Below is an opinion submitted by a number of current and past members of the RTM.
As current and former RTM members, we believe that the discussions and decisions regarding the rehabilitation or replacement of the Cribari Bridge should be based on three criteria.
First, “public safety” is the top priority. Based on the CT-DOT engineering review, the Cribari bridge fails to meet the “minimum criteria” for the daily vehicle traffic it handles. Additionally, the sidewalk does not adhere to “minimum standards” for pedestrians. When the bridge is in an “open position” (for marine travel), there is no solid roadway barrier, which poses a public safety risk. Any measures should focus on the core structural problems and address prohibiting any large trucks, such as semi-tractor trailers, from using town roads, possibly through a town ordinance.
Second, both cost and longevity should be prioritized equally. The lifecycle costs for rehabilitation and structural replacement are similar; however, a complete structural replacement would double the bridge’s lifespan, extending it by another 75 years or more.
Third, the Cribari Bridge is vital to the entire Westport community, so every district should have a say. It offers a direct path to Westport’s primary transportation center, and losing this access would lead to increased and redirected traffic across the town, causing disruptions for commuters and affecting commercial activity in the Saugatuck area.
Modernization of the Cribari bridge is essential to ensuring Westport remains a liveable and vibrant town for decades.
Current RTM
- Joseph Carson (D7)
- Ross Burkhardt (D3)
- Adam Drake (D3)
- Jill Grayson (D8)
- Jennifer Johnson (D9)
Former RTM
- Harris Falk
- Sal Liccione
I couldn’t agree more.
Although aesthetics have to take a back seat to safety, efficiency and durability, there is an opportunity here for a radically modern bridge design which will be a significant landmark of which the community can be proud.
Heavy truck traffic must and can be effectively prevented in any one of a number of ways.
If it is the consensus of the community that the existing bridge must be preserved as an artifact of historic value, we should explore the idea of moving it to a location north of the Post Road.
A Fourth Criterion for the Cribari Bridge Decision
The recent op-ed by current and former RTM members offers a thoughtful framework for evaluating the future of the Cribari Bridge: public safety, cost and longevity, and the bridge’s importance to the town as a whole.
Those are appropriate and important criteria.
There is, however, a fourth criterion that deserves equal attention—one that underlies all three: whether the federal review process is being carried out in a manner that fully and accurately evaluates impacts before decisions are made.
More than 1,500 residents have now signed a petition calling for federal oversight of the Environmental Assessment currently underway—not to advocate for a specific outcome, but to ensure that the analysis is complete, transparent, and grounded in evidence.
Under the National Environmental Policy Act and Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act, the review must consider not only structural and engineering needs, but also indirect and cumulative effects—including traffic patterns, congestion, and impacts to historic districts. These requirements are not technicalities; they are the mechanism by which communities ensure that decisions reflect real-world conditions.
For example, the Environmental Assessment—based in part on analysis conducted in 2020—appears to assume that larger trucks will not find this route desirable, even if the bridge’s existing limitations are removed. Yet it is not clear that this assumption has been tested through modeling that reflects current GPS-based routing behavior or regional traffic dynamics between I-95 interchanges.
If that assumption proves incorrect, the effects would extend beyond the bridge itself. Bridge Street, Imperial Avenue, South Compo Road, Greens Farms Road, and connecting streets already carry local traffic, delivery vehicles, and multiple school bus routes serving Westport’s elementary, middle, and high schools. There are numerous daily school bus stops along Bridge Street alone. Increased volumes—or the introduction of larger trucks—could affect congestion, turning movements, and safety conditions, particularly along constrained segments and near intersections used by buses and pedestrians.
Similarly, the definition of the Area of Potential Effects plays a critical role in understanding how changes to the bridge might affect the surrounding neighborhood. The Visual Impact Assessment included in the Environmental Assessment does not appear to account for all properties within the Bridge Street National Register Historic District, including several with direct seasonal or elevated views of the bridge. A narrowly defined Area of Potential Effects may overlook indirect impacts—such as changes in traffic behavior and visual setting—on a district that has been part of Westport’s fabric for generations.
Recent discussion of potential right-of-way acquisition affecting multiple properties within or adjacent to the district further underscores the importance of ensuring that impacts are clearly identified and evaluated.
These are not abstract concerns, and they are not limited to a single viewpoint. They are questions that go to the completeness of the analysis itself—and that merit careful consideration as the review proceeds.
None of this is to argue for or against a particular outcome. It is to suggest that the three criteria identified by RTM members can only be meaningfully applied if the underlying analysis fully reflects real-world conditions, including how modern traffic actually behaves.
As the public comment period continues through April 17, residents have an opportunity to ensure that these considerations are included in the official record. Careful, fact-based input—particularly on traffic, congestion, school transportation, and historic context—can help ensure that the final decision rests on a complete and accurate understanding of the bridge’s role in the life of the town.
A new bridge equals large trucks. Period. Everything else is happy talk.
In Hollywood they have a saying when something is overtly obvious, ‘too on the nose’.
Let’s take these three criteria as examples, first- safety. That’s a real brain twister. Uh yeah, the bridge is probably unsafe at this point or will be soon.
Next up we have ‘long lasting’ … since it’s already the oldest in Connecticut, will need maintenance as with any bridge.
And third, wow—- this is a crazy-wild over the top invention— we should decide together…— luckily our town government is structured for this already.
I think Larry’s comments might be getting at what I was thinking. the aesthetic of the bridge, as it stands, is nothing short of Gothic Steampunk. To replace it with modern? what is more modern than an electric swivel. I agree it could be salvaged to an upriver location or a section of it for dead man’s creek behind the library.
As a post modernist symbol of Westport’s future, we need to venture outside. Having all the committees laboring over safety and cost would be tedious. A committee of one, nothing great gets designed by groupthink— see Ayn Rand’s movie about architectural ambition.
I propose… —The Saugatuck Skyway— … lifting Westport up — into the 21st century. Instead of sitting in traffic wondering if today is the day the bridge falls into the river, you are lifted up over the traffic and nestled cleanly on the other side. It is not just a span, it’s a statement promoting civic futurism.
We must have a competition, a design challenge, judged by the Westport popular vote. The design with the most votes wins!
It should be all about the design, the more controversial the better. Once we find one we like, just throw engineering at it — till safe.
Route 95 is the source of the Cribari / Greens Farms traffic problem. It should be the source of the solution. At certain times it is inadequate at handling traffic density which triggers basic human impulse to game the system. Solve the route 95 equation and there would be little inducement for commercial traffic to waste time with a bypass. Easily said, I know…
Joey Kaempfer , a staples graduate and forward thinker, made a similar point elsewhere about exploring different creative designs, and I believe he even offered to help. Ross Burkhardt suggested that a creative, iconic design could eventually become historic. It absolutely opens up the conversation and creates an opportunity for meaningful community involvement—something we currently grasping for.
I stand by the idea that there are only two options: either a no‑build approach that gives us 15+ additional years, or…. a full replacement with creative control over the design, location, and as much historical educational opportunity as possible. Just because it’s new doesn’t prevent it from honoring history not only of the span but of Saugatuck as a whole. That idea might lean toward a classic truss design… I suppose the Jurys still out.
What’s clear is that no matter what is chosen, once the trusses are split, it’s no longer the bridge as we know it. Its scale will be altered forever, and trying to cling to that isn’t reasonable.
Additionally, I’d love to hear a formal position from the fire department, as each argument falls second to safety, as it should.