If Westport decides what we want to do with the Cribari Bridge, the state Department of Transportation will listen — and work with us.
If not, they won’t.
That’s the assessment of a civil engineer — not a Westporter — who is very familiar with state bridges and the DOT, and has followed our town’s saga for years.
His view — gleaned from news reports, and watching the Representative Town Meeting (RTM) Zoom session last week — is that most people here agree something must be done to the 143-year-old span.
But after all this time, there is no consensus on what that should be.
No consensus yet on the Cribari Bridge’s future. (Drone photo/John Videler, for Videler Photography)
There are issues with historic integrity (the bridge is on the National Register of Historic Places), structural integrity (it was built when Grover Cleveland was president), traffic, semi-trailers, navigability of the Saugatuck River, and more.
“I get the sense that Westport is not unified in what it wants,” the engineer says. “But it seems like everyone is using DOT as a punching bag.”
In his experience, DOT officials work with municipalities that want to work with it.
Kicking the can down the road won’t work. The bridge won’t last forever.
And if there is a major incident with it, then where would Westport — and the state — be?
The Cribari Bridge is sometimes stuck in the open position. (Photo/Mark Mathias)
One option has been little discussed, he notes: the town purchasing the bridge. In that case, Westport taxpayers would have complete control over its design and traffic.
We’d also be responsible for buying it, and maintaining it — without state and federal funds.
Without going that route, the engineer says, the state must be involved. Westport can’t ignore ConnDOT. Their goal, he says, is a “safe, reliable transit network.”
The engineer is also trying to figure out Westporters’ views on the historical nature of the Cribari Bridge.
If people value it for its history, he says, are they amenable to relocating it to another site, perhaps as a pedestrian span? If not, why not?
“If Westport could wave a magic wand, what would you want?” he asks.
“Probably no one knows. But without Westport being aligned on what they want, it seems very difficult to see this project proceeding. Is that what people want? And what happens then, if something bad happens to the bridge?”
The bottom line, the engineer says, is this: “DOT is coming to the table on March 19.” (That’s the date for a 6 p.m. meeting with residents, at Town Hall.)
“Westport should have a uniform idea of what they want then.” If that happens — and the meeting does not devolve into conflicting ideas and accusations — “DOT would certainly work with the town.”
The engineer knows that complete consensus is probably impossible. But if town officials come up with “a couple” of options” — and tell DOT, “we need this, and it’s okay to compromise a little on that,” a plan can be made.
“If you took DOT out of the room, it doesn’t look like right now Westport knows what it wants,” he reiterates.
“And if the town doesn’t know, how can DOT respond?”
==================================================
Meanwhile, based on news reports and last week’s RTM meeting, the engineer offers his objective summary of the situation.
The 1884 bridge stands at the center of a 2026 traffic management discussion.
The only reason not meeting current design standards is even being considered is the National Historic Preservation Act. It is a legal protection that allows a community to argue that the history of the bridge and the protection of the neighborhood are more important than the DOT’s book of standards.
Without the bridge’s National Register status, there would be little to debate; the bridge would have been replaced with a standard concrete span decades ago. The “gravitas” of the 1884 date is the only reason the “substandard” height remains an option on the table.
The Engineering Reality: After 140+ years of service, the bridge faces a critical intersection of structural decay and functional obsolescence. Routine inspections have identified severe corrosion and collision damage. Current vehicular weight limits are restricted to 20 tons — half the modern standard — affecting the routing of school buses and emergency apparatus. The bridge’s 19.5-foot width and 12′ 10″ vertical clearance fall significantly below modern safety standards, leading to frequent sideswipe accidents and truss strikes.
The Crux of the Dilemma: To the state DOT, these metrics represent a failure of its mission to provide a safe, efficient, and resilient transportation network. From a management perspective, full replacement would likely seem the most defensible path. It secures a 75-year design life, meets federal safety standards, and eliminates the state’s liability for maintaining a “substandard” structure.
To the community, however, the bridge’s deficiencies are viewed as its most vital features. The low vertical clearance acts as a physical obstacle that prevents large tractor-trailers from using Route 136 as a bypass for I-95. Residents fear that a modern bridge, built to standard heights, will fundamentally transform a residential village.
Traffic is a concern on the Cribari Bridge.
Alternatives
Full Replacement (likely DOT-preferred): A new bridge, likely designed as a “High-Fidelity Replica” to satisfy historic preservation needs. It would meet all modern height, weight, and flood-resiliency standards.
Adaptive Rehabilitation (resident-preferred): Would involve “splitting and widening” the original trusses. This would improve roadway safety and add bike lanes, while intentionally preserving the 12′ 10″ height to continue blocking heavy truck traffic.
The Adaptive Rehabilitation proposal is a paradox: It seeks to meet modern standards for width, while refusing them for height. For DOT, accepting this requires a “Design Exception” that shifts long-term liability and maintenance risks to the state for a structure that remains intentionally restricted.
Progress depends on uncoupling the bridge design from traffic enforcement.
In addition, the Saugatuck River is a navigable waterway. Under federal law, the bridge owner is legally mandated to open the bridge for marine traffic.
From an objective engineering standpoint: There is no technical justification for an intentional height restriction on a state-maintained route.
However, the “inevitability” hits a legal wall called Section 4(f). Because the bridge is a National Historic Resource, federal law says the DOT cannot replace it simply because it’s “the most sensible use of funds.” They must prove that every other alternative is “not prudent.”
This may become a battle over whether “Historic Preservation” and “Community Character” are legally allowed to override “Design Standards.” Some in Westport may be betting that the answer is yes.
A little bridge causes big controversy.
The for-some-reason-unnamed engineer overlooked a detail which has recently surfaced: it seems the town never actually transferred its ownership of the bridge to the state when Route 335 (now known as 136) was established on or about March of 1923.Ditto for Bridge Street, apparently.
The engineer, who sometimes works with DOT, requested anonymity to speak freely.
Morley. If this is true, does that open the town up to back charges for all repairs, improvements, etc. that the state invested in the span over the decades, based on presumed ownership?
Does that also put westporters on the hook for the hybrid restoration yout group prefers? Does that include the repairs and maintenance moving forward?
DOT just called. They said they’re gonna claw back everything they’ve spent on the bridge since 1923. Apparently they plan to benefit assess the nearest marina for the whole nut. I know that sounds unfair but that’s what they said. So sorry. Hugs.
Comments like this, along with the attack from the so-called “mystery engineer” who chooses to remain unnamed, are exactly why your group’s stance warrants closer examination. My question was genuine and touches on a significant issue for the town. I doubt federal taxpayers want to foot the bill for a small, affluent Connecticut town, and shutting down ideas through the “shame game” only hurts us as a community. If you could provide an answer to the question this evening, along with a detailed explanation of the split hybrid idea, that would be great.
What? A few hours ago you were all warm and fuzzy. Now we’re not allowed to have a bit of a laugh at this crazy situation? Those “questions” you posed are obviously rhetorical. And even if they weren’t, I’m not in any position to answer them. But I’ll bet your close friends at DOT could probably offer an opinion. Give it go and LMK.
Hmmm. The mystery engineer has a relationship with the state agency which is currently running roughshod over federal law in its rush to establish an alternate I95 truck route through Westport. I thought there was something funny about this piece – and its timing.
He has nothing to do with this project. Nor would he. He just offered insight into DOT, after following the project with interest from an engineering point of view.
The mystery DOT contract engineer apparently isn’t a student of history. The agency that he has worked for – at least in this case – has a loooong history of, we’ll call it predatory advocacy, for its own objectives. Today is not much different – although the casual disregard for laws intended to safeguard community interest is new. It’s hard to work with someone who is actively working against you.
With all the public interest but no single consensus, sounds like a perfect opportunity for a “Citizen’s Assembly”. There are quite a few cases of this being a really productive way for towns/cities/states to navigate difficult decisions. https://citizensassemblies.org
This writer’s insistence on anonymity is troubling. Everyone else has to be willing to put their name next to their op-ed or comment–except this one person? And now we learn that he works (or worked) with the DOT? How we can we assess the writer’s bias, motives, or experience without that information?
The engineer’s summary is helpful in clarifying the structural and liability issues facing the Cribari Bridge. No one disputes that the bridge must be safe and serviceable.
But this discussion cannot be reduced to a question of whether the bridge meets current geometric standards. The bridge is a contributing structure within the Bridge Street Historic District, which is listed on the National Register of Historic Places. Federal law does not protect it simply as an old object — it protects the setting and character of the surrounding district as well.
The existing height and weight limits function as de facto traffic calming within that historic district. If a replacement bridge removes those constraints, it would not merely “meet standards” — it could introduce a fundamentally different traffic composition, including heavy trucks, into a residential historic environment. A truck ban may acknowledge the traffic concern, but it is an enforcement tool — not a structural solution — and its effectiveness over the long term can depend on compliance, routing technology, and political will.
That is not an emotional argument. It is a question of whether long-term, indirect, and cumulative effects on the district’s character have been fully analyzed under NEPA and Section 106.
Consensus is helpful. But even in the absence of consensus, the environmental review must address the full range of foreseeable impacts — not only structural metrics, but also how design decisions may alter the lived character of the neighborhood for decades to come.
Before decisions are finalized, residents should attend the March 19 meeting and ask how those broader impacts are being evaluated.
“Westport is not unified in what it wants” should be translated into Latin and made the town’s official motto.
I would 100% sign a petition proposing that!
non unitum in eo quod vult
Like the Hamlet plans & Long Lots school construction showed, a town consensus is highly unlikely. The bridge will fail at some point – just a matter of degrees of severity. We need new structure and while I agree enabling large trucks thru will make bad traffic even worse, it’s inevitable a new bridge will allow more trucking traffic-a function of type depending on final design.
My guess is nothing happens until the bridge has a major malfunction. Then the state will have the impetus to push thru their preferred design vs the town having more of a say in the near term. No forcing function here to garner a consensus based on aforementioned examples.
The difference between the Cribari Bridge Project and Roan Ventures’ The Hamlet and the Westport Board of Education’s Long Lots school lies in who pays. The Federal Highway Administration pays for this one, and Federal law must be followed.
It is fair to say consensus is difficult in Westport. But federal law does not require consensus — it requires a rigorous evaluation of alternatives and their impacts before a decision is made.
More importantly, increased truck traffic is not simply “inevitable.” It is the result of design choices and policy decisions. Bridge geometry, weight limits, vertical clearance, traffic controls, and mitigation strategies all influence traffic composition. Those variables are evaluated during the federal review process — they are not predetermined outcomes.
Assuming that a major failure is the only forcing mechanism understates the role of the current environmental review. If the bridge were to fail suddenly, local influence would likely diminish, not increase. The structured review underway now is precisely the opportunity for the town’s concerns — including long-term traffic and district character — to be formally considered.
Disagreement is normal. But characterizing the outcome as unavoidable risks overlooking the fact that the present process exists specifically to examine whether different outcomes are feasible and prudent.
Forgive me if this is a silly question, but as someone who both (1) is not being fully aware of all the factors at play here and (2) avoids that intersection whenever possible, is it really inevitable that truck traffic will increase if the bridge is built to accommodate them?
It would seem to me that that the route to and from exit 17 from the bridge would already be a limiting factor considering the tightness of the turns – 2 going east, including a right hand turn toward the bridge that would be impossible for a large truck in its current configuration, and 4 going west, including two tight right-handers, one of which is on an incline.
Dispatchers and route managers – at least for proper transportation companies – don’t follow GPS / Waze the same way passenger car drivers do because of legal and functional restrictions, and it would seem to me the surrounding infrastructure already presents a meaningful deterrent.
That said, I assume people are not raising their concerns or sounding alarms for no reason so I am genuinely curious.
Spot on Sir! And for the record, tractor trailers have always been able to cross the span, even today.
I think that is most of the concern.
95 grinds to a halt during rush hour and whenever there is an accident. You often see truck traffic from 95 on Post Road when that happens. When Post Road bogs down, people will use Greens Farms Road. Maybe I am misreading Mr Guimond’s comment, but the current bridge is too short to allow tractor trailer traffic to pass. A taller (and wider) bridge without restrictions would most certainly get truck traffic.
Although we don’t see tractor trailer traffic on it now, I can tell you (I live in Greens Farms) that there has been a commuter route from Fairfield to Exit 17, as morning commuters take Pequot Ave to Beachside Ave to Greens Farms Road and Saugatuck. Even car traffic like that needlessly adds traffic to residential neighborhoods, so I can’t imagine how bad it would get if trucks began accessing it. (This has been a little less of an issue post-pandemic, but I do observe it as a cautionary experience.)
I’d be perfectly happy seeing the bridge replaced by one more functional (and attractive). But I don’t think we should turn Greens Farms Road into an effective highway.
Lastly, I thought the opinion piece was a perfectly good laying out of options from someone presumably in the know. I don’t need to know their name if Dan does and is comfortable that they are sharing some good knowledge.
Chris, I was coming across yesterday .
https://06880danwoog.com/2026/03/03/cribari-bridge-an-outside-engineer-looks-in/?fbclid=IwdGRjcAQdH0RleHRuA2FlbQIxMQBzcnRjBmFwcF9pZAwzNTA2ODU1MzE3MjgAAR4gVnJxXjRkvjwjuNEsMhCSJW6I1lOeB8EkUh52KduissjMDrPb67uBCTZ2kA_aem_9s4tkrTf6jHUNWIkrD5jTA&=
https://www.facebook.com/share/184HbrR5Fz/
Scroll to 06880s Facebook page , First post on March 3rd,
one image was taken yesterday. Im not trying to beat a dead horse, but a pic/vid is worth 1000 comments.
So far CTDOT has presented assumptions that the route through the Bridge Street Registered National Historic District is not desirable. In order to satisfy Federal Highway Administration standards it would seem that CTDOT needs studies and modeling to support their assumptions that changes in the bridge’s geometry and weight load will not have immediate and long term cumulative affects.
Can you clarify what you mean, please? I’m interpreting the comment as “the State does not believe that the route would be actively used if they replaced the bridge.” Because if the State doesn’t believe it is already used as an alternative to 95 and Post, the State is incorrect.
As an aside – I think I edited this out of prior comments – something that I /believe/ has helped discourage more traffic are the all-way stop signs placed Greens Farms Road and New Creek. Maybe a couple of other strategically placed stop signs would slow down the road enough to discourage increased traffic (and discourage Waze).
Yes, of course:
What I was trying to get at is slightly different. I’m not suggesting that the route isn’t used today — many residents know it already functions as a local alternative when I-95 or the Post Road back up.
My point is that the Environmental Assessment appears to assume that replacing the bridge would not materially change traffic patterns. If the replacement removes existing height and weight constraints, that assumption would normally be supported by modeling or analysis showing that traffic composition — including heavier vehicles — would not change over time.
In other words, the question isn’t whether the route is currently used. It’s whether removing those physical constraints could change how it is used in the future, particularly within a National Register historic district. Federal review typically models traffic and conducts thorough studies of those kinds of reasonably foreseeable indirect and cumulative effects.
Traffic calming measures like additional stop signs might influence local behavior, but they don’t necessarily address the structural change that comes from altering the bridge geometry itself. That’s the distinction I was trying to raise.
Like the Hamlet plans & Long Lots school construction showed, a town consensus is highly unlikely. The bridge will fail at some point – just a matter of degrees of severity. We need new structure and while I agree enabling large trucks thru will make bad traffic even worse, it’s inevitable a new bridge will allow more trucking traffic-a function of type depending on final design.
My guess is nothing happens until the bridge has a major malfunction. Then the state will have the impetus to push thru their preferred design vs the town having more of a say in the near term. No forcing function here to garner a consensus based on aforementioned examples.