Everyone has an opinion about the Cribari Bridge.
Save it at all costs! Renovate it for safety and river navigation! Don’t allow trucks! Don’t worry, they can’t get through Saugatuck anyway!
As the March 19 community meeting (6 p.m., Town Hall) with the state Department of Transportation looms, the jury remains out on what Westport — residents, and town officials — really want for the span’s future.
A decade after discussions began on a renovation or replacement of the 143-year-old bridge, no one seems to have an idea of what to say to DOT.
That might be because no one has clearly asked.
Today, “06880” does just that.
We’ve created an 8-question survey. It’s not scientific — we’re not Gallup or Quinnipiac — but it could give some sense of residents’ feelings. Results will be posted on Friday.
The survey is below. NOTE: This is for current Westport residents only. Thanks!
Cribari Bridge (Photo courtesy of Library of Congress)
It seems that users of the “06880” app cannot view the survey. App users who are Westport residents: Please go to http://www.06880.org to take the survey. My apologies!
Very cool ! An “ask your question” segment could bring thoughtful inquiries to the 19th meeting — or even a “Would you rather” format. A recent comment from a neighbor got me thinking: many of the improvements suggested by the state are mandatory requirements — safety standards, clearances, and similar thresholds. Federal funds can’t be spent unless those criteria are met.
So, if that’s true and we can’t have both, would you rather have safe, ADA‑compliant pedestrian paths and bike shoulders, or keep the bridge at its current width?
Another concern raised at the RTM was environmental disturbance of the river bottom from pilings and construction‑related pollution. Would you prefer three rehabilitation projects over the next 25 years — with added maintenance construction and periodic closures — or one project (and one disturbance) that lasts 75+ years?
Would you rather have a quick‑opening, reliable span for marine traffic, or stick with the slower, antiquated system we have now?
That photo showing the 7‑ton rating was also striking. The 1993 rehabilitation increased the span’s capacity to 40 tons by using larger girders and a new paved roadbed to support the decorative historic truss. That substantially increased the weight of the span and the stress on the swing mechanism. A new rehabilitation would likely add more weight and width — but can the pivot point balance a wider, heavier structure as it swings?
These issues came up in the PAC meetings, and we’ll need to weigh them carefully — not just whether each is reasonable, but what we’re willing to trade in order to gain something else.
The Connecticut Water and Watercourses Statute (chapter 440 of the CGS) appears to prohibit the replacement option favored by the DOT (as does the Westport WPLO). The adaptive rehabilitation option does not violate those laws. (I hope an attorney familiar with the ins and outs of these complicated laws will weigh in on all of this – I am not one.) The comparison charts in the DOT’s own environmental assessment state the effects of the different options pretty clearly.
The “adaptive rehab” variation has a lifespan of only one-third that of a full replacement, according to the EA and PAC discussions. This would require CTDOT to undertake two additional major rehabilitation projects, along with all necessary equipment on site, over the 75+ year timeline under consideration. This means the bottom would be disturbed twice more in projects of similar scale.
The question is whether the impacts of three separate projects would be less than those of a single project?
Additionally, the adaptive rehab approach would result in a reduced channel width, which falls under the oversight of the federal government (Coast Guard), though the primary focus in this comment is on the overall environmental impact.
We would love to hear your point.
I don’t know who “we” is – but my point above is that the preferred version appears to be against state and town laws. Maybe not – as I pointed out, I’d like to have a legal opinion. We don’t usually get to choose which laws we obey. That’s it.
So no opinion on the question? “We” are the people wanting to learn , based on facts and you are a environment conservation pro.
Correction: “Every 25 years”, not over 25 years.
Thank you, Dan, for providing a easy way for residents to register their opinion. And Robbie’s questions are also good ones – can we opine on those via survey?
Feel free to opine here Luisa, love the input.
Polls like this can be helpful in surfacing the questions Westport residents want addressed.
Infrastructure projects often involve trade-offs, but the purpose of the environmental and historic review process is to determine whether those trade-offs are truly unavoidable or whether design options exist that address several goals at once—safety, accessibility, and the surrounding Bridge Street National Register Historic District.
Under the Federal Highway Administration’s review process, public comments and questions raised at meetings help identify those issues and become part of the official record considered before a final decision is made.
The poll is a bit ambiguous when asking whether, for instance, whether the potential for use of large trucks is important to the respondent. For me, it’s very important that large trucks be able to use the bridge to ensure that truck traffic doesn’t continue to be artificially routed up 33, creating logjams that shouldn’t exist there while protecting a handful of people’s property values. However, someone else might select that and mean that it’s very important that truck traffic across the bridge continue to be impeded, contributing to the traffic jams and safety issues that so many people here complain about.
We lived in the Saugatuck neighborhood for 17 years. I miss the Italian Festival as much as I’m hopeful for a reasonable Hamlet solution. Except for when we resurrected Luciano Field for instructional league softball, it’s mostly a mess.
When you live on the West Bank, crossing the river to go about your daily life is a thing. And there are three options, all fraught with their own issues.
I don’t want the Cribari bridge to lose its charm, but I do hope that the next act supports trucks above and boats below because it’s not fair for your Riverside Ave neighbors to bear the burden. They have history and fancy on the river houses too.
The protagonists are clearly NIMBY, maybe because they over paid to live on Bridge Street. While we’re solving traffic challenges, we need a no truck left turn on Sunrise and to re open the left turn on Treadwell. Somehow because of traffic laws, Treadwell has a $3m house for sale…
Share the wealth, share the pain.
You raise an important point about fairness and how traffic impacts are distributed. One of the core questions in the current review is not simply whether trucks are “good” or “bad,” but whether changes to the bridge’s geometry could reasonably alter traffic composition and routing patterns across the entire river corridor — east and west banks alike.
That’s why many residents are asking whether the Environmental Assessment has fully modeled long-term and cumulative traffic effects, not just for Bridge Street but for Riverside Avenue and other feeder roads as well. Understanding those system-wide impacts would help move the discussion beyond neighborhood labels and toward informed planning.
That makes sense Werner—no one wants unclear or limited data to review. That’s why Wendy was asked to explain her perspective rather than simply refer to a possible law that might slow progress toward the essential goal of a safe span.
According to CTDOT and the PAC, of which you were a member, traffic analysis, as well as D.E.P. permitting will be handled strictly by the book and in full compliance with all laws, making it essentially a non-issue, unless someone prefers the “do-nothing” option or is intentionally delaying the process.
It’s unfortunate, but after speaking with a couple of RTM members and addressing the full RTM that evening, proposing an open “study” group to work through available options, including the suggested “adaptive rehab Idea”, the response was Naaa,
It was very troubling, A vote on such an important project without understanding the details, especially when the EA is over 600 pages long and admittedly tedious to read, is unacceptable.
I think the Environmental Assement is 160 pages, however I agree that the appendices deserve scrutiny as well…
The Environmental Assessment (EA) acknowledges that the Bridge Street Historic District is listed on the National Register of Historic Places and lies within the project’s Area of Potential Effects (APE). Under Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act and the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), the Federal Highway Administration must evaluate not only direct physical impacts, but also reasonably foreseeable indirect and cumulative effects on a historic district’s setting, feeling, and circulation patterns.
Given the public discussion about potential changes in traffic composition—particularly the removal of existing geometric constraints that currently limit heavier vehicles—it would be helpful to understand how the EA evaluated long-term traffic redistribution and how the Federal Highway Administration determined whether such functional changes would, or would not, constitute an adverse effect on the integrity of the Bridge Street Historic District as part of the Section 106 consultation process.
The historic designation issue has been a major talking point, just like in ’89, and has been used as leverage to sway the outcome.
For the record, Lincoln Street, Riverside, and National Hall are also designated, so they should be included in your request; leaving them out weakens your argument and makes it seem like the concern is only about your address.
This isn’t meant to be adversarial, but Wendy, as an RTM member, has an obligation to provide the public with accurate, fact-based information and direct answers as the RTM’s environmental expert.
Between the PAC meeting records, third-party condition reports, EIA, EA, and other materials, there are over 600 pages of documents that the RTM, your group, and interested Westporters should review before drawing conclusions.
The reality is that all options, even “no build,” will restore the span to legal load standards if federal funding is used—that’s been clear.
Otherwise, if Westport decides to spend $50 million and take ownership of the span, Bridge Street, and Compo to Post Road, it could take control of the project, but that would also mean covering all associated costs—road drainage, paving, improvements, bridge operations (do we even have specialized bridge employees?)—plus recurring rehabs every 25 years as data shows . And, as noted in PAC meetings, CTDOT has said it’s inevitable the span will need a full replacement.
What’s frustrating is seeing RTM members who sat on the PAC and participated in detailed, data-driven discussions are now quiet, It’s the responsibility of those RTM PAC participants and citizens who sat, to inform the broader RTM and the community, and so far, they haven’t.
Discussion here is civil, rational, reasoned and insightful. I’m lifting the 5-comment rule for this thread.
Okay Dan… It may be helpful to distinguish between a “talking point” and a federal regulatory requirement. Once a property or district is listed on the National Register of Historic Places, federal law requires the Federal Highway Administration to evaluate direct, indirect, and cumulative effects under Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act. That review occurs whether or not anyone invokes the designation in public debate.
The question is not whether historic status should sway an outcome; it is how the required federal review evaluates impacts within the defined Area of Potential Effects. In this case, that includes not only the bridge structure itself, but also the surrounding Bridge Street Historic District and its setting, circulation patterns, and character.
If a change in bridge geometry or load capacity could reasonably alter long-term traffic composition or routing, those potential functional changes are part of what federal review is meant to consider — not as a policy preference, but as an evaluation of indirect and cumulative effects.
It has so many twists, like greens farms rd . but — we should ask informed questions – and learn more. But -please include all the affected neighborhoods.
Interest is growing in the “adaptive rehab” idea, using the Haddam Bridge as a comp. A suggestion would be to check air gap and road bed dimensions and vehicle usage before the rehab and after. Air gap relates to resiliency. The Cribari has none of those things. Cool bridge ,but its apples and oranges.
A “split and widening” doesn’t allow a roadbed width increase nor minimal shoulders (i.e., bike lanes). It just moves the decorative truss away from the guardrail which will be modern and attached to the roadbed built in ’93. The top of the truss—currently 14′ above the roadbed—would need almost full replacement with new steel to meet the new width.
Then we’re back to the electrical and mechanical systems, and flood elevation issue, Wendy said at a Hamlet meeting, flood rise was projected an uncomfortable amount by 2050 . I hope shes can add to the convo here.
Additional heavy new steel is needed to support the newly widened decorative truss and a maybe a better sidewalk. That weight might require a new swing gear (7 ton) and electrical mechanics to move it, which means removing even more historic components.
Now the span is even heavier and the center is new, so whats it sitting on to ensure stability and reliability? Non negotiable is a safe, reliable bridge.
Are we replacing the substructure and pilings in this adaptive rehab idea?
We are..it has to sit safe from contact within the maritime fender system in the opened position… remember its wider now , that makes contact protection imperative (Coast Guard) . With that in mind we might consider lifting it. Keep in mind the east span would also have to rise to meet it—on the Bridge Square side as well. That creates a very aggressive egress incline, which probably kills the idea and is a understandable concern for Ben and crew at Bridge Square, west bankers concerned for the pedestrians over here and understandably so..
You get the idea thou, this was discussed at the PAC , just ask a member or watch the videos, It’s food for thought.
We get one chance on checking all the boxes , change is scary but We have to pay attention and not hurt any one group. Just like the Cribari , weight has to be spread out.
Robbie, there is no AASHTO or FHWA standard that specifically mandates raising the bridge’s extant mechanicals above Base Flood Elevation as a condition of rehabilitation. In fact, the existing regulatory framework supports in-place solutions. As it happens, the recently completed 88 million dollar rehab of the East Haddam Bridge, DOT notably DID NOT raise the bridge’s mechanicals above BFE. Elevation isn’t the only solution and FEMA’s own guidance acknowledges acceptable alternatives.
Morning Morley, I think the flood rise Wendy stressed at the Hamlet P+Z meeting was 12 to 18 inches. What are those alternatives?
Hi Robbie, I recall that FEMA has something like five alternatives. I’m at work now and don’t have my notes but the one that sticks in my mind is the use of a special watertight housing system. It appears that this isn’t some experimental technology; it’s readily available for rehabbing historic moveable bridges with mechanicals below BFE.
Interesting, I’m sure you will bring that info on the 19th,
Ross made a valid point referencing our Rt1 span, as the river is now significantly higher and rising, nearly touching the span at mean high tide. Additional flood rise and timeline data would be valuable. I was hoping Wendy would chime in, but she’s probably frustrated with me.
This morning, I called the Haddam Bridge, they reported an air gap of 21 feet—7 feet taller than our RR bridge and 16 feet taller than the Cribari. He said, “all vulnerable components are housed in the turnstile house, except for the electrical feedline buried in the riverbed,” I’ll ask CTDOT to confirm that.
I did the barge support work for Middlesex on our RR bridge during the diesel-to-electric conversion, a somewhat similar approach was used. so… that said, Haddam is considered flood proof. Determining the elevation of its lowest vulnerable component before and after resto would be good to know.
Additionally, Haddam’s roadbed is 25 feet wide, Cribari is 19.6′, it was also Haddam’s first restoration, making it an ideal candidate with suitable existing geometry.
It should be noted, Haddam Is Coast Guard mandated to open at the top of each hour without prior scheduling, just show up, hail the Bridge tender and wait till top of the hour. That might be a compromise here on the Cribari, Mystic does this as well but could lead to several openings a day in the summer.
lastly it maintains its truss-supported design, allowing for a “thin” roadbed maximizing its air gap, CTDOT wants to use the thin roadbed design here. lastly Haddam enjoys a 200-foot-wide channel, four times wider then here.
it’s not a comp- but it is a cool bridge.
The East Haddam Bridge was fabricated by the American Bridge Company – the same outfit that created the Saugatuck Swing Bridge.Well, actually it was called Kellogg, then Central, followed by Union – then finally American, but that’s a detail. What’s interesting is that Kellogg’s patented die forge eye bars show up in both spans.
Anyway, I checked my notes and, in addition to the previously described sealed and waterproof protective barrier, FEMA also supports placing controls and the drive assembly above the deck. It appears that guys are then running a driveshaft down to the ring gear – probably with benefit of a u joint and some bearing supports. I gather this has been the go-to solution for a lot of historic moveable spans in flood plains.
Then FEMA talks about the concept of designing for”flood resilience rather than flood avoidance”. That approach totally speaks to me as my house and property are 100% in a FEMA A Zone – the worst one of all. Suffice to say, my place is flood hardened to the point where it can withstand a roaring torrent that’s over 2 feet deep. Anyway, this approach involves ultra high quality marine grade materials that can stand up to a really tough environment.
Lastly, FEMA accepts an approach it calls “Rapid Recovery”. To summarize, this seems to involve sensitive components that can be quickly traded out as needed via inspection handholds, stuff that monitors itself and shuts off if/when conditions warrant, etc. They go on and on but you get the idea.
As an aside, while the Adaptive Rehabilitation Plan is silent on the issue of marine vertical clearance, that’s not to say that said clearance can’t also be addressed via this plan. I just didn’t have enough data to go there when I was putting the thing together, that’s all.
Interesting, so the idea is that when it floods, CTDOT can replace the damaged parts more quickly than they did after Super Storm Sandy, I believe that repair cost over $3 million in 2011.
Are you also suggesting the drive train could be positioned above the roadbed and top trusses? Wouldn’t that remove more of the historic features, similar to the ’93 rehab?
It seems to me that replacing the top trusses from iron to steel and removing the old drive train would leave only the side trusses as historical…. maybe the abutments, but they’ve been reinforced and are hidden. or are you not Widening it?
How would the structure be protected from flood debris when another Sandy-like storm hits? We both know RT1 is in for it.
Thanks for adding to the convo.
I was simply passing along some of the most common in-place flood hardening alternatives which apparently are acceptable to FEMA. My personal view is that the waterproof protective barrier approach is the most attractive. Raising the drive and controls above the deck and placing them in a cantilevered cabinet would have a visual impact but it’s hard to know to what degree.
In any event, from a historic integrity standpoint, the bridge would remain in its original setting, retain its character defining pin connected Pratt trusses, patented forged eye bars, continue to function as a movable span and remain exhibit A in the Bridge Street National Register District which is physically and contextually wedded to same. It’s significance is about more than an inventory of its parts; it’s about the role it played in the development of our community. At present it’s possible to visually interpret that narrative: Cloe Allen, whose house still stands at the corner of South Compo and Bridge Street, was persuaded to donate much of her pasture land so that an access way to the bridge could be established. And an entire neighborhood eventually came to life along that new, purpose built street. So the bridge isn’t just a metal thing, it’s the foundational fabric of a community.
The fact is that historic bridges, because they have to function, require some heavy handed modifications. Look at the one lane wooden covered bridge at West Cornwall. It was built in 1864, is fastened together with tree nails and has a wood plank floor.You’d never know that it’s actually resting on a massive orthotropic steel deck that was placed beneath it in 1973. DOT won a FHWA preservation excellence award for that project. This is just the nature of things when it comes to the conservation of historic transportation infrastructure.
Every morning I look out at the span in its setting, often wrapped in fog like today. I can’t deny that it weighs heavily on me. It also weighed on the PAC and its process—in fact, it was the most detailed part. But you experienced that.
The span, which 150 years ago “brought life to Bridge Street,” now chokes our streets: the fumes, the horns, the blocked driveways and angry drivers stuck in a sea of cars in front of our homes—so much so that we have to keep the windows closed to combat the soot. You don’t experience that.
93 was the adaptive hybrid. It was heavy‑handed—so much so that the owner of the Cloe Allan House testified, “As a purist, it no longer met the historical thresholds.”
You never talk about the temporary span. Although unsightly, it flowed like the river, allowing congestion to dissipate—only to return once it was removed. That’s undeniable.
The real test will come when the temporary span returns. Whatever happens, I hope the end result is a net gain for all of us. We will see.
I appreciate that perspective, especially the point about the temporary span. If congestion patterns noticeably changed during that period, it would be helpful to see the traffic data from that time so everyone can understand what actually drove those differences.
CTDOT has addressed diversion during construction, but has any modeling been released regarding long-term traffic patterns once the new bridge is operational — particularly if clearance and load constraints change? That distinction matters when evaluating potential impacts on circulation within the district.
Ultimately, I think we all want the same thing — a solution that improves safety and flow without unintended long-term consequences. Transparent data helps ground that discussion.