When Connecticut Department of Transportation (DOT) pulled up a concept photo from the proposed plan to elevate and widen the Route 146 bridge commonly known as the “crabbing bridge” at a public information session on March 19, the audience response—a mixture of scoffs, gasps, head shakes, and raised eyebrows—made the initial local sentiment pretty clear: The current concept isn’t going to fly with the people of Guilford.

The bridge in question is formally known as Bridge No. 02677. The DOT has plans to replace the bridge—State Project No. 59-157—in the spring of 2021 due to the deteriorating condition of the structure.

The current structure is a six-foot box culvert built in 1930 over a man-made causeway. According to the DOT presentation, the culvert has deteriorated t such a point that it is now ranked as a three on a scale of 0-9 with nine being the safest ranking. In addition, the existing guardrail is substandard and the culvert restricts water flow and does not allow of adequate tidal flushing of the marsh.

According to the DOT, the working concept plan is to replace the existing culvert with a 360-foot, three-span bridge, complete with new retaining walls and a new bridge railing. The proposal would widen the structure from the current 26 feet to 32 feet to allow for a bike shoulder and lift the bridge several feet. The project is expected to cost $14 million, all coming from state funds. Availability of funding will determine the exact start date of the project.

DOT Manager of Bridges Theodore Nezames told the 100-person crowd at the community center information session that the project is a concept at this stage and formal design has not yet begun. However, doing nothing is not an option.

“This project is being done because I have a structurally deficient bridge that is rated serious and I have to take care of this,” he said. “I have to either replace the bridge or close the road, which I don’t want to do. When we do replace it, we have to replace it with a hydraulically adequate size and we have to follow all of the current guidelines for how to design a bridge.”

Residents didn’t seem to take any issue with the fact that something has to be done to fix the road, but the size and scope of the proposal sparked a lot of comments and questions. Route 146 Scenic Road Advisory Committee Co-Chair Shirley Girioni said Route 146 is on the National Register of Historic Places and is designated a scenic road under the scenic roads act.

“This plan does not maintain the character of the road, either in terms of width or grade while it is perfectly practical to keep it,” she said. “This plan is a highway bridge superimposed on a scenic country road. It does not take into consideration the sensitive context of the road. In tonight’s presentation, the fact of Route 146 being a scenic road, and its context, have not been mentioned by representatives of DOT.”

The highway comparison was a popular comment from residents. Robert Yaro said the concept looks like “a little piece of I-95 dropped out of the sky” and said the concept is not appropriate and won’t be well received by the community.

“I think what you are going to find is a hornets nest if you try to proceed with this bridge with this proposal or anything like it,” he said. “I don’t know if it is going to be farmers with pitchforks or lawsuits or some combination of the two.”

Nezames said the DOT will try to be as sensitive as possible to the historic nature of the current bridge, but said there are also certain safety standards that must be met.

“We are going to try to pay as much attention as we can, but I still have to meet current standards and I still have to make the road safe,” he said.

Environmental concerns were also a popular point among residents. Resident Allyn Brown said he has concerns about the level of disruption construction and a new structure might cause.

“The big thing I am worried about is if you take up that material, we are not only going to have erosion, we are going to have silt,” he said. “It will flow down that channel and that affects our wildlife and our clamming. We have one of the best clamming areas in the state of Connecticut and we do not want that affected.”

Nezames said to do this project, the DOT will need permits from the Department of Energy & Environmental Protection (DEEP). DEEP will require the use of sheet piling and possibly silt curtain so that all material removed doesn’t pollute the waterway. He said having a wider space under the bridge will also cut back on erosion.

“What causes erosion is the velocity of the water,” he said. “So right now the water is moving very fast through that culvert and there are big sinkholes on either side of the road right now and that is what removes material. The wider the bridge is, the slower the water will go and the less chance of erosion we will have.”

Traffic Concerns

Before the public information session, this proposal sparked significant concern on social media because the initial concept involved closing part of Rt. 146 for many months for construction. Nezames said town officials made it clear to the DOT that full road closure is not acceptable to residents, businesses, or emergency vehicles.

“That made us switch what we were thinking and that is why we are now looking into alternating one-way traffic or staged construction,” he said. “We are going to do everything that we can so that if we do have to close the road for a short period of time to drive some of the big beams, it will be on off-peak hours for a very short duration, so maybe a couple of hours.”

Resident Bill Leete brought up the issue of the width of the road as well. The bridge proposal would widen the bridge itself, but Leete said he wanted to be sure the DOT wasn’t planning to try to widen any more of Route 146.

“We are not widening the road beyond the edge of the bank,” said Nezames. “We are just widening it on the bridge with five foot sides because that is our standard. That makes it safe for a bike to ride. We will be looking at those exceptions and possibly we don’t need a five-foot shoulder and then we wouldn’t be widening anything.”

The Big Picture

Most residents agreed that Route 146 is beautiful because of the scenic views of the marsh, but most residents will also tell you—as they did in the information session—that Rt. 146 also has big issues with flooding. During a full moon, high tide, a big rain storm, etc. the two railway underpasses to the north and south of the bridge in question always flood, often making the road impassable.

Resident Carl Balestracci said just putting in this new bridge is not going to solve the problems of Route 146.

“I think for the state DOT to look simply at this one problem that you are faced with trying to improve is only looking at one very small piece of the problem,” he said. “I would really stress that we need to work together and see that we have some common ideas and common concerns.”

Resident Sid Gale said he has been photographing Route 146 for more than 10 years. He said flooding is an issue now and that problem will only grow over the next several decades.

“At some point this will be problematic for people in their daily lives,” he said. “In that context, between sea level rise and coming to a neighborhood near us…I think it is critical that we not just look at this project but at the whole Route 146 system and take it in as a whole.”

Fellow residents and town officials present at the meeting echoed the need for a long-term plan. Nezames said he doesn’t disagree with that point and mentioned that the state is looking to shore up bridges all along the coast in anticipation of rising seas.

“We understand the problem and right now this is the solution for this bridge,’ he said. “If I am going to fix the bridge, I should set it up to be a solution for the future, too, and that is what I am trying to do.”

Nezames thanked residents for coming to the meeting and sharing their thoughts. The DOT wrote down all comments made and Nezames said those comments and concerns will be taken into consideration when formal design work begins.