Werner Liepolt is a longtime Bridge Street resident, and a Section 106 consulting party for the Cribari Bridge project. He writes:
Last Sunday, the League of Women Voters brought District 9 residents together with our 4 Representative Town Meeting members
It was a welcome opportunity to talk about flooding, traffic, development and the Cribari Bridge.
The bridge discussion raised a question that reaches far beyond District 9: When will 1st Selectman Kevin Christie organize Westport’s participation in a project that could reshape Saugatuck for generations?
RTM member Nancy Kail had asked him for an update on the bridge, and the formation of an advisory committee. His September 27 response promised “more on the Cribari and Downtown committees soon.”
Residents need more than “soon.” We need a timetable, a public process, and a clear account of what the town intends to accomplish.
1st Selectman Kevin Christie (Photo/Dave Matlow)
That expectation follows Mr. Christie’s own statement. On April 9 he announced a Cribari Bridge Advisory Committee, saying, “Westport has a real stake in this project for our neighborhoods, our infrastructure, and our fiscal future.”
He said the committee would ground decisions in facts, incorporate community input, and identify solutions that work for Westport.
Four days later, at an appearance at the Westport Library, Governor Ned Lamont responded to RTM member Kristin Schneeman’s question about the bridge. He acknowledged residents’ concerns, and said he would bring Mr. Christie and the state transportation commissioner together to work toward a solution.
Those statements offered a promising beginning.
Nearly 6 months later, residents deserve to know what has followed: Has the committee been appointed? Have those discussions taken place? What work is underway, and when will the public participate?
Cribari Bridge. (Photo/Fred Cantor)
I live on Bridge Street, and have participated in the federal review as a Section 106 consulting party since 2017. The February 2026 Environmental Assessment identifies replacement on the existing alignment as the preferred alternative.
The federal Permitting Dashboard currently lists May 31, 2027 as the estimated completion date for environmental review and permitting. That date gives Westport a reason to act now.
The 1st Selectman’s office and the RTM should use the remaining time to assemble the evidence, document local concerns, and establish what the town wants the agencies to address.
The risk of delay is practical: The agencies’ review can advance while Westport’s concerns remain scattered among individual residents, departments and organizations.
A coordinated town submission would make those concerns explicit, and give residents a basis for checking whether they have been answered.
If those discussions have occurred, he should report on them. If they have not, he should initiate them.
The questions requiring attention are substantial, but understandable. What traffic would each bridge alternative accommodate or attract? Could changes in capacity or clearance alter heavytruck routes? What would that mean for noise, vibration, air quality, and pedestrian safety? Whether truck traffic would increase—and by how much—deserves analysis.
The review should also account for commuter traffic, school buses, children walking or biking, and parent drop-offs, alongside foreseeable development.
The proposed 250 apartments at 55 Greens Farms Road, including 75 affordable units, make it particularly important to examine future travel needs. For residents who do not drive or have limited transportation options, these questions are especially consequential.
The town should hear directly from residents of The Saugatuck senior cooperative, and nearby Homes with Hope housing.
Each alternative, including its construction period, should be evaluated for safe access to shopping, medical care, work, buses and the railroad station.
Safety concerns in this neighborhood already have concrete examples. In 2022, a jury returned a verdict against the state in a case involving a teenager seriously injured after CTDOT inadequately removed a Bridge Street crosswalk. More recently, a police pursuit involved collisions on Bridge Street near Imperial Avenue.
Bridge Street traffic, headed to the Cribari Bridge. (Photo/Susan Garment)
These incidents underscore the need to examine crossings, intersections and pedestrian protection throughout the bridge’s approaches. Alongside traffic and safety, Westport needs clear answers about design flexibility, rehabilitation and replacement costs, service lives, construction disruption, emergency access, historic-district impacts, and ownership of the bridge and its approaches.
Mr. Christie, 3 actions would demonstrate leadership now.
First, announce the Cribari committee’s membership, mandate, and timetable. Give it clear responsibility for examining neighborhood impacts and bridge alternatives, with meaningful public participation. Convene a working session with residents, housing representatives, town staff and the Historic District Commission, and invite CTDOT and FHWA.
Second, designate a town coordinator to assemble transportation, housing, land-use, property, emergency-access and preservation information into a written submission to the agencies.
Third, publish the town’s questions and the agencies’ responses. Confirm whether a revised Environmental Assessment is planned, its anticipated publication date, and the opportunities for further public comment. Set dates for the working session and town submission so residents can follow progress.
The town cannot control every state or federal decision. However, its leadership can ensure that Westport’s concerns are documented, presented, and pursued.
Please give residents a public plan and dates for action. The opportunity to influence this review is too important to leave at “soon.”
(“06880” Opinion pages are open to all. Email submissions to 06880blog@gmail.com. To support this hyper-local blog, please click here. Thank you!)