Regional Boards > Central States
US 400
agentsteel53:
I would not have a problem with it being multi-state route 46, or whatever the interstate designation of it will end up being.
J N Winkler:
--- Quote from: xonhulu on July 25, 2009, 03:43:07 PM ---I have never seen anything indicating there is any official policy by AASHTO like this for any "400-series" routes. For one thing, nobody would devise such a strange numbering convention (the rounded-off 12.5 increment). For another, US 412 pre-dates the other two (400, 425); why would they start in the middle? Lastly, I remember someone's posting on another board where they shared that they had asked KDOT why the number 400 was picked, and got the answer, "It was available." Anyway, if the 400 series routes were meant to act as 2-dus, why weren't they just given 2 digit designations? There are numbers available. I'd agree that 400 and 412 are long enough, but I'd disagree on 425.
--- End quote ---
My source for the 400-series numbering convention is (ultimately, I think) the AARoads High Priority Corridor page dealing with US 400/future I-66. It is certainly not anything I have seen in official AASHTO documentation, but that doesn't necessarily mean anything since so little of it is put online where it can be viewed free of charge. I think it is a reasonable inference on the basis not just of US 400, but also US 412 being in the wrong half of the country for a fourth branch of US 12.
I don't think there is anything particularly strange about using 400 as the start of a series of false two-digit designations. Freeways in Ontario are numbered 400 and above. State secondary routes in Virginia are numbered 600 and above. Adopting 400 as the start reduces the likelihood of conflict with first, second, and third branches of two-digit routes numbered between 1 and 99. Limiting the available final two digits to 12, 25, 37, 50, 62, 75, and 87 allows the designations to be applied in places far away from apparent two-digit parents (e.g. you could have US 487 in Georgia, US 462 in Washington state, etc.).
I don't think these designations are necessarily assigned in sequential order. US 412 was probably assigned first because it was the first route (or rather itinerary cobbled from existing routes) which was considered to need the 400-series treatment, and that number was chosen because the route is generally quite far to the south of US 12.
--- Quote ---
--- Quote ---It could equally well be argued that the better thing would have been not to create US 400 (and, for that matter, US 412) in the first place. I do not agree, however, that this would have been the correct way to proceed. The US 400 designation has value since it puts the long-planned southern Kansas freeway corridor under a single number, rather than three: K-96 (southeast of Wichita), US 54 (Wichita to Mullinville), and US 50 (Dodge City westwards), with other state highways acting as brief connectors (e.g. former K-154, which itself was once US 154).
--- End quote ---
This makes some sense, although the same thing could've been done with a state route designation, since US 400 barely leaves Kansas (note Colorado's nearly complete lack of enthusiasm for it).
--- End quote ---
In principle, yes, it could have been done with a multi-state route. But this does not preclude the possibility of further extension into Colorado. CDOT has studied improvements to US 50, although I personally don't expect these in the near to medium term because the economic basis of that part of Colorado is weak and declining.
Eastern Colorado and western Kansas have been locked in a water war for more than a century, largely because allocation of water from the Arkansas River depends on seniority of water rights. Agricultural users in Kansas have older water rights than farmers in Colorado. Kansas has had the upper hand in the water litigation for about two decades now and has obtained Supreme Court rulings which specify that Colorado must not only honor the water rights, but also return part of the water it has stolen in past decades. Thus, irrigated agriculture flourishes to the east of the state line and languishes to the west of it.
BTW, I am not sure Granada is the original western terminus of US 400.
Chris:
If an important route like K-96 west of Great Bend can be a State Route, or K-27 for that matter, I think US 400 can also be made into a State Route.
The Dodge City - Mullinville (30 miles) route can retain it's original number, and Haverhill - Pittsburg (134 miles) can also get a K-route. So basically, out of 488 miles, only 164 miles do not run concurrent with other U.S. routes. Given the fact that there are already two other parallel US Highways east of Wichita (US 160 and US 166), I'm not sure if US 400 is that important to keep.
xonhulu:
--- Quote from: J N Winkler on July 25, 2009, 05:19:40 PM ---My source for the 400-series numbering convention is (ultimately, I think) the AARoads High Priority Corridor page dealing with US 400/future I-66. It is certainly not anything I have seen in official AASHTO documentation, but that doesn't necessarily mean anything since so little of it is put online where it can be viewed free of charge. I think it is a reasonable inference on the basis not just of US 400, but also US 412 being in the wrong half of the country for a fourth branch of US 12.
--- End quote ---
Don't take that seriously, it's not meant to be. We've been saying that 12.5 thing for years on these roadgeek sites. Anyway, that isn't the way it works. AASHTO doesn't assign numbers for US Routes; states request them. In the past, we've had roadgeeks communicate with state DOT's asking why they wanted both 400 and 425 for those routes, and both were answered "no real reason." If the Route Numbering committee had minutes online going that far back, maybe we could find out more on why those particular numbers were selected.
By the way, to be specific, 412 was designated in 1982, but it only ran from Dyersburg, TN to Walnut Ridge, AR. It may have gotten its number because it didn't intersect any even-numbered routes so couldn't be considered a branch of any of those, but that doesn't explain the specific number. It replaced TN 20 (actually, it's signed concurrent with 20), MO 84, and parts of AR 90, 1, and 25, so I can't see that the number came from any of those, either. It was extended further east into TN in 1984, and extended further west into OK in 1989 (incidently, the year 425 came into existence) and into NM in 1994 (incidently, the year that US 400 came into existence).
--- Quote ---I don't think there is anything particularly strange about using 400 as the start of a series of false two-digit designations.
--- End quote ---
No, if they are arbitrary numbers then any scheme would work. I just think it's strange there's a "400-series" at all. But I don't really think there is.
--- Quote ---BTW, I am not sure Granada is the original western terminus of US 400.
--- End quote ---
No, its original western terminus was Garden City, KS. It was extended west to Granada 2 years later, in 1996.
The original question we were addressing was not why Kansas designated it, but whether or not it still needs to exist. I still say no. On the other hand, there's no harm to it, and think of all the years of roadgeek angst we would've missed out on if it never had been.
Revive 755:
--- Quote from: Chris on July 25, 2009, 06:10:35 PM ---If an important route like K-96 west of Great Bend can be a State Route, or K-27 for that matter, I think US 400 can also be made into a State Route.
--- End quote ---
Maybe KS 96 and CO 96 need to be promoted to US 450 instead :biggrin:
Just from glancing at a map, I'm not seeing KS 27 being that important of route.
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[#] Next page
[*] Previous page
Go to full version