you do what state this is right? someone knows a guy who knows a guy. now we pay 10m for nothing while ripta etc is under funded so routes keep getting cancelled, are late, etc but hey we reallllly need landscaping on 95 /s

Yup and they still can’t manage to make our roads any better.

East prov has the same kind of gulley on 195 -

NO landscaping-

Looks almost as bad as the Cross Bronx Expressway

I can’t speak for why it wasn’t done better in the past, but as for now, the work absolutely needs to be done. The old retaining walls were falling into the far lane: there is a Jersey barrier holding them back which is clearly only a temporary solution. The slope needs to be stabilized

https://maps.app.goo.gl/vYrnGzTEEdmu3D8Z9?g_st=ic

>some politician's brother in law needed work, and they passed a bill to add "landscaping" to the sides of 95.

Actually, 20 years ago, they decided to widen that part of I-95. But they couldn't take any more land in cranston, so they made the hill steeper/added retaining walls.

As usual, the problem is car infrastructure.

This article doesn't even include the word "lanscaping" so it seems a little ridiculous to claim that this isn't replacing 20+ old infrastructure that was visibly crumbling for years.

Most reports cite the new design as being easier to maintain, better visually and environmentally. I'm not sure this is some grand scheme so much as correcting a mistake made in the 90s now that they have to fix it anyway.

>As usual, the problem is

Cranston. The problem is always Cranston.

Governor Fung would be picking out his home in DC on Zillow right now if we ever left those weirdos in charge.

"retention walls", "planted slopes" == "landscaping", as far the world is concerned.

Travel a little outside of RI, and you'll see how totally unnecessary this graft is.

The old walls looked great initially but holy shit did they look terrible the last few years. I'm very happy they're fixing it up, actually.

It’s that way because they needed to widen 95 fifty years after it was built and couldn’t just take more land away.

They didn’t pick the best long term design and now it’s falling apart. They’re fixing that doesn’t because humans and engineers are a lot better at this shit now than even a few decades ago.

You’re making it sound like it’s purely cosmetic and that’s just blatantly false.

The old paver retaining walls certainly seem like a poor choice a couple decade ago, but the current grassed slope seems like the right move now. What would you want instead, just wait for the pavers to entirely fail?

> "retention walls", "planted slopes" == "landscaping"

They're just going to throw down a grass and wildflower seed mix, with a few trees here and there. Just like every other stretch of highway. There is nothing better nor cheaper. Grass retains the soil, trees retain the slope.

> The walls will be replaced with slopes planted with grass and wildflowers to make it more environmentally friendly and to retain the soil. Some trees will be replaced.

What do you suggest as a better or cheaper alternative?

it was so much worse before this! the dirt was so loose and fucked up that a big rainstorm would turn that section of highway into a mudslide

20 years ago the crumbling dirt slope would turn into a mudslide, they widened the highway and added retaining walls, they also added trees to help with noise pollution, if you lived anywhere near that area that highway would just echo for miles, idk how much landscaping costs, but I at the very least have better short term memory than a gold fish.

Don’t you know if you ignore it, the problem goes away?

Maybe it wasn’t necessary in the first place and I heard it greased some pockets back in the day. It definitely needs to get fixed though. It was crumbling.

$10 million seems excessive but as noted it's false to state this is a cosmetic improvement only. They need to do the work, and to do it right they will need time and time, when you are working with heavy equipment on a highway where you need to close lanes, means money. The materials they are using are probably the lowest cost line item on the budget.

Now, if you were complaining about whether the retaining wall blocks were a great idea 20 years ago, and whether they were designed with proper drainage of if anyone thought about the root systems of the bushes they planted and how that might come together to shorten the life of these walls, you would have a point. And I also get that the sunk cost fallacy doesn't mean we shouldn't examine the mistakes of the past, but that doesn't mean this is some kind of vanity project. These walls have been on an accelerated decay for the past 3-4 years and need some kind of repair/replacement just for safety's sake.

[deleted]

The problem is that they initially used Versalok walls, which corroded after being misted with road salt for years. Whoever drew up this initial design 20 years ago should’ve known better.