Author Archives: Dan Woog

If Westport decides what we want to do with the Cribari Bridge, the state Department of Transportation will listen — and work with us.

If not, they won’t.

That’s the assessment of a civil engineer — not a Westporter — who is very familiar with state bridges and the DOT, and has followed our town’s saga for years.

His view — gleaned from news reports, and watching the Representative Town Meeting (RTM) Zoom session last week — is that most people here agree something must be done to the 143-year-old span.

But after all this time, there is no consensus on what that should be.

No consensus yet on the Cribari Bridge’s future. (Drone photo/John Videler, for Videler Photography)

There are issues with historic integrity (the bridge is on the National Register of Historic Places), structural integrity (it was built when Grover Cleveland was president), traffic, semi-trailers, navigability of the Saugatuck River, and more.

“I get the sense that Westport is not unified in what it wants,” the engineer says. “But it seems like everyone is using DOT as a punching bag.”

In his experience, DOT officials work with municipalities that want to work with it.

Kicking the can down the road won’t work. The bridge won’t last forever.

And if there is a major incident with it, then where would Westport — and the state — be?

The Cribari Bridge is sometimes stuck in the open position. (Photo/Mark Mathias)

One option has been little discussed, he notes: the town purchasing the bridge. In that case, Westport taxpayers would have complete control over its design and traffic.

We’d also be responsible for buying it, and maintaining it — without state and federal funds.

Without going that route, the engineer says, the state must be involved. Westport can’t ignore ConnDOT. Their goal, he says, is a “safe, reliable transit network.”

The engineer is also trying to figure out Westporters’ views on the historical nature of the Cribari Bridge.

If people value it for its history, he says, are they amenable to relocating it to another site, perhaps as a pedestrian span? If not, why not?

“If Westport could wave a magic wand, what would you want?” he asks.

“Probably no one knows. But without Westport being aligned on what they want, it seems very difficult to see this project proceeding. Is that what people want? And what happens then, if something bad happens to the bridge?”

The bottom line, the engineer says, is this: “DOT is coming to the table on March 19.” (That’s the date for a 6 p.m. meeting with residents, at Town Hall.)

“Westport should have a uniform idea of what they want then.” If that happens — and the meeting does not devolve into conflicting ideas and accusations — “DOT would certainly work with the town.”

The engineer knows that complete consensus is probably impossible. But if town officials come up with “a couple” of options” — and tell DOT, “we need this, and it’s okay to compromise a little on that,” a plan can be made.

“If you took DOT out of the room, it doesn’t look like right now Westport knows what it wants,” he reiterates.

“And if the town doesn’t know, how can DOT respond?”

==================================================

Meanwhile, based on news reports and last week’s RTM meeting, the engineer offers his objective summary of the situation.

The 1884 bridge stands at the center of a 2026 traffic management discussion.

The only reason not meeting current design standards is even being considered is the National Historic Preservation Act. It is a legal protection that allows a community to argue that the history of the bridge and the protection of the neighborhood are more important than the DOT’s book of standards.

Without the bridge’s National Register status, there would be little to debate; the bridge would have been replaced with a standard concrete span decades ago. The “gravitas” of the 1884 date is the only reason the “substandard” height remains an option on the table.

The Engineering Reality: After 140+ years of service, the bridge faces a critical intersection of structural decay and functional obsolescence. Routine inspections have identified severe corrosion and collision damage. Current vehicular weight limits are restricted to 20 tons — half the modern standard — affecting the routing of school buses and emergency apparatus. The bridge’s 19.5-foot width and 12′ 10″ vertical clearance fall significantly below modern safety standards, leading to frequent sideswipe accidents and truss strikes.

The Crux of the Dilemma: To the state DOT, these metrics represent a failure of its mission to provide a safe, efficient, and resilient transportation network. From a management perspective, full replacement would likely seem the most defensible path. It secures a 75-year design life, meets federal safety standards, and eliminates the state’s liability for maintaining a “substandard” structure.

To the community, however, the bridge’s deficiencies are viewed as its most vital features. The low vertical clearance acts as a physical obstacle that prevents large tractor-trailers from using Route 136 as a bypass for I-95. Residents fear that a modern bridge, built to standard heights, will fundamentally transform a residential village.

Traffic is a concern on the Cribari Bridge.

Alternatives

Full Replacement (likely DOT-preferred): A new bridge, likely designed as a “High-Fidelity Replica” to satisfy historic preservation needs. It would meet all modern height, weight, and flood-resiliency standards.

Adaptive Rehabilitation (resident-preferred): Would involve “splitting and widening” the original trusses. This would improve roadway safety and add bike lanes, while intentionally preserving the 12′ 10″ height to continue blocking heavy truck traffic.

The Adaptive Rehabilitation proposal is a paradox: It seeks to meet modern standards for width, while refusing them for height. For DOT, accepting this requires a “Design Exception” that shifts long-term liability and maintenance risks to the state for a structure that remains intentionally restricted.

Progress depends on uncoupling the bridge design from traffic enforcement.

In addition, the Saugatuck River is a navigable waterway. Under federal law, the bridge owner is legally mandated to open the bridge for marine traffic.

From an objective engineering standpoint: There is no technical justification for an intentional height restriction on a state-maintained route.

However, the “inevitability” hits a legal wall called Section 4(f). Because the bridge is a National Historic Resource, federal law says the DOT cannot replace it simply because it’s “the most sensible use of funds.” They must prove that every other alternative is “not prudent.”

This may become a battle over whether “Historic Preservation” and “Community Character” are legally allowed to override “Design Standards.” Some in Westport may be betting that the answer is yes.

A little bridge causes big controversy.