What's the point of US 400 and 412?

[CapeCodder]

US 400 seems too far out there to warrant its existence. There is NO route 0 and it what, only traverses Kansas with a little bit of Missouri? The other one is US 412. There is a US 12, but 412 doesn't even come close to it. It took me about an hour and a half to clinch 412 in the Bootheel.

[bugo]

US 412 is a major highway in Oklahoma and Arkansas. Much of it is a 4 lane divided highway. It greatly reduced confusion in Oklahoma because before it existed, to get from Enid to the Arkansas line you had to take OK 15 to US 64 to the Cimarron Turnpike to US 64 to I-244 to I-44 to OK 33 to the Cherokee Turnpike to OK 33 then AR 68 across the state line. It completely makes sense as a US route. The number doesn't bother me.

[US 89]

US 400 is stupid. The west end really should be in Dodge City, because everything west of there is overlapped with 50. The 400 overlap even extends into Colorado, which has no use for US 400 — so they end it at the first place possible: US 385 in Granada. There are also long overlaps with US 54, US 69, and US 166. It really shouldn’t be a US route to begin with.

412 as a route at least makes some sense, but the west end should really be in Guymon, OK. Everything west of there is a useless overlap with US 64 or US 56.

As for the numbers, those seem to be part of a recent trend. There’s also US 425, which comes nowhere near US 25.

[Flint1979]

I honestly don't understand why US-400 isn't a spur of either US-50, US-69 or US-81. Likewise US-412 should be a spur of either US-51, US-56, US-62 or US-71. I mean there are three possible US highways to link US-400 with and four possible US highways to link US-412 with but they keep their stupid number I don't know if the route is pointless but it should at least be renumbered.

[Flint1979]

US-425 is another one that comes to mind being a number it shouldn't be. It runs for 220 miles in Mississippi, Louisiana and Arkansas three states that US-25 doesn't even come close to entering. Southern end has US-61 and US-84 could have been a spur of one of those two routes and the northern end has US-63, US-65 and US-79 could have been a spur of one of those three routes too so there are five routes that US-425 could have been a spur of but instead let's give it a route number totally out of the grid.

[Flint1979]

US 400 is stupid. The west end really should be in Dodge City, because everything west of there is overlapped with 50. The 400 overlap even extends into Colorado, which has no use for US 400 – so they end it at the first place possible: US 385 in Granada. There are also long overlaps with US 54, US 69, and US 166. It really shouldn't be a US route to begin with.

412 as a route at least makes some sense, but the west end should really be in Guymon, OK. Everything west of there is a useless overlap with US 64 or US 56.

As for the numbers, those seem to be part of a recent trend. There's also US 425, which comes nowhere near US 25.

It might go into Colorado and Missouri just so it can touch another state but it's over 300 miles long so I don't think that's really a requirement anyway. There are a lot of choices for US-400, you can't even tell what route it's a spur off of since there is no US-0, same with US-412 and US-425. US-425 is just a bunch of former state highways pieced together.

[cpzilliacus]

U.S. 220 comes no closer than about 70 miles from its parent U.S. 20 (has never connected to U.S. 20 or any other child route), runs far, far to the south to Rockingham, N.C.

[TheHighwayMan3561]

I think 400 was assigned with the goal of a long-term Interstate upgrade, but that's long dead.

[US71]

US-425 is another one that comes to mind being a number it shouldn't be. It runs for 220 miles in Mississippi, Louisiana and Arkansas three states that US-25 doesn't even come close to entering. Southern end has US-61 and US-84 could have been a spur of one of those two routes and the northern end has US-63, US-65 and US-79 could have been a spur of one of those three routes too so there are five routes that US-425 could have been a spur of but instead let's give it a route number totally out of the grid.

IIRC, 425 was going to be a high priority corridor, upgraded to 4-lanes . Then I-69 came into play.

US 400 was supposed to be the same.

[Flint1979]

U.S. 220 comes no closer than about 70 miles from its parent U.S. 20 (has never connected to U.S. 20 or any other child route), runs far, far to the south to Rockingham, N.C.

It was suppose to have a connection with US-20 via US-120 to Erie.

[Flint1979]

I don't understand why US-400 couldn't be called US-154 like it was for part of the route until 1982.

[Flint1979]

US-425 is another one that comes to mind being a number it shouldn't be. It runs for 220 miles in Mississippi, Louisiana and Arkansas three states that US-25 doesn't even come close to entering. Southern end has US-61 and US-84 could have been a spur of one of those two routes and the northern end has US-63, US-65 and US-79 could have been a spur of one of those three routes too so there are five routes that US-425 could have been a spur of but instead let's give it a route number totally out of the grid.

IIRC, 425 was going to be a high priority corridor, upgraded to 4-lanes . Then I-69 came into play.

US 400 was supposed to be the same.

There are just different numbers they could have used. Not that the route itself is pointless but the numbers are. They could have made it a spur of US-61, 63, 65, 79 or 84 but instead chose US-25 which it comes nowhere near. It's like if I'm getting on a 3-di Interstate with an even number I'm thinking that Interstate is going to connect with the parent at both ends, should be the same for the Interstate. At least there isn't a US-0 to get confused with on US-400.

[usends]

This post examines all of the things that are wrong with US 400: not only its number, but also its purpose, its implementation, its intra-state nature, its collateral damage, and its amount of concurrent mileage with other US routes.

[Flint1979]

This post examines all of the things that are wrong with US 400: not only its number, but also its purpose, its implementation, its intra-state nature, its collateral damage, and its amount of concurrent mileage with other US routes.

Bingo. 63% of US-400's route is multiplexed with other US highways. There is no need for US-400 at all.

[Flint1979]

I never really took the time to read much about US-400 but let's face it, the route is a Kansas intrastate route, yes it goes into Missouri and yes it goes into Colorado but both those states end the highway at the first possible junction in each state. It's in Colorado for about 11 miles and in Missouri for less than a mile while being in Kansas for 465 miles. Why aren't these kind of US routes state highways? The same thing could be said for US-46 in New Jersey I have no idea why that is a US route at all let alone a mainline route and how exactly does 46 match up in New Jersey when US-22 is south of it? Heck US-30 and US-40 are south of it too. If I'm traveling in these areas and unaware of these highways then that'll confuse the heck out of me. You'd think US-46 would be longer than 75 miles. US-33 is another one with violations as it runs east-west for most of the route and the entire route is east of US-31.

[sparker]

If there's any clue regarding the process of designating the "400" class of highways, it's that US 412 for its entire distance east of Tulsa is also defined as High Priority Corridor #8, one of the first batch of such to emerge from the 1991 ISTEA act -- and the first nationally-defined corridors since the Interstate additions of 1968.  West of Tulsa, not so much; that extension could be easily described as gratuitous.  Maybe someone in AASHTO or FHWA (or both) decided it would be nice to have a continuous single route between I-25 and I-65, but didn't want to put too much money into it -- hence the subsumption of state highways and multiplexes with other routes.  400's another story; the portion east of Wichita roughly follows another 1991-issue HPC, the "Transamerica" #3, variously described as "I-66" farther east.  Since the major impetus for that corridor -- at least the western portion -- originated in Wichita (their long-sought quest to be located on a major E-W route), US 400 is likely a "sop" to those sentiments -- sort of a "consolation prize" for not actually getting an Interstate corridor along its alignment.  But the "super 2" and bypass projects along that stretch have made it a relatively efficient way to get from Wichita over to I-44 and southwest MO.  But once again, gratuitous western extensions along mostly multiplexed alignments (and the late US/KS 154) have made the route a bit laughable (the actually rational part east of Wichita could have been a 3dus x54).  It seems that the "designation twins" (AASHTO/FHWA) are intent on singling out some of these HPC's as 400 routes just to show that they're paying attention to the corridor concepts while not requiring much in the way of fiscal outlays by themselves or the states (whose DOT's generally look at these things as unfunded pains-in-the-ass if not actual mandates) save signage costs.   

Which brings us to 425:  the only HPC nearby is the I-69-related SIU 28 of HPC 18, which is being constructed to the west of US 425 as AR 530.  Interestingly, if the end points of Pine Bluff and Natchez are considered, there was already a corridor (US 65) connecting them -- which means that it's likely local pressures precipitated the drive to make these formerly state routes a semi-cohesive corridor (the mutual 165/425 "jog" in  N. LA is the sole anomaly here).  Again, why a x65 3dus wasn't selected for this non-corridor route isn't clear; what it does indicate is that likely someone or some faction within one of the entities that dole out or simply select the designations has elected to make a point by creating a "new class" of nontraditional surface route, completely original or not, that (a) makes absolutely no reference to the existing network, thus "highlighting" the anomaly, and (b) has no reference to a identified funding source.  It's like they're telling the states through which these routes travel "your politicians asked for a corridor and/or alternate service route (in the case of US 425), so for what it's worth, here it is.....enjoy!"  It's the art of gratuitious "bone-throwing" elevated to a federally administrated level, with the "400" numbers signifying what can be expected in the scant-funding era. 

Apparently it's been rumored that these numbers were doled out, starting with 400 itself, on a "12.5" interval basis, with the 0.5 simply rounded down.  Maybe we'll see US 437 or even 450 somewhere in our lifetime if and when someone with a big mouth out in policyland pisses & moans about not having a highway serving their particular needs or connectivity desires (and isn't in NC or TX, where such entreaties have a good chance of ending up as an new Interstate!).  Any guesses?     









   

[MNHighwayMan]

     

Good point.

[CNGL-Leudimin]

Apparently it's been rumored that these numbers were doled out, starting with 400 itself, on a "12.5" interval basis, with the 0.5 simply rounded down.  Maybe we'll see US 437 or even 450 somewhere in our lifetime if and when someone with a big mouth out in policyland pisses & moans about not having a highway serving their particular needs or connectivity desires (and isn't in NC or TX, where such entreaties have a good chance of ending up as an new Interstate!).  Any guesses?     

(great blank)

US 450 actually existed before 1939 as a legitimate branch of US 50. It ran from Walsenburg CO to Crescent Jct UT on what is now US 160, US 491 and US 191 (at first it was entirely absorbed by US 160, which was then rerouted away West of Cortez CO in 1970).

[US71]

Apparently it's been rumored that these numbers were doled out, starting with 400 itself, on a "12.5" interval basis, with the 0.5 simply rounded down.  Maybe we'll see US 437 or even 450 somewhere in our lifetime if and when someone with a big mouth out in policyland pisses & moans about not having a highway serving their particular needs or connectivity desires (and isn't in NC or TX, where such entreaties have a good chance of ending up as an new Interstate!).  Any guesses?     

(great blank)

US 450 actually existed before 1939 as a legitimate branch of US 50. It ran from Walsenburg CO to Crescent Jct UT on what is now US 160, US 491 and US 191 (at first it was entirely absorbed by US 160, which was then rerouted away West of Cortez CO in 1970).

There's also 460

[Henry]

Apparently it's been rumored that these numbers were doled out, starting with 400 itself, on a "12.5" interval basis, with the 0.5 simply rounded down.  Maybe we'll see US 437 or even 450 somewhere in our lifetime if and when someone with a big mouth out in policyland pisses & moans about not having a highway serving their particular needs or connectivity desires (and isn't in NC or TX, where such entreaties have a good chance of ending up as an new Interstate!).  Any guesses?     

Based on how this scheme was devised, we'd then see US 462, US 475, and US 487.

In a perfect world, US 412 would be I-50, and US 400 I-60.

Apparently it's been rumored that these numbers were doled out, starting with 400 itself, on a "12.5" interval basis, with the 0.5 simply rounded down.  Maybe we'll see US 437 or even 450 somewhere in our lifetime if and when someone with a big mouth out in policyland pisses & moans about not having a highway serving their particular needs or connectivity desires (and isn't in NC or TX, where such entreaties have a good chance of ending up as an new Interstate!).  Any guesses?     

(great blank)

US 450 actually existed before 1939 as a legitimate branch of US 50. It ran from Walsenburg CO to Crescent Jct UT on what is now US 160, US 491 and US 191 (at first it was entirely absorbed by US 160, which was then rerouted away West of Cortez CO in 1970).

There's also 460

And don't forget 491!

[sparker]

Apparently it's been rumored that these numbers were doled out, starting with 400 itself, on a "12.5" interval basis, with the 0.5 simply rounded down.  Maybe we'll see US 437 or even 450 somewhere in our lifetime if and when someone with a big mouth out in policyland pisses & moans about not having a highway serving their particular needs or connectivity desires (and isn't in NC or TX, where such entreaties have a good chance of ending up as an new Interstate!).  Any guesses?     

Based on how this scheme was devised, we'd then see US 462, US 475, and US 487.

In a perfect world, US 412 would be I-50, and US 400 I-60.

Apparently it's been rumored that these numbers were doled out, starting with 400 itself, on a "12.5" interval basis, with the 0.5 simply rounded down.  Maybe we'll see US 437 or even 450 somewhere in our lifetime if and when someone with a big mouth out in policyland pisses & moans about not having a highway serving their particular needs or connectivity desires (and isn't in NC or TX, where such entreaties have a good chance of ending up as an new Interstate!).  Any guesses?     

(great blank)

US 450 actually existed before 1939 as a legitimate branch of US 50. It ran from Walsenburg CO to Crescent Jct UT on what is now US 160, US 491 and US 191 (at first it was entirely absorbed by US 160, which was then rerouted away West of Cortez CO in 1970).

There's also 460

And don't forget 491!

Since the progression would, if carried out ad infinitum, would be: 437, 450, 462, 475, and 487 unless extended into the 500 range, none of those potential numbers are presently in use.  If there's any place where I-50 and I-60 would and could ever be designated, Henry's suggestion of the 412 & 400 corridors respectively are as reasonable as anything else, although the need for such hasn't been demonstrated to date (I'm sure Wichita promoters will demur -- and Fritz would suggest something else entirely!).  Personally, I could see I-50 (or any other even 2di in that range) designated along US 412 from I-35 east to I-49 (and maybe a 2nd section from I-55 to I-40 at Jackson, TN subsuming I-155 and using US 412) -- but nothing else; deploying a E-W corridor across the Ozarks seems not to be warranted.  I'll stop here -- we're verging into fictional upgrades at this point.   

[bugo]

I consider US 400, 412, and 425 as part of a class of "super US highways". Everyone complains about the number violating the guidelines but the 400 series have been a part of the system for over 35 years. I personally don't have a problem with the numbers. Sure, they're silly and don't fit the grid but they're nonconformists who question authority. They're rebels in a grid of conformity.

Ontario has the 400 series routes. Georgia has the 500 series routes. The nation has the 400 series routes.

I haven't seen any evidence for the "12.5" rule. I read something about that 20 years ago but it was speculation at the time and I don't know that anybody has unearthed any proof that it is a real thing.

US 412 in New Mexico and Oklahoma makes perfect sense. It makes a beeline through Oklahoma other than a couple of deviations and the southwestern to northeastern diagonal section that is shared with US 56 and US 64 from the New Mexico line to Boise City. US 412 either supplemented or replaced 20 highways. From the New Mexico line eastward, US 412 follows US 56, US 64, US 385, OK 3, OK 95, OK 136, US 270, US 183, former OK 15, OK 50, OK 8, US 60, US 64 again, Cimarron Turnpike, US 64 again, OK 51, I-244, I-44, OK 66, OK 33, the Cherokee Turnpike and US 59. Alternate US 412 (former Scenic US 412) follows what was once OK 33 and OK 11 before that. It's a lot easier to say "Take US 412" than "Take US 64 to OK 3 to US 270 to OK 15 to US 64 to the Cimarron Turnpike to US 64 to I-244 to I-44 to OK 33 to the Cherokee Turnpike to OK 33." The US 412 corridor is a single, unified corridor that should have a single number. Despite what you might think about the number, the designation makes sense, at least east of Guymon.

I consider US 400 and 412 to be overlays much like Iowa 27 or Missouri 110. Signs are there for navigation purposes, and having a single number for a corridor is worth whatever negatives might come with 'plexing.

US 412 gave a US route number to the Guymon-Elmwood highway and the Woodward-Enid highway.

[mrose]

US 437 would be something considering there's never been an official US 37.

[sparker]

US 437 would be something considering there's never been an official US 37.

Well, US 138 is still hanging in there 80-odd years after US 38 was decommissioned and replaced with US 6 and/or US 34.  In the late '20's there was a US 37 planned -- this was before the KY/TN US 31E/31W couplet -- rummaging around south-central KY and north-central TN; I don't believe it was ever signed prior to its replacement with US 31E and a series of KY and TN state routes. 

[MNHighwayMan]

I consider US 400, 412, and 425 as part of a class of "super US highways". Everyone complains about the number violating the guidelines but the 400 series have been a part of the system for over 35 years. I personally don't have a problem with the numbers. Sure, they're silly and don't fit the grid but they're nonconformists who question authority. They're rebels in a grid of conformity.

Ontario has the 400 series routes. Georgia has the 500 series routes. The nation has the 400 series routes.

I haven't seen any evidence for the "12.5" rule. I read something about that 20 years ago but it was speculation at the time and I don't know that anybody has unearthed any proof that it is a real thing.

Right, but why not 400, then 401 402, 403, etc? I mean, I'm not a staunch supporter of a strict numbering scheme (I couldn't care less, honestly–number them randomly, for all I care) but if you (i.e. the AASHTO/FHWA) are going to have a system, then why not stick to it? I just don't understand the point of having a system if you're going to assign these high, seemingly-random numbers to new route additions.