Werner Liepolt is a longtime Bridge Street resident. He writes:
On Thursday, 1st Selectman Kevin Christie announced a Cribari Bridge Advisory Committee.
That may sound reassuring.
But before anyone applauds, one question should be asked: Is this committee being formed to scrutinize the state’s process — or simply to give local cover to a decision already being pushed forward on an outdated record?
Because that is where things stand.
The state is moving toward a consequential decision on the future of the Cribari Bridge while relying on what it calls an “updated” Environmental Assessment that is, on close reading, still essentially the same document prepared in 2020.
First meeting of the Cribari Bridge Advisory Committee, in 2018. A new committee will soon be formed.
And Connecticut Department of Transportation officials say that kind of document has a shelf life of only 2 to 3 years.
So let’s stop pretending the issue is only what kind of bridge gets built.
The issue is whether Westport is being asked to accept a 2026 decision based on stale assumptions, stale analysis, and a process that no longer matches present reality.
I attended the first meeting of CTDOT’s Planning Advisory Committee in July 2018 as a federally recognized consulting party, because I live in the Bridge Street National Register Historic District.
At that meeting, CTDOT made the standard clear: Environmental Assessments do not last forever. After roughly 2 to three3 years, they must be revisited to account for changing conditions.
That was then.
At the March 19, 2026 public hearing, CTDOT presented a February 2026 version of the Environmental Assessment that appears to be little more than the 2020 document with a new date.
Cribari Bridge (Photo/Fred Cantor)
Yet the process rolls on:
- Preferred alternative identified.
- Public comment period underway.
- Town leaders urged to engage.
- Residents told their voices matter.
Fine. Then the first thing this new advisory committee should ask is obvious: Why is Westport being asked to react to a decision framework built on an expired study?
This matters because the bridge does not sit in some abstract engineering zone.
It sits in the Bridge Street Historic District, where setting, views, scale and patterns of neighborhood life are part of what is protected.
It also connects directly to Route 136 Scenic Highway, where preservation of visual character is not a sentimental talking point but part of the public purpose of the designation.
Start of the Route 136 Scenic Highway.
Since 2020, the surrounding conditions have plainly changed.
- COVID transformed our demographic and altered our work habits.
- Traffic patterns are different.
- Navigation apps now push drivers through residential streets in real time.
- Greens Farms Road already functions, at key hours, as a pressure valve for I-95 congestion.
- Development in Saugatuck has intensified.
And nearby infrastructure changes raise entirely foreseeable questions about whether this corridor is being transformed, in practice, into something far more consequential than CTDOT’s analysis admits.
Residents do not need a consultant or an advisory committee to tell them that conditions have changed.
They live them.
What makes this even harder to defend is that the project’s own visual analysis appears partial. The review described in the current materials does not meaningfully capture winter visibility from elevated homes within the historic district, even though those views are part of the setting that gives the district its character.
The Bridge Street streetscape changes with the seasons.
So no, this is not just a procedural quibble.
It goes to the integrity of the entire decision-making process.
Because when a study is outdated, everything built on it becomes suspect: the alternatives analysis, the impact claims, the traffic assumptions, the mitigation discussion, and the town’s ability to say honestly that it has evaluated current conditions.
That is why the new advisory committee matters.
Not as a public-relations device.
Not as a way to calm people down.
Not as a stage on which local officials can appear engaged while the real framework remains untouched.
It matters only if it is willing to say, clearly and publicly, that Westport should not be boxed into commenting on a preferred option grounded in a stale Environmental Assessment.
Part of the state’s assessment of the Cribari Bridge.
Westport’s elected officials should be careful here.
A committee can be a tool for real scrutiny.
It can also be a way to absorb public anger while avoiding the central issue.
If this committee is serious, it should demand answers to a few basic questions immediately:
- Why is a 2020 Environmental Assessment still serving as the foundation for a 2026 decision?
- What exactly was reevaluated, and what was merely repackaged?
- How were post-2020 traffic changes actually studied?
- How were cumulative corridor impacts assessed?
- Why should residents trust a process that appears to have updated the cover more than the analysis?
Those are not anti-bridge questions.
They are pro-accountability questions.
No one is asking for delay for delay’s sake.
What people are asking for is something much more modest and much more reasonable: that before Westport lends its name, its cooperation, or its political cover to this process, someone in authority insists that the underlying record reflect the world as it exists now — not as it looked 5 or 6 years ago.
The Cribari Bridge, in 2019. (Drone photo John Videler, for Videler Photography)
More than 1,600 people have signed a petition calling for federal oversight on the protection of Westport and the nation’s historic resources.
The March 19 hearing drew a packed room and a near unanimous, clear mandate.
The public has spoken with unusual clarity at the sole public hearing CTDOT has conducted on this project.
Now the question is whether this advisory committee will do anything more difficult than listen.
Because in the end, this is not just about what replaces the Cribari Bridge.
It is about whether Westport’s leaders will insist on an honest process — or help legitimize one that is already past its shelf life.
(“06880” Opinion pages are open to all. Email submissions to 06880blog@gmail.com. To support this hyper-local blog with a tax-deductible contribution, please click here.)
Thanks, Werner, for laying out so clearly where the bridge threat stands today…I would think, however, that with the last public comment day being the 17th, that 1-most all of us who will comment have done so; 2-the state either has or has not read ’em; 3-the state either does or does not give a shit and 4-the “Advisory Committee” is a public relations gimmick contrived too late by Christie, et al to assuage a frightened public that is already the loser in another bureaucratic battle.
To clarify… the pubic comments go to the Federal Highway Administration who must, by federal regulation, respond.
Issues regarding historic preservation are also under the scrutiny of the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation.
Our congressional delegation has shown interest and received the petition requesting oversight, and, I am sure, will question whether policy is adhered to.
CTDOT is using federal money in this project and is therefore constrained by federal regulation.
In the past I would have agreed with the idea of Federal oversight, but not now.
Sorry, too many Federally funded projects have been adversely impacted under current administration
I remain confounded why Town leadership has not rallied behind the community’s wish to repair and maintain an historic bridge that contributes immensely to fabric of our historic district.
How loud must one scream to be heard?
The bridge lies within the boundaries of the Bridge Street Historic District.
What more protection must it require to continue to exist ?
Has what was once an enclave of artists devolved into a community that now embraces philistinism ?
There is a reason why the Federal government established a National Register of Historic Places; for protection of communities and structures such as this.
We overwhelming voted in November for change in Town leadership.
Mr. First Selectman, you need to do more than appoint a committee and sit back and watch. You need to champion this cause.
This is your first test, your first big opportunity to demonstrate leadership.
Mr. First Selectman, this should be a lay-up shot for you.
~ Joseph Vallone, A.I.A.
What these comments reflect is exactly the tension many in town are feeling—concern about process, concern about outcomes, concern about the nature of our town, and uncertainty about who is responsible for ensuring both process and outcome are sound.
At several points in the public process, that uncertainty has only deepened. At the December 18 meeting, mitigation concepts were discussed alongside statements that no preferred outcome had been determined. Yet at the May session, a senior CTDOT engineer indicated that a bridge accommodating all traffic remained the preferred direction, regardless of concerns raised.
Taken together, that leaves many with the impression that a direction may already be taking shape before the underlying analysis has been fully revisited.
This is also why federal oversight has been raised—not to dictate an outcome, but to ensure that established review standards are applied consistently and that the full range of reasonable alternatives is genuinely considered.
And that is why the Town, the First Selectman, and the Advisory Committee should focus on ensuring the integrity of the process itself.
If the Environmental Assessment is current, complete, and fully considers the historic district and its setting, the I-95 corridor and related traffic patterns, and the cumulative and long-term effects, then the outcome—whatever it is—will carry legitimacy.
If it is not, then no advisory committee or final decision will be able to resolve the underlying concerns.
We are our mouthy Federal senators? They are great on pontificating … have them make some noise with CTDOT
Unfortunately, the “quick fix and leave it alone” (no‑build) option is most likely water under the bridge at this point.
What’s especially frustrating is that the same people now claiming the data and extensive community participation are “outdated” or “stale” are the very ones who previously delayed, disrupted, and manipulated the timeline to achieve one goal: kicking the can to keep the trusses. And here they are again—this time hoping the federal government will help them stall—using misinformation to agitate residents and employing back‑room, inappropriate tactics to pressure the administration, just like in past years.
I think the First Selectman recognizes this pattern and is taking a fair‑minded approach by moving the process forward along the legal and ultimately unavoidable path.
Back in 2017, we had a real chance to repair Pier Two and patch things enough to get another 20+ years out of it. But because of the same group’s delays—pulling transportation improvment funding,(TIP) plus the impact of COVID—the structure is now on the verge of being de‑rated again. And de‑rating means no school buses, no fire trucks, and no local deliveries.
It’s time to stop with the misinformation and manipulation. Put the facts on the table in public because “public buisines should be done in public ” and work towards understanding and compromise, or the state will step in and make the decision themselves , as its clear they have had enough .
Let’s separate two different issues here—how we got to this point, and how the decision is made now.
Reasonable people can disagree about past decisions and timing. But the question in front of the Town today is not 2017—it’s whether a consequential 2026 decision is being made on a record that is current, complete, and fully reflective of present conditions.
Calling for that level of review is not delay or obstruction—it is exactly what the environmental and historic review process is designed to ensure.
Nor is any particular outcome “inevitable.” The purpose of the Environmental Assessment process is to evaluate alternatives based on a sound and up-to-date record before a final decision is made.
Speed is not a substitute for adequacy when the decision carries long-term consequences for a historic district and surrounding residential neighborhoods.
That is why the focus has been—and should remain—on the integrity of the process itself. If the analysis is current, transparent, and complete, then the outcome—whatever it is—will carry legitimacy. If it is not, then simply moving forward more quickly does not resolve the underlying concerns.
Were you at the 6 PAC meetings?
Were you at the subcommittee meeting that requested the removal of $40 million from the transportation budget to “stop everything”?
Even though the town engineers made it clear to the small group we were at risk of a span derating, or worse, a complete bridge closure!
Moving quickly? That was 10 years ago, and the Fire dept. said pumper trucks only had 130 lbs. of wiggle room before they could no longer use the bridge to protect this side of the river—130 lbs. back in 2017.
In that subcommittee meeting, RTM reps and your groups referenced gambling with these issues, and one even joked that “Gambling is legal in Connecticut”. They stated, ” it’s difficult to negotiate with your opponent (D.o.t) in the public’s view” and was fine with taking a gamble on safety and the risk of losing future funding.
All these factors show that your issue, along with your cohorts’, is biased, manipulative, and one-sided. Still, Westport should set that aside as we move forward with the largest civil engineering project in a century.
Enough already about the bridge.