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!)
He said he would lend us a board until the end of the season, when we could buy it or another if we wanted. No strings attached.
