Below is an opinion submitted by Save Westport Now co-chairs Ian Warburg and Valerie Seiling Jacobs.
Although the DOT claims that no final decision has been made, their actions suggest otherwise. It’s clear they are moving forward with their “preferred” plan to demolish the current structure and replace it with a much larger one designed to accommodate all types of vehicles, including 18-wheelers.
Indeed, before requesting letters of intent from contractors, the DOT quietly removed all references to historic preservation from the official project description—even though the bridge is individually listed on the National Register of Historic Places and even though the surrounding neighborhood is also nationally designated as a Historic District. As a result, contractors are not required to have expertise in preserving or rehabilitating historic structures.
Given the DOT’s accelerated timeline, it’s critical that Westporters come together ASAP to develop a constructive alternative. Without action, we could end up with a bridge that is out of scale for Saugatuck and one that funnels even more I-95 spillover traffic—including trucks—onto Bridge Street and Greens Farms Road.
This poses real safety risks, especially given the number of school buses and children on those streets. (Did you know that a jury recently awarded a Westport teenager $9 million after she was struck and seriously injured on Bridge Street?) Adding to our concerns, we understand that the DOT also plans to replace the bridge over Sasco Creek (at the other end of Greens Farms Road) with a larger structure, potentially turning the entire corridor into an unofficial I-95 bypass.
A Constructive Path Forward: A New “Adaptive Rehabilitation Alternative”
To support our Town officials in finding a workable solution, we propose that the Town recommend a new Adaptive Rehabilitation Alternative, which would include:
- Splitting the bridge lengthwise and widening it, using a procedure employed in Vermont with the Checkered House Bridge (another nationally registered truss span bridge), thus allowing for wider travel lanes, better pedestrian access, and dedicated bike lane(s). Here’s a link to a video showing how it was done;
- Replacing the existing standard issue guard rail with a narrow crash rail system, which is a compliant retrofit system especially well-suited for use on historic bridges; and
- Addressing any deficiencies in the piers and buttresses—but still ensuring that any reconstructed elements are consistent with published National Park Service standards for the treatment of registered historic resources.
We note that, contrary to the DOT’s claims, this type of rehabilitation is feasible in CT. In other words, NOT all bridges need to be built to current standards. In fact, our research reveals, that at least two other historic bridges in CT have been successfully rehabilitated by the DOT—without bringing them up to current code. Interestingly, the DOT won an award for its rehabilitation of one of those bridges, and it later published a book on its inventory of historic bridges in which the Cribari Bridge is specifically featured. It also produced a special 2-volume Plan of Preservation for the bridges in its care. The point is that—despite what the DOT claims—there is a way to balance modern transportation needs with historic preservation.
Three Key Points to Remember
- The bridge is structurally sound. Contrary to what the DOT and some state legislators have suggested, the bridge is not in danger of collapsing. It may appear dented and rusty, but according to the DOT’s own inspection report the bridge is in fair condition. Thus, the DOT’s insistence on replacing it (as opposed to repairing it) does not appear to be responsive to the report, but rather, suggests that they may be motivated by a different agenda.
- The DOT appears to have violated federal laws. Because the DOT failed to give public notice of important meetings (and for myriad other reasons), we believe that the DOT violated federal laws that mandate special procedures and protections for historic structures and districts. More than 800 people have already signed a petition raising these concerns and asking the feds to intervene. If you haven’t yet signed the petition, please consider doing so.
- The Town may need to reclaim control. If the DOT continues to disregard federal law and our preservation efforts, the only option (short of litigation) may be for the Town to reclaim funding control—just as Mr. Marpe did in 2017—by asking our WESTCOG partners to suspend funding until an acceptable compromise is reached.
Tomorrow, at 7 p.m., there will be a town-wide Zoom meeting to discuss the future of the bridge–hosted by RTM Districts 1, 4, and 9.
We hope to see you there as we work collaboratively to find a solution that benefits the whole town.
Ian E. Warburg
Valerie Seiling Jacobs
Co-Chairs, Save Westport Now
contactsavewestportnow@gmail.com
Instructions to attend: Click here to join Zoom meeting
Phone: +13052241968,,83320641977# US
Meeting ID: 833 2064 1977
Passcode: 538790
Wowee! Save Westport Now has done its homework. This is the most promising alternative I’ve heard to date: to provide a safer alternative for pedestrian and bikes while preserving this important historic structure, and keeping I95 size trucks on I95. It’s especially promising if state funding is allowed for such a project.
It seems the first step is for the town to take action and reclaim its authority?
It is encouraging to see the RTM stepping forward to insist on clearly noticed public hearings — a core expectation of any meaningful environmental review process. Public participation is not a formality; it is intended to inform the development of alternatives before decisions are effectively locked in.
Many residents are concerned not simply about whether a hearing occurs, but about timing. When consultant procurement advances and major analytical documents are already in circulation, a single late-stage hearing–such as CTDOT has called for on March 19–-risks feeling procedural rather than substantive. A well-structured, clearly noticed hearing held early enough to influence assumptions — including traffic, safety, and neighborhood impacts — is essential to restoring confidence in the process.
Save Westport Now deserves real credit here. Its reporting has been careful, data-driven, and notably free of rhetoric. By asking probing questions and presenting documents in context, SWN has helped elevate the discussion beyond slogans and into substantive civic analysis — exactly what a healthy community conversation requires.
Westport residents care deeply about safety, mobility, fiscal responsibility, and preservation. More than 800 have signed a petition insisting CTDOT provide hearings before making decisions. Those goals are not mutually exclusive. Transparent process, grounded in evidence and open debate, is the best way to ensure they are responsibly balanced before final commitments are made.
https://portal.ct.gov/dot/-/media/dot/projects/cribari-bridge/final_signed_cribari_ea-eie-158-214.pdf?rev=b30ab825b9e24b5595d458901455858f&hash=A5B17D43C08D21F051824BF683ED5249
Please review the report before the meetings. The “rehab” option has been explored and the report shows why its not a preferred option.
The RTM zoom meeting is great , but lets stick with facts and keep in mind the west bank of town has just as much right to traffic relief as other parts of town.
P.S. Don’t forget to shovel your side walks .
Just to clarify, the term “preferred” is a reference to the DOT’s preference – as expressed in the agency’s Environmental Assessment report. It should not be confused with anyone else’s preference.
As it happens, per section 4(f) of the Department of Transportation Act, the burden is presently on DOT to demonstrate that the Adaptive Rehabilitation Alternative outlined above is not a feasible and prudent alternative to the bridge’s replacement.
And the reason why that burden is now on the DOT is that the law prohibits the Federal Highway Administration from approving a project which “uses” a historic site (demolition is considered a “use”) unless it is proven that there is no feasible and prudent avoidance alternative. The Cribari Bridge is, as most everyone knows, individually listed on the National Register of Historic Places. That makes it a lawful “historic site” under Section 4(f).
If residents and readers want to express their desire to have a voice in the shaping and decision making process that CTDOT may be circumventing, signing the petition is a start
https://c.org/xM7ZPdyV82
Logging into tomorrow night’s RTM meeting should also be informative.
I have raised questions with the Federal Highway Administration about how “fresh” the findings on which their assumptions and preferences are based as their documents appear to be based on pre-COVID figures and even much older documents. Westport and Westport’s residents have changed dramatically since. In my neighborhood there has been at least a 25% turn over.
These new residents are not represented in the CTDOT documents nor has CTDOT given them an opportunity to be heard.