Yulee Aronson is a licensed professional engineer, with 40 years of construction management and project controls experience, overseeing many high-profile and complex projects. He says, “I have never encountered a construction problem that couldn’t be overcome.”
Locally, Aronson has worked on the earlier renovation of the Cribari Bridge; the new Staples High School, and the chlorination building at the wastewater pollution facility. Other projects include Penn Station access, the reconstruction of La Guardia Airport, and the Baltimore Potomac Tunnel replacement. He writes:
I’d like to begin by the thanking the Representative Town Meeting for Tuesday’s Zoom meeting, and having an open and respectful discussion regarding the upcoming Connecticut Department of Transportation project that will affect most of us living in Westport for many years to come.
Also, I thank 1st Selectman Kevin Christie and State Representative Jonathan Steinberg for participating, and sharing their thoughts.
Over the course of my career I’ve been involved in many bridge rehabilitation and replacement projects.
Yulee Aronson
The Bridge Street Bridge, as it was called then, was my first. I wasn’t involved in the beginning phase, when a temporary bridge was built and the existing bridge was replaced.
I was involved in the second phase: raising the newly constructed bridge, and removing the temporary one.
For context and in response to some of the comments Tuesday night: The original bridge wasn’t built lower before it was raised, as some may remember thinking at the time.
It certainly felt that way if you traveled under it in a kayak.
The reason is a difference in the structural design. The original historic bridge was supported by floor beams resting on trusses. The floor beams ran north/south, and kayakers could travel between them during high tide.
When the bridge was replaced, the trusses no longer served any practical purpose. They were installed as a decorative feature, to preserve the historic look of the bridge.
Instead, deep girders were installed in an east/west direction, denying kayakers access during high tide.
Westporters complained and protested, calling for bridge openings 10 times a day until the state agreed to raise the structure. Now here we are again.
I evaluated proposals by the state as they relate to the proposed bridge elevations. They are:
It appears that the state proposes to elevate the bridge 10 feet, to keep the machinery above the 100-year flood elevation, either on alignment or offset.
What “on alignment” means
The distance between the intersection with Riverside Ave and the west abutment is 45 feet+/-. Even if the grade was flat (and it is not), to go up 10 feet in 45 feet, you’d need 22% slope. So, elevating the bridge “on alignment” is not a real option.
Elevating the bridge off alignment may look like the old temporary bridge.
Temporary bridge (left), during early 1990s renovation of what was then called the Bridge Street Bridge.
If the new bridge follows similar alignment, why does it need to be movable?
Forty years ago, the bridge was replaced in open position. So for several years marine traffic passed under the temporary bridge. Regulators, including the Coast Guard, permitted this.
I was not involved in the permitting process, and I don’t recall the height of the temporary bridge, but it wasn’t nearly as tall as the one carrying I-95 traffic.
There are issues with this option as well. Is there availability of land to build the bridge as shown in the photo? And how do we address impacts to wetlands on the northeast side. There are other potential environmental challenges too.
Let’s keep our ideas flowing, Westport!
(The “06880” Opinion pages are open to all. Please send submissions to 06880blog@gmail.com. To help support this hyper-local blog, please click here.)
The Bridge Street Bridge was replaced by the Department of Redundancy Department which was sisyphusian in that it kept rolling rocks up the hill just to end up starting all over again (and again and again).
Hey, Eric Buchroeder SHS ’70: Back in my journalist days when I covered press conferences, we called people like you “rally killers.” Just as the celeb was opening up, some rando media type would ask a stupid, rambling, off-topic question, effectively stifling the give-and-take. If 06880 is a beloved neighborhood watering hole for local news and shared views, then you’re the tiresome fool at the end of the bar ruining the comment section for everyone else. The barkeep (Dan) is too kind and first amendment-y to give you the bum’s rush you deserve, so let me say this: Get a new hobby, make a real-life friend or find a blog in your own zip code to troll. I, for one, am sick of your endless nonsense.
As one of the owners of Bridge Square, if the CT DOT is contemplating raising the bridge 10′ it could effectively block one of our two entrances on Bridge Square. The one remaining entrance would have a severely negative effect on our retailers. A one-entrance Bridge Square would then create traffic backups both ways on Riverside Ave and Bridge St as cars and trucks try to access the square. It is already a challenge to drive in and out with two entrances! Blocking an entrance (even during Bridge construction) would create real problems not only for our retailers, but the town goal of improving traffic in Saugatuck at rush hour.
Whether the Cribari swing bridge is rehabilitated or replaced there are creative ways to deal with floods beyond raising the bridge. For example, why not simply move the drive MOTORS up 10′ and use a 10′ drive shaft? Couldn’t the other mechanicals: the gears and bearings underneath be specified with marine grade 316 Stainless Steel ? It’s all going to be custom mechanicals anyway, why not adjust the mechanical mechanisms instead of impacting our traffic flow by raising the bridge 10′ ?
In the case of a replacement, another possibility would be to build the necessary slope into the swing bridge on the west side. Or move the pivot point roughly 75′ toward the east side of the river (as it seemed the state Engineer was evaluating at the December meeting)?
Given all the variables involved, including historic, rehabilitating the bridge and upgrading the mechanicals, would buy us 25 years, which isn’t a bad thing. Who here can predict what work and commuting or boating will look like in 25 years?
Yulee’s idea of a fixed bridge interesting as well. Could this be made to look historical? Do they make dredging equipment that is small enough to launch north of Bridge St to dredge from Bridge St to downtown (I heard it was a town aspiration for boats to be able to have a navigable channel all the way to the downtown Ruth Steinkraus Cohen Bridge)?
This complex issue that isn’t going away; I’m happy to get more involved, having both skin in the game at Bridge Square and an engineering background.
Some thoughtful points here, though I’m not sure why you reference kayaks, since they have very little air‑draft. Let’s say 23′ center consoles with T‑tops. For context, roughly 80% of the boats in western Long Island Sound are under 25′ in length. Hopefully the town applies for permits asap to build a properly sized pier and landing at the library that can accommodate four or five of these “floating wallets” for shopping and dinning experiences, similar to the new dock coming behind Arezzo’s .
A cohesive approach to our Riverfront is essential, as each component supports the success of the others. (Wink to Kevin C and the DPIC)
You’re correct that the bridge’s flawed I‑beam design reduced the air‑gap, effectively lowering it — and yes, we did sue and won (Hat tip ; ) USCG). Your team scrambled to find a solution. As I recall, the only option to try and deal with that short sighted design was to raise the span , was it 12″ or 18″? Either way, it still ended up with less air‑gap than before. For the record, it immediately cut summer slip rentals by 40%. If you doubt that, ask Phil Delgado at the VFW how that marina fares each summer with the current air‑gap in a community where slips are otherwise impossible to secure.
That said, the air‑gap increase isn’t final, as true design work hasn’t begun. Conversations with Jim B. and his DOT team suggest a potential 4′ air gap increase from today. The swing‑span pivot point moves east, reducing the egress grade percentage. The new design will require historical looking trusses (wink to Werner)to carry the roadbed, allowing for a thinner profile that minimizes grade egress and maximizes air gap.
The huge I‑beams used in the ’90s rehab were only necessary because the old twisted “historic” trusses could no longer carry weight; if they were to remain as decorative elements, the span had to be self‑supporting. In other words, the old iron trusses created the conditions that led to this problem so repeating that is unacceptable. althou I have a suggesting on reuse and a micro public park to tell the story of the bridge , onions, crow bar, its history in saugatuck.
Mr. Meyers, it’s been good to see you at the recent meetings. And yes — 25 years is not ideal, because it means we’re back here again with the same issues, another major disruption, and additional environmental impacts (nod to Wendy). The EA cost analysis also shows that it’s not getting cheaper or easier to build. Fun fact: the 1993 rehab lasted only until 2007 because the substructure design failed to meet expectations, deteriorated and hence forced de-rating to 20 tons.
Its time to work for a proper span that serves our family’s today and generations to come while keeping old New England character… yes… character.
The idea of a public pier near the Ruth Steinkraus Cohen Bridge is appealing. For decades, residents have hoped for renewed dredging of the Saugatuck River. Such aspiration is noteworthy.
At the same time, the history of dredging in this stretch of river counsels caution. The Post Road to Cribari Bridge reach has experienced chronic shoaling, and recent discussions have highlighted the regulatory, environmental, and disposal challenges associated with sediment testing. PAH (polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons) findings—associated with fuel oil spills—were found to have risen dramatically in a 2015 sediment testing by the US Army Corps of Engineers. Dredging here is not simply a matter of funding; it implicates federal permitting, material classification, transport logistics, and long-term maintenance commitments. The likelihood of sustained, federally supported dredging in this segment appears uncertain at best.
A public pier in this location implicitly assumes either adequate channel depth or a realistic plan to achieve and maintain it. Without a clear, funded, and permittable dredging strategy, the proposal risks resting on the same long-standing hope that dredging will “eventually” occur.
The concept may well be worth studying. But before embracing it as a near-term civic improvement, the public deserves clarity about the practical likelihood of dredging ever happening at the scale required to support such infrastructure. Vision is important; feasibility is essential.
I was living on Compo Rd during the renovation. I was among the MANY, MANY Westporters who fought to keep the temporary Bridge forever as it was so much better than the Bay Street Bridge ever was (sorry) since they invented the car.
Shhhh Mike, don’t say that too loud.
Dredging is coming, funding is in place, and the DEP/ACOE permitting is in process. The only “dirty dirt” is an area by the Levitt—formerly the old dump—and about 5% of the total excavation. Additionally, a bit of mud under the I‑95 span tested “poor” due to gutter runoff, which is not being disturbed, but you knew that.
What you didn’t know is that the river bottom in general is rated much better. The last winters testing of the 7,500 yards of mud removed from my place, the VFW, and the rowing club passed with flying colors—so much so that it was used at the western Long Island Sound open‑water relocation site as capping material to contain less healthy sediment I was happy to hear my river mud was helpful to the eco-system.
As for a proper boat landing at the library, the old landing structures are still there, and a new town pier/dock should be permitted as soon as possible, but built in conjunction with the dredging timeline. My guess is 2030.
All these public improvement projects need to communicate with one another: the dredging, the new town landing, the air gap of the bridge, and… wait until you see what Spinnaker brings to P&Z for the Hamlet site. Buckle up.