The following is an opinion submitted by Richard D. Rogovin. Mr. Rogovin is an attorney based in Ohio and Chairman of US Bridge. His daughter and her family live on Darbrook Road.
The issue isn’t the bridge; it’s the trucks
As a bridge engineer and lawyer with family in Westport, I’ve followed the Cribari Bridge controversy with professional interest and growing concern. After extensive research, I’ve concluded that Westport is focused on the wrong problem. The real issue threatening Westport’s quality of life isn’t whether we replace or rehabilitate the historic Cribari Memorial Bridge; it’s the surge of heavy truck traffic cutting through our residential neighborhoods, past our schools, and across our vulnerable infrastructure.
The numbers tell a troubling story
The data is striking. According to Connecticut’s Statewide Freight Plan, truck traffic statewide grew at a rate of 7.4% annually between 2015 and 2019, far outpacing the 0.2% growth in overall traffic. The heavily urbanized I-95 corridor between Greenwich and New Haven, which includes Westport, now carries between 15,000 and 22,000 trucks per day, with some sections near Bridgeport seeing the highest volumes.
More troubling still, the section of I-95 from Westport to Greenwich has repeatedly ranked among the most congested corridors in the entire United States. In 2024, the southbound morning commute through this area earned the dubious distinction of being the single busiest interstate corridor in America, with drivers losing an average of 150 hours per year to congestion during peak hours.
What does this mean for Westport? When I-95 becomes congested, which happens daily, GPS navigation apps like Waze and Google Maps automatically reroute trucks onto what they perceive as faster alternatives. Connecticut Route 136, with the Cribari Bridge as its centerpiece, becomes one of those “shortcuts.” These trucks have no legitimate business in Westport; they’re simply trying to bypass highway congestion.
The jurisdictional trap
Here’s where the problem becomes particularly frustrating: Westport is essentially powerless to control this traffic. Connecticut Route 136, including Bridge Street and the Cribari Bridge, is a state-owned road. Under Connecticut law, local governments have no jurisdiction over state roads. While towns can regulate weight limits on their own roads, they cannot restrict truck traffic on state routes without approval from the State Traffic Commission (now the Office of State Traffic Administration).
Even if Westport could obtain state approval for a “No Through Trucks” designation, the definition of “through truck” under Connecticut law is narrow: a truck traveling from outside town limits through town without any scheduled stop. A truck using GPS-directed routes can easily claim local business, making enforcement nearly impossible.
The state has told Westport that if the Cribari Bridge is replaced or substantially upgraded, it must accommodate 18-wheelers and remove weight restrictions. This isn’t about the bridge’s structural capacity; it’s about state policy regarding access on state roads. But meeting this requirement would essentially authorize and encourage the very truck traffic that’s destroying the neighborhood’s character and safety.
A solution hiding in plain sight
Interestingly, the solution to this problem already exists; or rather, it existed until the 1990s. According to Connecticut Turnpike records, weigh stations on both sides of I-95 near Exit 18 in Westport were removed during that decade. The former southbound weigh station property is now used by CTDOT for materials storage; the northbound station was demolished.
Those weigh stations were perfectly positioned to address today’s problem. Here’s why reopening them or establishing enhanced portable scale operations would work:
Deterrence Effect: The mere presence of a weigh station makes the “shortcut” less attractive. Truck drivers know that taking the exit means potentially being stopped for inspection, which eliminates any time savings from avoiding highway congestion.
Legitimate Enforcement: State authorities, not town officials, would operate the stations, avoiding jurisdictional conflicts. They could verify truck weight, safety compliance, and whether trucks have legitimate local destinations.
Strategic Location: Positioned at Exit 18 (or Exit 17), weigh stations would intercept trucks before they enter residential areas, not after.
Existing Legal Framework: Connecticut General Statutes Section 14-270c already mandates minimum staffing levels at weigh stations. The state currently operates six permanent facilities but has a 78-exit gap on I-95 between Greenwich and Waterford, leaving the entire southwestern Connecticut coast, including Westport, without coverage.
Proven Technology: The former Westport stations were equipped with weigh-in-motion capabilities, allowing electronic screening of moving trucks. This technology has only improved since the 1990s.
What citizens can do
This solution requires action at multiple levels:
Town Level: Westport’s First Selectman and Representative Town Meeting should formally request that the state reestablish weigh station operations in the Westport area. The town’s Legal Traffic Authority should petition the Office of State Traffic Administration.
Legislative Level: Westport’s state representatives and senators should introduce legislation requiring minimum staffing at weigh stations in the Westport area or authorizing funding for enhanced portable scale operations at critical locations. Building a coalition with Norwalk, Darien, Fairfield, and other affected communities would strengthen this effort.
State Agency Level: Citizens should petition the Connecticut Department of Transportation, the Commissioner of Public Safety, and the Commissioner of Motor Vehicles to prioritize enforcement in the Westport area. Connecticut maintains a hotline for reporting habitual overweight truck routes, document violations and report them.
Document and Publicize: We need data. Traffic counts showing truck volumes on Route 136 and Bridge Street, especially during I-95 congestion periods, would build the case. Safety incidents, infrastructure damage, and quality-of-life impacts should be systematically documented.
Reframing the conversation
The Cribari Bridge debate has consumed enormous energy and created deep divisions in the community. But we’re arguing about symptoms, not causes. Whether the historic bridge is restored or replaced, Westport will still face the fundamental problem: inappropriate truck traffic using our residential streets as a highway bypass.
The bridge should be preserved or replaced based on its own merits; its historic significance, structural condition, and role in Westport’s character. But that decision should be made after we’ve addressed the underlying truck traffic problem, not before.
Weigh stations offer a practical, legally sound, and politically achievable solution. They protect Westport’s neighborhoods without requiring us to fight the state over jurisdiction. They deter inappropriate traffic without the need for constant enforcement. And they serve legitimate state interests in highway safety and infrastructure protection.
The Connecticut Department of Transportation has told us that truck access is non-negotiable. Perhaps it’s time to show them that truck enforcement is equally non-negotiable. Our children’s safety, our historic neighborhoods, and our irreplaceable infrastructure demand nothing less.
Richard D. Rogovin
Attorney at Law
Chairman, U.S. Bridge
dickrogo@gmail.com
(614) 209-5010
Richard
You have definitely identified a big part of the problem and with a broader view than anyone else identified a practical approach to a solution.
Anecdotally the placement of those two weigh stations in Westport by the Lowell Weicker administration was viewed as somewhat spiteful political payback. And here—if it is feasible—the payback becomes a benefit.
My bigger concern is that CTDOT has strayed far from Federal Highway Administration procedures with regard to National Historic Districts and Structures.
As you perhaps know, over 750 Westporters have signed a petition asking for federal oversight on this project as a result of our former selectperson’s lack of transparency, CTDOT’s failure to provide proper public notices, no public hearings of any kind, the initiation of mitigation proceedings without a Section 106 review, etc.
Please add your signature to the petition….
https://c.org/xM7ZPdyV82
I expect to share a response from the Federal Highway Administration soon.
There will be many more developments before the highly anticipated March 19 public hearing which CTDOT has finally condescended to schedule.
And all interested Westporters should put it into their calendars.
CTDOT
Cribari Bridge Hearing
March 19, 2026
Westport Town Hall Auditorium
An excellent and, for me, surprising Op Ed. I learned a lot.
This bridge has been an issue for decades. Unfortunately, so has the issue of the State, not wanting accountability regarding traffic, and overweight trucks on our highways. weigh stations at a minimum should be present & manned when trucks enter the state from any direction, so they can be caught for violations etc. The State, has always backed away from any commitment to do that for decades, allowing our infrastructure to deteriorate steadily, which taxpayers pay for dearly, along with loss of quality of life daily. If violators were caught regularly, our tax dollars wouldn’t be wasted as much in constant repairs, but rather improving quality of life within the State. But, iur lawmakers can’t seem to make that happen.
The old weigh station on I95 in Westport was hated by residents mainly because of all the distinctly non-weigh station related stuff that was going on there. Just use your imagination if you weren’t around back then.
As for solutions hiding in plain sight, the solution isn’t even hiding. It’s already in place. The non-standard height of the current, historic span works almost perfectly 24/7 to filter out unwanted
large truck traffic.
Of course, there are firms which understand and specialize in the restoration and adaptation of historic iron bridges. But, to judge from its newly issued bid request, that’s not what DOT wants. It wants the transportation equivalent of an enormous, gold plated ballroom.
I have a suggestion, namely that we negotiate with the State Traffic Administration to grant the town the right to set vehicle speeds and “types” on Route 136 from the Cribari Bridge/ Riverside Avenue intersection to the Post Road. (Ownership and maintenance would remain a State responsibility.) This would make Greens Farms Road/Bridge St. a town-controlled road.
Dick Lowenstein
RTM District 5 Representative
Proud to live in a town where great original ideas come from all corners. Maybe we could set up our own toll booth—- 18 wheelers pay 2 thousand to cross. Solutions should be incentives based and not reliant on politicians to just do the right thing.
I believe Congressman Stewart McKinney a popular and deservedly so lawmaker was opposed to the Westport weight stations because of the environmental damage and pollution of Sherwood Island State Park that he feared.
Sherwood Island has been a lovely facility since 1960 and should remain one for all of the public to enjoy. This fact should be taken into consideration.
I agree with Todd Tracy. I too, am proud to live in a town where ideas come from all corners.
I am fairly certain the bridge is not in danger of structural failure anytime soon, so that is not the driving issue.
I believe the concern about the physical structure lies with two issues; the bridge’s ability to open and close without freezing, subjecting it to a manual cranking operation performed by someone ( a “bridge keeper”? )
I believe the second issue concerns the width of the roadbed. The Congress of New Urbanism focusses on narrowing roads to slow traffic speeds which I support. I’m OK with slowing down my vehicular speed while crossing the bridge, it’s just another form of a speed bump.
Most important to me is; maintaining the culture of the Saugatuck Neighborhood. As long as the bridge remains structurally sound why should it be replaced by a bland new flat top bridge similar to the Post Road crossing? While I remain in favor of well conceived redevelopment projects in the neighborhood, I believe this iconic structure is an integral part of the community’s identity and should remain in place, rehabilitated under historic guidelines.
Having experience using Federal and State Historic Tax credits for my affordable housing projects, I am hard pressed to believe there isn’t a creative solution to bring in historic tax credits to help pay for the bridge’s rehabilitation.
For example that is similar but not identical; I worked on a project in upstate CT where the Town was left with an abandoned polluted site (through default, the owners fled the country) and wanted to rehabilitate the site but did not want to take ownership in the chain of title for obvious reasons.
The Town set up a trust (with a volunteer board of directors, etc.) to take title of the site. Funds then flowed into the trust for the remediation, then the trust was disbanded upon completion.
I am not an attorney but we have many brilliant ones residing in our community who may be willing to give this crazy idea some thought.
Why can’t we place the bridge in a trust, secure some historic tax credits to fund a portion (40%-45%) of the rehabilitation, bring in a private institutional investor to purchase the tax credits and control our own destiny.
Just a thought from way out in left field.
~ Joseph Vallone, A.I.A.
Thoughtful perspective. Many residents seem to share the goal of preserving the character of Saugatuck while making sure the bridge remains safe and functional.
Whatever one’s view on rehabilitation vs. replacement, this is exactly the kind of conversation the community should be having openly — including ideas about preservation, design, funding, and alternatives.
I especially appreciate your knowledge of The Congress of New Urbanism as it measures progress in what’s good for people rather than the Robert Moses’ approach the measures progress in what’s good for concrete and fuel.
If people care about the future of the bridge and the historic district around it, now is a good time to stay informed and participate in upcoming public discussions. Community input only matters if it’s heard.
https://c.org/xM7ZPdyV82
Signing the petition for federal oversight will help ensure that all voices are heard the way our federal regulations intend.