A petition begun by Bridge Street National Register District resident Werner Liepolt is nearing 1,000 signatures.
Calling the Cribari Bridge — which links his road with Saugatuck — “more than just a piece of infrastructure; it is a cherished symbol of our heritage, tying together the historical fabric of our neighborhood,” Liepolt says: “The sudden decision to replace such an irreplaceable landmark raises concerns not only within our community but also nationwide, as it sets a precedent for how historic sites might be handled without proper oversight.
“Why hasn’t there been an effort to engage the community in this critical decision-making process? The lack of transparency undermines the principles of fair public policy and overlooks the historical significance that this bridge brings to our region.”
Petition organizer Werner Liepolt painted this Cribari Bridge scene.
The Change.org petition is aimed at 8 “decision makers”: Governor Ned Lamont, Senators Richard Blumenthal and Chris Murphy, Congressman Jim Himes, State Senator Ceci Maher, State Representative Jonathan Steinberg, Planning & Zoning Commissioner Michael Cammeyer, and Representative Town Meeting member Nancy Kail.
The petition adds: “It is imperative that the federal government steps in to ensure that the CTDOT considers all perspectives, from engineering experts to local residents, and follows due process in accordance with National Historic Preservation guidelines.
“The preservation of the William F. Cribari Bridge is essential for maintaining the cultural and architectural identity of our region, and its replacement should not proceed without an exhaustive review and input from all stakeholders involved. We need comprehensive federal oversight to guarantee that all alternatives are evaluated and that the richly historic and irreplaceable nature of the bridge is given due consideration.”
Liepolt says that signers “demand federal oversight over the Connecticut Department of Transportation’s plans to replace the William F. Cribari Bridge. Together, we can safeguard the integrity of our cherished historic landmark and ensure a democratic process respects both our heritage and community voice. Let us be vigilant in protecting our past for the generations to come.”
Click here to see the online petition.
(“06880” covers the Cribari Bridge controversy — and everything else going on in Westport too. If you appreciate our 24/7/365 eye on the town, please click here to support our work. Thank you!)
When considering preserving the look of the existing bridge, there are two aspects that I would like us to consider tonight. One is the current height of it in relation to the rising sea level and the other, the need for it to remain movable. The original purpose of the swing span was to accommodate commercial river traffic that no longer exists. In 1991 when I operated the bridge during construction, there were a few tall sailboats that majestically traversed the bridge opening. Since then the boats north of the bridge got smaller and shorter. We all adapt. It’s not practical for all parties involved to keep the swing span in use. It is the look above the bridge deck that makes it look like the original structure.
If the movability was off the table, the cost of repair or even replacement ( and I don’t think that replacement is needed now ) becomes a relatively simple and therefore much more economical option. The reason for emphasizing cost is to open up a discussion of us taking over the bridge maintenance and repair from the state and not be subjected to their desire to convert Bridge St into a commercial thoroughfare when there is traffic congestion on I95.
Just 2 items. For fun my great grandfather was the first bridge tender of the bridge and my mother was paid .25 to help him open it. Then if more funds are needed to help with this campaign maybe Mr Leipold would consider making his painting into prints that could be sold
Diane—Two houses on Imperial Ave, if I’m not mistaken, were where the bridge tenders resided. Do you happen to remember your grandfather’s address?
Larry—No one disputes the need for safety. But “to code” does not automatically mean “no broader impact.”
Bridge dimensions influence traffic patterns. Removing existing height and weight constraints could change route choice, even if the surrounding road network remains the same. That deserves clear analysis — not assumptions.
Public engagement is meaningful when it occurs before conclusions are framed as inevitable. Asking for thorough review is not irrational; it is responsible civic participation.
If you turned into Imperial the house he lived in and my grandfather was born in is the second counting the one on the corner on the right.
The Francis Godfrey House, 189 Imperial Ave, I bet.
I wonder if you remember the years that your grandparents served Westport as Bridge Tenders… and I also wonder whether the state paid them or whether Westport did.
There’s a nice photo and description of the house and its place in the National Register of Historic Places.
https://www.westportct.gov/government/appointed-boards-a-z/historic-district-commission/additional-information/other-historic-resources/final-bridge-street-national-register-nomination-form
I don’t know when. I actually knew nothing about this until Philip Punzult insisted my family and I attended a celebration of the bridges 100th birthday at the Historical Society. At that event Philip did a whole history . Maybe they have info from that event. I walked across the bridge every day going to and from school. As my mom and other family members did. My children were 5th on Treadwell Ave
The State’s preference for replacing the bridge in its present location is well documented and entirely justified. The opposition to this plan, primarily on procedural grounds, is irrational. The goal must be to assure that the bridge functions safely and efficiently. Everything else is largely irrelevant.
Traffic issues and control of heavy trucks must be addressed separately and apart from the bridge itself. Those issues exist today with the bridge in its present location and state of disrepair.
As for claims of lack of notice and public engagement: it is clear that at this early stage when design is only 15% complete, the public is fully engaged and has every opportunity to be heard in timely fashion.
The DOT has done a thorough and conscientious analysis and we should be supporting its conclusions.
I commented and signed the petition before. But need to comment again. It is not just a matter of carefully “lifting” the bridge and simply putting another one in its place. The new bridge will be designed for heavy vehicles and that will mean changing the landscape around it, leading up to it on both sides. The area will be forever altered. I can’t be sure, but I think it is a fair assumption that historic homes and landmarks will be lost. The Hotchkins – Wheeler house is nearby. Mrs. Hotchkins was part of the Jessup family which takes the residence back to the founding of Westport. That is only one piece of land that might be destroyed. It is important to preserve history and remember how we got to where we are today.
Setting aside the question whether the bridge should be replaced, IF the bridge is to be replaced then serious consideration should be given to raising the air draft clearance under the bridge to at least 10 feet above mean high tide. This would allow most power boats to get under the bridge in most tide conditions. As I understand, there remains a plan to dredge the river north of the bridge up to the downtown area. The combination of these two things would significantly enhance boat access to downtown, which would be good for residents and for downtown businesses.
There will be a community discussion about the bridge tonight 7pm on zoom, held by RTM districts 1, 4 and 9. The public is invited to attend and participate.
Instructions to attend: Join Zoom Meeting https://us02web.zoom.us/j/83320641977?pwd=GZaQuaZNkwZmN1kZSOiBE0KPtnW6cr.1
Phone: +13052241968,,83320641977# US
Meeting ID: 833 2064 1977
Passcode: 538790
Matt, how do you plan to keep the discussion fact based and not a “the sky is falling” fest that some are counting on to distract and manipulate?
But is it even Historic.or just another control tactic?
Watch this town meeting clip from someone knowledgeable.
Starts at 2.08.30.
view.earthchannel.com/PlayerController.aspx?&PGD=westportct&eID=344
I’d suggest simply putting another level on I-95 from the Norwalk line through to Mill Plain Rd in Fairfield. Then you can ban all trucks and semi traffic from passing through town on 136, the Post Rd and Greens Farms Rd. Restore the Cribari (formerly Bridge St.) bridge to its original splendor and consider making the whole thing pedestrian with exemptions for those with disabilities or the overweight (formerly sedentarilly challenged). To anyone who says: “We can’t afford this” I would reply: “Ask Governor Newsom how he managed to pull the big rail project off in California on his own. Start enforcing the “no double parking at Starbucks don’t just complain” ethos and have Dan (Woog) explain how private, discreet contributions to things you really want but are unwilling to pay for is supposed to work. He’s built a communications juggernaut through “love-harvesting.” So in the immortal words of my hero: Forrest Gump: “That’s all I’m going to say about that.”
In its “thorough and conscientious analysis” CTDOT has provided detailed projections in the Environmental Assessment on many topics — including maritime activity from dredging to kayaking, dining impacts and restaurants’ river views, and ecological conditions concerning the well being of oysters and clams.
However, two central transportation and safety questions regarding humans remain unanswered:
• Of the roughly 22,000 tractor-trailers that travel through Westport daily on I-95, how many could divert to a replacement bridge built to current clearance and weight standards during congestion events?
• What analysis demonstrates that a new “to-code” bridge would reduce the 13,000 daily vehicular volume the Cribari Bridge currently carries— rather than redistribute or increase — local traffic volumes?
These are not peripheral issues. They go directly to safety, neighborhood character, and long-term traffic conditions.
In its role as a transportation agency, the Connecticut Department of Transportation should be able to provide transparent modeling or routing analysis on foreseeable truck and diversion impacts, rather than relying on generalized assumptions.