Tag Archives: Yulee Aronson

[OPINION] Looking Back — And Ahead — At Cribari Bridge

Yulee Aronson is a licensed professional engineer, with 40 years of construction management and project controls experience, overseeing many high-profile and complex projects. He says, “I have never encountered a construction problem that couldn’t be overcome.”

Locally, Aronson has worked on the earlier renovation of the Cribari Bridge; the new Staples High School, and the chlorination building at the wastewater pollution facility. Other projects include Penn Station access, the reconstruction of La Guardia Airport, and the Baltimore Potomac Tunnel replacement. He writes:

I’d like to begin by the thanking the Representative Town Meeting for Tuesday’s Zoom meeting, and having an open and respectful discussion regarding the upcoming Connecticut Department of Transportation project that will affect most of us living in Westport for many years to come.

Also, I thank 1st Selectman Kevin Christie and State Representative Jonathan Steinberg for participating, and sharing their thoughts.

Over the course of my career I’ve been involved in many bridge rehabilitation and replacement projects.

Yulee Aronson

The Bridge Street Bridge, as it was called then, was my first. I wasn’t involved in the beginning phase, when a temporary bridge was built and the existing bridge was replaced.

I was involved in  the second phase: raising the newly constructed bridge, and removing the temporary one.

For context and in response to some of the comments Tuesday night: The original bridge wasn’t built lower before it was raised, as some may remember thinking at the time.

It certainly felt that way if you traveled under it in a kayak.

The reason is a difference in the structural design. The original historic bridge was supported by floor beams resting on trusses. The floor beams ran north/south, and kayakers could travel between them during high tide.

When the bridge was replaced, the trusses no longer served any practical purpose. They were installed as a decorative feature, to preserve the historic look of the bridge.

Instead, deep girders were installed in an east/west direction, denying kayakers access during high tide.

Westporters complained and protested, calling for bridge openings 10 times a day until the state agreed to raise the structure. Now here we are again.

I evaluated proposals by the state as they relate to the proposed bridge elevations. They are:

It appears that the state proposes to elevate the bridge 10 feet, to keep the machinery above the 100-year flood elevation, either on alignment or offset.

What “on alignment” means

The distance between the intersection with Riverside Ave and the west abutment is 45 feet+/-. Even if the grade was flat (and it is not), to go up 10 feet in 45 feet, you’d need 22% slope. So, elevating the bridge “on alignment” is not a real option.

Elevating the bridge off alignment may look like the old temporary bridge.

Temporary bridge (left), during early 1990s renovation of what was then called the Bridge Street Bridge. 

If the new bridge follows similar alignment, why does it need to be movable?

Forty years ago, the bridge was replaced in open position. So for several years marine traffic passed under the temporary bridge. Regulators, including the Coast Guard, permitted this.

I was not involved in the permitting process, and I don’t recall the height of the temporary bridge, but it wasn’t nearly as tall as the one carrying I-95 traffic.

There are issues with this option as well. Is there availability of land to build the bridge as shown in the photo? And how do we address impacts to wetlands on the northeast side. There are other potential environmental challenges too.

Let’s keep our ideas flowing, Westport!

(The “06880” Opinion pages are open to all. Please send submissions to 06880blog@gmail.com. To help support this hyper-local blog, please click here.)

Engineer, Architect Offer Long Lots Help

Professional engineer Yulee Aronson, and architects Joseph Vallone and Patricia Chen offer these thoughts:

For the past 6 months we’ve followed the saga that is the proposed reconstruction of Long Lots Elementary School

During this time we’ve learned about this property, its history, stakeholders, and users.

Like many of us who have followed the public debate on various blog posts regarding these issues, we’ve observed the temperature rise of some of these comments to unacceptable levels.

We understand how emotional it may get for some with a lot at stake, but we should all remember that we are neighbors and need to treat each other with respect. We attribute some of the emotional outrage to the lack of awareness of the due process required to take a project like this from concept, through regulatory approvals to final design and construction.

Long Lots Elementary School. (Drone photo/Brandon Malin)

To begin, the first step in the regulatory approval is to follow 2022 Connecticut General Statutes, Title 8 – Zoning, Planning, Housing and Economic and Community Development, Chapter 126 – Municipal Planning Commissions, Section 8-24. – Municipal improvements. For short, this has been referred to as P&Z’s commission 8-24 review.

It is important to note that this being a school reconstruction project, the most important element to include in this application would be to show the new plan for the school and deal with the other elements later in the process. Considering that the school replacement would reduce the school’s footprint on the property, the approval could have been easily gotten on the first go-around in December of last year.

Unfortunately, in addition to the new school the proposal included construction of new athletic fields. Had the athletic fields remained the same size as the existing ones, adding them to the proposal wouldn’t be an issue. However, the proposal contained expansion of these fields, ignoring the earlier ruling by P&Z in 2010 and thus jeopardizing almost certain approval by P&Z.

Below is an excerpt from Eileen Lavigne Flug, assistant town attorney’s memo dated April 26, 2022″

On February 11, 2010 (modified June 10, 2010), the P&Z issued a Special Permit/Site Plan at the request of the Parks and Recreation Department for the expansion of the community gardens, stating that, “The Commission finds that the use of this site for the Community Garden, instead of the previously proposed use for athletic fields, remains in keeping with the 2007 POCD.”

With all the back and forth surrounding reconstruction of LLS, all stakeholders unanimously agree that the new school must be replaced as soon as possible. According to the initial schedule in the RFQ for feasibility study, the study should have been completed in August of last year and 8-24 application was soon to follow. Six months later and the December application withdrawn, the new application is yet to be resubmitted. Why?

As an independent group of professionals, we would like to offer our time and expertise to help our elected officials expedite the reconstruction process while working to ensure minimal disruption to the functionality of the site and the neighborhood. We understand that a similar offer was made by the chair of the Public Site & Building Committee. Let’s all work together and get it done for our kids!

[OPINION] “Compacted” Long Lots Could Work

On Wednesday night, several Planning & Zoning Commission candidates promised to examine thoroughly the proposal for a new Long Lots Elementary School, and to “think outside the box.”

One “06880” reader is doing that.

Yulee Aronson is a licensed professional engineer, with 40 years of construction management and project controls experience, overseeing many high-profile and complex projects. He says, “I have never encountered a construction problem that couldn’t be overcome.”

Locally, Aronson has worked on the reconstruction of Staples High School and the William F. Cribari Bridge, and the chlorination building at the wastewater pollution facility. Other projects include Penn Station access, the reconstruction of La Guardia Airport, and the Baltimore Potomac Tunnel replacement.

He writes: 

The Long Lots School project may be the most expensive capital construction project in Westport’s history.

The project site is unique. It houses the school, athletic fields for the town, and community gardens. In addition, such major construction project will have an impact on the delicate ecosystem of the neighborhood.

Thus far, the options developed by the Town-hired consultants and presented by the School Building Committee are deficient in taking into consideration the interests of all parties that occupy the property. SBC’s recommended solution, Option C, keeps all stakeholders at the site but relocates the community gardens. Relocating the gardens destroys the delicate ecosystem that was created over the course of the last 20 years.

Long Lots “Option C”

Over the course of public hearings, several alternative solutions were presented by various professionals who live in town. These solutions consisted of a new school building of a similar size and function, properly sized athletic fields proposed in the footprint of the existing school, and the community gardens to remain in place with no environmental impact to the neighbors. For one reason or another, these solutions were dismissed as not viable

I’ve reviewed the report prepared by the consultants. I conclude that the selected Option C can be “compacted,” thus eliminating the need for building the baseball field over the gardens. An example of such “compaction” is as follows:

The proposed school footprint can be narrowed by 50 feet by stretching it in a north-south direction, and narrowing the courtyard in the east-west direction. The classrooms would “slide” along the perimeter of the interior wall of the courthouse, without affecting adjacency.

Additionally, the northern part of the parking/drive area can be moved closer to the school building by 50 feet, straightening the “S” configuration. The grass islands between parking/drive lanes can be eliminated for a gain of another 50 feet, leaving small islands for site lighting.

This would allow for the shift of the baseball field by about 150 feet in the westerly direction, and off the footprint of the existing gardens.

If I’m off by another 50 feet I’m sure it could be found by moving the baseball field closer to the parking area by 25 feet, and shifting the entire school building west another 25 feet.

Lastly, during construction, a controlled and safe fenced-in passageway could be created to allow gardeners access for continued maintenance of the gardens.

To reiterate, this is just one of several possible solutions that could be developed.

When a municipality or any other public entity embarks on major projects such as this, it often seeks peer reviews of the designs prepared by their primary consultants to make sure that they get the best value for their money and obtain the best solution.

It would be prudent for the town to seek an independent peer review of the currently proposed design. This review should be performed by an independent professional entity in charge of finding a design solution that satisfies the interests of all stakeholders. Alternatively, this can be requested of the current consultants.

(“06880” gives a voice to readers, through comments and opinion pieces. But we rely on readers to support us too. Please click here to make a tax-deductible contribution. Thank you!)