06880” were perhaps the only publicity for the meeting.
The public hearing that didn’t happen
Curious as to how all this happened without any attempt to inform the public —you — and elicit your views, which is required on federally funded projects that involve nationally registered historic properties (there are 24 on the east bank of the Saugatuck, and more across the river), I researched whether the “invitational” meetings were publicly noticed.
The 1877 Hotchkiss-Wheeler House on Bridge Street is on the National Register …
Questions and answers
Regarding the May 15 meeting, the town clerk replied: “This was not an official meeting of the Town, which is why it does not appear on the Town calendar. It appears that the State simply used the Auditorium to host the event. Any questions regarding the publication or notice of this event should be directed to the State DOT.”
I directed my question to James Barrows, the project manager. and got an answer: “Thank you for your inquiry and for your interest in the State Project 0158-0214.
“To ensure your request is handled efficiently and in compliance with the Connecticut Freedom of Information Act (FOIA), we kindly ask that you submit a formal FOI request through the CTDOT website. This process helps us track, process, and respond to all FOIA requests in a consistent and timely manner.”
Under federal law (Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act), the public must be informed and meaningfully involved before historic resources are evaluated, impacts determined, and alternatives narrowed.
In this case, those steps occurred out of public view. The community is now being presented with an offer of mitigation — a stage that only follows a formal finding of adverse effect — without having had the required opportunity to help identify historic resources, evaluate impacts, or advocate for avoidance and minimization.
… as is the 1932 Anna E. Dolan House. It’s the first one on the right, after crossing the river on the Cribari Bridge from Saugatuck.
Your right to be heard
I have posted a petition, which I will forward to the Federal Highway Administration, Advisory Council on Historic Preservation, and our Congressional representatives, asking for oversight to ensure that our rights to be heard are honored. Please sign it.
I have also filed the Freedom of Information request as suggested by the CTDOT project manager, asking for all records pertaining to the William F. Cribari Bridge Project.
Next steps
What you should do: Submit written comments to the Federal Highway Administration, the Connecticut Department of Transportation, the Connecticut State Historic Preservation Office, and the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation requesting the complete Section 106 and NEPA administrative records.
Ask how and when the public was consulted prior to the adverse effect finding, and formally request that alternatives and avoidance options be reopened for transparent public review.
Contact all our local elected representatives and the Select Board, with your need to have your voice be heard.
(“06880″‘s Opinion pages are open to all. Email submissions to 06880blog@gmail.com)
(“06880” is your hyper-local blog. We rely on reader support to bring you news, features, photos and much more. Please click here to make a tax-deductible contribution. Thank you!)
Thank you Werner…will get on this right away !
I guess now we know what Mandy Ranslow ment when she said during the December meeting…”you’ve got homework”.
Collectively, as residents of Westport, we can drive this bridge in the direction we want. But only if our voice is heard, and we speak as a community.
We don’t all have to agree on what the final outcome should be, but we must insist that the decision be ours.
Selectman Marpe famously cancelled the funding for DOT’s previous monster replacement span back in 2018. At the time, he explicitly told the agency to return when it had a plan which addressed Westport’s historic and truck traffic concerns. Unfortunately, it appears the entire DOT project team subsequently retired to Florida. The Millennials who took their place on the new Westport Frankenbridge team literally had no idea why the project had halted previously. All they knew was that Selectwoman Tooker had just handed them 4.1 million dollars to design whatever the heck they wanted. No questions asked. And so here we are with a boot on our neck. Time to push back.
Thank you Werner! This is such an important issue.
Petition signed!
Werner, thanks for staying on top of this. I only heard about the December meeting via the post you did. I then only got an invite to it, the day off, with a not so excuse the miss from DOT. I, like Mr. Lebowitz, sat on the PAC you mentioned.
The DOT clearly has a goal and even though they said they would come back and discuss the options they have not. The May meeting was not a sit down to discuss; it was a this is what we are doing.
Large trucks cannot be allowed on the local streets near or over the bridge nor on Greens Farms Road, and the DOT has not offered us any real mechanism to prevent it. This is indeed the time to push back.
Whatever we can do to undo the harm inflicted by a previous Westport Selectwoman…has to be our priority. We cannot allow the potential nightmare of double and triple traffic in addition to the 24 hours presence of trucks…crossing the Cribari Bridge.
Saugatuck is a historic community that’s been ignored, exploited, and abused by officials, who give no value to its preservation.
It’s time to stop this nonsense and get on board with our collective efforts to make our own determination as to the future of the Cribari Bridge.
This is our New Year’s resolution.
Do people really believe that fewer trucks come to Westport because this bridge exists? They don’t. They’re just diverted onto other surface streets and forced to take the long way to their ultimate destination, worsening traffic and creating unnecessary emissions in other neighborhoods. Why are the people who live and drive on those streets less important than the residents of Bridge Street?
Many of us have complaints about the Tooker administration. But you cannot blame them for failing to accomplish the impossible competing demands of (1) improving traffic and (2) keeping everything exactly the same.
If you want this intersection and the rest of Saugatuck to remain unsafe for cyclists, pedestrians, and drivers, terribly congested, and generally dysfunctional in service of this bridge, then just say so. To me, however, it seems clear that the bridge can be preserved for pedestrian and cyclists and exist alongside a modern, safer bridge that, yes, efficiently conveys the trucks that are already coming to Westport to deliver the goods that we all consume.
My petition is intended to ensure the public participates in what has been a behind closed doors decision-making process. For whatever or against whatever, your opinion—by federal regulation—should be heard before decisions are made.
RE: The petition. Signatures are being added about every 3 minutes. Thank you for supporting all of us.
The idea that Westport can deal with the truck issue on it’s own (i.e., by restricting truck traffic on town roads) is a false narrative being peddled by the DOT, Hamlet supporters, and others who will benefit from more development in Saugatuck. That so-called solution is no solution at all given the fact that (a) we control only some–and not all–of the roads in question; and (b) restricting access is a long and uncertain process. (It took Darien decades to obtain such restrictions and it only occurred after litigation and dozens of hearings.) The harsh reality is that the only way for Westport to regain control of the process is to have our First Selectman withhold funding until we have a plan that is acceptable.
It really wouldn’t be that hard to control the trucks if Westport wanted to. Remote controlled bollards on Greens Farms Road just west of Hales Rd raised in the event of extreme back-ups on I-95 would stop the semi’s. Or, perhaps, a low pedestrian bridge over Greens Farms just east of South Compo without impeding local traffic. Both locations are controlled by Westport, not the state. I would imagine there are other alternatives.
Use your famed creativity Westport!
https://portal.ct.gov/dot/projects/cribari-bridge?language=en_US
Please notice the 6+ public meetings, with video available for your viewing pleasure.
Please review the detailed process that some of the folks above participated in.
Notice the balanced and fair way the DOT sorted through the options, with pros and cons provided by the public.
The delay in 2019 occurred because the group above did not like the resulting data and its logical path, so they “kicked the can” by forcing the removal of the required funding to pursue exploration, feasibility, and concepts.
When this group threatened D.O.T with this tactic, D.O.T representatives stated that it would only delay—not prevent—the forward movement, as the span was going to FAIL if not addressed.
This removal of funding has now directly increased the projected cost from $40 million to $100 million; it also has left the span in very dangerous disrepair and vulnerable to emergency closures. Imagine this river crossing closed to all traffic.
As to historical impact to the handful of homes on Bridge st. , the west bank has just as many if not more historical residential homes. Are you suggesting these homes should bear the load of I95 overflow so yours does not?
We choose to live adjacent to Northeasts most used corridor, please stop with the twisting and hyperbole and carry your weight.
Again, my petition is intended to ask for federal oversight on a process that is supposed to provide the public an opportunity to be heard. CTDOT has not provided that nor—despite your citing meetings of consultants—involved the public in decision making.
The “videos” are 6 year old CTDOT presentations to consultants and as stated in Section (106) cannot stand in for the public.
About 25% of Westport’s present population has turned over since 2018 and should be given an opportunity to be heard.
Information on The Bridge Street National Registered Historic District, consisting of 24 historically significant buildings, can be found on the Westport Historic District Commission webpage.
Hundreds of Westporters have signed the petition since 5:00 AM.
Frame it anyway you want, but its clearly another delay tactic, just like the bullying of Jim to manipulate the funding, once again putting the community at risk each day this span is neglected.
Maybe just say you don’t want vehicles passing the mailbox of your well setback 1950s cape , but all these historical homes on Riverside, Treadwell, Saugatuck, Sylvan and Lincoln can eat cake
Not to mention the elementary school. Those poor kids! Forced to breathe all those toxins.