
By John Schwing
WESTPORT — The latest round in the decades-old saga surrounding the structural safety and operational efficiency of the William F. Cribari Memorial Bridge may be swinging slowly into view — as if imitating the 141-year-old metal swing bridge itself.
The historic span, which carries state Route 136 — locally, Bridge Street — over the Saugatuck River has been periodically engulfed in controversy over whether it should be rehabilitated or replaced since the late 1950s.
The most recent round of wrangling was triggered in 2015 when the state Department of Transportation classified the bridge as “severely deficient” and in need of extensive repairs or perhaps complete replacement.

Among the factors complicating the debate is the span’s inclusion on the National Register of Historic Places and designation of the affected stretch of Route 136 as a State Scenic Highway.
Several years of pushback prompted then-First Selectman Jim Marpe in 2017 to ask the regional planing agency to delete a DOT request for bridge rehab/replacement funds until the agency conducted a broad-based assessment of what any changes to the bridge might have on the Saugatuck neighborhood, traffic, the environment and historical considerations.
Project Advisory Committee’s first meeting since 2019
As part of that process, a Cribari Project Advisory Committee was established in 2018. That group of local “stakeholders” was asked to provide input to DOT officials. A list of representatives named to the committee at the time of its creation can be found by clicking here.
The committee has not been convened since 2019.
That is expected to change, as the DOT earlier this month issued an invitation to PAC members to attend a meeting, scheduled for 4 p.m. Thursday, May 15, in Town Hall’s auditorium, 110 Myrtle Ave.
The DOT’s invitation acknowledges there “have been significant developments both within the community and concerning the project itself” during the intervening six years, and the session is planned to “provide updates and discuss the project’s progress.”
The meeting, as currently planned, is for PAC members only and not the general public, according to a statement provided Monday to the Westport Journal.
“Opportunities for public input” to come later
“Opportunities for public input will be provided during the information session scheduled for later this summer,” the DOT statement said.
As for the status of the Cribari project (No. 0158-0214), a DOT spokesman Monday said the Environmental Assessment and Environmental Impact Evaluation phase has not been completed, and the design phase has yet to begin.
“We anticipate completing the evaluation by late fall,” the spokesman said.
The planned meetings are among the first public signs of progress on the Cribari project since Marpe asked for a pause in 2017.
Last year, regional planners endorsed a DOT request to restore $4.1 million for the right-of-way and final design phase for the bridge’s rehabilitation or replacement in its statewide transportation improvement plan, or “TIP.”
John Schwing, consulting editor of the Westport Journal, has held senior editorial and writing posts at southwestern Connecticut media outlets for four decades. Learn more about us here.



Who is on the PAC?
The PAC meeting on the 15th is merely a courtesy. As a member, I was informed yesterday by DOT that the agency has already settled on its desired alternative treatment in this case.
Notwithstanding the pro forma nature of the May 15th event, DOT’s stated intention to hold a “closed meeting” inside Town Hall doesn’t sound quite right.
The list of members of the Cribari Bridge Planning and Advisory Committee is on the Project Websitte which can be accessed via the link in the article.
I am one of the members representing the Bridge Street Neighbors national historic district.
It is quite true that since the last PAC meeting things have changed… traffic has gotten much worse, particulate pollution in the area gets an F from the American Lung Association and we saw last fall how diesel traffic will choose our roads when I-95 gets congested.
Look through that list of PAC members. Does any group represent the health or driving concerns of Westporters? Does any member represent the children who board and depart school busses 16 times a day on Bridge Street alone?
For more than forty years activist Westporters have insisted that CTDOT produce a solution that honors our history, respects our residents’ needs, and assures our health and safety.
I don’t know how a meeting in Westport’s Town Hall on May 15 at 4:30 can be closed to the citizens of Westport, do you?
We need to get moving on this bridge. Current use + ~150 units at Hiawatha, the proposed hamlet development. It’s crumbling.
Tell me if the McHamlet developers and investors – with their promise of affordable housing and transportation area development- haven’t had influence on this decision.
I don’t know if this answers your question:
Last year when the First Selectwoman authorized WestCOG (Western Ct Council of Governments) to give the CTDOT funds for their Cribari Bridge Right of Way and Environmental studies—allowing the project which Jim Marpe had halted—she also authorized three Brownfields applications of $4,000,000.00 each. Roan subsequently filed those applications which were rejected last June.
One was rejected outright; the other two had commentary suggesting that the Brownfields group needed more information about the parties in the public/private partnership as well as recommendations to check more Transit Oriented District boxes. I don’t know whether Roan has pursued these and—if the decision calendar is the same this year as last—we won’t be able to find out until late June.
I obtained this information and relevant documents via a Freedom of Information request and am happy to forward copies to anyone interested.
So, the closest I can get to an answer is that, I guess some might see coincidence where others might see collusion…
Oops… forgot a zero… $4,000,000 each… $12,000,000 total… a pretty nice public subsidy for a private developer.
The bridge, while historical, is not really an object of great beauty and I personally would not object to its replacement, especially if it is a safety issue. I wish there were this much interest in beautiful historical homes being torn down around town. Having said that I completely agree that we do not want tractor trailers rumbling down Bridge St. and Greensfarms Rd. Could we not merely place a beam (aesthetically pleasing one, of course) or some other height restriction on the new, beautiful bridge which would prevent oversized traffic. Or just have signs posted prohibiting truck traffic with hefty fines for violators.
IIRC, if Connecticut is (re)building the bridge, Westport can’t set its own restrictions on its use.
As Greens Farms Road is a Town road, not a State road, we could presumably discourage commercial (and cut-through) traffic with additional stop signs, lights, speed humps, or whatever. (Not that that is the ideal solution.)
I do not know if we could limit use of Greens Farms Road to non-commercial traffic, if we were legally compelled to allow commercial traffic to use the bridge. (Or even if Towns are allowed to do that at all.)
The bridge is all about charm…westport shabby chic charm. It needs to remain and the hamlot needs to go. I thought all of Saugatuck was historical?
Oh well, maybe the rude out of towners are here to stay…or maybe we can push back.
Westport was not unlike a fairy-tale world when i moved here in the 60s.
It is shamefully awkward, however there is great book by Sinclair Lewis called Downtown–the new people move in and clash with the locals— great insults and put downs are hurled on both sides
I will forever remain an old school Westporter and resist change when it is not for the common good.
If one looks at the bridge and sees a pile of scrap metal, well I just dont know what to say…
We certainly don’t always have to be rude or hurl insults. I don’t think I said the bridge looks like a pile of scrap metal, only that there are worthier architectural and historical representations around town to concern ourselves with…colonial era beautiful homes being razed, housing projects being considered at Revolutionary war sites, etc. There must be ways to make the bridge safe without putting us at the mercy of the state of CT. which would probably like to put a toll plaza and a McDonald’s on it if it meant money for them.
According to the CT DOT as of yesterday, the members of the PAC are these individuals:
Robbie Guimond, Owner, Bridgebrook Marina
Ron Corwin, Member, Coalition for Westport
Jennifer Johnson, Member, Coalition for Westport
Christopher Wigren, Deputy Director, Connecticut Trust for Historic Preservation
Jim DeStefano, P.E., Resident, DeStefano & Chamberlain, Inc.
Norman Kramer, Vice President, Green’s Farms Association
Dick Lowenstein, Member of the Board of Directors, Green’s Farms Association
Art Schoeller, President, Green’s Farms Association
Kitty Henderson, Executive Director, Historic Bridge Foundation
Nathan Holth, Author/Webmaster, HistoricBridges.org
Bob Caporale, Member, Imperial Landing Homeowner’s Association
Werner Liepolt, Member, Residents of the Bridge Street Neighborhood
Mihaela Ungureanu, CEO, Saugatuck Rowing & Fitness Club, LLC
Valerie Seiling Jacobs, Co-Chairman, Save Westport Now
Paul Lebowitz, Chair, Planning and Zoning Commission, Town of Westport P&Z Commission
Peter Ratkiewich, P.E., Director of Public Works, Flood and Erosion Control Board, Town of Westport
Kristin Hadjstylianos, Senior Planner, WestCOG
Jennifer Tooker, First Selectwoman, Town of Westport
Matthew Mandell, Executive Director and President, Westport Chamber of Commerce
Nicholas Marsan, Fire Chief, Town of Westport Fire Department
Grayson Braun, Chair, Westport Historic District Commission (HDC)
Michelle Perillie, Director, Town of Westport Planning and Zoning
David Farrell, Deputy Chief, Operations Division, Westport Police Department
Foti Koskinas, Chief, Town of Westport Police Department
Morley Boyd, Member, Westport Preservation Alliance
Andrew Colabella, Member, Westport Representative Town Meeting
James Walsh, Chair, Town of Westport Shellfish Commission
Kai Irwin, Property owner, Property owner
Wow, 28 members of the PAC, including me! I never received an invitation. Did anyone else?
Oh yeah. I got an invitation alright. And I immediately asked DOT to push that meeting from 4 to 7pm – as was previously the custom – to allow members who work to participate. The agency said it understood and is presently considering the request.