What’s next for the Cribari Bridge?
As Westporters prepare for Thursday’s public meeting with the Connecticut Department of Transportation (March 19, 6 p.m., Town Hall auditorium), nearly 1,400 residents have already made their views known. (They have also donated $2,455 to the cause.)
They signed an online petition organized by Werner Liepolt. The former Westport teacher — who lives on Bridge Street just few hundred yards from the 143-year-old span — initiated it due to what he calls “a public perception that CTDOT had not provided opportunity for public involvement.”
Werner Liepolt painted this image of the Cribari Bridge.
Liepolt asks for “federal oversight to guarantee that all alternatives are evaluated and that the richly historic and irreplaceable nature of the bridge is given due consideration.”
He has submitted his petition into the official public comment record for the Environmental Assessment currently under review by CTDOT and the Federal Highway Administration.
Under federal review procedures, public comments and petitions are part of the record considered as agencies evaluate project alternatives and potential effects on the surrounding area (including the Bridge Street National Register Historic District).
The meeting is part of the ongoing environmental and historic review process for the Cribari Bridge project.
The full petition — active until April 17 — says: “I am a resident of the Bridge Street National Register District, home to the iconic William F. Cribari Bridge—individually listed in the National Register of Historic Places that has been an integral part of our community’s identity for 141 years.
“This historic bridge, oldest operable bridge of its kind in the USA, nestled in Westport, Connecticut, is on the brink of being replaced by the Connecticut Department of Transportation (CTDOT) without an essential public engagement process.
“Despite its historic status, there has been a disturbing lack of transparency and involvement from the public, disregarding the National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 Section 106 review procedures.
“The William F. Cribari Bridge is more than just a piece of infrastructure; it is a cherished symbol of our heritage, tying together the historical fabric of our neighborhood.
Cribari Bridge (Photo/Patricia McMahon)
“The sudden decision to replace such an irreplaceable landmark raises concerns not only within our community but also nationwide, as it sets a precedent for how historic sites might be handled without proper oversight.
“Why hasn’t there been an effort to engage the community in this critical decision-making process? The lack of transparency undermines the principles of fair public policy and overlooks the historical significance that this bridge brings to our region.
“It is imperative that the federal government steps in to ensure that the CTDOT considers all perspectives, from engineering experts to local residents, and follows due process in accordance with National Historic Preservation guidelines.
“The preservation of the William F. Cribari Bridge is essential for maintaining the cultural and architectural identity of our region, and its replacement should not proceed without an exhaustive review and input from all stakeholders involved.
Manually opening the Cribari Bridge.
“We need comprehensive federal oversight to guarantee that all alternatives are evaluated and that the richly historic and irreplaceable nature of the bridge is given due consideration.
“I urge you to sign this petition to demand federal oversight over the Connecticut Department of Transportation’s plans to replace the William F. Cribari Bridge.
“Together, we can safeguard the integrity of our cherished historic landmark and ensure a democratic process respects both our heritage and community voice.
“Let us be vigilant in protecting our past for the generations to
come.”
Claim: “CONNDOT has not provided public involvement” – FALSE. Refer to the Environment analysis (EA) and note the names of P.A.C. members listed in several publicly announced and recorded meetings of the “Public Advisory Committee” and residents.
– Claim: “Have all alternatives been evaluated” – YES: See the Environment analysis (EA) for five options and the evaluation methodology.
– Claim: “Lack of Federal review” – FALSE: Refer to the EA and its compliance with federal requirements.
– Claim: “Lack of transparency” – FALSE: At least 10 recorded public meetings have been held since the start.
– Claim: “Sudden decisions” by CONNDOT – FALSE: Continuous participation in meetings, discussions, and fact-based debates since 2016.
– Fact: The process was delayed by a small group in back-office meetings manipulating funding because they didn’t like the findings. Note: this meeting was recorded on the town website. Terms used were: “it’s difficult to negotiate with your opponent ConnDot) in the public’s view” “were willing to play chicken” with the bridge and public safety as funding could have been lost indefinitely.
– A worldwide pandemic further delayed the progress.
-Fact: Change is scary, but often inevitable as the Data shows.
– Fact: the span will need full replacement at some point.
– Fact: The Westport Fire Department will be able to cross the river quickly and safely with all its trucks.
– Fact: The span will be constructed above the 100-year flood requirements.
– Fact: Bicycles and pedestrians will have a substantially safer crossing.
– Fact: CAM regulations prioritize water-dependent uses, restoring the river access to its state before the existing 1993 span was “adapted for reuse” and botched.
– Fact: Traffic will improve, as shown in temporary span data from the 1990s.
– Fact: Commuters will enjoy easier and faster access across the span, making it more convenient to catch the train.
We know you want to protect your property values and love the look of the old bridge, as do I. but please stick to facts only.
The Environmental Assessment and PAC meetings are part of the public record, and many residents — including federally recognized consulting parties — participated in good faith over several years.
The question being raised now is not whether meetings occurred or whether structural alternatives were studied.
The question is whether the Environmental Assessment analyzed the full range of long-term traffic and circulation changes that may result from the project and related redevelopment planning.
The 2020 EA appears to assume existing traffic conditions.
Since that time, regional planning discussions and 2024 redevelopment proposals in the Saugatuck/Hamlet area have raised questions about future traffic patterns and truck circulation that were repeatedly mentioned in PAC meetings but do not appear to have been modeled.
When new information emerges after an EA is prepared, federal regulations require agencies to consider whether additional analysis may be warranted. What may have been an adequate traffic study inb 2020 has been superannuated by the development work you boost.
That is the issue many residents are asking CTDOT and FHWA to clarify and the best factual answer is a CTDOT NO TRUCKS option.
What is important now is putting your voice into the public record.
https://www.westportallianceforsaugatuck.com/cribari-bridge
https://www.flickr.com/photos/204364047@N04/55147949194/in/dateposted-public/