The public has spoken,
By a wide margin, respondents to yesterday’s “06880” Cribari Bridge survey favor “adaptive rehabilitation” of the 143-year-old span. That means improving roadway safety and adding bike lanes, while preserving the 12′ 10″ height to continue blocking heavy truck traffic.
As of 6:45 this morning, 464 readers, or 75% — out of a total of 617 who answered the question — chose that option.
Another 98 (16%) selected “full replacement” (meeting all modern height, weight and flood-resilience standards).
The third option — “no change; leave it as it is” — was chosen by 55 (9%).
Cribari Bridge (Photo/Ferdinand Jahnel)
The survey was unscientific (and a few of the 627 participants did not answer every question). But it offers some insight, as Westport grapples with next steps in a decades-long debate over next step for one of the town’s 3 Saugatuck River crossings.
Readers were given 4 elements to rate as “very important to me,” “somewhat important to me” or “not important to me,” when considering the Cribari Bridge.
The most important, according to respondents, was “the potential for use by large trucks.” That was “very important” to 426 (70%), “somewhat important” to 100 (16%), and “not important” to 85 (14%).
“Safety issues — for example, increasing the width” — was “very important” to 356 (58%) and “somewhat important” to 175 (29%). It was “not important” to 80 (13%).
When considering its future, the Cribari Bridge’s history was deemed “very important” by 277 readers (45%), and “somewhat important” by 257 (42%). Another 79 (13%) called it “not important.”
The fourth consideration was “navigability of the Saugatuck River, including the ability of all marine craft to pass underneath.” 173 readers (28%) called it “very important; 276 (45%) said it was “somewhat important,” and 164 (27%) said it was “not important.”
The Cribari Bridge is the oldest swing span of its type in the nation. It is opened manually, to allow marine craft to pass underneath. (Photo/Mark Mathias)
“06880” readers’ preference for “adaptive rehabilitation” aligns with a sense of the meeting vote taken Tuesday night, by the Representative Town Meeting.
Twenty of 21 RTM members present and voting — 95% — said yes to a bridge that would be wide enough for pedestrian and bike lanes, yet low enough to prohibit 18 wheelers.
The lone “no” vote was cast to reflect a desire for restoration, not replacement in any form. Four members abstained.
The full “sense of the meeting” resolution is at the end of this story.*
The Cribari Bridge. (Photo/Patricia McMahon)
The survey asked 3 other questions.
On the issue of whether the town of Westport should buy the Cribari Bridge — which would mean being responsible for renovation and maintenance, without federal and state funding — the majority (369, or 61%) said no. 236 readers (39%) agreed with the idea.
Even more respondents opposed the idea of moving the bridge elsewhere in town, to serve as a footbridge and preserve its history. That idea was opposed by 392 (65%), supported by 210 (35%).
The final question asked: “If the town negotiates with the state Department of Transportation on the future of the Cribari Bridge, which of the following should NOT be up for discussion?”
The most important non-negotiable item — “allowing large truck traffic” — was chosen by 484 (43%).
“Losing the historic look” was deemed non-negotiable by 266 (24%), followed by “keeping height” (172, 15%), “creating a new alignment” (121, 11%) and adding width (7%).
==================================================
* The RTM “sense of the meeting” resolution” said:
RESOLVED: It is the sense of the Westport Representative Town Meeting that the Town administration should engage with the Connecticut Department of Transportation to ensure that the Cribari Bridge across the Saugatuck river is restored, rehabilitated or replaced as soon as practicable.
Any upgrade should at a minimum maintain or evoke the historic design of the current structure. The finished structure should be wide enough to include pedestrian and bike lanes and a height restriction to ensure that it will not provide access for semi tractor trucks.
(“06880” reports regularly on the Cribari Bridge debate — and everything else in Westport too. If you appreciate our coverage, please click here to support our work. Thank you!)
Dan,
In the spirit of “full disclosure” I wish to share that I diabolically responded to the poll you conducted. I voluntarily relinquished my Westport residency in ‘78 (although my late mother hung on until ‘87, moved to FL and returned to “put down roots” at Willowbrook in 2002 (guess she just couldn’t stay away).
Rules are for (non Staples) students (and I’ve been a proud Staples grad for 56 years – rules no longer apply to me).
I wanted nothing to change (and that’s what I put down on your survey).
However, as a truly old (not mature) Westporter, I am willing to abide by the decision of “nouveaux” residents, sad as they are.
If it is decided in a fair election that the bridge will be revised to allow semi tractor trailers let me know so that I can bring my house trailer to your summer party at the South beach (my bathroom and hot tub are nicer than the one recently installed at the behest of an out of control town government).
I’m still upset about the relocation of the YMCA and the confiscation of Mahackeno from indigenous people who were there first.
Keep up the good work and congratulations on the ball field.
(Coach Loeffler is smiling).
Split the Baby
What I suggested at the RTM meeting Tuesday I called a Hybrid Adaptive Reuse of the bridge. Take the metal top off, its ornamental now, and send it to a shop. Refurbish it, but split it down its length and widen it.
While that part is off getting spruced up, take the actual working part of the bridge and fix it as needed and make it also wider, safe, walkable, bikable, higher for boats and fully functional. When done, bring back the metal historic top and place it back on. Use the historic status, use the 4F federal highway rules and physically and legally forbid large trucks.
See this video about a bridge in VT that was split and widened.
https://youtu.be/yys_4XPqbtA?si=nNEBrKkb4NEFdCrO
The solution is along these lines, we just need to get there.
That was a reasonably predictable result. The real question though is, “Are Westporter’s willing to foot the bill for that option?” if the Feds and State say not on our dime.
Non-zero chance you get a different result if the resultant increase in property taxes is significant.
Matt Mandell’s suggestion seems to me to be too convoluted to be practical. In the end it would result in what amounts to a new bridge with a superstructure which would deter heavy trucks. So why not just accept ConnDot’s replacement proposal with an added height limiting superstructure with similar to what is already there. (Assuming that Matt is correct that it can be approved ) It seems foolish to canonize the existing structure as a historical artifact. Nostalgia is not a plan.
Larry, DOT has not proposed a replacement span that doesn’t accept “all legal loads”. To be clear, the agency has has never offered a height restriction on a new span.
To put it more bluntly – and to paraphrase recent testimony at the RTM by a resident – DOT’s replacement span equals the fourth lane of I95.
Oh God, Is this another conspiracy theory? reminiscent of one that claimed our big bad DOT intends to bulldoze through Rizzuto’s, then Ketchum and Franklin, before belly flopping onto Saugatuck Ave?
What y’all should be concerned about is the “Hanging Chad” in the first photo—soaking up the sun and stressing out more sagging truss members. That’s the only reason the current sign doesn’t read 13’6″ today.
Mr. Weisman’s – Spot On, the “Hyped-up hybrid” isn’t practical and Matt as a PAC member knows why.
As an aside, bring the NASCAR-style mechanical pit stop concept to the meeting, it’s an excellent idea and should be incorporated into the new design as we won’t get enough elevation to completely safeguard stuff.
The question isn’t about conspiracies. It’s about traffic modeling.
If the replacement bridge removes current clearance and weight restrictions, has CTDOT evaluated whether that could change diversion patterns between Exits 18 and 19 during I-95 congestion?
That’s a standard FHWA consideration when capacity constraints are altered. If traffic behavior within the historic district could change, it’s reasonable for an RTM representative, an ordinary citizen, someone who commutes to or from work in Westport, or a resident trying to get to Whole Foods or Trader Joe’s top to ask whether that has been modeled and disclosed.
June of last year, Dara Lamb of the Alliance raised a valid point during her public comment at the Hamlets’ last meeting. She questioned whether the town had thoroughly examined safety and if the P+Z had given it careful thought, especially considering the narrow arteries into the slice and the #1 primary importance of safety and response times.
With HB5002 and Hiawatha in place, development in the slice is inevitable. The alliance agrees it’s needed and would support a “better plan.” This area’s increased density and height mean more families. Are you comfortable with the reduced clearances you’re aiming for, even though it prevents the ladder truck and soon other WFD trucks from reaching this side?
We need to consider Norwalk’s state of the art fire boat and its need to reach the water side of the large office buildings, marinas and waterfront homes along the river. Hell, look at the newest one being built, and its “classic New England” aesthetics.
P+Z approved the 50 Post Road West project, and rightfully so, but before that approval, Commissioner Bolton strongly pushed for a traffic study, noting that the Wilton Road intersection was the worst in the state. That route would be the only alternative for the long, heavy, and cumbersome fire truck.
This means west side property owners must limit the potential of their investments because of failing grade intersections, leading to major losses in property value. Will P+Z waive those studies for west side applications? HB5002 might, but P+Z? Highly doubtful.
P+Z is strict about requiring all new applications to comply with the 100-year flood standards, and it appears they’re making that rule bullet proof. Is it ever waived, and should it be in this situation?
Request the study data, include all arteries, bring both Morley’s “Rapid replaceable components” idea and other smart, solution-focused ideas to the table.
Solve the problems!
Those are exactly the kinds of issues that should be studied and disclosed: emergency access, traffic diversion, clearance, alternate routes, safety impacts, and long-term or cumulative effects.
My point is simply that when structural constraints are changed, the underlying modeling and assumptions should be made public, consistent with FHWA review standards and the federal consultation process. That allows the discussion to be grounded in evidence rather than conjecture and assumption.
And probably the two most important things to do are posting a comment on the CTDOT website anbd signing a Change. Org petition that will become part of the pubic record on the CTDOT project website:
Submit comments at
— bit.ly/158-214Westport.
If planning to speak at the March 19 meeting, type your speech and submit it, too.
All comments will go on record and be part of Federal Highway Administration review.
(Social media and letters to the editor are important but not incorporated into the public record. )
To add your voice to a petition asking for federal oversight over the CTDOT Cribari Bridge Project to ensure that long term and cumulative effects are properly evaluated and incorporated into the studies required by the Advisory Council on Historic Properties follow this link
https://c.org/xM7ZPdyV82
And express your support for a thorough analysis and reasoned approach to the CTDOT Cribari Bridge Project
https://patch.com/img/cdn/users/4305/2012/11/d43931c696225db25311c31ea221372a.mp4
https://citizenportal.ai/articles/7302171/Connecticut/Fairfield/Westport-Village/Westport-approves-226-million-ladder-truck-purchase-850-day-delivery-estimated
https://westportjournal.com/government/lots-of-water-few-quick-fixes-for-westport-flooding-problems/
https://www.westportct.gov/Home/Components/News/News/10483/
3.3.3 of west cogs mitigation plan
Vulnerabilities and Risk Assessment.
The Town is vulnerable to hurricane damage from wind and flooding. In fact, historically most of the damage to the town from tropical storms has been due to flooding.
Factors that influence vulnerability in the town include building codes, local zoning and
development patterns, and the age and number of structures located in highly vulnerable areas.