What's the point of US 400 and 412?

Started by CapeCodder, August 19, 2018, 04:55:01 AM

Previous topic - Next topic

bugo

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.


US 89

#26
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?

sparker

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).     

usends

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.
usends.com - US highway endpoints, photos, maps, and history

sparker

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!

MNHighwayMan

#30
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.

mrpablue

I know it's not in the 400s, but what's up with US163?

US 89

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.

roadman65

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.
Every day is a winding road, you just got to get used to it.

Sheryl Crowe

apeman33

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.

sparker

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. 

Kulerage

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

roadman65

Why not make it all US 154.  Being it is with US 54 most of its way, make it a child of it.
Every day is a winding road, you just got to get used to it.

Sheryl Crowe

sparker

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.



Opinions expressed here on belong solely to the poster and do not represent or reflect the opinions or beliefs of AARoads, its creators and/or associates.