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.