Tonight, there’s a Zoom meeting organized by several Representative Town Meeting members to discuss the Cribari Bridge (7 p.m., Zoom). The public is invited; click here for the link.
This afternoon, Save Westport Now co-chairs Valerie Seiling Jacobs and Ian Warburg released an open letter to Westporters. They say:
Contrary to the state Department of Transportation’s claims, not all bridges need to be rebuilt to current standards in order to remain safe and functional.
At least 2 other historic bridges in Connecticut have been successfully rehabilitated by DOT — without bringing them up to current code. In other words, there is a way to balance modern transportation needs with historic preservation.
That is not just a preservationist talking point. That is the key point in the Cribari Bridge debate.
And it is consistent with CTDOT’s own historic bridge framework.
In CTDOT’s 2002 “Historic Bridge Inventory Update,” the agency explains that the inventory is designed not only to identify historic bridges, but also to guide treatment in ways that avoid adverse effects and support proper review under federal historic-preservation law.
It also references CTDOT’s earlier Historic Bridge Inventory and Preservation Plan, which specifically addressed how to avoid adverse effects to historic bridges.
That matters because the Cribari Bridge is not a generic piece of infrastructure. It is listed on the National Register of Historic Places, and sits within the Bridge Street Historic District.
Yet despite repeated statements that no final decision has been made, the process appears to be moving toward a demolition-and-replacement outcome that would produce a much larger bridge, with a very different traffic profile.
Let’s be blunt: A bigger bridge is not just a bridge design decision. It is a traffic decision.
If Westport allows a larger, highway-scaled replacement that can more easily accommodate heavy vehicles, we should not be surprised when more I-95 spillover traffic — including trucks — is funneled onto local roads.
Bridge Street and Greens Farms Road were not designed to serve as an informal regional bypass. They are neighborhood roads used by residents, pedestrians, cyclists, school buses and local businesses.
Bridge Street traffic. (Photo/Werner Liepolt)
This is where the debate has been too narrow. We are not just being asked whether we want an old bridge or a new bridge. We are being asked whether Westport will accept a state project that could change the function of this corridor, making it more attractive for non-local through traffic while the consequences are borne by Saugatuck and Greens Farms.
Westport Journal reported that the state’s environmental assessment reviewed 5 alternatives (including 2 rehabilitation options and 2 replacement options), and that CTDOT/Federal Highway Administration identified replacement alternatives as best able to address structural and functional issues while improving sidewalks, bike access, and mobility.
It also reported an estimated $78–$86 million cost and roughly 3-year construction duration for in-place replacement. Those are serious considerations.
But they do not answer the central questions Westporters are asking:
- Why is a context-sensitive rehabilitation alternative not getting full, good-faith evaluation?
- Why is the likely effect on local traffic patterns — including truck cut-through — not front and center?
- Why does a historic bridge in a historic district seem to be treated as though standardization is the only responsible option?
Cribari Bridge (Photo/Patricia McMahon)
CTDOT’s own historic bridge work undermines that “one-size-fits-all” narrative.
In its 2022 update, CTDOT explicitly distinguished between ordinary bridges and those requiring additional consideration. The report identified common-type bridges in or adjacent to historic districts, and separately screened for “exceptional” bridges whose design, aesthetics or context warranted special treatment.
In other words, CTDOT’s own framework recognizes what residents have been saying all along: Context, scale, and design matter.
The report’s own examples prove the point. CTDOT flagged as “exceptional” bridges like:
- West Cornwall Covered Bridge (award-winning CTDOT preservation example)
- Bridge 00658 in Hamden (Route 15 over Whitney Avenue), noted for ornamental features and parkway context
- Bridge 00796 in Wallingford (Yale Avenue over Route 15), recognized for aesthetic treatment
- Bridge 03697 in Fairfield (Brookside Drive over the Mill River), a modest concrete slab bridge set apart in part because of ornamental railing and visual character.
West Cornwall Covered Bridge
If those bridges merit heightened sensitivity because of design and context, how can Cribari — a nationally recognized bridge in a historic district — be denied the same seriousness?
CTDOT’s report also includes Westport’s own Saugatuck River Swing Bridge (Bridge No. 01349) among previously listed National Register bridges reviewed in the update, and it notes that CTDOT’s actions over prior decades helped preserve Connecticut’s engineering heritage as reflected in its bridges.
Westport should insist that this preservation ethic apply to the Cribari Bridge now — not just in retrospective reports.
We support safety improvements. We support better pedestrian and bicycle access. We support long-term infrastructure reliability. But Westport should reject the false choice between “do nothing” and “build a bigger bridge that changes the corridor.”
Cribari Bridge, at Riverside Avenue.
The town should formally demand evaluation of an Adaptive Rehabilitation Alternative that is engineered for safety and designed to discourage regional cut-through traffic:
- Split-and-widen rehabilitation of the existing truss (not demolition and highway-scaled replacement).
A split-and-widen strategy — used elsewhere on historic truss bridges — can preserve the bridge while improving lane geometry, sidewalks and bike access.
That approach asks the right question: How do we make Cribari safer and more functional, without transforming it into a larger-capacity conduit? Here’s an example: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yys_4XPqbtA
- Narrow crash-rail retrofit instead of bulky highway
There are compliant crash-rail systems designed for historic bridges that improve safety while preserving width, sightlines and visual proportion. Barrier design is not cosmetic. It directly affects whether the bridge remains context-sensitive or becomes a pseudo-highway structure.
- Repair and strengthen piers/buttresses using preservation
If substructure work is needed, do it — but in a way consistent with National Park Service standards for historic resources. Structural integrity and historic integrity are not mutually exclusive. Competent engineering can deliver both.
- Design explicitly for local safety and access — not truck
Westport should insist that any alternative be evaluated for its likely effect on traffic behavior, including whether it would increase the corridor’s attractiveness as an I-95 spillover route for trucks and heavy through traffic. The goal should be safer local use, not a state-engineered invitation for non-local traffic.
First: This is not simply a preservation fight. It is a neighborhood safety, traffic pattern, and quality of life fight.
Second: Process concerns are real. Whatever one thinks about the engineering, the public has every right to demand full transparency, lawful historic review, and genuine consideration of alternatives before the outcome becomes effectively irreversible.
Third: Westporters are paying attention. A petition seeking greater oversight and federal review has now passed 1,000 signatures. That level of concern is not noise. It is a warning that residents believe the process is moving too fast and the stakes are too high.
This is not a choice between history and safety. It is a choice about whether Westport will settle for a state solution that may make our neighborhoods less safe and more congested — or insist on one that protects safety, lawful process, historic character and sensible local traffic patterns, including discouraging truck cut-through from I-95 spillover.
A public hearing is scheduled for March 19 at Westport Town Hall. Public comments run through April 17. If you care about Saugatuck, Greens Farms, and how major decisions get made in this town, now is the time to show up and speak up.
(“06880” Opinion pages are open to all. Please email submissions to 06880blog@gmail.com.)
“06880” covers the news — and offers readers many ways to react to it. We hope you’ll support our efforts, by clicking here. Thank you!)
Timing is everything. In the last few days, hearing from concerned residents regarding the bridge, RTM Districts 1, 4 and 9, as the closest districts to the bridge, were planning to have a public meeting to discuss the bridge.
