Tag Archives: Connecticut Department of Transportation

[OPINION] Cribari Committee Must Insist On “Honest Process”

Posted on April 12, 2026 | 10 comments

Werner Liepolt is a longtime Bridge Street resident. He writes:

On Thursday, 1st Selectman Kevin Christie announced a Cribari Bridge Advisory Committee.

That may sound reassuring.

But before anyone applauds, one question should be asked: Is this committee being formed to scrutinize the state’s process — or simply to give local cover to a decision already being pushed forward on an outdated record?

Because that is where things stand.

The state is moving toward a consequential decision on the future of the Cribari Bridge while relying on what it calls an “updated” Environmental Assessment that is, on close reading, still essentially the same document prepared in 2020.

First meeting of the Cribari Bridge Advisory Committee, in 2018. A new committee will soon be formed.

And Connecticut Department of Transportation officials say that kind of document has a shelf life of only 2 to 3 years.

So let’s stop pretending the issue is only what kind of bridge gets built.

The issue is whether Westport is being asked to accept a 2026 decision based on stale assumptions, stale analysis, and a process that no longer matches present reality.

I attended the first meeting of CTDOT’s Planning Advisory Committee in July 2018 as a federally recognized consulting party, because I live in the Bridge Street National Register Historic District.

At that meeting, CTDOT made the standard clear: Environmental Assessments do not last forever. After roughly 2 to three3 years, they must be revisited to account for changing conditions.

That was then.

At the March 19, 2026 public hearing, CTDOT presented a February 2026 version of the Environmental Assessment that appears to be little more than the 2020 document with a new date.

Cribari Bridge (Photo/Fred Cantor)

Yet the process rolls on:

  • Preferred alternative identified.
  • Public comment period underway.
  • Town leaders urged to engage.
  • Residents told their voices matter.

Fine. Then the first thing this new advisory committee should ask is obvious: Why is Westport being asked to react to a decision framework built on an expired study?

This matters because the bridge does not sit in some abstract engineering zone.

It sits in the Bridge Street Historic District, where setting, views, scale and patterns of neighborhood life are part of what is protected.

It also connects directly to Route 136 Scenic Highway, where preservation of visual character is not a sentimental talking point but part of the public purpose of the designation.

Start of the Route 136 Scenic Highway.

Since 2020, the surrounding conditions have plainly changed.

  • COVID transformed our demographic and altered our work habits.
  • Traffic patterns are different.
  • Navigation apps now push drivers through residential streets in real time.
  • Greens Farms Road already functions, at key hours, as a pressure valve for I-95 congestion.
  • Development in Saugatuck has intensified.

And nearby infrastructure changes raise entirely foreseeable questions about whether this corridor is being transformed, in practice, into something far more consequential than CTDOT’s analysis admits.

Residents do not need a consultant or an advisory committee to tell them that conditions have changed.

They live them.

What makes this even harder to defend is that the project’s own visual analysis appears partial. The review described in the current materials does not meaningfully capture winter visibility from elevated homes within the historic district, even though those views are part of the setting that gives the district its character.

The Bridge Street streetscape changes with the seasons.

So no, this is not just a procedural quibble.

It goes to the integrity of the entire decision-making process.

Because when a study is outdated, everything built on it becomes suspect: the alternatives analysis, the impact claims, the traffic assumptions, the mitigation discussion, and the town’s ability to say honestly that it has evaluated current conditions.

That is why the new advisory committee matters.

Not as a public-relations device.

Not as a way to calm people down.

Not as a stage on which local officials can appear engaged while the real framework remains untouched.

It matters only if it is willing to say, clearly and publicly, that Westport should not be boxed into commenting on a preferred option grounded in a stale Environmental Assessment.

Part of the state’s assessment of the Cribari Bridge.

Westport’s elected officials should be careful here.

A committee can be a tool for real scrutiny.

It can also be a way to absorb public anger while avoiding the central issue.

If this committee is serious, it should demand answers to a few basic questions immediately:

  • Why is a 2020 Environmental Assessment still serving as the foundation for a 2026 decision?
  • What exactly was reevaluated, and what was merely repackaged?
  • How were post-2020 traffic changes actually studied?
  • How were cumulative corridor impacts assessed?
  • Why should residents trust a process that appears to have updated the cover more than the analysis?

Those are not anti-bridge questions.

They are pro-accountability questions.

No one is asking for delay for delay’s sake.

What people are asking for is something much more modest and much more reasonable: that before Westport lends its name, its cooperation, or its political cover to this process, someone in authority insists that the underlying record reflect the world as it exists now — not as it looked 5 or 6 years ago.

The Cribari Bridge, in 2019. (Drone photo John Videler, for Videler Photography)

More than 1,600 people have signed a petition calling for federal oversight on the protection of Westport and the nation’s historic resources.

The March 19 hearing drew a packed room and a near unanimous, clear mandate.

The public has spoken with unusual clarity at the sole public hearing CTDOT has conducted on this project.

Now the question is whether this advisory committee will do anything more difficult than listen.

Because in the end, this is not just about what replaces the Cribari Bridge.

It is about whether Westport’s leaders will insist on an honest process — or help legitimize one that is already past its shelf life.

(“06880” Opinion pages are open to all. Email submissions to 06880blog@gmail.com. To support this hyper-local blog with a tax-deductible contribution, please click here.)

10 Comments

Posted in Local politics, Politics, Saugatuck, Transportation

Tagged , ,

[OPINION] Traffic Apps Care About Algorithms, Not Neighborhoods

Posted on April 2, 2026 | 15 comments

As a longtime Bridge Street resident, Werner Liepolt has a front-porch view of traffic — including the vehicles that apps like Waze send past his house. He writes:

Take a look at Westport the way a navigation algorithm does.

I-95: Thursday, March 26, 9 p.m.

It sees not a collection of neighborhoods — but a network.

Because that’s how today’s traffic actually moves.

From the Waze-eye view, the logic is clear. Waze sees traffic speed and volume, but it doesn’t reliably see or respect local rules and human factors that shape safe and appropriate traffic patterns.

Waze emojis and avatars — “Moods” — represent “Wazers:” happy, fast, or stuck in traffic. Other icons indicate real-time reports, crashes, hazards and police.

Waze does not consistently indicate local thru-truck prohibitions. Neither school bus stops nor routes are accounted for. Ditto cyclists, crosswalks and pedestrian activity.

And Waze of course has no way of measuring or reporting long time and cumulative effects of traffic noise, pollution, aesthetic impact or vibration damage.

Waze also ignores narrow streets and historic districts — for example, the Bridge Street National Register Historic District.

The Cribari Bridge is not isolated. It connects directly to a sequence of roads that carry traffic eastward through Westport.

From the Waze eye view, the logic is clear.

The William F. Cribari Memorial Bridge connects Riverside Avenue’s commercial district directly to Bridge Street (Route 136), feeding traffic into a residential corridor that continues inland. What appears to be a local crossing is, in fact, a key link in a broader east–west route.

Now look a few miles away.

Individually, these are routine infrastructure projects.

Together, they form something much more consequential.

Just east of Westport, the Sasco Creek Bridge sits on Greens Farms Road near the Post Road and I-95 Exit 19. The Connecticut Department of Transportation proposes removing a major constraint at the eastern end of the same corridor.

CTDOT is:

  • Likely increasing load capacity at Sasco Creek. The design drawings show a full-capacity structure capable of carrying legal truck traffic.
  • Removing geometric constraints and increasing load capacity at the Cribari Bridge, making it capable of handling legal truck traffic.

Yet the Environmental Assessment of the Cribari Bridge assumes trucks will not use this route — without analyzing what happens once both bridges in this corridor are upgraded,

That creates a continuous, higher-capacity east-west route from Fairfield on the Old Kings Highway through Westport on Greens Farms Road and Bridge Street to Saugatuck — closely paralleling I-95 between Exits 18 and 19.

This is not speculation. It is visible on the map. The Sasco Bridge CTDOT Project 0158-0218 is already underway. The hearings concluded in 2021.

They concluded about the time the Environmental Assessment for CTDOT project 0158-0214 (the Cribari Bridge) was being written. Now the hearings and time for public comment on that project will end on April 17.

Combined, these CTDOT projects should broaden the Cribari Bridge Area of Potential Effect to the entire I-95-Greens Farms Road corridor.

Navigation apps do not consider whether a road is “appropriate” for through traffic.

They calculate the fastest route.

When I-95 backs up — as it often does — these systems will route drivers off the highway, send them across Sasco Creek, through Greens Farms and Bridge Street, over the Cribari Bridge, and back toward the highway or local destinations.

Once weight limits and geometric constraints are removed, this corridor becomes accessible, continuous, and visible to routing algorithms.

At that point, it will be used.

The Environmental Assessment for the Cribari Bridge suggests that trucks and through-traffic will not find this route “desirable.”

But that assumption belongs to an earlier era.

Today, traffic patterns are shaped not just by drivers, but by software. And software does not share local sensibilities.

Nowhere does the Environmental Assessment meaningfully examine:

  • The combined effect of upgrading both bridges
  • Diversion from I-95 during congestion
  • The role of real-time navigation systems
  • Impacts on residential streets and safety

Instead, the project is evaluated as if each bridge exists in isolation. It does not.

If this corridor begins to function as an alternative to I-95, the consequences will be felt across Westport:

  • Increased traffic through residential neighborhoods
  • Safety concerns for pedestrians and cyclists
  • Noise and air quality impacts
  • Changes to the character of a federally recognized historic district

These are precisely the kinds of indirect and cumulative effects that federal law requires agencies to consider.

No complex modeling is needed to understand the risk. The map already shows:

  • A connected route
  • Fewer constraints
  • A faster alternative to a congested highway
  • Numerous Waze alternative routes from the Post Rd and through residential neighborhoods south of the Post Road

The question is not whether traffic will use the corridor. The question is why the state has not fully evaluated that possibility.

Public comment on the Cribari Bridge project is open through April 17. Submitted comments make a difference and must be counted under FHWA regulations. Comments can be submitted here or by voicemail: (860) 594-2020. (reference State Project No. 0158-0214). Written comments can be mailed to: James Barrows, 2800 Berlin Turnpike, P.O. Box 317546, Newington CT 06131-7546.

(Our “Opinion” pages are open to all. Email submissions to 06880blog@gmail.com. To support our work, please click here. Thank you!)

15 Comments

Posted in Politics, Saugatuck, Transportation

Tagged , , , ,

A Tale Of 2 Bridges: CTDOT Considers Downtown Span Too

Posted on April 1, 2026 | 13 comments

One often-overlooked element of the discussion on the future of the Cribari Bridge is climate change.

As the Saugatuck River rises by a few inches over the next decades, clearance under the 143-year-ol span will diminish.

The state Department of Transportation is considering that, in its plans for rehabilitation or replacement.

But the rise will not be confined to the Cribari Bridge alone.

Consider the Ruth Steinkraus Cohen Bridge downtown.

Very little river traffic now passes underneath the Post Road — a few kayaks and canoes, mostly at low tide.

But CTDOT is looking ahead.

A project (formally #0158-0980) would replace the current structure with a drawbridge:

Artist’s rendering of proposed Ruth Steinkraus Cohen Bridge drawbridge.

Steve Lance — the “06880” reader who spotted the plan, while searching for information on the Cribari Bridge — reached out to CTDOT.

James Barrows, who serves as manager for the Cribari project, responded.

“Work would not begin until #0158-0214 (the Cribari Bridge) is completed,” he said. “CTDOT would not want to disrupt traffic on two major crossings simultaneously.

“However, we see it as an important next component in making the Saugatuck River navigable as far upriver as possible.”

Barrows said that while the drawbridge would initially be open only far occasional traffic, it could adopt a regular schedule to allow more watercraft to pass through than currently do.

He noted that the entire operation would take “only 6 to 8 minutes.” Traffic disruption would be “minimal,” he said.

Barrows — who was at DOT’s recent public meeting at Town Hall — said, “our intention is to involve residents, business owners and other stakeholders as early and often as possible” in the project planning.

Click here to see the full report. A link is included in the report for preliminary comments.

(“06880” will follow this story — as we do all that impact Westport. Please click here, to help us continue our work. Thank you!)

13 Comments

Posted in Downtown, Local politics, Politics, Transportation

Tagged , ,

[OPINION] Explaining The Cribari Bridge Process

Posted on March 24, 2026 | 3 comments

As a Bridge Street resident, Werner Liepolt has followed the Cribari Bridge project closely. He writes:

Many people in Westport wonder: Could this project change the kind of traffic that moves through our neighborhood — especially trucks?

It’s a legitimate question. And it’s more important than it might seem, because the answer is not just a matter of opinion or preference. It is supposed to be part of a federal review process.

Westport has been here before. From the construction of I-95 to earlier debates over the bridge itself, residents have long wrestled with how large infrastructure decisions affect the character of their neighborhoods. Past leaders have emphasized the importance of seeing full information and hearing public input before major decisions are made.

The Cribari Bridge. (Photo/Wendy Crowther)

That expectation — that process should be clear, transparent and responsive — remains just as important today.

Four key groups are involved in the process.

The Connecticut Department of Transportation (CTDOT) designs the project and prepares the Environmental Assessment, and identifies potential impacts (traffic, right-of-way, neighborhood effects).

The State Historic Preservation Office reviews impacts on historic properties and districts, and participates in Section 106 consultation.

The Federal Highway Administration ensures compliance with federal law; oversees environmental and public review, and must consider and respond to public comments before decisions are made.

The public (residents and consulting parties) provides comments and local knowledge; raises concerns, and becomes part of the official record agencies must consider.

Each of these roles matters. The process works best when every part is carried out fully and transparently.

One way to make sense of the process is to translate the terminology into plain language.

A federal law (the National Environmental Policy Act)requires that before a project is approved, agencies must look carefully not just at what will be built, but at what may change because it is built.

That includes traffic patterns, safety, noise, and how a place is experienced over time.

So when residents ask whether a new bridge might change traffic — possibly including truck patterns — that is not outside the process. It  is the kind of question the process is supposed to answer.

When there is an issue on I-95, traffic backs up on Bridge Street. (Photo/Werner Liepolt)

At the March 19 public hearing, another issue brought the question of process into sharper focus.

It surprised many to hear that approximately 10 properties and a dock may be affected by right-of-way acquisition. Yet no map or specific identification of those properties was presented.

Moments like that can be unsettling — not because projects never have impacts, but because understanding those impacts is essential to meaningful public participation.

When information emerges late or without clear context, residents may wonder whether they are seeing the full picture, or how their own property or neighborhood might be affected.

That too is part of what the review process is intended to address: ensuring that potential impacts are clearly identified and available for public understanding before decisions are finalized.

Because Cribari sits within the Bridge Street Historic District, another federal requirement also applies: Section 106.

Bridge Street is part of a Historic District.

This part of the process asks a different but related question: How might a project affect not just a structure, but the character of a historic place?

To answer that, agencies define an Area of Potential Effects — the area where the project could reasonably have an impact.

If a project could change traffic patterns beyond the immediate footprint of the bridge, it is reasonable to ask whether the area being studied should also be broader.

If right-of-way acquisition is under consideration, it may also be appropriate to consider whether those properties should be clearly identified and included in the analysis.

There is also a sequence to how these decisions are supposed to be made. The process is not decide → build → address concerns later.

Instead, it is meant to proceed in this order:

  1. Avoid impacts where possible.
  2. Minimize impacts where they cannot be avoided.
  3. Mitigate impacts as a last step.

If that sounds like common sense, it is. It is also federal regulation.

At a December 18 meeting, discussion appeared to move quickly toward potential mitigation measures associated with a replacement bridge. Options such as relocating the existing structure were raised, and demolition was referenced as an alternative.

While mitigation is an important part of the process, it is intended to follow a full consideration of ways to avoid or minimize impacts. When the conversation centers on mitigation before those earlier steps are clearly resolved, it can give the impression that key outcomes are already taking shape, rather than remaining open to evaluation.

The Cribari Bridge is 143 years old. (Photo/Robbie Guimond)

A petition requesting federal oversight of this process has gathered about 1,500 signatures in a matter of weeks.

The purpose of that petition is sometimes misunderstood. It is not asking that a particular outcome be imposed, nor is it opposing infrastructure improvement.

Rather, it reflects a shared concern that potential impacts — especially those that extend beyond the bridge itself — be fully and transparently evaluated before decisions are made.

It is a request that the existing federal review process be applied as intended.

As the Cribari Bridge project has evolved, the design has become more defined and more aligned with current engineering standards. That is a natural and expected part of any infrastructure project.

At the same time, some residents are asking whether the analysis of potential impacts — particularly indirect effects like changes in traffic — has evolved at the same pace.

That is not an argument against the project. It is a question about whether the process is keeping up with the project.

It is also understandable that some residents feel the process can be difficult to follow, or that decisions may be moving ahead of public understanding.

At the beginning of the March 19 public comment session, attendees were directed to provide comments at tables for transcription. As the session unfolded, speakers instead came forward to the podium to offer comments directly.

Moments like this can add to uncertainty about how best to participate. Clarity in how public input is received is an important part of ensuring that residents feel their voices are heard — and that their comments become part of the official record.

The public comment period exists for exactly this reason. It is one of the few points at which residents can ask that questions be fully addressed before decisions are finalized, rather than after.

Home page of the Connecticut Department of Transportation Cribari Bridge website.

The comments residents submit become part of the official record that federal agencies are required to review and respond to.

That is how the process is designed to work. It works best when people use it.

You do not need to master the terminology, and you do not need to agree with your neighbor on every point.

But if you are concerned about how this project could affect traffic, safety or the character of the neighborhood, there is a simple and meaningful way to participate: Ask that the impacts be fully studied before decisions are made.

Even a short, clear and respectful comment helps ensure that those concerns are considered as part of the process. Comments become part of the official record that federal agencies must review and respond to before moving forward

In the end, this is not only about a bridge. It is about how decisions are made, how places are understood, and how communities participate in shaping what comes next.

That participation does not require expertise — only a willingness to ask the right questions at the right time.

Public comment on the Cribari Bridge project (#0158-0214) is open through April 17. Comments can be made online (click here); by email (James.Barrows@ct.gov); voicemail (860-594-2020), or mail (James Barrows, 2800 Berlin Turnpike, Newington, CT 06131).

To learn more about the Cribari Bridge project, click here.

(“06880” Opinion pages are open to all. Email submissions to 06880blog@gmail.com. To support our work, please click here. Thank you!)

3 Comments

Posted in Categories, Local politics, Politics, Saugatuck, Transportation

Tagged , , , ,

CTDOT Cribari Bridge Hearing: The Public Speaks

Posted on March 20, 2026 | 8 comments

CTDOT can be flexible.

More than a dozen state Department of Transportation representatives — including deputy commissioner Laoise King — came to Town Hall last night, for a public meeting about the future of the Cribari Bridge.

“Save Saugatuck From Semis” signs greeted residents at Town Hall yesterday.

They offered a dry presentation, focused on structural engineering issues.

The public could comment afterward, they said — but only at a table near the front, speaking individually to a transcriber.

The public howled.

DOT — perceived as inflexible by many residents, during discussions over the past few years about the 143-year-old span — relented.

Residents could indeed step up the microphone and address the entire audience– including the DOT staff — the moderator said.

The public applauded.

Part of the Town Hall crowd last night.

For nearly 2 hours, the public — Representative Town Meeting members, other citizens, even the owner of the small Bridge Street house that once belonged to the bridge tender – spoke.

Nearly all emphasized two things: traffic and safety. Environmental concerns, and fears of damage to homes from the vibrations of semis, were raised too.

Kristen Schneeman — who demanded that she be allowed to speak from the lectern, not the corner table — was first. Her comments set the tone for the night.

The RTM member noted that public opinion has recently converged around 2 needs: preventing tractor-trailer traffic from creating a “fourth lane of I-95 that jeopardizes safety, health, and quality of life well beyond the Bridge Street historic area,” and preserving the historic character of a local icon.

She said that CTDOT’s Highway Design Manual calls on designers to be “imaginative, innovative and flexible,” asking “if the oldest active movable highway bridge in Connecticut does not merit that flexibility, what does?”

RTM member Kristin Purcell and Westport Alliance for Saugatuck member Dara Lamb both said that state officials are encouraging more housing in Saugatuck, as a “Transit-Oriented District.”

Why then, they wondered, should tractor-trailers be added to an already congested area?

RTM member Kristin Mott Purcell.

Greens Farms Association president Art Schoeller called Greens Farms Road “already a go-to pass-through” for I-95. His organization, he said, opposed “any alternative that would allow trucks” in that neighborhood.

Carole Reichhelm drew applause when she thanked CTDOT for their extensive work on the project.

But, she added, “you’ve given waivers and allowed exemptions many times before, for a variety of reasons. Why wouldn’t the Cribari Bridge qualify for one?

“You can’t stop Waze,” she concluded. “But you can stop trucks. We want to work with you on this.”

Morley Boyd of the Westport Preservation Alliance held a copy of the CTDOT’s own Bridge Preservation Plan. (All photos/Dan Woog)

Public comment on the Cribari Bridge project (#0158-0214) is open through April 17.

Comments can be made online (click here); by email (James.Barrows@ct.gov); voicemail (860-594-2020), or mail (James Barrows, 2800 Berlin Turnpike, Newington, CT 06131).

To learn more about the Cribari Bridge project, click here.

8 Comments

Posted in Environment, Local politics, Politics, Saugatuck, Transportation

Tagged , ,

Roundup: Cribari Bridge Meeting Tonight, Basketball Championship Saturday, Memorial Day Parade In May …

Posted on March 19, 2026 | 1 comment

Tonight’s main event — a public meeting about next steps for the Cribari Bridge, with representatives of the state Department of Transportation — begins at 6 p.m., in the Town Hall auditorium.

Can’t be there? It will be livestreamed at www.westportct.gov, and aired on Optimum channel 79.

The Cribari Bridge leads from Saugatuck (above) to Greens Farms. (Photo/John Videler for VidelerPhotography.com)

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

Meanwhile, Saturday’s main event will be the state high school basketball championship.

The Staples boys team — already 2-time FCIAC champions — competes for their first Connecticut crown since 1937.

Tip-off is 8:30 p.m., at Mohegan Sun.

Sure, it’s late — and at the other end of the state. But it’s been nearly a century since Westporters have been able to cheer the Wreckers on in a state boys basketball final.

Go Wreckers! And go Westporters — see you Saturday night at Mohegan Sun!

The Staples boys basketball team. (Photo/Diane Lowman)

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

Looking ahead: The theme for the Memorial Day parade float contest has been announced.

And — looking back — it’s a great one: “250 Years of Honor and Service.

Certificates will be awarded in 6 categories: Best Development of Theme, Best Youth Organization Float, Most Creative, Best Community Organization, Most Colorful, and Best Overall Float.

Of course, we already know the winner in the Overall category.

It’s the Y’s Men of Westport and Weston.

After all, they’ve won for the last 250 years.

Another Y’s Men Memorial Day parade float winner. This one won in 2021. (Photo/Dan Woog)

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

In their continuing effort to UnPlastic Westport, Sustainable Westport will show “Plastic People: The Hidden Crisis of Microplastics.” The documentary explores the alarming spread of microplastics throughout our planet — and our bodies.

The event — following a sold-out showing at SXSW — is April 9 (6:30 p.m., Greens Farms Academy). A panel discussion will follow the screening.

It’s free — but click here to register.

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

Westport Professionals Network co-founders Lisa Fedorchak and Katie Gervasio, analyzed the current job market, at Tuesday’s Westport Rotary Club meeting.

The WPN connects local college students and young professionals with job and networking opportunities. Volunteers offer mentorship and advice, in person and online.

“Right now, this is a tough time,” said Fedorchak. “The young professional unemployment rate is 10.5%.”

Lisa Fedorchak (speaking) and Katie Gervasio, at the Westport Rotary Club. (Hat tip and photo/Dave Matlow)

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

Westport resident Vivek Kanthan wants to end the drought of Americans ascending to the top of Formula 1.

“06880” last checked in just over a year ago, when he signed with the Formula 4 team Griffin Core by Campos — the top-ranked team in that division.

Since then, Kanthan won his first F4 race, captured Rookie of the Year honors, and set several records, including the single lap speed mark in Mexico City.

Last weekend, the 15-year-old placed 1st at the Spanish Winter Championship.

Entering his second F4 season, Kanthan invites “06880” readers to follow him on Instagram, and via his website.

Vivek Kanthan

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

For more than 4 decades, The Susan Fund has provided college scholarships to Fairfield Country residents who have been diagnosed with cancer at some time in their life, and attend (or plan to) enroll in an institution of higher learning.

The Fund was established in 1980 in memory of her Susan Lloyd, a Staples High School graduate who lost her battle with cancer. Since its founding, the organization has provided over $2 million in scholarships to more than 300 students.

The deadline is near — April 1 — for applications for the 2026 school year. To apply or to learn more about the Susan Fund, click here.

The 2025 Susan Fund awardees.

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

G. Love, Donavon Frankenreiter and Moon Taxi bring their “Rolling Together Revue Tour” to the Levitt Pavilion on June 23.

Tickets go on sale Friday (March 20, 10 a.m.). Click here to purchase.

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

On May 2, the Nolan Team at Compass is sponsoring a town-wide tag sale. It will likely be Westport’s biggest ever.

Residents can participate by hosting a sale at their own home.

It’s a great way to get plenty of publicity. The Nolan Team handles all promotion (including a sign for your lawn or driveway). Your address will be included on a map, and all publicity.

Shoppers can plan their own route, and visit multiple sales all day.

To participate, and for more information, click here.

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

300 years of passageways in Weston is the topic of an April 19 book talk at the Weston History & Culture Center.

Artist Julie O’Connor will discuss her 2008 book, “Doors of Weston.”

The lecture is free, but registration is required.  Click here.

doors are accessible “portals” to understanding the evolution of Weston and its people over the last three centuries, as we celebrate America and Weston since the signing of the Declaration of Independence.

The Center says, “doors are accessible ‘portals’ to understanding the evolution of Weston and its people over the last 3 centuries, as we celebrate America and Weston since the signing of the Declaration of Independence.”

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

“Playhouse Playmakers” — the Westport Country Playhouse children’s education program — runs Saturdays (1 to 4 p.m.), from April 11 through May 30.

Together, middle school students create an original play, then present a staged reading for family and friends. Click here for more information, and registration.

Evette Marie White, Playhouse Playmakers director.

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

Westport Police made 3 custodial arrests between March 11 and 17.

A 44-year-old Woodside, New York man was charged with 2 counts of larceny, following 2 shoplifting incidents at Walgreens. Both involved allergy medications. One was of $2,659 worth of merchandise; the other was $1,964. He was extradited after being incarcerated for an unrelated matter in New York.He was held on a $40,000 bond.

A 50-year-old Redding man was charged with sexual assault, after a complaint by a restaurant employee that a customer had used his hand to pinch the victim’s buttocks.

A 44-year-old Plymouth, Massachusetts man was charged with failure to appear. He was held on a $25,000 bond.

Westport Police also issued these citations:

  • Texting while driving: 9 citations
  • Operating a motor vehicle without minimum insurance: 6
  • Operating an unregistered motor vehicle: 5
  • Failure to obey stop sign: 5
  • Operating a motor vehicle under suspension: 4
  • Failure to renew registration: 4
  • Failure to obey traffic commission regulations: 4
  • Distracted driving: 3
  • Operating a motor vehicle without tint inspection: 2
  • Failure to obey traffic control signals: 2
  • Operating a motor vehicle without a license: 1
  • Speeding: 1
  • Traveling too fast for conditions: 1
  • School zone violation, 2nd offense: 1
  • School zone violation: 1
  • Following too closely: 1
  • Failure to drive in the proper lane: 1
  • Articles obstructing view: 1
  • Improper use of markers: 1
  • Breach of peace: 1
  • Failure to cancel registration within 10 days: 1

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

Celia Campbell-Mohn often sees these male and female red-tailed hawks, near Timber Lane.

The other day, she snapped a loving look between them, for our daily “Westport … Naturally” feature.

(Photo/Celia Campbell-Mohn)

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

And finally … in honor of the upcoming “Doors of Weston” event (item above), and in order to get a good crowd:

(Tell all the people about all the events you learn about through “06880.” And while you’re at it, please click here to support our work. Thank you!)

1 Comment

Posted in Environment, Local business, Police, Politics, Saugatuck

Tagged , , , , , , , , ,

[OPINIONS] 2 Views On Cribari Future

Posted on March 18, 2026 | 12 comments

Werner Liepolt and Robbie Guimond live a few hundred yards apart. They are separated by the Saugatuck River — and by what to do about the Cribari Bridge, which links their 2 neighborhoods.

Today, both offer their views on the future of the 143-year-old span.

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

Werner Liepolt lives in the Bridge Street Historic District. He writes:

I have worked with the Connecticut Department of Transportation (CTDOT) on the Cribari Bridge project since 2016.

Not against them — with them.

So have several other Westport residents. Many of us served on the Project Advisory Committee as consulting parties recognized by the Federal Highway Administration, representing different groups in town.

I live in the Bridge Street National Register Historic District, which the Westport Historic District Commission and the Connecticut State Historic Preservation Office nominated for National Register status in 2017.

1884 Rufus Wakeman House, in the Bridge Street Historic District.

I am not sorry that we worked with CTDOT.

But I am sorry that CTDOT has not worked more closely with the community on one central concern: truck traffic.

Throughout the PAC meetings, consulting parties repeatedly asked a simple question: If the Cribari Bridge is rebuilt or altered, how will the project prevent the residential neighborhoods of Bridge Street, Imperial Avenue, Greens Farms Road, South Compo Road, and Saugatuck Ave nue from becoming a bypass route for trucks avoiding I-95 congestion?

To date, none of the project alternatives presented by CTDOT address that question.

The 143-year-old Cribari Bridge is not wide or high enough to handle large trucks. (Photo/Patricia McMahon)

The Environmental Assessment prepared for the project runs more than 160 pages, with hundreds more pages of appendices. Yet the analysis largely assumes that changes in bridge height, width, and weight capacity will not significantly alter traffic patterns.

Many residents believe that assumption deserves closer examination, and that CTDOT needs a No Trucks option.

The Cribari Bridge sits within a federally recognized historic district. Under federal law, projects affecting historic districts must consider not only direct impacts to structures, but also long-term, indirect and cumulative effects on the district’s setting and circulation patterns.

Changes that could alter traffic composition — including the potential for heavier vehicles — are part of that evaluation.

In my petition, now signed by over 1,400 people, I asked for something simple: open hearings before decisions are made, and federal oversight to ensure that the protections applied to historic districts are properly followed.

That request still stands.

The upcoming CTDOT meeting on March 19 (6 p.m., Town Hall auditorium) is an opportunity for residents to ask the questions that have not yet been fully addressed.

One of those questions is straightforward: Should Bridge Street and the surrounding historic district become a route for heavy truck traffic — or should Westport insist on solutions that prevent it?

Whatever one’s answer, the question deserves to be asked — and answered — before decisions about the bridge are finalized.

(Click here to submit comments on the Cribari Bridge to the Connecticut Department of Transportation.)

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

Robbie Guimond lives on Riverside Avenue, where he owns a marina. He writes:

After 4 decades at the marina, it’s obvious I value public access to the Saugatuck River, The potential loss of the Cribari Bridge weighs heavily on me.

Over the last 10 years I’ve been  deeply involved with this process. It has highlighted various perspectives that deserve investigation.

More traffic analysis is one. I believe the Connecticut Department of Transportation has approached these options from as neutral a perspective as possible.

Even with their past “adaptive reuse” and the less than perfect results, I feel they are looking for the best outcome for the town.

One view underneath the Cribari Bridge (Pier 2) …

After reviewing the Environmental Assessment and literally hundreds of public blog comments, it is clear that losing the historic bridge is unpalatable to the many who are vocal.

 

However, it is also evident that CTDOT intends to take action.

From my perspective, there are 2 paths forward:

1. No Build. This means the repair of pier 2, along with minor repairs to the truss and other needed areas.

Yes, the electric box will go, but the different heights of the horizontal truss members might have a posted height of around 13′ 4″.

I believe one is sagging to 13′ 7″-ish, thus preventing tall tractor trailer trucks while still allowing our Fire Departments ladder trucks. This option also avoids a temporary span in The Bridge restaurant’s lot, and extends the span’s life by approximately 15 to 25 years with minimal disruption beyond some channel closures.

2. Full Replacement: If CTDOT deems the first option out of the question, a full replacement is the only other reasonable alternative. The current bridge has already undergone many modifications, and further aggressive changes will only diminish what remains of its character and lead to a 13′ 6″ marked height.

… and another (the pedestal the span swings on). (Photos/Robbie Guimond)

While the pros and cons of a full replacement are debatable, one point is non-negotiable: The town administration, with its Representative Town Meeting- suggested Bridge Committee must maintain strict control over every detail of the design — including location, height, air gap, crosswalk improvements at Wilton Road, and Compo Road South’s desperately needed left turn signal — as this new structure will likely stand for the next century.

I am hopeful that either option can lead to a successful outcome,  I guess time will tell.

(“06880″‘s Opinion pages are open to all. Email 06880blog@gmail.com with submissions. To donate to this hyper-local blog, please click here. Thank you!)

12 Comments

Posted in Local politics, Transportation

Tagged , , , , ,

Cribari Meeting Looms; Petition Gains Signatures

Posted on March 16, 2026 | 3 comments

What’s next for the Cribari Bridge?

As Westporters prepare for Thursday’s public meeting with the Connecticut Department of Transportation (March 19, 6 p.m., Town Hall auditorium), nearly 1,400 residents have already made their views known. (They have also donated $2,455 to the cause.)

They signed an online petition organized by Werner Liepolt. The former Westport teacher — who lives on Bridge Street just few hundred yards from the 143-year-old span — initiated it due to what he calls “a public perception that CTDOT had not provided opportunity for public involvement.”

Werner Liepolt painted this image of the Cribari Bridge.

Liepolt asks for “federal oversight to guarantee that all alternatives are evaluated and that the richly historic and irreplaceable nature of the bridge is given due consideration.”

He has submitted his petition into the official public comment record for the Environmental Assessment currently under review by CTDOT and the Federal Highway Administration.

Under federal review procedures, public comments and petitions are part of the record considered as agencies evaluate project alternatives and potential effects on the surrounding area (including the Bridge Street National Register Historic District).

The meeting is part of the ongoing environmental and historic review process for the Cribari Bridge project.

The full petition — active until April 17 — says:  “I am a resident of the Bridge Street National Register District, home to the iconic William F. Cribari Bridge—individually listed in the National Register of Historic Places that has been an integral part of our community’s identity for 141 years.

“This historic bridge, oldest operable bridge of its kind in the USA, nestled in Westport, Connecticut, is on the brink of being replaced by the Connecticut Department of Transportation (CTDOT) without an essential public engagement process.

“Despite its historic status, there has been a disturbing lack of transparency and involvement from the public, disregarding the National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 Section 106 review procedures.

“The William F. Cribari Bridge is more than just a piece of infrastructure; it is a cherished symbol of our heritage, tying together the historical fabric of our neighborhood.

Cribari Bridge (Photo/Patricia McMahon)

“The sudden decision to replace such an irreplaceable landmark raises concerns not only within our community but also nationwide, as it sets a precedent for how historic sites might be handled without proper oversight.

“Why hasn’t there been an effort to engage the community in this critical decision-making process? The lack of transparency undermines the principles of fair public policy and overlooks the historical significance that this bridge brings to our region.

“It is imperative that the federal government steps in to ensure that the CTDOT considers all perspectives, from engineering experts to local residents, and follows due process in accordance with National Historic Preservation guidelines.

“The preservation of the William F. Cribari Bridge is essential for maintaining the cultural and architectural identity of our region, and its replacement should not proceed without an exhaustive review and input from all stakeholders involved.

Manually opening the Cribari Bridge.

“We need comprehensive federal oversight to guarantee that all alternatives are evaluated and that the richly historic and irreplaceable nature of the bridge is given due consideration.

“I urge you to sign this petition to demand federal oversight over the Connecticut Department of Transportation’s plans to replace the William F. Cribari Bridge.

“Together, we can safeguard the integrity of our cherished historic landmark and ensure a democratic process respects both our heritage and community voice.

“Let us be vigilant in protecting our past for the generations to
come.”

3 Comments

Posted in Local politics, Politics, Saugatuck

Tagged , ,

Cribari Bridge Future: Take Our “06880” Poll

Posted on March 5, 2026 | 28 comments

Everyone has an opinion about the Cribari Bridge.

Save it at all costs! Renovate it for safety and river navigation! Don’t allow trucks! Don’t worry, they can’t get through Saugatuck anyway!

As the March 19 community meeting (6 p.m., Town Hall) with the state Department of Transportation looms, the jury remains out on what Westport — residents, and town officials — really want for the span’s future.

A decade after discussions began on a renovation or replacement of the 143-year-old bridge, no one seems to have an idea of what to say to DOT.

That might be because no one has clearly asked.

Today, “06880” does just that.

We’ve created an 8-question survey. It’s not scientific — we’re not Gallup or Quinnipiac — but it could give some sense of residents’ feelings. Results will be posted on Friday.

The survey is below. NOTE: This is for current Westport residents only. Thanks!

Cribari Bridge (Photo courtesy of Library of Congress)

28 Comments

Posted in Local politics, Politics, Saugatuck, Transportation

Tagged , ,

Cribari Bridge: An Outside Engineer Looks In

Posted on March 3, 2026 | 26 comments

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.

26 Comments

Posted in Local politics, Politics, Saugatuck

Tagged ,