Was I-895 supposed to be on what is now RI-238? Some say I-895 would be over the RI-138 bridge and others say not. If it were to be on RI-238 what would be the routing? There isn't much below the Newport bridge or RI-238.
If I-895 would follow today's RI-138 you can see where it would "exit itself" onto and off of the bridge.
https://www.google.com/maps/place/Newport,+RI/@41.500282,-71.3167324,730m/data=!3m1!1e3!4m2!3m1!1s0x89e5bab70509976b:0xce5e96f72c2f6f21!6m1!1e1
I-895 was supposed to be a loop, not a spur, so yes it would have followed RI 138. 238 was to have been a four-lane spur from there into Newport.
I-895 (RI/MA) History (http://www.kurumi.com/roads/3di/i895.html#895ri)
Steve Anderson's Boston Roads site also has more descriptive info. but some (myself included) have recently could not successfully open several of his pages.
Side bar: after the I-895 project died; there was still plans/talk during the mid-to-late 80s about building a highway along Burma Road (located along the west side of Aquidneck Island (Portsmouth/Middletown/Newport)) between the RI 138 stub and where RI 24 ends at RI 114. Such would've been an extension of RI 24. Needless to say, those plans went nowhere.
This stub is one of the ugliest roadway eyesores in RI...right up there with the abandoned US-44/Henderson Bridge project in Providence/East Providence. I don't know why they haven't ripped the whole thing up and reconstructed a nice island-separated 4-lane boulevard with antique-style light towers to compliment Newport and welcome people into the city.
I wish they had extended RI 24 to RI 138. I hate how RI 24 abruptly ends and converts to local travel on RI 114 with all of those traffic lights.
Quote from: southshore720 on April 13, 2015, 12:52:13 AM
This stub is one of the ugliest roadway eyesores in RI...right up there with the abandoned US-44/Henderson Bridge project in Providence/East Providence. I don't know why they haven't ripped the whole thing up and reconstructed a nice island-separated 4-lane boulevard with antique-style light towers to compliment Newport and welcome people into the city.
I wish they had extended RI 24 to RI 138. I hate how RI 24 abruptly ends and converts to local travel on RI 114 with all of those traffic lights.
Apart from the traffic lights, my pet peeve is with whomever made the decision to remove the
BGS MGS (medium green sign) at the right turn from RI
114 138 to
the street that Admiral Kalbfus Road, which takes you down to the Newport Bridge, and replace it with a tiny bridge trailblazer instead.
Quote from: roadman on April 13, 2015, 11:06:23 AMApart from the traffic lights, my pet peeve is with whomever made the decision to remove the BGS at the turn from RI 114 to the street that takes you down to the Newport Bridge and replace it with a tiny bridge trailblazer instead.
When was this BGS removed? I drove around in the area often during the mid-80s (college years) and do not recall ever seeing any BGS' in that area. There may have been some smaller (LGS', RIDOT's version of D6/D8 signs) in that area back then; but IIRC, RIDOT was never really consistent with their arterial highway signage.
Personally & IMHO, since RI 114 doesn't continue beyond the intersection of W. Main Rd./Broadway/Adm. Kalbfus Blvd. into Newport (did it at one time?); the stretch of W. Main Road between there and the E. Main Rd. branch-off (currently RI 114
and 138) should be just RI 138. The short 114/138 concurrency's kind of useless.
First thing I'd like to see is to complete the RI 238 continuation as 4 lanes, rather than the awkward stub-4-stub-2-4 configuration. The ROW is all still there. Then I'd like to see 114 and 138 be made into a one-way pair on either side of the peninsula. There are plenty of crossovers between the two sides. That would also cut down or eliminate the lights.
Quote from: Alps on April 13, 2015, 06:34:06 PMThen I'd like to see 114 and 138 be made into a one-way pair on either side of the peninsula. There are plenty of crossovers between the two sides. That would also cut down or eliminate the lights.
Good luck with that. There's a sizeable chunk of businesses along both E. Main Rd. (RI 138) & W. Main Rd. (RI 114) in both Middletown & Portsmouth that will never go for such. Additionally, several of those cross streets that you're referring to are residential streets; I'm sure they'll love having more traffic on their streets. Not to mention that fact that the distance between those roads get as wide as 1-1/2 miles apart; a bit too long for a cross-connection. This isn't US 202 in northern Delaware nor PA 291 in Lester (Tinicum Twp.).
While your idea has merit; it'll likely face just as much NIMBY opposition as the Burma Road Expressway (RI 24 Extension) and I-895 did.
BTW, Aquidneck Island is not a peninsula.
Quote from: PHLBOS on April 13, 2015, 01:45:37 PM
Quote from: roadman on April 13, 2015, 11:06:23 AMApart from the traffic lights, my pet peeve is with whomever made the decision to remove the BGS at the turn from RI 114 to the street that takes you down to the Newport Bridge and replace it with a tiny bridge trailblazer instead.
When was this BGS removed? I drove around in the area often during the mid-80s (college years) and do not recall ever seeing any BGS' in that area. There may have been some smaller (LGS', RIDOT's version of D6/D8 signs) in that area back then; but IIRC, RIDOT was never really consistent with their arterial highway signage.
Personally & IMHO, since RI 114 doesn't continue beyond the intersection of W. Main Rd./Broadway/Adm. Kalbfus Blvd. into Newport (did it at one time?); the stretch of W. Main Road between there and the E. Main Rd. branch-off (currently RI 114 and 138) should be just RI 138. The short 114/138 concurrency's kind of useless.
The sign in question, which I'd categorize as a MGS (medium green sign), indicated both RI 138 and the Newport Bridge. It was located in the southwest corner of the intersection with Adm. Kalbfus Blvd., but was removed sometime between July of 2013 and July of 2014 and replaced with a much smaller Newport Bridge trailblazer in the northwest corner of the intersection.
It's also too bad that they never extended RI 37 over Narragansett Bay to Barrington so that residents in central RI could easily access the bay communities. However, Barrington's upper crust would not want their polo courts and topiary gardens with koi fish ponds tampered with.
I drove there this week and noticed the transition from RI-138 south crossing over to the "NB side" to follow RI-238 SB has been revamped. You still cross over but they straightened out the crossover. It's a bigger gap rather than just crossing over at a break in the center guard-rail. Along with it came a new BGS that had a new "Left Exit" tab that said "RI-238 Downtown..." (i forget the exact wording but the crappy fonted old sign is gone.
Old: The old crossover is when you crossed over in a break in the median that looks like it was proposed to be an "authorized vehicles only" turnaround.
PS: when leaving Newport on RI-138 heading towards I-95. If one wants to take I-95 South after coming of the Jamestown Bridge, instead of taking RI-4, BGS signage directs you to take US-1 South to RI-138 West allllll the way to I-95 (exit 3 or 4?) I find that to be horrible especially since most of the traffic following the signs tends to be interstate/truck/long distance traffic. Basically by following RI-138 West, you are on a two-lane road with speed limits as low as 25mph. I found that odd.
RI-138 going across central RI, is a slow ride and very bumpy. Especially through the campus of URI. Very riddled with potholes. Best way from the Newport Bridge to I-95 south is either RI-4 to RI-102, connecting to I-95 at Exit 5 (still 2-lanes, but a much better road traffic and surface-wise), or just follow US-1 south to RI-78 and pick up I-95 just over the line in CT.
Quote from: doofy103 on April 15, 2015, 08:59:21 PMPS: when leaving Newport on RI-138 heading towards I-95. If one wants to take I-95 South after coming of the Jamestown Bridge, instead of taking RI-4, BGS signage directs you to take US-1 South to RI-138 West allllll the way to I-95 (exit 3 or 4?) I find that to be horrible especially since most of the traffic following the signs tends to be interstate/truck/long distance traffic. Basically by following RI-138 West, you are on a two-lane road with speed limits as low as 25mph. I found that odd.
Even though that particular BGS was erected well after the proposed I-895 in that area was canned; it may have been a replacement of similar, earlier signage that was originally erected as an
interim holdover from when I-895 was still proposed to parallel RI 138 between Newport & I-95.
BTW, the I-95/RI 138 interchange is Exit 3 (A-B) at Mile Marker 7.3 (based on Wiki).
Exit 4/RI 3 (to RI 165) at Mile Marker 9.2 (again, based on Wiki) is a partial (northbound exit/southbound entrance) interchange.
Exit 5 (A-B)/RI 102 is at Mile Marker 13.9.
Here's the new signage on RI-138 coming of the Jamestown Bridge.
https://www.google.com/maps/@41.529976,-71.449315,3a,75y,301.48h,75.78t/data=!3m4!1e1!3m2!1sUzFofCa-on37z-hk0GK-Ag!2e0
The "second right" is US-1 SB and then...
there's another sign saying TO I-95 take RI-138 West.
https://www.google.com/maps/@41.495674,-71.456801,3a,75y,193.85h,71.39t/data=!3m4!1e1!3m2!1smPtRj6melmu6EbkFvOeakw!2e0
Quote from: doofy103 on April 15, 2015, 08:59:21 PM
Along with it came a new BGS that had a new "Left Exit" tab that said "RI-238 Downtown..." (i forget the exact wording but the crappy fonted old sign is gone.
I'd love a picture of that! That crossover to RI 238 was so dangerous...I'm glad that they've fixed it.
Quote from: Beeper1 on April 15, 2015, 11:14:53 PM
RI-138 going across central RI, is a slow ride and very bumpy. Especially through the campus of URI. Very riddled with potholes. Best way from the Newport Bridge to I-95 south is either RI-4 to RI-102, connecting to I-95 at Exit 5 (still 2-lanes, but a much better road traffic and surface-wise), or just follow US-1 south to RI-78 and pick up I-95 just over the line in CT.
The bumpy ride is the result of a particularly bad winter, plus the road hasn't been resurfaced in many years, they just patch it. I take this road everyday to go to work from Richmond to Newport, it's particularly slower during school sessions (Sept - May) in Kingston at URI usually around 7-8 in the morning and 4-5 in the evening. The other bottleneck is in the summer, any good beach day and the 138-1-4 interchange will back up onto 138 with all the people coming home from the beaches.
Quote from: southshore720 on April 13, 2015, 12:52:13 AM
This stub is one of the ugliest roadway eyesores in RI...right up there with the abandoned US-44/Henderson Bridge project in Providence/East Providence.
I
love the Little Red Bridge (which is neither little, nor red, but at least is a bridge!). True, it could use some new pavement and some reconstruction of the lanes is needed, but as a road for people who otherwise do not drive on expressways, at least locally (my mom, for one) it does its job.
As for the stub - these days, my personal preference would be linking together the Jamestown and Newport Bridges with Route 4 as one continuous route. True, it would require redoing the signage, plus trying to figure out how to work out this pair of junctions (https://www.google.com/maps/@41.5350748,-71.4661571,16z/data=!3m1!1e3), but it could still work IMO.
I'd like to see RI 4 finished to the US 1 junction as originally planned years ago and get rid of those God-awful traffic lights and replace them with overpasses.
Quote from: southshore720 on June 08, 2015, 05:29:26 PM
I'd like to see RI 4 finished to the US 1 junction as originally planned years ago and get rid of those God-awful traffic lights and replace them with overpasses.
I grew up two houses in from the one God-awful traffic light that was replaced with an overpass. I believe the other two were to be replaced with interchanges.
Quote from: southshore720 on June 08, 2015, 05:29:26 PM
I'd like to see RI 4 finished to the US 1 junction as originally planned years ago and get rid of those God-awful traffic lights and replace them with overpasses.
You and me both. Eventually one of the two is going to become a bona fide exit, IIRC, while the other one would be either bypassed or cut in two (which would anger quite a bit of people). The one area, IMO, which would be difficult to sign would the area between the Route 4/US 1 merge and the Jamestown Bridge exit from Tower Hill Road (US 1). Considering that it uses a working regular street, at first glance it would seem like a challenge - yet that didn't become an issue with whole areas of Route 146 - in North Smithfield, for example. The only issue thus become exit numbering, but even then I'm sure someone at RIDOT would figure it out.
Quote from: dcbjms on June 08, 2015, 09:51:29 PM
The only issue thus become exit numbering, but even then I'm sure someone at RIDOT would figure it out.
They left plenty of wiggle-room for exit numbering when they decided to continue the I-95 numbering in descending order. Exits 4-1 are all up for grabs. (I'm not even going to bring up mileage-based as RI will drag its heels on that one as long as possible...) Exit numbering would ideally end at the US 1/RI 4 junction. The RI 138 off-ramp to the bridges will likely remain un-numbered as RI 4 is not involved there.
Quote from: southshore720 on June 10, 2015, 02:20:35 PM
Quote from: dcbjms on June 08, 2015, 09:51:29 PM
The only issue thus become exit numbering, but even then I'm sure someone at RIDOT would figure it out.
They left plenty of wiggle-room for exit numbering when they decided to continue the I-95 numbering in descending order. Exits 4-1 are all up for grabs. (I'm not even going to bring up mileage-based as RI will drag its heels on that one as long as possible...) Exit numbering would ideally end at the US 1/RI 4 junction. The RI 138 off-ramp to the bridges will likely remain un-numbered as RI 4 is not involved there.
Except that now they plan to go to mile based exit numbering for the Interstates, the question is what is it going to do to RI 4, will they follow suit?
The whole 138-1-4 interchange is such a cluster___ and it always backs up in the summer with people trying to go north. I wish they would somehow extended the 138 freeway stub and connect it directly to RI-4, and make Route 1 merge into it.
Well, this
(https://farm6.staticflickr.com/5682/22141179084_cbb1d54869_c.jpg)
has replaced this
(https://farm9.staticflickr.com/8690/16540932054_50fbac9cd7_c.jpg)
Never understood why they didn't change the signage when the stub was made permanent. Should be a left exit signed for RI-238 and a pull-through for RI-138. Because after the little slip ramp in the median leaves with 238, you have no choice but to stay on 138.
Quote from: Mergingtraffic on November 04, 2015, 02:06:12 PM
Well, this
(https://farm6.staticflickr.com/5682/22141179084_cbb1d54869_c.jpg)
has replaced this
(https://farm9.staticflickr.com/8690/16540932054_50fbac9cd7_c.jpg)
It's interesting that they replaced the sign but didn't bother to either replace or remove the lights (note the lower-left bracket with no light fixture).
Quote from: PHLBOS on November 04, 2015, 06:26:08 PMIt's interesting that they replaced the sign but didn't bother to either replace or remove the lights (note the lower-left bracket with no light fixture).
Sign replacement workers probably aren't qualified electricians, union rules or no. My guess is it stays up there until the gantry needs to be replaced, because there's no real point in paying an electrician to remove it in the meantime.
Quote from: lordsutch on November 05, 2015, 12:28:11 AM
Quote from: PHLBOS on November 04, 2015, 06:26:08 PMIt's interesting that they replaced the sign but didn't bother to either replace or remove the lights (note the lower-left bracket with no light fixture).
Sign replacement workers probably aren't qualified electricians, union rules or no. My guess is it stays up there until the gantry needs to be replaced, because there's no real point in paying an electrician to remove it in the meantime.
If the intent was to repair or remove the lights, they would have sent the electrician with the sign crew. My guess is that they don't care, because there's no need to light fully retroreflective signs, and it would cost money to remove them. So I agree with you.
Is there still a 138A vs. 238 identity crisis on this stretch in Newport? The new BGS on RI 138 West shows 138A, but the BGS coming off the Newport Bridge still says 238. I believe there are mixed 138A and 238 trailblazers spread throughout. So which is which? Is 238 officially dead? RIDOT loves its anomalies!
Quote from: southshore720 on November 09, 2015, 09:25:34 PM
Is there still a 138A vs. 238 identity crisis on this stretch in Newport? The new BGS on RI 138 West shows 138A, but the BGS coming off the Newport Bridge still says 238. I believe there are mixed 138A and 238 trailblazers spread throughout. So which is which? Is 238 officially dead? RIDOT loves its anomalies!
238 heads south from the Newport-Pell Bridge and turns onto the Goat Island Bridge. 138A begins where 238 turns and heads south around the bottom of Newport.
Thank you for the clarification. I just wish it were more clearer on the BGS', such as "138A TO 238" or even a "138A/238" duo.
Quote from: southshore720 on November 09, 2015, 09:25:34 PM
Is there still a 138A vs. 238 identity crisis on this stretch in Newport? The new BGS on RI 138 West shows 138A, but the BGS coming off the Newport Bridge still says 238.
GMSV from July 2012 shows 238 SOUTH / Scenic Newport. GMSV from Sept 2015 shows that panel replaced with a shieldless DOWNTOWN Newport / EXIT ONLY.
Quote from: southshore720 on November 09, 2015, 09:25:34 PM
I believe there are mixed 138A and 238 trailblazers spread throughout. So which is which? Is 238 officially dead? RIDOT loves its anomalies!
On the surface route, I didn't see *any* trailblazers (
edit: I found this one (https://www.google.com/maps/@41.4949381,-71.3166823,3a,75y,197.89h,86.99t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1syfxW1jqvHMLejhXr99-TnA!2e0!7i13312!8i6656)) for either. (I haven't checked out the historical GMSV yet.)
This could be interesting. I may have to get my hands on the latest RIDOT maps and shapefiles...
Edit II: Or how about this one (https://www.google.com/maps/@41.4845254,-71.3145661,3a,29.8y,268.9h,85.97t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1s_PLkxWDrVKV0V4EzFNo1Gg!2e0!7i13312!8i6656), which is pretty decisively not on 238 yet? Ugh.
Edit III: Oh dear God... (https://www.google.com/maps/@41.4874125,-71.3152675,3a,75y,12.63h,89.19t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1spXiDIgjNf-x3li3S9xTkJg!2e0!7i13312!8i6656)
New signage on the RI-138 stub.
(https://c4.staticflickr.com/8/7503/27943766195_9770780cf3_c.jpg)
these are still there:
(https://c5.staticflickr.com/8/7467/27331407124_17a48f06ec_c.jpg)
When was the "Right Lane Exit 1/2 Mile" added and what did it cover up?
(https://c1.staticflickr.com/8/7234/27909676376_54a0cbfbe8_c.jpg)
of course I miss the best one of all:
(https://c7.staticflickr.com/9/8690/16540932054_50fbac9cd7_c.jpg)
Do you have any photos showing anything besides the signs? Hard to get context when all we get is a sign and maybe some sky.
Quote from: froggie on June 27, 2016, 10:52:07 PM
Do you have any photos showing anything besides the signs? Hard to get context when all we get is a sign and maybe some sky.
Location of old BGS with faded
RIGHT LANE EXIT 1/2 MILE placard posted. (https://www.google.com/maps/@41.5008699,-71.3172501,3a,75y,16.19h,91.28t/data=!3m7!1e1!3m5!1s0QR4tIBjo1gaMbSQZkJ3PQ!2e0!6s%2F%2Fgeo2.ggpht.com%2Fcbk%3Fpanoid%3D0QR4tIBjo1gaMbSQZkJ3PQ%26output%3Dthumbnail%26cb_client%3Dmaps_sv.tactile.gps%26thumb%3D2%26w%3D203%26h%3D100%26yaw%3D46.40205%26pitch%3D0!7i13312!8i6656)
OLD BGS' at the northern stub (what would've been I-895) (https://www.google.com/maps/@41.5073075,-71.3152708,3a,75y,30.04h,81.04t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sUEy7oBzUeePcmDLnDm6Gdg!2e0!7i13312!8i6656)
I'm guessing that the new RI 138 BGS replaced the old one (note the broken light fixture underneath that still remains).
General location; Google erroneously calls RI 138 between the Newport Bridge & stub RI 238. BGS' are along the 138 northbound (https://www.google.com/maps/@41.5040238,-71.3148521,16.42z)