Last night, the state Department of Transportation told Westport what many long suspected: It will move forward with its “on-alignment replacement” option for the Cribari Bridge.
But, to hearty applause from 200 residents in the Town Hall auditorium, project manager James Barrows also announced that the clearance height would be 13 feet, 10 inches.
That’s 2 feet, 5 inches lower than the 16 feet, 3 inches originally proposed. Still, the reduced height would allow tractor trailers onto the 142-year-old span.
CTDOT’s on-alignment option.
A number of speakers urged CTDOT to shave another 6 inches off the bridge, to prohibit the largest trucks from traveling through Saugatuck, and Greens Farms Road and Bridge Street, when I-95 is clogged.
Trucks and traffic were the predominant themes at the meeting, which DOT officials noted was not mandatory in the planning process. It was scheduled as a follow-up to a Town Hall session last March.
In its aftermath, 833 residents wrote and called the state department with comments. Barrows said that all had been “carefully considered,” in devising the current plan.
Connecticut Department of Transportation project manager James Barrows. (Photo/Dan Woog)
The top 3 concerns of residents — including the bulk of those 833 comments — were truck usage, traffic and historic preservation.
Other issues included public health, bridge design, quality of life, process, the environment, economic impact, pedestrian and bike safety, and marine navigation.
Offering photos that showed substantial deterioration to the underside and pilings of the Cribari Bridge, Barrows noted the importance of renovation to ensure safety for motorists, bicyclists, pedestrians and boaters.
Deterioration of the Cribari Bridge.
No decision will be final until the Federal Highway Administration — which is funding 80% of the $78 million to $86 million project — gives its okay.
Residents urged CTDOT — which will pay the other 20% — to extend its November 27 deadline for comments on the on-alignment plan. Barrows seemed amenable, while noting that requests for federal funding have deadlines too.
The 3-year timeline includes construction of a temporary bridge just north of the existing one. A similar structure was built in the early 1990s, the last time the bridge was substantially renovated.
CTDOT slide showing a temporary bridge.
Barrows and other CTDOT officials noted several times that while their plan involves the bridge structure — its trusses, roadway, underside and more — the town of Westport has the right to impose restrictions on use of bridge.
That would be done through the local traffic authority: the board of selectpersons.
The project manager said, however, that physical restrictions could pose safety issues.
The 20-minute presentation was followed by more than 2 dozen public comments.
In brief remarks, 1st Selectman Kevin Christie said he looked forward to working with CTDOT.
1st Selectman Kevin Christie. (Photo/Dan Woog)
He was followed by Melissa Levy, chair of the Representative Town Meeting (RTM) Cribari Bridge Subcommittee. She focused on Westport’s role in the process going forward, and how the town could continue to influence CTDOT’s plans.
The first speakers were from “Westport United — One Voice.” The ad hoc group — including the RTM Transit Committee, nearly 2 dozen town leaders from both parties, and 7 community organizations and coalitions — released a statement yesterday, urging Governor Lamont, CTDOT an the FHA to “protect surrounding neighborhoods from increased truck traffic and other unintended transportation impacts.”
Valerie Seiling Jacobs, Morley Boyd, Chris Tait, Art Schoeller, Werner Liepolt and Matthew Mandell — representing Save Westport Now, Preserve Westport, the Greens Farms Association and more — focused on one aspect each of the bridge debate, including traffic, health and historic considerations.
A slide last night included this scene from Westport artist Robert Lambdin’s WPA mural. It shows the importance of the Cribari Bridge to the commerce of the community.
Traffic, congestion and associated quality of life issues were top of mind for many of the residents who followed. Linda Prestegaard told DOT, “I don’t believe your traffic studies.”
Bridge Street homeowner Shannon Taylor added, “I don’t need a traffic study. I can look out my window and see what’s happening.”
Speakers described the 5-mile corridor (red) from I-95 exit 17 over the Cribari Bridge (far left), through Bridge Street and Greens Farms Road toward I-95 exit 18.
(Since we began in 2009, “06880” has reported on the Cribari Bridge. We’ll continue to do so — with reader support. Please click here, to donate to this hyper-local blog. Thank you!)
Going into last night’s meeting, the DOT likely thought its offer to limit the replacement span to 13’10” was genius. But it didn’t survive contact with natives. Tractor trailers are 13’6″. Just for starters, DOT needs to push its comment deadline from the day after Thanksgiving to January. And then we need to have an actual conversation at an actual table about the future of this bridge. No more infomercials or weird scripts written by someone else. Just people in a room speaking plainly.
At CTDOT’s May 5, 2025 invitational meeting, the preferred replacement plan that CTDOT presented last night was announced. There was little change. In 2025 one of the engineers who spoke last night repeatedly assured us that our concerns were “duly noted.” Last night, hearing the same engineer’s responses and rebuttals, I questioned what “duly noted” means in practice.
Some two dozen speakers—residents, elected representatives and community organizations—spoke with remarkable unity: physically prevent large trucks from using this crossing and traveling through Bridge Street, Imperial Avenue and Greens Farms Road. Were their comments “duly noted?”
The reduced clearance announced was welcomed with applause that quickly died when CTDOT acknowledged that it would still accommodate tractor trailers.
Referring residents to town-imposed restrictions does not answer their request for a physical limit. Presenting roadway changes clearly designed to facillitate (not limit) highway truck traffic exacerbates the pedestrian crossing dangers CTDOT has already inflicted on our residential community. Ignoring historical significance, the adverse effects of diesel pollution, and app directed traffic routes, indicates that “duly noted” does not mean much. “Duly noted” should mean more than repeating a placating phrase uttered to avoid responsibility,
Glad to hear this project is moving forward! So sick of the almost-daily traffic jams and near-miss accidents that result from too-wide Gault trucks, schoolbuses, box and cargo trucks, and cyclists trying to get across this outdated, narrow bridge. Now let’s just fix that intersection.
I’d love to see the historic swing bridge reinstalled as a pedestrian span somewhere else in Westport, e.g. to connect the two sides of the river downtown as was once a goal in our sadly seemingly-abandoned effort to shift our riverfront from a desolate parking lot and dumpster repository to something the town’s residents might actually enjoy.
The answer seems pretty simple. If Westport wants the bridge design to physically limit passage of trucks, the town should just ask for the bridge to be given to them and the town can pick up the tab for future repairs and maintenance.
Maybe there is someone that will provide some sort of historic preservation grant to pay for it all.
It appears the bridge already belongs to Westport.
They previously reported that ownership is unclear since it may or may not have transfered decades ago. If the town’s position is to keep 18-wheelers off Greens Farms Road, why isn’t there a movement by now to challenge ownership? Or is that not the town’s position? Does anyone who attended the meeting know?
Can you substantiate that statement. It should be a yes or no. “It appears” seems to be based on the possibility that the bridge is owned by the town or not? If you have definitive knowledge that is documented or official memorialized it would shed some light on the issue. You generally have accurate historical knowledge. What clarifies and eliminates the phrase “It appears” and changes the script to based on these “official records” we have definitive proof that the bridge is owned by the town. Without that it’s only a “two-legged desk” statement.
Jamie, I understand your frustration. But I don’t want to make a declarive statement when I can’t back it up with confidence. I wrote that “it appears the town owns the bridge” for the simple reason that it has a deed to it from 1869 (Book 11, p.645) and nobody who has taken the time to look has yet been able to locate a single document after that date indicating a transfer to the State of Connecticut. Nobody. That notwithstanding, I STILL qualified my comment because it’s certainly possible that a document showing the State of Connecticut as a grantee exists – or once existed – and has been lost, misfiled or not recorded at all. It happens. Moreover, it may be possible that the state acquired the bridge via some other act or instrument. And on that note, you should know that all efforts to clarify this matter with state have been met with silence. Consequently, with facts before us at this moment, it’s not a yes or a no. Feel free to call me if you wish to know more.
For years, I too assumed that the State owned the bridge. I am now skeptical of that assumption—not convinced that the Town owns it, but concerned that the documentary basis for State ownership has not been produced.
I have filed a Freedom of Information request with the State seeking specific documentation establishing ownership, including any deed, legislative act, or other instrument transferring or vesting title. I am awaiting a response.
Morley’s qualification is appropriate. The absence of a transfer document does not, by itself, settle ownership. But ownership and the authority to act should be established through official records before demolition or any transfer of the bridge—not left as assumptions.
Curious about tractor trailer trucks making the turns coming off the bridge. Namely, Bridge St. onto Riverside left or right. Riverside onto Charles St. Riverside onto Saugatuck Ave. (the hard left by the VFW)..And Charles and Saugatuck Ave. (that hill by Rikos) I think trucks bottom out on that..My point is that I don’t think t/t rucks can make the turns. Has this been discussed?
DOT plans call for modification of the Bridge Street/Riverside intersection to better accommodate tractor trailers.
over and over and over again
Dave, the existing tight turns should not be assumed to keep tractor-trailers out. As Morley notes above, CTDOT’s proposal includes modifying the Bridge Street/Riverside Avenue intersection to accommodate them. Your questions about the other turns—and trucks bottoming out—also deserve documented answers.
But making turns easier for large trucks raises another question: what happens to people using this heavily traveled pedestrian crossing?
Ben Meyer previously reported here that a longtime Westport traffic officer helping pedestrians and commuters, said he was frequently “brushed” by cars while working. That is a sobering warning about existing conditions.
Before widening the turn onto Bridge Street, CTDOT should demonstrate how its design would protect pedestrians and whether accommodating tractor-trailers would increase their exposure to turning vehicles. Getting a truck around the corner is only part of the safety question.
This story has remained unchanged for more than two decades. Everyone kicks the can down the road because they prefer the status quo, but eventually the bridge is gonna fail.
If DOT is paying the bill, there will be 18 wheelers. If Westport wants to pay the bill, they can keep it restricted.
For $100M I’d rather replace Coley Elementary school than own a bridge because we want to protect a few neighbors.
David, the deterioration CTDOT displayed makes the need for action clear. It also raises a question: what maintenance and timely repairs could have prevented the bridge from reaching this condition? Before treating replacement as inevitable, CTDOT should explain its maintenance record and how deferred repairs have affected today’s options and costs.
Nor does protecting the neighborhood mean preserving the status quo. Residents are asking for a safe, properly maintained crossing that does not open connecting residential roads to tractor-trailer diversion from I-95. That concerns pedestrians, cyclists, commuters and businesses throughout the corridor—not simply “a few neighbors.”
The assertion that public funding necessarily means accommodating 18-wheelers also needs evidence. CTDOT and FHWA should identify the actual requirements and explain what options exist for a physically restricted crossing.
I want to make a stand-alone comment on this matter, BUT I do want to address David’s inaccurate comment.
This isn’t about “a few neighbors.” Even today, Waze sends people down Greens Farms Road as an alternative to 95 or Post. At rush hour, there is already a chain of cars the length of Greens Farms Road from the Bridge until it turns into Kings Highway West before hitting Post Rd (across from Organika Kitchen, if the landmark helps). Some of this traffic forks right at Beachside to continue through Southport to Fairfield.
This impacts the lives of hundreds of residents already. It would be absolutely terrible to add tractor trailers to the problem. Greens Farms Rd alone is nearly three miles long with 112 (mostly residential) individual properties.
The dismissive comment is embarrassing – though an expression of his belief that any dollar spent on anything other than the schools is a waste of money is on-point for David. I hope everyone enjoyed the double-digit residential property tax increase this year. The David’s of the world would have it happening again, sooner than later.
Breeders like David love seeing other tax payers footing the bill for their kid’s education, while begrudging their neighbors any direct benefit from Town, if it gets in the way of what they want. How about being less selfish and think about proportional use of resources?
Saw the team from our friends at KMS Compass knocking and leaving flyers on Bridge St. homes today 🙂 (too early?)
I might be missing this in the details somewhere: Will there still a sidewalk to walk across the bridge?
Yes. It is shown in the first picture on the north side of the bridge.
I don’t want to see truck traffic loosed upon Greens Farms Road more than anyone else does.
But I think that it is a strategic mistake to make the dubious ownership claim an issue. Just as I think that it is a mistake to make any “historic” aspect to the bridge an issue. This is a substandard piece of infrastructure that needs to be improved.
These kinds of arguments come off as obstructionist distractions more than bona fide concerns, and likely don’t help the cause of limiting bridge capacity for the benefit of a large swath of residents.
I would encourage everyone to stay on-message. We are trying to protect our Town. If the State doesn’t care, then we look at how we can take over the job ourselves. But, in the meantime, it behooves us to attempt to get the State to appreciate our concerns and include them in a resolution that the State pays for, if that is possible.
Oh and by the way I am assuming that no one has missed that the planning for trucks turning and using the CTDOT preferred alternative indicates that CTDOT know and welcomes trucks’ use of the result and completely gives the lie to their “assumption” that truckers would not choose to route over the bridge. But perhaps I need to emphasize that CTDOT knows that truckers will choose the Greens Farms road/ Bridge Street route when I-95 traffic is heavy. They just don’t admit it