Pawtucket I-95 bridge design revealed



Pawtucket I-95 bridge design revealed

The Providence Business News posted a recent article on the redesign plans for the Pawtucket I-95 bridge that’s caused so much trouble as of late.  One paragraph in particular caught my attention:

To avoid a “dark and dreary” atmosphere such as that pedestrians encounter beneath the existing bridge, he noted, the task force spent a lot of time working on its design for the underside of the new bridge, where the state bike path and other riverfront development are likely to be situated.

Does anyone know if there are tangible plans for a bike path along here?  If so, are there any bicycle advocacy groups involved with the project and ensuring that the bridge does indeed leave open the possibility of a future bike path.

While I’m sure it will be a beautiful bridge, I can’t help but wonder how much of the $100 million price tag will go towards asthetic purposes.  If instead of spending it on asthetic purposes, couldn’t it go towards actually funding said bike path?


  • Bruce
    Mar 5, 2009 at 7:59 am

    Bike path or just the route to hook up the East Side to the Blackstone path?

  • Mar 5, 2009 at 8:27 am

    I was specifically interested in the fact that they explicitly mentioned "bike path". I didn't know there were any plans underway for a bike path along here.

  • Paul
    Mar 5, 2009 at 9:26 am

    Segment 2 of the Blackstone Bike Path will go under the bridge.

  • Mar 5, 2009 at 9:39 am

    Thanks Paul, that was the piece of the puzzle I was missing.

  • Bruce
    Mar 5, 2009 at 11:48 am

    There is a map on the DOT site that outlines the planned routes & paths. It is illegible. It sure looks like Paul is right. Three is a nice yellow line in the area but I can't read the map legend. I have contacted Steve about it.

  • Danny
    Mar 13, 2009 at 2:16 pm

    I'm afraid there actually is economic and environmental value to aesthetics. The better it looks, the more people will want to maintain it, preserve it, and not have to tear it down 50 years from now.

  • Mar 16, 2009 at 6:02 am

    The better it looks, the more people will want to maintain it, preserve it, and not have to tear it down 50 years from now.

    But at what cost? I just returned from attending the National Bike Summit in DC last week and was shocked to discover that over 1/3 of our highway dollars are used toward landscaping projects. Sure, I like a nice planting just as much as the next person, but is it worth over a third of our dollars?

    As for maintaining a bridge, isn't this the job of RIDOT? They should do the same level of work on the bridge whether it's pretty or not. I'm not against the idea of making a nice looking bridge, but they need to be a LOT more transparent about the costs. I think if people were aware of how much each aspect of these various projects cost and were able to get a breakdown of the costs, there might be a re-alignment of dollars.

  • Mar 16, 2009 at 6:21 am

    They literally spend $200,000 for motoring for every $1 of bike infrastructure. The annual national expense for motoriing construction is almost $700,000,000,000. Yet ratio of motorists to bicyclists is 3:1. The roadnet is the centerpiece of capitalistic bloodletting plan more designed to impoverish the poor than provide opportunities. Society has to rethink such systems to include the maximum number of people in the expenses AND rewards.

    Bike infrastructure has proven to return its investment 20:1, but not so roads for motoring alone. In fact, you can't cost justify limited access highways at all.