Werner Liepolt lives in the Bridge Street Historic District.
He has watched with interest as the District has become part of the discussion around the future of the Cribari Bridge. He writes:
Myth 1: “Historic district status means nothing can be changed.”
Fact: National Register listing does not stop projects. It simply requires that federally involved projects evaluate impacts on historic character and consider alternatives before decisions are finalized.
Myth 2: “This is just one neighborhood trying to protect itself.”
Fact: Federal law requires special review when a project may affect a recognized historic district. The issue isn’t favoritism — it’s whether required federal review standards are being followed properly.
Myth 3: “Historic protections only apply to buildings, not traffic.”
Fact: Under federal review (NEPA and Section 106), agencies must consider indirect effects — including traffic patterns, noise, vibration, and setting — if they could affect a historic district’s character.
Historic District: The 1886 Orlando Allen House, at 24 Bridge Street.
Myth 4: “The bridge is old, so replacement is inevitable.”
Fact: Federal law requires agencies to evaluate a reasonable range of alternatives, including rehabilitation, before deciding on replacement — especially for historic resources.
Myth 5: “Historic designation blocks safety improvements.”
Fact: Safety improvements can absolutely happen. The requirement is simply that agencies evaluate options carefully and transparently before selecting an approach.
Myth 6: “If traffic is a problem everywhere, the historic district shouldn’t matter.”
Fact: Many areas face traffic concerns, but federally recognized historic districts trigger specific legal review requirements that don’t apply in the same way elsewhere.
18 Bridge Street
Myth 7: “This is about stopping progress.”
Fact: The goal is not to stop change, but to ensure that decisions are made with full information and proper public process, as required under federal law.
Myth 8: “Bridge Street National District is no different than other neighborhoods.”
Fact: It has been recognized nationally, and what happens fall under federal regulations.
(“06880” Opinion pages are open to all. Email submissions to 06880blog@gmail.com)
I reviewed the condition report. The bridge is in fair condition so the replacement is not required, just repairs are required.
Consequently CONDOT’s plans are not in response to the report but are serving different motives.
Excellent Werner
Would be sn excellent idea to print this as a handout for the next Cribari Btidge DOT Town / public meeting.
Talk snd verbal information is memory restricted and the written information can be recalled and questioned by all!
Mr Aronson
Please understand that DOT’s own latest engineering inspections have determined thst the bridge is seriously structually deficient!
If you read those reports and visit the underside of the bridge you will see why the structural condition of the bridge is a disaster waiting to happen!
Ray, Mr. Aronson was the engineer behind the previous rehabilitation of the Cribari Bridge.
Thank you Werner Liepolt
This is a concise and thoughtful explanation.
(Bridge St resident)
This must be a poster on all schools bulletin boards!
Miggs‼️ Got free time⁉️❤️🇺🇸
Using a “National Designation” to influence the CT DOT for personal benefit feels questionable and borderline unethical. It comes across as a calculated, self-serving move—like when Marpe was pressured into pulling TIP funding to stop “exploring options,” only for the issue to be passed from Jen to Kevin, while costs ballooned from $40M to over $100M.
If preserving the community were truly the goal, antique homeowners and the west bank neighborhood would be included in the protection plan.
If traffic safety and public health were the priority, the impact on homes, schools, and the church—who have faced increased traffic since the weight limit was imposed several years ago when steel girders began falling into the river—would be addressed.
The 13’8″ clearance in the conservation/rehab plan still allows 13’6″ trailers through, undermining every argument against the preferred “on alignment” replacement.
Bottom line: promoting “no-build” or conservation means 13’8″, which means trucks can still use Bridge Street.
The EIA on CTDOT’s site has all the details—worth reviewing before the RTM and March town hall meetings.
A few factual clarifications may help ground this discussion and allay anxiety:
First, referencing a National Register historic district is not a personal tactic. The Bridge Street Historic District is a federally recognized resource dated back to 1887, and when federal funding or approvals are involved, agencies are required to consider impacts on historic districts under established review laws. Raising that context is about process compliance, not personal benefit.
Second, historic designation does not “exclude” other neighborhoods. Federal environmental review looks at the entire project area. Historic districts receive specific analysis because federal law requires agencies to evaluate effects on listed or eligible resources.
Third, the presence or absence of truck traffic is not determined solely by vertical clearance. Bridge weight limits, geometry, enforcement, and routing patterns all influence whether heavy trucks use a route. That is why transparent modeling and documentation matter.
Finally, the Environmental Assessment is meant to inform public understanding. Reasonable people can disagree about outcomes, but the shared goal should be a clear, current, and evidence-based analysis so decisions are made on complete information.
Please review a factual description originated and published by the Westport Historic Commission, the State Historical Preservation Organization, and accepted and recognized in the National Registry of Historic Places for authorship and any other information you might need.
https://www.westportct.gov/home/showpublisheddocument/12965/636934866377170000
Fact: Just yesterday I sat and waited for a long time while a line of traffic had to reverse down Bridge Street to make room for a plow truck to drive over the bridge after it almost collided with a passenger vehicle that tried to make it over the span at the same time. This is one of dozens if not hundreds of near-misses I’ve experienced traveling over this unsafe, too-narrow, too-low, no-shoulder bridge. I’m tired of incidents like these, which will eventually result in a fatality (try getting over the bridge on a bike!). Bridge Steet is a state road that serves as a main thoroughfare in the shadow of I-95, the most heavily-trafficked truck route in the country. This is hardly a quiet, pristine neighborhood. This is NIMBYism at its absolute worst – except you’re willing to put people’s lives in danger to protect your property values. It’s repulsive.
A little background. Back in the late 80’s, Bridge Street resident Jim D. took it upon himself to use his own funds to have the span added to the “prestigious historic district”. This designation was leveraged in bullying CTDOT to rehabilitate, rather than replace, the span in 1990, just like they are trying to do today. Jims a lovely guy, very smart and member of the PAC, Jim shared this story at a public meeting years later to some applause. However, he admitted with great regret that the “rehab” was not true preservation, but rather a “fake out”—a faux version of the original span that greatly diminished its historical value.
The alterations compromised the bridge’s historic integrity (as noted in McMullins report) and left the trusses unable to bear loads or now withstand a strong North wind (per the existing conditions report in the EA). Yulee’s solution- was a girder design with encapsulating old substructure—a hodgepodge of fixes that allowed only 20 or so additional years of “safe” vehicle crossings, trucks included. But these girders came with another drawback: they lowered the air gap by three feet, restricting water-dependent activities north of the span. This impacted not just private properties but also the VFW’s marina, Fred’s boat yard (closed because of it), the Riv Bistros marina, the Mansion/Bridge Restaurant docking facility’s and all residential and commercial sites along the river wanting long island sound access.
Though many west bank residents were unhappy, the span enjoyed a 40-ton weight rating and 13’6″ vertical clearance, enabling traffic to be evenly split among the three river crossings—until the patchwork repairs failed. Reduced load limits and weakening truss components have since lowered the weight and clearance further, forcing most traffic onto the west side, past children at bus stops, our elementary schools, our church, and the alibis house whose residents are always walking up and down riverside ave.
A decision meant to preserve history has, ironically, created historic negative challenges to the west bank in town. but hey… as long as bridge street is safe.
Sorry for my short comment but I have been very concerned that this Cribari Bridge replacement issue is stuck in the mud and Westport might get shortchanged and come out the looser.
My comment to Mr. Aronson was not to infer he had no knowledge of the Cribari Bridge SAGA and I am glad he has working knowledge of the history of planned repair/replacement of the bridge. I do disagree with his inference that the bridge is in FAIR shape. It is not and the engineers and firms used previously used by CT DOT to examined the condition of the bridge have in written reports deemed the bridge “structurally deficient”!
Please remember the previous remediation work was done in 1993, THAT WAS 33 YEARS AGO! The increased daily traffic trips alone not counting the mechanical issues, the collision damages, weather wear and tear and tidal current displacements of soil and pier deteriorations have hastened the structural state of the bridge and the remaining life even with those 1993 rehabilitations.
We should all also understand this Cribari Bridge replacement is a “pain in the neck” for CT DOT and all those there that have struggled for years with the Historical preservation aspect and strong community feelings about big truck traffic on Bridge street and the look, feel and character of a new replacement bridge.
As we see now CT DOT is short cutting, pushing and moving towards a quicker decision and agreement from Westport that
damn the Historical, a new bridge that meets the traffic demands and requirements of the State of Connecticut and their plan must get underway now. This is why the next March 19th meeting is so important. Westporters must come together as a whole and make sure that CT DOT does not railroad our Town and Cribari Bridge users don’t cave in and allow CT DOT the quick “GET THIS PROJECT OFF MY DESK”! solution they are looking for!
There is a better bridge solution that is out there that will beautifully preserve the Historical place of the Cribari Bridge and more quickly solve the project timeline, closure disruptions and still provide a new bigger, better, safer and great aesthetic solution to a new Cribari Bridge.
The original metal truss historic look and feel of the bridge can be recreated and constructed on an adjacent site and while that is underway new concrete piers, supports and abutments can be constructed at the same time. Then the prefabbed upper bridge structures can be moved and lifted onto the bridge base support structures, bolted into place and the shore and roadway connections can be finished and connected. NO need to do a very lengthy build in place over the river bridge construction. If this is done with a wider slight Riverside approach to the West the path of the Bridge Street can be straightened where it meets that end of the bridge and the original bridge can remain in use during the new bridge replacement construction.
CT DOT can easily solve a lot of timing, bridge closure issues and historical aspect problems with this type of new bridge construction. they have gotten pretty good at roadway bridge “outside the box” builds in the last few years. The new I95 bridge replacement under Old HWY 1 in Stamford and the moved into place exit 17 Saugatuck I95 bridge.
I would really like to have some help to diagram and renderings for this type of a solution to the March 19th meeting for attendees and CT DOT to see a quicker, bigger, better, historical look solution that can really pickup steam and get this need fulfilled!