AARoads Forum

National Boards => General Highway Talk => Topic started by: SignGeek101 on May 23, 2015, 01:10:31 AM

Title: Highway 0?
Post by: SignGeek101 on May 23, 2015, 01:10:31 AM
This is kind of a silly question, but why aren't there any highway zero's in North America? Zero is a legitimate number, is it not?
Title: Re: Highway 0?
Post by: CNGL-Leudimin on May 23, 2015, 05:58:22 AM
We already had this some time ago. I know of a couple routes 0 in Europe, but none outside. Internally I have the Western US 2 as US 0 to differentiate it from the Eastern US 2 :bigass:.
Title: Re: Highway 0?
Post by: wxfree on May 23, 2015, 06:04:30 AM
Yes, it's a perfectly cromulent number.
Title: Re: Highway 0?
Post by: english si on May 23, 2015, 06:16:05 AM
Quote from: CNGL-Leudimin on May 23, 2015, 05:58:22 AMI know of a couple routes 0 in Europe, but none outside.
All of which are capital beltways.

R0 - Brussels
M0 - Budapest
A0 - proposed Bucharest belt

London's cycle network has a circular route 0 too.
Title: Re: Highway 0?
Post by: GaryV on May 23, 2015, 07:35:16 AM
Quote from: SignGeek101 on May 23, 2015, 01:10:31 AM
This is kind of a silly question, but why aren't there any highway zero's in North America? Zero is a legitimate number, is it not?

Sure.  But to make it sillier, other legitimate numbers are 1/2, 234.425, sqrt(93) and pi.  Doesn't mean we need to use them for highways though.
Title: Re: Highway 0?
Post by: 6a on May 23, 2015, 08:29:59 AM
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fimages.tapatalk-cdn.com%2F15%2F05%2F23%2Fd61b1e95de7cfbd8f75233613e120c04.jpg&hash=69b5412a777ae745455ee82154b292f6fc65bdb3)
Title: Re: Highway 0?
Post by: SignGeek101 on May 23, 2015, 11:36:48 AM
Quote from: GaryV on May 23, 2015, 07:35:16 AM
Quote from: SignGeek101 on May 23, 2015, 01:10:31 AM
This is kind of a silly question, but why aren't there any highway zero's in North America? Zero is a legitimate number, is it not?

Sure.  But to make it sillier, other legitimate numbers are 1/2, 234.425, sqrt(93) and pi.  Doesn't mean we need to use them for highways though.

Those numbers aren't integers though.  :-P
Title: Re: Highway 0?
Post by: hotdogPi on May 23, 2015, 11:49:45 AM
Quote from: SignGeek101 on May 23, 2015, 11:36:48 AM
Quote from: GaryV on May 23, 2015, 07:35:16 AM
Quote from: SignGeek101 on May 23, 2015, 01:10:31 AM
This is kind of a silly question, but why aren't there any highway zero's in North America? Zero is a legitimate number, is it not?

Sure.  But to make it sillier, other legitimate numbers are 1/2, 234.425, sqrt(93) and pi.  Doesn't mean we need to use them for highways though.

Those numbers aren't integers though.  :-P

-1 is an integer. Is it used anywhere?
Title: Re: Highway 0?
Post by: nexus73 on May 23, 2015, 12:15:52 PM
Quote from: 1 on May 23, 2015, 11:49:45 AM
Quote from: SignGeek101 on May 23, 2015, 11:36:48 AM
Quote from: GaryV on May 23, 2015, 07:35:16 AM
Quote from: SignGeek101 on May 23, 2015, 01:10:31 AM
This is kind of a silly question, but why aren't there any highway zero's in North America? Zero is a legitimate number, is it not?

Sure.  But to make it sillier, other legitimate numbers are 1/2, 234.425, sqrt(93) and pi.  Doesn't mean we need to use them for highways though.

Those numbers aren't integers though.  :-P

-1 is an integer. Is it used anywhere?

If we used the square root of -1 we would have an imaginary number that is perfectly suited for an imaginary road...LOL!

Rick
Title: Re: Highway 0?
Post by: Kacie Jane on May 23, 2015, 03:07:42 PM
Quote from: SignGeek101 on May 23, 2015, 11:36:48 AM
Quote from: GaryV on May 23, 2015, 07:35:16 AM
Quote from: SignGeek101 on May 23, 2015, 01:10:31 AM
This is kind of a silly question, but why aren't there any highway zero's in North America? Zero is a legitimate number, is it not?

Sure.  But to make it sillier, other legitimate numbers are 1/2, 234.425, sqrt(93) and pi.  Doesn't mean we need to use them for highways though.

Those numbers aren't integers though.  :-P

And zero isn't a positive integer.  I'm not sure why the decision seems to have been made that highway numbers on this side of the Atlantic have to be positive integers, but it's a decision I agree with (again for reasons I can't necessarily identify).
Title: Re: Highway 0?
Post by: Zzonkmiles on May 24, 2015, 11:21:06 AM
I would support an Interstate 0 over an Interstate 101 for the East Coast.
Title: Re: Highway 0?
Post by: admtrap on May 24, 2015, 01:24:35 PM
More political than anything else.

The number one has a lot of positive connotations - first place.  Whereas the number zero has largely negative connotations - worthless, null.  Compare "you're number one" to "you're a zero"

Cities and states don't want to be associated with number zero, so there's no route zeroes. 

That's really all there is to it IMO.

Title: Re: Highway 0?
Post by: SignGeek101 on May 24, 2015, 06:23:35 PM
Quote from: admtrap on May 24, 2015, 01:24:35 PM
More political than anything else.

The number one has a lot of positive connotations - first place.  Whereas the number zero has largely negative connotations - worthless, null.  Compare "you're number one" to "you're a zero"

Cities and states don't want to be associated with number zero, so there's no route zeroes. 

That's really all there is to it IMO.

That's the reason why Ontario doesn't have a highway 1.

(from http://www.thekingshighway.ca/faq.htm).
Title: Re: Highway 0?
Post by: vtk on May 24, 2015, 06:31:23 PM
Michigan initially skipped the numbers 1—9 for that reason.
Title: Re: Highway 0?
Post by: c172 on May 24, 2015, 10:51:46 PM
I would find a hwy 0 kind of odd, but I have seen highways with a leading 0 (hwy 0547 or whatever). Just county roads somewhere, I think. And addressing a post after the OP, I did see a CR in Yolo County, Ca (Davis, Woodland, West Sacramento) that was "x 1/2, where x=an integer.

Equally odd, but something I have actually seen, is a transit route #0. It's run by Valley Metro in Phoenix.
Title: Re: Highway 0?
Post by: bulldog1979 on May 25, 2015, 12:52:05 AM
Williams County, Ohio, has a unique (at least to me) system of numbering its CRs. the north—south roads are numbered and the east—west ones are lettered. The state line is CR 1, and one mile east of there is CR 2, etc. The road that falls in between them is CR 1.50. Some others fall at other decimal values, so #.75 wouldn't be out of place. The east—west CR that ran next to the hotel where I used to work is CR M.50 as it is halfway between CR M and CR N. It's not the only one with a decimal appended to a letter.
Title: Re: Highway 0?
Post by: admtrap on May 25, 2015, 01:17:11 PM
Quote from: c172 on May 24, 2015, 10:51:46 PM
I would find a hwy 0 kind of odd, but I have seen highways with a leading 0 (hwy 0547 or whatever). Just county roads somewhere, I think. And addressing a post after the OP, I did see a CR in Yolo County, Ca (Davis, Woodland, West Sacramento) that was "x 1/2, where x=an integer.

Equally odd, but something I have actually seen, is a transit route #0. It's run by Valley Metro in Phoenix.

Was it a Pentagon-shielded route number, or was it just a road name (as in Avenue 12 1/2 or Road 26 1/2)?  Madera County and Tulare County both do that for most of their roads.  Those aren't route numbers, they're just lazy naming schemes. 
Title: Re: Highway 0?
Post by: c172 on May 25, 2015, 01:53:49 PM
They didn't use the blue CR marker. They used gantries and other green signs.
Title: Re: Highway 0?
Post by: OCGuy81 on May 26, 2015, 05:26:37 PM
Quote from: wxfree on May 23, 2015, 06:04:30 AM
Yes, it's a perfectly cromulent number.

I love the Simpsons reference here! You've embiggened the forum with that.
Title: Re: Highway 0?
Post by: mrose on May 27, 2015, 05:48:14 PM
Wisconsin doesn't have any single digit numbers either, apart from its US routes 2 and 8. I always wondered why that was. Would a reason that petty seriously happen?
Title: Re: Highway 0?
Post by: bzakharin on May 28, 2015, 02:24:37 PM
Quote from: Zzonkmiles on May 24, 2015, 11:21:06 AM
I would support an Interstate 0 over an Interstate 101 for the East Coast.
Wouldn't 0 be an East-West route anyway? Also, is there really a possibility for another north-south 2-digit interstate on the east coast any time soon?
Title: Re: Highway 0?
Post by: Avalanchez71 on May 28, 2015, 03:13:10 PM
So what is the deal with the county roads in Leon County, FL with the leading zero anyway?
Title: Re: Highway 0?
Post by: admtrap on May 30, 2015, 03:46:31 AM
Quote from: bzakharin on May 28, 2015, 02:24:37 PM
Quote from: Zzonkmiles on May 24, 2015, 11:21:06 AM
I would support an Interstate 0 over an Interstate 101 for the East Coast.
Wouldn't 0 be an East-West route anyway? Also, is there really a possibility for another north-south 2-digit interstate on the east coast any time soon?

Well, there have been suggestions to upgrade the US 13/17 corridor as a relief route/alternate to I-95 roughly from Wilmington or Philadelphia down to Raleigh via Newport News.  It would have made a very nice I-99 routing, and 101 is the logical substitute (what else are they gonna call it?  The lowest unused 2di odd is 67, after all).  But realistically, not any time soon. 
Title: Re: Highway 0?
Post by: Rover_0 on May 30, 2015, 04:32:22 AM
I've toyed with this thought, and it would (slightly) violate US Route numbering conventions, but what about MSR-200? Or if you're feeling more ambitious, reroute US-2 onto 200 and renumber 2 as 0.

But if anything, MSR-200 becomes US-200.
Title: Re: Highway 0?
Post by: Alex on May 30, 2015, 09:53:49 AM
Quote from: Avalanchez71 on May 28, 2015, 03:13:10 PM
So what is the deal with the county roads in Leon County, FL with the leading zero anyway?

See this post (https://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=1423.msg2027939#msg2027939).

And where NE2 wrote:

QuoteSee http://www.dot.state.fl.us/planning/statistics/hwysys/jurisdictionhandbook.pdf (p. 21).

Reveals the numbering for Leon County:

(//www.aaroads.com/forum_images/southeast/fdot_numbering_guideline.png)
Title: Re: Highway 0?
Post by: vtk on May 30, 2015, 03:14:10 PM
I prefer to think of West Virginia's fraction-like routes not as fractions, but as a number, then a really big dash, then another number, written vertically. Because that's basically how they are used.
Title: Re: Highway 0?
Post by: CentralPAGal on May 30, 2015, 04:29:46 PM
Quote from: admtrap on May 30, 2015, 03:46:31 AM
Well, there have been suggestions to upgrade the US 13/17 corridor as a relief route/alternate to I-95 roughly from Wilmington or Philadelphia down to Raleigh via Newport News.  It would have made a very nice I-99 routing, and 101 is the logical substitute (what else are they gonna call it?

I-105  :pan: But seriously, it would be an ideal I-99 (or I-97...)
Title: Re: Highway 0?
Post by: Zzonkmiles on May 31, 2015, 01:59:14 AM
Quote from: CentralPAguy on May 30, 2015, 04:29:46 PM
Quote from: admtrap on May 30, 2015, 03:46:31 AM
Well, there have been suggestions to upgrade the US 13/17 corridor as a relief route/alternate to I-95 roughly from Wilmington or Philadelphia down to Raleigh via Newport News.  It would have made a very nice I-99 routing, and 101 is the logical substitute (what else are they gonna call it?

I-105  :pan: But seriously, it would be an ideal I-99 (or I-97...)

Can someone please explain why I-97 can't be renumbered as I-995? I know that 195-895 are already taken, but 995 is available, right? Its southern end is at US-50, not another interstate, so this would seem to be such an easy fix. I drove to Annapolis today and saw that I-97 shield for the first time and wanted to shoot it. ALMOST as annoying as I-99. Almost.
Title: Re: Highway 0?
Post by: Scott5114 on May 31, 2015, 04:33:30 AM
Oklahoma has several unsigned state highways that are carried on the books as "00". Among these are the Duncan and Poteau bypasses and a loop route in Coyle. Langston has an unsigned highway listed as "0B".

Given that Oklahoma has other state highways that are unsigned but are assigned non-zero numbers in internal documentation, one could say that Oklahoma does have a State Highway 0.
Title: Re: Highway 0?
Post by: Scott5114 on May 31, 2015, 07:53:04 PM
The routes are listed in Wikipedia as they appear in the control section maps (I know since I put them in Wikipedia).
Title: Re: Highway 0?
Post by: odditude on June 05, 2015, 08:48:51 AM
Quote from: CentralPAguy on June 04, 2015, 07:58:08 PM
Quote
Quote from: Zzonkmiles on May 31, 2015, 01:59:14 AM
Quote from: CentralPAguy on May 30, 2015, 04:29:46 PM
Quote from: admtrap on May 30, 2015, 03:46:31 AM
Well, there have been suggestions to upgrade the US 13/17 corridor as a relief route/alternate to I-95 roughly from Wilmington or Philadelphia down to Raleigh via Newport News.  It would have made a very nice I-99 routing, and 101 is the logical substitute (what else are they gonna call it?

I-105  :pan: But seriously, it would be an ideal I-99 (or I-97...)

Can someone please explain why I-97 can't be renumbered as I-995? I know that 195-895 are already taken, but 995 is available, right? Its southern end is at US-50, not another interstate, so this would seem to be such an easy fix. I drove to Annapolis today and saw that I-97 shield for the first time and wanted to shoot it. ALMOST as annoying as I-99. Almost.

It doesn't connect to 95.
Neither does I-795
it actually does end at an interstate - although not posted, US 50 is also I-595 at that point. no arguments that I-97 doesn't really warrant a 2DI designation, though.
Title: Re: Highway 0?
Post by: Zzonkmiles on June 05, 2015, 07:19:08 PM
Quote from: odditude on June 05, 2015, 08:48:51 AM
Quote from: CentralPAguy on June 04, 2015, 07:58:08 PM
Quote from: Zzonkmiles on May 31, 2015, 01:59:14 AM
Quote from: CentralPAguy on May 30, 2015, 04:29:46 PM
Quote from: admtrap on May 30, 2015, 03:46:31 AM
Well, there have been suggestions to upgrade the US 13/17 corridor as a relief route/alternate to I-95 roughly from Wilmington or Philadelphia down to Raleigh via Newport News.  It would have made a very nice I-99 routing, and 101 is the logical substitute (what else are they gonna call it?

I-105  :pan: But seriously, it would be an ideal I-99 (or I-97...)

Can someone please explain why I-97 can't be renumbered as I-995? I know that 195-895 are already taken, but 995 is available, right? Its southern end is at US-50, not another interstate, so this would seem to be such an easy fix. I drove to Annapolis today and saw that I-97 shield for the first time and wanted to shoot it. ALMOST as annoying as I-99. Almost.
Neither does I-795
it actually does end at an interstate - although not posted, US 50 is also I-595 at that point. no arguments that I-97 doesn't really warrant a 2DI designation, though.

Are there any other 3dis that don't end at their "parent" 2di? (And NOOOO, I-238 doesn't count!) There are so many 3dis out there, I'm sure at least one has to break the rules.
Title: Re: Highway 0?
Post by: kkt on June 05, 2015, 07:45:34 PM
Quote from: Zzonkmiles on June 05, 2015, 07:19:08 PM
Are there any other 3dis that don't end at their "parent" 2di? (And NOOOO, I-238 doesn't count!) There are so many 3dis out there, I'm sure at least one has to break the rules.

Of course.  Without evening thinking about it, in the S.F. Bay Area there's 380 and 980.
Title: Re: Highway 0?
Post by: Zeffy on June 05, 2015, 09:48:48 PM
Quote from: Zzonkmiles on June 05, 2015, 07:19:08 PM
Are there any other 3dis that don't end at their "parent" 2di? (And NOOOO, I-238 doesn't count!) There are so many 3dis out there, I'm sure at least one has to break the rules.

I-278 in New Jersey and New York.
Title: Re: Highway 0?
Post by: dfwmapper on June 05, 2015, 10:44:40 PM
Quote from: kkt on June 05, 2015, 07:45:34 PM
Quote from: Zzonkmiles on June 05, 2015, 07:19:08 PM
Are there any other 3dis that don't end at their "parent" 2di? (And NOOOO, I-238 doesn't count!) There are so many 3dis out there, I'm sure at least one has to break the rules.

Of course.  Without evening thinking about it, in the S.F. Bay Area there's 380 and 980.
And I-280. And down in LA, I-210, until Caltrans gets around to asking for asking for the CA 210 portion to be redesignated, and I-105. And there are several that don't start/end at the parent, but do intersect in the middle, like I-605 and I-710 in LA and I-635 in Dallas.
Title: Re: Highway 0?
Post by: Zzonkmiles on June 05, 2015, 11:20:12 PM
Quote from: dfwmapper on June 05, 2015, 10:44:40 PM
Quote from: kkt on June 05, 2015, 07:45:34 PM
Quote from: Zzonkmiles on June 05, 2015, 07:19:08 PM
Are there any other 3dis that don't end at their "parent" 2di? (And NOOOO, I-238 doesn't count!) There are so many 3dis out there, I'm sure at least one has to break the rules.

Of course.  Without evening thinking about it, in the S.F. Bay Area there's 380 and 980.
And I-280. And down in LA, I-210, until Caltrans gets around to asking for asking for the CA 210 portion to be redesignated, and I-105. And there are several that don't start/end at the parent, but do intersect in the middle, like I-605 and I-710 in LA and I-635 in Dallas.

So if all these exceptions exist, I don't see why I-995 is not an option for I-97 then. Seems like it would be a lot easier from a renumbering standpoint than the I-70 or I-83 ideas.

Oh, and to keep this on topic, what would an I-0 3di look like? I-100? I-200? Seems like that could cause some trouble since several states have roads ending in 00, such as GA-400.
Title: Re: Highway 0?
Post by: Kacie Jane on June 05, 2015, 11:30:39 PM
Quote from: Zzonkmiles on June 05, 2015, 11:20:12 PM
Oh, and to keep this on topic, what would an I-0 3di look like? I-100? I-200? Seems like that could cause some trouble since several states have roads ending in 00, such as GA-400.

Why on earth would that be a problem?

"Oh, we shouldn't number this interstate 95.  It might cause trouble in states that have roads ending in 95, such as NY-295."

P.S. Is there any evidence that there is an actual rule that 3dis have to connect directly to the 2di instead of another 3di?  I'd never been under that impression.
Title: Re: Highway 0?
Post by: Zzonkmiles on June 05, 2015, 11:35:19 PM
Quote from: Kacie Jane on June 05, 2015, 11:30:39 PM
Quote from: Zzonkmiles on June 05, 2015, 11:20:12 PM
Oh, and to keep this on topic, what would an I-0 3di look like? I-100? I-200? Seems like that could cause some trouble since several states have roads ending in 00, such as GA-400.

Why on earth would that be a problem?

"Oh, we shouldn't number this interstate 95.  It might cause trouble in states that have roads ending in 95, such as NY-295."

P.S. Is there any evidence that there is an actual rule that 3dis have to connect directly to the 2di instead of another 3di?  I'd never been under that impression.

Yes, you're right. I was thinking in terms of the regulations that forbid I-50 and I-60 because of similarly numbered US Highways in the areas where such interstates would reasonably be located. But that only applies to 2dis, not 3dis. And in the case of GA-400, that functions like a 3di of some sort for Atlanta, so there could conceivably be a GA-400 and an I-400...

...wait, where was I-0 supposed to be again?

Never mind.  :ded:
Title: Re: Highway 0?
Post by: dfwmapper on June 06, 2015, 02:32:20 AM
Quote from: Zzonkmiles on June 05, 2015, 11:20:12 PM
So if all these exceptions exist, I don't see why I-995 is not an option for I-97 then. Seems like it would be a lot easier from a renumbering standpoint than the I-70 or I-83 ideas.

Oh, and to keep this on topic, what would an I-0 3di look like? I-100? I-200? Seems like that could cause some trouble since several states have roads ending in 00, such as GA-400.
Probably is an option, and the correct option if it were numbered today without congressional fuckery. But there were plans for 3dis off of I-97 when that number was originally approved, so that may explain some of it.

I-0 would obviously run through south Florida. Perhaps the E-W portion of I-75 plus I-595 into Fort Lauderdale. The 3dis would be x00s, though there might only be one or two because of the abundance of toll roads in Florida.

Quote
I 210 (Foothill Freeway) ought to be 110 or 310, it doesn't return to 10.
I-210 doesn't meet I-10 in the first place, so it certainly can't return to it. In any event, an even first digit on a 3di is intended to signify a return to another Interstate, not a return to the parent. I-210 ends at I-5, therefore it met all criteria up until Caltrans removed it from what is now the northern part of CA 57 and extended CA 210 east over what was CA 30. Whenever they get around to asking AASHTO for approval to change that to I-210, it will be back to meeting the intent of the system. See also I-240 (OK), I-680 (CA), I-880 (CA), I-205 (CA), I-225 (CO), I-270 (CO), I-435 (AR), I-635 (AR), I-440 (AR), I-220 (MS), and so forth.
Title: Re: Highway 0?
Post by: CNGL-Leudimin on June 06, 2015, 07:55:50 AM
Quote from: dfwmapper on June 05, 2015, 10:44:40 PMAnd I-280. And down in LA, I-210, until Caltrans gets around to asking for asking for the CA 210 portion to be redesignated, and I-105. And there are several that don't start/end at the parent, but do intersect in the middle, like I-605 and I-710 in LA and I-635 in Dallas.

IIRC I-635 never touches its parent, I-35. But it does intersect I-35E, which explains why I believe it should be I-635E unless it is extended all the way to I-35W. That or change the first digit to an odd number as it doesn't connect to another interstate in one end (And of course adding the E at the back).
Title: Re: Highway 0?
Post by: vtk on June 06, 2015, 07:03:46 PM
Quote from: Zzonkmiles on June 05, 2015, 07:19:08 PM
Are there any other 3dis that don't end at their "parent" 2di? (And NOOOO, I-238 doesn't count!) There are so many 3dis out there, I'm sure at least one has to break the rules.

I don't think anyone has mentioned I-370 in MD yet. It is a spur from I-270, which was once I-70S but that was long before I-370 was designated.

I'm pretty sure there never was a rule that said a 3dI must connect with its parent mainline.  Connecting with a sibling 3dI or a suffixed branch of the parent is clearly sufficient.
Title: Re: Highway 0?
Post by: dfwmapper on June 07, 2015, 12:01:02 AM
Quote from: CNGL-Leudimin on June 06, 2015, 07:55:50 AM
IIRC I-635 never touches its parent, I-35. But it does intersect I-35E, which explains why I believe it should be I-635E unless it is extended all the way to I-35W. That or change the first digit to an odd number as it doesn't connect to another interstate in one end (And of course adding the E at the back).
I-635 was a loop with both ends at I-35E when the system was originally designed. The portion west of I-35 was added much later after DFW Airport was built. The southern leg was transferred to I-20 when it was connected to the west. Your theory about it not touching its parent because of the letter suffix is wrong and stupid and we shall not discuss it any further.