Yesterday, “06880” posted news from Representative Town Meeting member Matthew Mandell about the Connecticut Department of Transportation’s release of a bid document for the Cribari Bridge.
In response, DOT communications director Josh Morgan says: “CTDOT has made no decision whether to perform a major rehabilitation or full replacement of the Cribari Bridge.
“Given the complexities of performing work on this historic structure, it was important to have firms lined up for either potential option to ensure construction schedules are met.
“As noted numerous times in the Request for Letters-of-Interest, CTDOT was seeking prequalified firms for both major rehabilitation and replacement options of the bridge.
“If design firms were solicitated after the public hearing and after a formal decision was made, there would have been a significant impact to the construction schedule,” he explains.
Cribari Bridge (Photo/Nancy Lally)
In related news, the state DOT will hold a public hearing on March 19 (6 p.m., Town Hall), on “Rehabilitation/Replacement of the Cribari Memorial Bridge.”
The session will “provide the community with an opportunity to learn about the proposed project, and allow a place to provide feedback concerning the proposed improvements.”
The project involves “a resilient structure that addresses the structural and functional deficiencies of the the existing Cribari Memorial Bridge, which carries Route 136 over the Saugatuck River, while accommodating safe vehicular, bicycle, pedestrian and marine traffic,” the announcement adds.
DOT spokesman Morgan notes that the flyer includes both potential options: rehabilitation and replacement.
Morgan says, “We know there is interest in this project, which is why we created that Save the Date flyer so people could mark their calendars before legal notices ran in the local papers. These public notices will be published over the next several weeks inviting the public to attend the March 19 hearing. We encourage residents, businesses, and those interested in the future of the Cribari Bridge to attend the public hearing, ask questions, and give feedback.”
That’s nice. But the friendly DOT spokesman somehow forgot to mention his agency – last May at an unnoticed, invitation only meeting – announced that it has already determined its “preferred alternative” for the nation’s oldest bridge of its type. It wants what it has always wanted: a giant new span which will allow for the establishment of an alternate I95 truck route through Saugatuck. This is the sixth time DOT has come for the bridge. Ain’t nobody stupid.
What a beautiful photo! One I witnessed many evenings in my childhood. What a beautiful bridge that may be a distant memory. I rode my bike over that bridge many days a week hearing the clickety clack sound of wheels over the wooden slats of the walking bridge section. I hope Westport stays safe and maybe can preserve this iconic Westport piece of history. Westport is special always, and I hope you all are able to preserve some historic landmarks as time progresses.
It is good to learn that “DOT communications director Josh Morgan says: “CTDOT has made no decision whether to perform a major rehabilitation or full replacement of the Cribari Bridge.
“Given the complexities of performing work on this historic structure, it was important to have firms lined up for either potential option to ensure construction schedules are met.”
Yet the Request for Letters of Interest must be submitted by March 5, 2026, two weeks before the first and only public hearing has been scheduled.
While CTDOT has stated that no decision has been made between rehabilitation and replacement, the issuance of a procurement solicitation prior to meaningful public consultation risks creating the appearance—if not the reality—of a narrowing of alternatives before the Section 106 process has been fully carried out.
Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act requires that federal agencies take into account the effects of an undertaking on historic properties and afford the public a reasonable opportunity to participate in the process prior to commitments that could limit the consideration of alternatives. There is a clear public appetite for this—witness more than 750 signatures on a petition calling for it.
The William F. Cribari Bridge and the surrounding Bridge Street Historic District are listed historic resources, and consultation concerning effects on those resources should be clearly framed and publicly understood at the outset of decision-making.
At present, the publicly announced March 19 hearing has not been described as a Section 106 consultation meeting, nor has there been clear public notice that the potential effects on the National Register-listed bridge and historic district will be a central focus. Advancing consultant selection prior to clearly structured public consultation, and without explicit framing of the historic preservation context, risks undermining the transparency and sequencing contemplated by 36 C.F.R. Part 800.
I respectfully request clarification as to how FHWA is ensuring that ongoing procurement and project development activities do not precede or constrain the full and fair consideration of historic preservation alternatives, and that consulting parties and the public are afforded a timely and meaningful opportunity to participate before any decisions are effectively shaped by project momentum.
Given the importance of the Cribari Bridge and its historic setting, ensuring clear procedural alignment at this stage will help maintain public confidence in the integrity of the Section 106 process.
The DOT spokesperson probably doesn’t know that his agency quietly removed “historic resource” from the Cribari Bridge project’s Purpose and Need Statement. That means the cultural and historic importance of the span is no longer considered a relevant consideration. This was announced at the very start of an unnoticed, invitation only meeting at town hall in December of 2025. Some have noted the irony of showing up at a Sec.106 meeting (which involves reviewing and hopefully mitigating negative impacts to a historic resource – in this case, the Cribari Bridge) and being told that the purpose of the meeting is of no consequence.
HOWEVER… The William F. Cribari Bridge is a contributing resource within the Bridge Street Historic District in Westport, Connecticut, which is listed on the National Register of Historic Places (NRIS #100002318). The district is recognized for its architectural significance and its role in community planning and development, with a documented period of significance spanning 1809–1945. As a National Register-listed historic district, both the bridge and its surrounding context are subject to review under Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act, requiring federal agencies to consider effects on the district as a whole, not solely on the individual structure.
Hmmm, that makes sense, Werner.
The DOT’s historic resource point person spent a lot of time at the last Sec.106 meeting suggesting assorted, minor gestures her agency might consider offering the town to make up for the anticipated full destruction of the 1884 Cribari Bridge (signage, maybe a video), but she never brought up the fact that the bridge her employer wants to blow up is THE defining element of a residential National Register District. She didn’t even bother to notify the homeowners in that district about the meeting – even though their lives are potentially about to radically change. In fact, there was no discussion at the meeting whatsoever about potential adverse impacts to the bridge, its setting, or the residential historic resources which are contextually related to the bridge. None. This seemed very irregular to many in attendance given that the stated reason for the meeting was to identify and hopefully mitigate adverse impacts to the above mentioned historic resource(s).
But I think I’m beginning to get the picture; the DOT can’t even be bothered to follow federal law in its rush to check boxes. It will be interesting to see if anyone in a position of authority is going to tell this agency to actually follow the law.
I would like to think that the main priority of the Federal Highway Administration and the Connecticut Department of Transportation would be to ensure clear procedural alignment at this stage as it will help maintain public confidence in how federal money is used and in the integrity of the Section 106 process.
I can’t imagine that any of our local and state elected officials would conscience the erosion of public confidence and trust… rather—I believe—that they would not stint in their efforts to guarantee procedural clarity and public involvement.