AARoads Forum

National Boards => General Highway Talk => Topic started by: hotdogPi on April 18, 2015, 01:20:13 PM

Title: Lowest route number not used for a freeway?
Post by: hotdogPi on April 18, 2015, 01:20:13 PM
Positive integers only, and United States only.

Freeways to rule out lower numbers (Interstates automatically have their numbers skipped):
DE 1
MA 3
US 6 (Cape Cod, MA)
US 7 (I-84)
CT 9
NH 11 (I-89)
US 13 (Suffolk, VA)
CA 14
NJ 18
NJ 21
US 23 (Toledo, OH) [city changed after original post]
PA 28
US 31 (Indianapolis)
MD 32
US 33 (Fort Wayne, IN)
US 34 (Galesburg, IL) [added after original post]
US 36 (Indianapolis)
IA 38 (I-80) [added after original post]
NJ 42
US 46 (George Washington Bridge)
MN 47 (Minneapolis)
[48]
US 50 (Chesapeake Bay Bridge)
US 51 (near Madison, WI)
US 52 (Indianapolis)
IL 53
US 54 (El Paso)
CA 56
CA 58
CA 60
US 61 (St. Paul)
MN 62 (Minneapolis)
PA 63 (next to the Delaware River)
CA 67
CA 92
US 98 (I-55) [added after original post]
MD 100
US 101
[102]
CA 103 [added after original post]
NY 104 (Rochester)
[106]


Open: 48, 102, 106, and higher numbers
Title: Re: Lowest route number not used for a freeway?
Post by: ekt8750 on April 18, 2015, 02:03:58 PM
Not quite sure what you're doing here but if it's what I think it is then PA 3 is a surface road its entire length.
Title: Re: Lowest route number not used for a freeway?
Post by: oscar on April 18, 2015, 02:31:28 PM
Quote from: ekt8750 on April 18, 2015, 02:03:58 PM
Not quite sure what you're doing here but if it's what I think it is then PA 3 is a surface road its entire length.

I think it's "lowest number not used for a freeway anywhere in the U.S." So MA 3 takes care of 3, everywhere, without getting into other freeways also numbered 3 (like parts of US 3).

US 34, a few miles of which is freeway in Galesburg IL, takes care of that number. But there is no US 38, 102, 103, and 106, US 48 in WV has interchanges but enough at-grades to disqualify it as a "freeway", and IIRC US 98 has no freeway segments, so for those numbers we'd need to look at state routes.
Title: Re: Lowest route number not used for a freeway?
Post by: J N Winkler on April 18, 2015, 03:32:35 PM
SR 38 in Alabama (which overlaps with US 280) probably disqualifies 38 as lowest number if we are considering unsigned routes.  Are we?
Title: Re: Lowest route number not used for a freeway?
Post by: oscar on April 18, 2015, 03:50:43 PM
Quote from: J N Winkler on April 18, 2015, 03:32:35 PM
SR 38 in Alabama (which overlaps with US 280) probably disqualifies 38 as lowest number if we are considering unsigned routes.  Are we?

If that doesn't do it, IA 38 (concurrent with I-80 for a few miles) should do the trick.
Title: Re: Lowest route number not used for a freeway?
Post by: jakeroot on April 18, 2015, 04:10:51 PM
Washington State Route 4 is single carriageway throughout its length between the 5 and 101.
Title: Re: Lowest route number not used for a freeway?
Post by: vtk on April 18, 2015, 04:11:26 PM
US 23's freeway status around Upper Sandusky, Marion, that whole area is kind of shaky. But in the Toledo area and north into Michigan, it's undisputable.
Title: Re: Lowest route number not used for a freeway?
Post by: tcorlandoinsavannah on April 18, 2015, 05:02:00 PM
If I understand the topic correctly, I'll nominate Florida State Road 2.
Title: Re: Lowest route number not used for a freeway?
Post by: hotdogPi on April 18, 2015, 05:10:18 PM
For those suggesting numbers below 10: Those numbers are used for freeways in other places. It's "lowest number not used for a freeway", NOT "lowest-numbered road that is not a freeway".
Title: Re: Lowest route number not used for a freeway?
Post by: jeffandnicole on April 18, 2015, 05:44:35 PM
I think I got it:  Somewhere in the United States, Route 1 thru Route 47 is a freeway at least somewhere.  For example: DE 1, I-2, MA 3, I-4, I-5, US 6, etc., are all freeways.   Thus, we are trying to list a route number that has not been mentioned yet that *IS* a freeway somewhere within the country.  And then based on that list, we'll figure out what the lowest number is that never is a freeway.

So currently, based on the list above, Route 48 is not a freeway anywhere in the country as far as we know.
Title: Re: Lowest route number not used for a freeway?
Post by: hobsini2 on April 18, 2015, 06:02:20 PM
Quote from: oscar on April 18, 2015, 03:50:43 PM
Quote from: J N Winkler on April 18, 2015, 03:32:35 PM
SR 38 in Alabama (which overlaps with US 280) probably disqualifies 38 as lowest number if we are considering unsigned routes.  Are we?
If we are looking for none cosigned routes, IL 38 Roosevelt Rd is officially a freeway between Route 83 and I-294.
If that doesn't do it, IA 38 (concurrent with I-80 for a few miles) should do the trick.
Title: Re: Lowest route number not used for a freeway?
Post by: tcorlandoinsavannah on April 18, 2015, 07:07:54 PM
Quote from: jeffandnicole on April 18, 2015, 05:44:35 PM
I think I got it:  Somewhere in the United States, Route 1 thru Route 47 is a freeway at least somewhere.  For example: DE 1, I-2, MA 3, I-4, I-5, US 6, etc., are all freeways.   Thus, we are trying to list a route number that has not been mentioned yet that *IS* a freeway somewhere within the country.  And then based on that list, we'll figure out what the lowest number is that never is a freeway.

So currently, based on the list above, Route 48 is not a freeway anywhere in the country as far as we know.

You might have nailed it.  However, according to the ever-reliable Wikipedia, some sections of US 48 in WV will soon be, or are being, upgraded to freeway status.  I can't confirm that on any mapping site, though.
Title: Re: Lowest route number not used for a freeway?
Post by: froggie on April 18, 2015, 07:22:57 PM
US 98 has a freeway segment on the south side of Hattiesburg, MS.  Barring that, the OP used Interstate concurrencies as justification, and US 98 has concurrencies with I-55 and I-59.
Title: Re: Lowest route number not used for a freeway?
Post by: Pete from Boston on April 18, 2015, 08:02:47 PM
Quote from: 1 on April 18, 2015, 01:20:13 PM
Positive integers only, and United States only.

Freeways to rule out lower numbers (Interstates automatically have their numbers skipped):
DE 1
MA 3
US 6 (Cape Cod, MA)
US 7 (I-84)
CT 9
NH 11 (I-89)
US 13 (Suffolk, VA)
CA 14
NJ 18
NJ 21
US 23 (Toledo, OH) [city changed after original post]
PA 28
US 31 (Indianapolis)
MD 32
US 33 (Fort Wayne, IN)
US 34 (Galesburg, IL) [added after original post]
US 36 (Indianapolis)
IA 38 (I-80) [added after original post]
NJ 42
US 46 (George Washington Bridge)
MN 47 (Minneapolis
[48]
US 50 (Chesapeake Bay Bridge)
US 51 (near Madison, WI)
US 52 (Indianapolis)
IL 53
US 54 (El Paso)
CA 56
CA 58
CA 60
US 61 (St. Paul)
MN 62 (Minneapolis)
PA 63 (next to the Delaware River)
CA 67
CA 92
[98]
MD 100
US 101
[102]
[103]
NY 104 (Rochester)
[106]

Open: 48, 98, 102, 103, 106, and higher numbers

I'm surprised you missed Mass. Route 2, which is a freeway for dozens of miles.
Title: Re: Lowest route number not used for a freeway?
Post by: vdeane on April 18, 2015, 08:14:54 PM
He automatically skipped all numbers that are an interstate.
Title: Re: Lowest route number not used for a freeway?
Post by: DTComposer on April 19, 2015, 12:32:22 AM
CA-103 is, for the time being, the Terminal Island Freeway.
Title: Re: Lowest route number not used for a freeway?
Post by: JustDrive on April 19, 2015, 02:23:47 AM
The southernmost 65 miles of CA 14 are freeway. And a very busy one at that.
Title: Re: Lowest route number not used for a freeway?
Post by: CNGL-Leudimin on April 19, 2015, 03:41:47 PM
Quote from: 1 on April 18, 2015, 01:20:13 PM
Positive integers only, and United States only.

At least you said US only, because I would came up with A-48 expressway in Southern Spain :sombrero:.
Title: Re: Lowest route number not used for a freeway?
Post by: 3467 on April 19, 2015, 03:52:22 PM
Illinois 1 has some multilane sections but none are freeway. However it was proposed as a supplemental Freeway before Indiana made US 41 an expressway.
But to your point IL 2 and IL 5 have both been mostly or partly replaced by I-88,which was originally IL 5 . Even though some of the low number Illinois routes became freeways. they were the original rote numbers for the sate road bond issues. US 67 was SBI 3 for instance
Title: Re: Lowest route number not used for a freeway?
Post by: ctsignguy on April 19, 2015, 04:06:36 PM
CONN 9 is a freeway for much of it's length (aside from that short stretch in Middletown).....However, i dont think CONN 4 is a freeway at any point of it's run
Title: Re: Lowest route number not used for a freeway?
Post by: signalman on April 19, 2015, 04:23:20 PM
Quote from: ctsignguy on April 19, 2015, 04:06:36 PM
However, i dont think CONN 4 is a freeway at any point of it's run
Conn 4 may not be a freeway, but 4 is an Interstate, so that number is out.
Title: Re: Lowest route number not used for a freeway?
Post by: Thing 342 on April 19, 2015, 06:32:03 PM
Has AZ-48 been designated along Fain Rd in Prescott yet? (and if so, does that count as a freeway?)

Would the FL-102 connector to the Jacksonville Airport count as a freeway?
Title: Re: Lowest route number not used for a freeway?
Post by: freebrickproductions on April 20, 2015, 12:44:37 PM
Does it have to be signed? Because if not, then AL 2 might count as it doesn't even touch a freeway (other then the very eastern end of I-565 and where it crosses over I-65).
Title: Re: Lowest route number not used for a freeway?
Post by: NE2 on April 20, 2015, 12:59:06 PM
You are mostly dumbfucks.

Quote from: Thing 342 on April 19, 2015, 06:32:03 PM
Would the FL-102 connector to the Jacksonville Airport count as a freeway?
No. Neither does US 48 (despite WVDOT calling it one on signs). But the older US 48 was a freeway.
Title: Re: Lowest route number not used for a freeway?
Post by: Rover_0 on April 20, 2015, 01:54:18 PM
Quote from: Thing 342 on April 19, 2015, 06:32:03 PM
Has AZ-48 been designated along Fain Rd in Prescott yet? (and if so, does that count as a freeway?)

IIRC wasn't it renamed AZ-89A Spur or something like that?
Title: Re: Lowest route number not used for a freeway?
Post by: empirestate on April 20, 2015, 02:36:20 PM
Quote from: freebrickproductions on April 20, 2015, 12:44:37 PM
Does it have to be signed? Because if not, then AL 2 might count as it doesn't even touch a freeway (other then the very eastern end of I-565 and where it crosses over I-65).

Doesn't matter though, because I-2 is a freeway, so the number 2 is already covered. The lowest number we need to even consider is 48, followed by 102, if I'm keeping track correctly.
Title: Re: Lowest route number not used for a freeway?
Post by: SD Mapman on April 20, 2015, 03:09:19 PM
I think it might be 48.
Title: Re: Lowest route number not used for a freeway?
Post by: Thing 342 on April 20, 2015, 03:30:30 PM
OK-102 overlaps with I-40 for a couple miles near Shawnee: http://goo.gl/maps/CInyN
Title: Re: Lowest route number not used for a freeway?
Post by: hotdogPi on April 20, 2015, 03:57:55 PM
Quote from: SD Mapman on April 20, 2015, 03:09:19 PM
I think it might be 48.

That's what I think, too. Can someone confirm it?
Title: Re: Lowest route number not used for a freeway?
Post by: TXtoNJ on April 20, 2015, 04:18:02 PM
TX-48 is fully grade separated between Vermillion Rd and Cantu Rd outside of Brownsville, a distance of 2.4 miles. Does that count?
Title: Re: Lowest route number not used for a freeway?
Post by: oscar on April 20, 2015, 05:42:12 PM
Quote from: TXtoNJ on April 20, 2015, 04:18:02 PM
TX-48 is fully grade separated between Vermillion Rd and Cantu Rd outside of Brownsville, a distance of 2.4 miles. Does that count?

Looks like just two closely-spaced interchanges, on a highway with lots of at-grade crossings west and east of those interchanges. My personal rule of thumb is that you need at least three interchanges, with no intervening at-grades, to be a "freeway".

IMO, borderline at best.
Title: Re: Lowest route number not used for a freeway?
Post by: odditude on April 21, 2015, 05:02:43 PM
Quote from: oscar on April 20, 2015, 05:42:12 PM
Quote from: TXtoNJ on April 20, 2015, 04:18:02 PM
TX-48 is fully grade separated between Vermillion Rd and Cantu Rd outside of Brownsville, a distance of 2.4 miles. Does that count?

Looks like just two closely-spaced interchanges, on a highway with lots of at-grade crossings west and east of those interchanges. My personal rule of thumb is that you need at least three interchanges, with no intervening at-grades, to be a "freeway".

IMO, borderline at best.
according to Wikipedia, US 48 has freeway sections.
Title: Re: Lowest route number not used for a freeway?
Post by: NE2 on April 21, 2015, 06:11:11 PM
Quote from: odditude on April 21, 2015, 05:02:43 PM
according to Wikipedia, US 48 has freeway sections.

PS: Wikipedia doesn't say US 48 has freeway sections.
Title: Re: Lowest route number not used for a freeway?
Post by: silverback1065 on April 22, 2015, 11:18:14 AM
0 is never used
Title: Re: Lowest route number not used for a freeway?
Post by: hotdogPi on April 22, 2015, 11:34:20 AM
Quote from: silverback1065 on April 22, 2015, 11:18:14 AM
0 is never used

From the first post:

QuotePositive integers only, and United States only.
Title: Re: Lowest route number not used for a freeway?
Post by: Kacie Jane on April 22, 2015, 01:28:17 PM
Though if this were the lowest number never used for a freeway, 48 would fail.  IIRC (I have a bad habit of like half-remembering historical trivia), the current US 48 is the third one; the second one is now I-68.  Presumably some or all of it was freeway before black and white signs were replaced with red and blue ones.
Title: Re: Lowest route number not used for a freeway?
Post by: froggie on April 22, 2015, 03:07:55 PM
Quote from: Kacie Jane on April 22, 2015, 01:28:17 PM
Though if this were the lowest number never used for a freeway, 48 would fail.  IIRC (I have a bad habit of like half-remembering historical trivia), the current US 48 is the third one; the second one is now I-68.  Presumably some or all of it was freeway before black and white signs were replaced with red and blue ones.

Correct.  The "National Freeway" was constructed in segments as a full freeway and signed as US 48.  It wasn't until completion (or thereabouts) that it became I-68.
Title: Re: Lowest route number not used for a freeway?
Post by: odditude on April 22, 2015, 04:01:34 PM
Quote from: NE2 on April 21, 2015, 06:11:11 PM
Quote from: odditude on April 21, 2015, 05:02:43 PM
according to Wikipedia, US 48 has freeway sections.

PS: Wikipedia doesn't say US 48 has freeway sections.
you're right, it says "expressway" and "controlled-access" - which i misinterpreted as "freeway."
Title: Re: Lowest route number not used for a freeway?
Post by: oscar on April 22, 2015, 05:46:24 PM
Quote from: odditude on April 22, 2015, 04:01:34 PM
Quote from: NE2 on April 21, 2015, 06:11:11 PM
Quote from: odditude on April 21, 2015, 05:02:43 PM
according to Wikipedia, US 48 has freeway sections.
..

PS: Wikipedia doesn't say US 48 has freeway sections.
you're right, it says "expressway" and "controlled-access" - which i misinterpreted as "freeway."

"Controlled-access" usually means "freeway" ("expressway", not necessarily). But while US 48 has interchanges here and there, it has no sections where there are multiple interchanges and no at-grade intersections between them, so there is nothing consistently freeway-grade. 

US 48 has a "Freeway Ends 1 Mile" sign (https://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=1665.msg2023999#msg2023999) near its current western end. However, that sign immediately follows an at-grade intersection. True, that one-mile "freeway" section has an overpass, and an interchange at its west end, but IMO that doesn't make it a "freeway" by any reasonable definition. I don't think the next phase of construction, extending US 48 further west, will change that situation, since AIUI there will be no new interchanges added before the highway reconnects with WV 93 at an at-grade intersection west of the Mt. Storm power plant.