By Andy Brophy
A new subcommittee on the William F. Cribari Memorial Bridge won’t take a position on whether the historic bridge should be repaired or replaced, its design or whether trucks should use it, all of which appear to be major concerns with the state project.
The Representative Town Meeting’s Transit Committee on Tuesday night formed a subcommittee on the Cribari Bridge, with another committee to be formed by First Selectman Kevin Christie before the Connecticut Department of Transportation’s (CTDOT’s) public meeting on the bridge at 7 p.m. Nov. 12 in Town Hall. Christie announced in April that he would form a committee. But, with just 16 days before the CTDOT’s November meeting, no such committee has been announced.
The wrought-iron Cribari Bridge, built in 1884, carries traffic on Bridge Street over the Saugatuck River and is 287 feet long and 20 feet wide. Some residents fear a replacement bridge will be taller and wider and enable truck drivers to leave Interstate 95 and travel over the bridge when the highway is jammed with traffic.
Melissa Levy, chairwoman of the Transit Committee, said during Tuesday night’s Zoom meeting that she considered all 11 Transit Committee members to be members of the Cribari Bridge subcommittee and asked if anyone did not want to be on it. No one responded.
In addition to Levy, Transit Committee members are Ross Burkhardt, D-3; Rachel Cohn, D-8; Gail Coykendall, D-1; Peter Gold, D-5; Jill Grayson, D-8; Richard Lowenstein, D-5; Addison Moore, D-9; Jenna Petok, D-2; Claudia Shaum, D-5; and Victoria Wylie, D-4, according to the town’s website.
Levy said she realizes how deeply Westport residents care about the bridge and how its future will have a long-lasting impact on the town’s homes, businesses, neighborhoods and residents. She said she’s also aware of nostalgia associated with the bridge, which was built 142 years ago.
“We’re taking this matter very seriously,” she said.
Levy said all RTM members, residents and members of town boards are welcome to attend meetings of the Cribari Bridge subcommittee – the next meeting is on Nov. 2 – and to communicate their concerns.
But Levy said the subcommittee was not about taking a position on whether the bridge should be repaired or replaced, its design or whether trucks should use it.
Instead, she said subcommittee members should review information already available on the bridge and bring forward issues they believe require further review and research. She said subcommittee members should also study how the bridge project will impact Westport’s roads, neighborhoods, businesses, emergency vehicles and pedestrian safety.
Kristin Schneeman, D-9, asked what Levy hoped the subcommittee would accomplish before Nov. 12, and Levy said she didn’t yet know what the DOT planned to present on Nov. 12.
The state and federal governments would fund the repair or replacement of the Cribari Bridge.
Chris Tait, RTM D-1, said town officials and residents should speak with one voice to Gov. Ned Lamont and the DOT about what they wanted to happen with the Cribari Bridge. “It’s important,” Tait said, but added he was concerned state officials “already have something in mind.”
Nancy Kail, RTM D-9, said the state already had received 800 letters from residents voicing concerns, but ought to receive a lot more since the town has 27,000 residents.
Wendy Batteau, RTM D-8, said the subcommittee ought to look into environmental impacts from a replacement bridge, which could include pollution from tractor trailers.
Several RTM members said the subcommittee was being formed late in the process, with the DOT meeting only two weeks away, and Kristin Purcell, RTM D-1, asked if the subcommittee was “really a collective and strong enough voice to have a seat at the table” and that a larger ad-hoc committee might be better.
“Limiting it just to Transit, I want to make sure we have as big an impact as we can,” Purcell said.
Levy responded, “We welcome everyone’s opinions, comments and concerns” to which Purcell said, “But not on the committee.”
“Yes, that’s right,” Levy said.
Jeff Wieser, the RTM’s moderator, said it made sense for the Transit Committee to be the RTM’s “point persons” on the bridge project and that opening up the subcommittee to more members would lose a lot of time.
“I don’t want anyone to feel excluded. You can come to meetings and feed information into the [sub]committee,” Wieser said.
Dara Lamb, co-founder of the Westport Alliance for Saugatuck, questioned why the RTM general committee on the Cribari Bridge died and “why did nothing happen from April to now.”
“The public would like to know how did that die,” Lamb said. “People have questions and would like to know.”
Jennifer Johnson, RTM D-9, said she was concerned the newly-formed subcommittee was “too little, too late.”
“We had an opportunity to form an RTM committee a long time ago,” Johnson said. “It didn’t happen a long time ago, and I’d like to know why.”
Lamb and Johnson said it was important for the DOT’s Nov. 12 public meeting to have a large turnout.
The Transit Committee’s meeting Tuesday night could only last 30 minutes because committee members had to attend another Zoom meeting of RTM committee members at 7 p.m.
Andy Brophy
Andy Brophy is an experienced Fairfield County journalist. Andy was a staff writer at The Connecticut Post for 10 years. He also wrote for the Norwalk Hour, Fairfield Minuteman, Fairfield Patch and weekly newspapers in Westport, Fairfield and Norwalk. When not reporting, Andy enjoys playing chess and listening to pianist Art Tatum. .
So the RTM was going to form a bridge committee way back when it would have been effective. However, it deferred to the First Selectman – who claimed HE was going to form a bridge committee – but never did. Then, long after the DOT had already announced its preferred alternative (replacement of the existing bridge) the RTM formed a sub-committee of mostly low information types whose charge is to sort of educate themselves about the matter – and then adopt a vow of silence. Hard to know whether to laugh or cry.
The Cribari Bridge in 30 minutes?
It is puzzling why the RTM Transit Chair scheduled a 30-minute meeting to discuss a new effort to do “something” about one of the most concerning matters in town as the state announcement on its plan looms.
She then recited a long statement, attributing it all to a Royal “We,” running down the clock to a matter of minutes as many hands were raised for comment.
The RTM moderator jumped the line, making it apparent he was among the “We”. He then ordered the meeting be adjourned just as one of my District 9 representatives tried to comment. The Cribari is essentially on the border of District 1 and 9.
Chaos ensued; I was admonished for my role in it, and the chaire burned up several more minutes perusing a calendar to continue the discussion, settling on Nov. 2.
My District 9 Rep was finally allowed to give the brief last word: too little too late.
It seems so. All the while the state has been chugging along with their plan to tell us on Nov. 12 what they are going to do, having collected public comment all year long, and years prior as well. The state even tried to sell the bridge; no takers stepped forth as far as I can tell.
Kudos were aplenty for RTM Transit finally showing leadership on the issue, except for those District 1, 4 and 9 reps who worked the Cribari predicament over multiple terms on the RTM.
I think odds are on a total replacement, and the historic bridge will be sold to the highest bidder (of which there are none). At this late date, Westport has given the state no other choice.
It would be grand to renovate this historic gem but that seems unlikely. Best case is to find a benefactor, move it to a bucolic spot and preserve it as an artifact of times past. This, at a time when Westport’s historic preservation actions are at an all time low.
Perhaps the town has a surprise in store, like the new location for a community garden just unearthed. We are still holding our breath.
The late start deserves an explanation, but the urgent question is what the RTM will accomplish now.
The subcommittee need not immediately choose between rehabilitation and replacement to articulate Westport’s priorities. It can insist on a transparent comparison of alternatives, serious protection of Saugatuck’s historic character, safe pedestrian and bicycle access, reliable emergency access, and credible answers about truck traffic and construction disruption. Remaining open on a design should not mean remaining silent on these essentials.
Before November 12, the RTM should coordinate with the First Selectman and the town’s existing representatives to CTDOT on a concise, public statement of shared priorities and unanswered questions. Speaking with one voice should mean agreement on those priorities—not requiring residents to surrender their differences over the bridge’s future.
CTDOT should be asked to provide its presentation and supporting materials in advance, identify what has been decided and what remains open, and explain how residents’ further comments will be considered. A public question-and-answer log would help everyone distinguish documented findings, unresolved concerns and commitments requiring follow-through.
Meeting timing matters just as much. The November 2 meeting needs sufficient time for substantive discussion and public participation. A follow-up should be scheduled now for shortly after November 12, while residents’ questions are fresh and before the next decision milestone.
The truck issue deserves particular precision: what traffic is projected during ordinary conditions and I-95 disruptions, and what effective, enforceable protections are available? Physical capacity, permitted use and enforcement are separate questions.
The RTM should also draw directly on the residents and representatives who have studied this bridge for years. Their accumulated knowledge can help the committee become effective quickly.
Westport needs more than a large turnout. It needs an organized public record, clear requests, written answers and sustained representation. November 12 should be a working session in that process, not the finish line.
In March, I and a number of RTM members held an open zoom meeting for the community alerting them to a pending DOT meeting concerning the bridge. Subsequent to that meeting four neighborhood organizations; Save Westport Now, The Saugatuck Alliance, The Greens Farms Association and The Westport Peeservation Alliance joined us in creating a single vision to present to the DOT, that of a hybrid rehabilitation that would offer a wider, stronger more accessible bridge for cars, bikes and pedestrians, but reused the historic truss to prevent 18 wheelers from it.
This was accomplished in a multi-person presentation to the DOT in town hall in April. The residents of the Town offered their hand in collaboration with the DOT. The opportunity was there. The First Selectman agreed that a committee would be formed to engage with the DOT. It was assumed that this concept would be part of an anticipated negotiation to occur in the coming months.
It’s been 6 months and the DOT is coming on November 12. There is no committee, no negotiations and the historic wing of the DOT has set November 13th for an unacceptable deadline for ideas from us to mitigate the historic loss of the bridge. That’s right, the day after we find out what they seem to have decided.
We are now in panic mode. Suddenly a committee will be formed, the RTM Transit committee will look into the bridge. Too little too late? is the headline.
Let this be a moment to not fret, but take stock and find the right path. The residents need to rise to the occasion and make their desires known. You have RTM members willing to help. Attend the Nov 12 meeting and be ready to voice your concern. DOT already has 800 comments, not enough. The State needs to know we will not accept trucks nor the loss of our historic asset.
If you want to stay informed send me an email to join my periodic enewsletter matthew@savewestport.com
Two ways this RTM Sub-Committee could make a positive difference RIGHT NOW:
1. Push DOT to share the slides for its upcoming public meeting in advance. When asked for by consulting parties, it came back with the preposterous excuse that this was not possible because management needed to review the material (apparently right up to the very last moment). When this obvious fabrication was questioned, it decided to play possum.
2. Do what the Christie administration steadfastly refuses to do – despite repeated, written requests: settle the matter of WHO ACTUALLY OWNS THE BRIDGE. At the present time, it would appear that the town never transferred ownership of the bridge to the state. That might not be the case but it would be super helpful if the issue could be resolved for reasons that need no mention.
It seems the transit committee members are in agreement to be on a subcommittee. The question is why has Christie not formed a committee since April when he announced he would. Does that mean the Board of Selectman have already made their decision to go along with the state? And, is it presumed, that the state wants a big tractor trailer capable bridge to relieve traffic on I-95 at our expense? Most definitely. Those who object must contact DOT and demand some answers from the First Selectman.
Having just had an opportunity to listen to the audio of the Cribari Bridge RTM meeting, I am reminded of an Anna Wintour sentiment that meetings are a waste of time. I don’t completely agree since they are necessary at times,especially when quorums are needed for votes as in this setting. But meetings that don’t seem to have much of a focus or an end result in mind, do seem pretty pointless. For instance, why does Melissa Levy call for committee members to do research but not with any viewpoint in mind. So, they are to investigate the safety of bicyclists and pedestrians sharing the road with 18 wheelers but be neutral on the danger? Maybe look into the gridlock on Greensfarms Rd. without any bias for or against the reality of not being able to get out of your driveway or side streets off that road. RTM should figure out what their position is and sell it to the people. Once the majority’s wishes are established, they can present them to the state. This wishy washy approach is not going to achieve anything and will result in the state’s desire prevailing.
Once again Christie is a no show, it’s the committee of ghosts that he put together for the William F Cribari Bridge, ( just in time for Halloween) maybe if there was a photo op with free food he would have done what he said he would do, well you know what they say “ you get what you voted for “ enjoy the 18 wheelers rumbling off I 95, what a shame that would be !