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.
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 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.
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.
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.
Quote from: US 89 on August 19, 2018, 09:41:20 AM
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.
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.
I think 400 was assigned with the goal of a long-term Interstate upgrade, but that's long dead.
Quote from: Flint1979 on August 19, 2018, 10:00:53 AM
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.
Quote from: cpzilliacus on August 19, 2018, 01:31:06 PM
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.
I don't understand why US-400 couldn't be called US-154 like it was for part of the route until 1982.
Quote from: US71 on August 19, 2018, 02:02:15 PM
Quote from: Flint1979 on August 19, 2018, 10:00:53 AM
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.
This post (https://www.usends.com/blog/us-400-its-number-is-not-the-only-error) 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.
Quote from: usends on August 19, 2018, 02:54:41 PM
This post (https://www.usends.com/blog/us-400-its-number-is-not-the-only-error) 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.
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.
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?
Quote from: sparker on August 19, 2018, 08:04:16 PMApparently 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).
Quote from: CNGL-Leudimin on August 20, 2018, 07:22:15 AM
Quote from: sparker on August 19, 2018, 08:04:16 PMApparently 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
Quote from: sparker on August 19, 2018, 08:04:16 PM
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.
Quote from: US71 on August 20, 2018, 08:14:49 AM
Quote from: CNGL-Leudimin on August 20, 2018, 07:22:15 AM
Quote from: sparker on August 19, 2018, 08:04:16 PMApparently 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!
Quote from: Henry on August 20, 2018, 09:35:46 AM
Quote from: sparker on August 19, 2018, 08:04:16 PM
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.
Quote from: US71 on August 20, 2018, 08:14:49 AM
Quote from: CNGL-Leudimin on August 20, 2018, 07:22:15 AM
Quote from: sparker on August 19, 2018, 08:04:16 PMApparently 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.
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.
US 437 would be something considering there's never been an official US 37.
Quote from: mrose on August 21, 2018, 02:38:51 AM
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.
Quote from: bugo on August 20, 2018, 09:24:32 PM
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.
Quote from: MNHighwayMan on August 21, 2018, 11:01:40 AM
Quote from: bugo on August 20, 2018, 09:24:32 PM
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.
It's a new system.
Quote from: bugo on August 21, 2018, 11:26:45 AM
It's a new system.
Why would you purposefully invite confusion by having two numbering systems in place for the same highway system?
Quote from: MNHighwayMan on August 21, 2018, 11:01:40 AM
Quote from: bugo on August 20, 2018, 09:24:32 PM
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.
From the point of deployment simplicity and consistency, doing any centennial series as a number-by-number increase would conflict almost immediately with existing routes; all x01s are taken up through the 700's; the 100's and 200's are too populated for these purposes (regular conflicts); all x11's up to a point are also taken except for the late 111 and 611. I think they came up with the 12.5 rule early on to avoid just those issues; it works for all potential groups 400 and above except for US 550 (which would be 12th in line; at the rate these are being commissioned, that anomaly probably wouldn't matter).
But I stand by my assessement that these are functionally "consolation prizes" for less-traveled corridors not yet warranting Interstate or even full expressway treatment. I'm just surprised AASHTO and FHWA just didn't go "whole hog" and assign 4dus numbers to these routes -- and/or use individualized shields for them (similar to what AL did with US 78 prior to I-22 signage re Corridor X).
I think there's a lot of speculation and outright fantasy in this thread. No one has uncovered any evidence for the "12.5 rule". If that was a thing, then why would AASHTO commission the number "412" 12 years before they used the number "400"? Also, I don't buy the "super US highway" idea. What's more "super" about any of those 4xx routes compared to any other US route? I don't think AASHTO has come up with a new numbering system. I think we're just trying to invent a pattern in a situation that actually has no logical explanation.
Quote from: usends on August 21, 2018, 07:45:10 PM
I think there's a lot of speculation and outright fantasy in this thread. No one has uncovered any evidence for the "12.5 rule". If that was a thing, then why would AASHTO commission the number "412" 12 years before they used the number "400"? Also, I don't buy the "super US highway" idea. What's more "super" about any of those 4xx routes compared to any other US route? I don't think AASHTO has come up with a new numbering system. I think we're just trying to invent a pattern in a situation that actually has no logical explanation.
Actually, that's kind of what a lot of us do here -- try to make sense out of something that may well be random -- but in this case is a "3-time offender". I'm guessing that the "412" number was applied first because of the issues with a "x00" number (and the chutzpa required to even suggest it in the first place). Before we carry this discussion too much farther, it might be wise to simply ask AASHTO and/or FHWA WTF is up with the series, and why those designations were selected. If they ever have a SCOURN meeting in NorCal, I might just put in an appearance. I'm a Sagittarius; we're known for being virtual pit bulls when it comes to letting unanswered questions slide!
Quote from: sparker on August 21, 2018, 08:11:15 PM
Actually, that's kind of what a lot of us do here -- try to make sense out of something that may well be random -- but in this case is a "3-time offender". I'm guessing that the "412" number was applied first because of the issues with a "x00" number (and the chutzpa required to even suggest it in the first place). Before we carry this discussion too much farther, it might be wise to simply ask AASHTO and/or FHWA WTF is up with the series, and why those designations were selected. If they ever have a SCOURN meeting in NorCal, I might just put in an appearance. I'm a Sagittarius; we're known for being virtual pit bulls when it comes to letting unanswered questions slide!
At least with the FHWA, I could, in theory, put in a FOIA request for planning documents relating to the numbering additions, but ultimately I'm not sure if that's worth the trouble just to satisfy my own/our curiosity, if it's even successful at all.
I know it's not in the 400s, but what's up with US163?
Quote from: mrpablue on August 21, 2018, 09:08:28 PM
I know it's not in the 400s, but what's up with US163?
US 163 was created in 1970 as part of a realignment of US routes in the Four Corners area. The number may have originally been planned to be US 164, which would have made more sense, because US 160 had just replaced AZ 64 through this area. Note that this still would have been a violation, because at the time US 64 ended in Santa Fe NM. It just wouldn't have been as egregious.
Anyway, somebody thought that since it was a N/S route, it had to end in an odd number, even though that's not true for 3dus routes (although most still follow this rule). So 1 was subtracted from 164 to get 163.
Quote from: US 89 on August 19, 2018, 09:41:20 AM
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.
Actually from Wichita to Joplin it is. If you stand at the US 54 and 400 east split near Augusta the traffic goes onto US 400 while US 54 has hardly any cars on it. That of course is because I-35 takes most of the traffic between Wichita and El Dorado as well as K-254, but still US 400 is an important corridor and gets used by commerce too all the way from Augusta to the MO State Line.
Kansas wants one number basically for a route from Garden City to Wichita and one number for a route from Wichita to I-44. But maybe those don't have to be the same number.
The western route could become K-400 (and end at either the north or east junctions of U.S. 50 and U.S. 83 in Garden City). The eastern route could become K-300, if they want to continue the x00 thing. And maybe Kansas could talk Missouri into putting a "TO K-300/Wichita, KS" sign at the U.S. 166 exit.
I've thought about extending U.S. 400 to Springfield by having it replace current Kansas and Missouri state routes between Joplin and Springfield (171, 96, 266) but I don't know whether Kansas would like the new end of U.S. 400. It seems they much prefer it connect at Joplin. I would also make the western end of U.S. 400 at I-135 but then I don't think my new version of 400 would be 300 miles long.
Quote from: apeman33 on August 26, 2018, 03:56:09 PM
Kansas wants one number basically for a route from Garden City to Wichita and one number for a route from Wichita to I-44. But maybe those don't have to be the same number.
The western route could become K-400 (and end at either the north or east junctions of U.S. 50 and U.S. 83 in Garden City). The eastern route could become K-300, if they want to continue the x00 thing. And maybe Kansas could talk Missouri into putting a "TO K-300/Wichita, KS" sign at the U.S. 166 exit.
I've thought about extending U.S. 400 to Springfield by having it replace current Kansas and Missouri state routes between Joplin and Springfield (171, 96, 266) but I don't know whether Kansas would like the new end of U.S. 400. It seems they much prefer it connect at Joplin. I would also make the western end of U.S. 400 at I-135 but then I don't think my new version of 400 would be 300 miles long.
IMO, the concept of a continuous corridor along present US 400 is a bit spurious -- although it does mimic the pre-HPC "Transamerica" corridor concept, which used US 50 westward out of Kansas & CO 10/US 160 path through Colorado. Maybe it's just my disdain for useless multiplexes, but if KDOT wanted attention to be called to the route, US 400 could easily be KS 100 or KS 200, which aren't currently in use; at least there wouldn't be
two US shields on long-distance multiplexes across the western portion of the state. Got other suggestions, but I'll save those for a fictional-section thread on how to replace the "400" series of numbers in general.
I'm definitely of the opinion that it should've been a state route.
Or an extension of another US Highway (with useless western multiplexes removed), but this is fictional territory
Why not make it all US 154. Being it is with US 54 most of its way, make it a child of it.
Quote from: roadman65 on August 29, 2018, 07:10:51 PM
Why not make it all US 154. Being it is with US 54 most of its way, make it a child of it.
Not a bad basic idea. What I'd do is eliminate the multiplex with US 50 in CO and KS west of Dodge City, begin it there, and let it subsume the old US/KS 154 to Mullinville, then multiplex it with its parent east to the split at Pickrell Corner. From there it would utilize present US 400/former KS 96 to US 69/160, then use MSR 171 into Joplin and MO 96 east of there via Carthage to I-44 at exit #57 at Halltown. That would put it in 2 states (of course, requiring MO cooperation), but giving Wichita its path to eastward I-44 absent the present convoluted configuration requiring both a substantial southward "jog" and multiple multiplexes.