What’s next for the Cribari Bridge?
Good question. The 133-year-old swing bridge — the only one of its kind left in the country — is not getting any younger.
Of course, it was pretty old — close to 100 — in 1985.
Over 40 years ago — when Microsoft released Windows 1.0, Symbolics.com was registered as the first .com domain name, Nintendo launched Super Mario Bros., and Coca-Cola introduced “New Coke” — Westporters were talking about … what to do with what was called the Bridge Street Bridge.
(Its namesake, William F. Cribari, was then an energetic 66-year-old, directing traffic onto and off of the bridge. He lived another 22 years — dying almost 2 decades ago.)
Roger Leifer unearthed a fascinating story from the Westport News. (That was our local newspaper. The Cribari Bridge outlasted it too.)
The piece began: “State officials say an environmental assessment relating to plans for replacement of the Bridge Street Bridge is expected to continue for the next few weeks.”
The state proposed replacing it with a “stronger, more modern bridge which could accommodate tractor trailers. The current bridge has been deemed ‘structurally deficient’ and has a 7-ton load limit.”
The project would cost $6 million or more. State and federal governments would fund the replacement.
Once upon a time, the Bridge Street Bridge was strong enough to support trolleys.
The proposal was “vigorously opposed by a large number of Westport residents, particularly those living in the Saugatuck area. Residents claim that a larger, wider bridge will lead to increased car and truck traffic in the area, as motorists try to bypass the increasingly congested Connecticut Turnpike and the Norwalk toll.”
(That toll booth, just west of Exit 17, did not outlive the Cribari Bridge either. In fact, they were gone that same year of 1985.)
Added traffic would “destroy” the neighborhood, residents said, while a new bridge would “remove a picturesque landmark which is part of the ‘tradition’ of Westport.
Opponents claimed the bridge could be brought up to proper structural standards for $3 million — and be strong enough to accommodate buses and fire trucks. The 7-ton limit precluded them from using it then.
State officials countered that it was “impractical to restore the bridge, given its deteriorating supporting structure and its limited width and height.
Opening the Cribari Bridge requires hand cranking.
A DOT proposal for a bridge with a vertical clearance of 16 feet — 3 higher than the current 13 — and 56 feet wide, 26 feet more — would allow a third lane, for improved traffic flow.
The DOT’s acting manager of the Bridge Design Unit, Daniel Coffey, said that the state intended to proceed with the replacement, despite Westporters’ objections.
He added that as part of the environmental assessment, DOT officials were reviewing “historical factors.”
Classic view of the Bridge Street Bridge. The latest major work was one in 1993.
Because it is on the National Register of Historic Places, officials were required to consider the historical status of the bridge, when debating restoration and replacement.
First Selectman William Seiden “reluctantly accepted the basic concept that the old bridge has to be replaced,” the Westport News said, “citing practical and financial considerations.”
Seiden noted that state and federal governments would not pay for a new bridge, unless it was strong enough to allow tractor trailers to cross.
“The first selectman said if the town wants to build a weight-limited bridge, it would have to pay for itself,” the story concluded.
(“06880” has followed the Cribari Bridge controversy since we began posting, in 2009. We’ll keep doing it, for years to come — thanks to reader support. Please click here to donate. Thanks!)
Today there is an additional controversy: no one has yet been able to locate a record of the town transferring ownership of the bridge to the State of Connecticut.
As a Westport taxpayer I have no problem paying for repair and replacement of the bridge as long as we control the size in the design of the tree brick! Most importantly, it should not be open to semi tractor trailer the traffic effect would be devastating to the community as that area is already a traffic nightmare!
Our bridge are designed are determination
Thank you, Dan and Roger, for this revealing history. In 1985, replacement was presented as necessary; the existing bridge subsequently received major work in 1993. That history makes it especially important to examine the evidence behind today’s choices.
Then, Officer Cribari helped neighborhood children cross safely on their way to Saugatuck Elementary School. Today, residents of the surrounding National Register Historic District—including the 35 households at The Saugatuck—walk across the bridge as part of daily life. Last weekend’s bridge-to-bridge bicycle ride illustrated its continuing importance to cyclists, too.
These uses belong at the center of this discussion. A crossing that accommodates large through-trucks raises fundamental questions about the safety and character of a neighborhood where people walk, cycle and live. How would CTDOT protect those everyday activities if the bridge’s present constraints on truck passage were removed?
At the November 12 project update, CTDOT should explain which design standards are legally required, which allow exceptions, and how those choices affect rehabilitation, replacement and truck access. The funding conditions reported in 1985 also deserve a current, documented explanation.
Please attend November 12, 7–8 p.m., at Town Hall. The question is what kind of crossing—and neighborhood—we will have for generations to come.
Projected cost 2030? 125m