If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#21
|
|||
|
|||
I-5 in California is dreary and awful
|
#22
|
|||
|
|||
I-5 in California is dreary and awful
kkt wrote:
George Grapman writes: You want dreary, try I-80 in Nebraska Been there, done that. Wyoming was a beautiful, though. -- Patrick What I especially liked about I-80 in Wyoming was crossing the Continental Divide TWICE. I'm not sure how that works but there were two separate crossings at least 15 miles apart. |
#23
|
|||
|
|||
I-5 in California is dreary and awful
wrote:
kkt wrote: George Grapman writes: You want dreary, try I-80 in Nebraska Been there, done that. Wyoming was a beautiful, though. -- Patrick What I especially liked about I-80 in Wyoming was crossing the Continental Divide TWICE. I'm not sure how that works but there were two separate crossings at least 15 miles apart. http://www.rockymountainroads.com/i-080h_wy.html Culminating a long journey from the Eastern Continental Divide near Exit 111 in Pennsylvania, Interstate 80 reaches the first crossing of the Western Continental Divide. The Western Continental Divide splits into two branches in western Carbon County and merge back together near South Pass in southwestern Fremont County. Unlike other western Interstates, Interstate 80 crosses the Continental Divide twice, once here at Milepost 206 and again at Milepost 158. The area between the two divides is known as the Great Divide Basin. In this basin, all precipitation that lands within the basin stays within the basin. East of the Continental Divide, all precipitation runoff drains toward the Atlantic Ocean. West of Continental Divide, all precipitation runoff flows toward the Pacific Ocean. Photo taken 09/06/05. -- To reply via e-mail please delete 1 c from paccbell |
#24
|
|||
|
|||
I-5 in California is dreary and awful
On 1 Jan 2007 19:51:24 -0800, "David Kaye"
wrote: Richard Fangnail wrote: Is I-5 devoid of sights by design? Unlike other freeways, I-5 was built in the middle of nowhere because it was the quickest path between two points. If you want to see something, take highway 99, the road that was built where the people and the buildings are. On the other hand, I-5 between the Grapevine and the Bay Area has hills to look at... on one side of the road, anyway. -- ************* DAVE HATUNEN ) ************* * Tucson Arizona, out where the cacti grow * * My typos & mispellings are intentional copyright traps * |
#25
|
|||
|
|||
I-5 in California is dreary and awful
|
#27
|
|||
|
|||
I-5 in California is dreary and awful
I would imagine that the San Joaquin Valley part was designed for
efficient travel and, inasmuch as possible given the job it had to do, fog avoidance. (Note how much of it really runs along the eastern slope of the foothills rather than right down the valley floor. In the Great Central Valley, small gradations of tule fog can loom large in your life.) Although I don't know how aware people were of encroachment upon arable land back then, much of this alignment also seems to run along relatively low-value grazing land rather than irrigable farmland. The flat part of the Valley has been developed into something rare and precious in the human experience, and one hates to see more of it paved than strictly necessary. The generally north-south alternatives, CA 99 and US 101, definitely have their disadvantages as well, even if they go where you're going. I consider the 5 through the San Joaquin and to a lesser extent the Sacramento Valley to be scenic in its way, especially at some times of year. You can see what's going on with farms and orchards, the variously green or brown rolling hills, etc. But since it goes for a long distance through the same kind of terrain, this scenery does, how shall we put it positively, achieve an epic scale. The way people drive on that highway is rather less enjoyable, of course... If you've got time on your hands, poking around the east-west roads between 5 and 101 can be fairly rewarding, though it too is a bit short on purple mountain majesties, etc. Now that you mention it, it does seem a bit odd that built-up and non-pit-stop civilization has been slow to gravitate toward that stretch of the 5, though. Maybe the landowners have been reluctant to subdivide appropriately, and there's no economic incentive to buy a big tract and develop it in one swell foop (except in the exurbs of large cities). The growth seems to be further toward the 99 area in mid-valley. --Joe |
#28
|
|||
|
|||
I-5 in California is dreary and awful
Hunt wrote:
Wow, I have to disagree with you. I think that it all depends on the time of year. Try it in late Feb. and look at all the orchards in bloom, fog pushing over the hills to the West and an expanse of rolling hills to the East. Hunt We only drive it in July or December. December is more interesting both in weather and scenery. A year ago we caught a nice rainbow at a viewpoint that I had never been impressed with before. I enjoy seeing the how the hillsides turn green after rainy weather. http://www.pbase.com/madhatter/image/55548624 The view up north is nice too. I enjoy seeing Shasta Lake and I usually point my camera out the window as we drive past Mount Shasta. http://www.pbase.com/madhatter/image/38471847 A quick stop in Weed will afford another nice view. http://www.pbase.com/madhatter/image/38471848 |
#29
|
|||
|
|||
I-5 in California is dreary and awful
|
#30
|
|||
|
|||
I-5 in California is dreary and awful
It seems to me I heard somewhere that Binyamin Dissen wrote in article
: On 01 Jan 2007 18:08:22 GMT Bert Hyman wrote: :In oups.com "Richard :Fangnail" wrote: : Is I-5 devoid of sights by design? :It is an Interstate, after all. : If there were interesting sights and family places, traffic would be : slower. Is that why there is nothing on it except gas stations, rest : stops and drizzly weather? :If you want scenery, look to the west and take Route 1, but be prepared :for a much, much longer trip. Maybe US 101 is a compromise; I've never :driven it. I think 99 runs thru some cities. Quite a few, but it's been many years since that interfered with traffic; CA 99 is freeway speed through the cities because it's a limited access highway. Back when it was two-lane and three-lane highway it went through most of the cities on local streets, but of course the cities were much smaller then, too. CA 99 is not much for scenery, either, though it does beat I-5 pretty handily; it passes through mostly agricultural areas and lies much closer to the Sierra Nevada mountains to the east of the valley, which are pretty on a crisp clear day. -- Don Kirkman |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Simliedfied airline names (was: Why do Aer Lingus have such an awful reputation) | Jeff Hacker | Air travel | 1 | March 24th, 2005 07:39 PM |
Simliedfied airline names (was: Why do Aer Lingus have such an awful reputation) | Patrick Wallace | Air travel | 3 | March 24th, 2005 06:09 PM |
Why do Aer Lingus have such an awful reputation | Martin WY | Europe | 5 | March 24th, 2005 01:11 PM |
Why do Aer Lingus have such an awful reputation | Martin WY | Air travel | 0 | February 13th, 2005 09:07 PM |
Kona Mansion Inn, NH - Really Awful | ind2004 | USA & Canada | 0 | June 22nd, 2004 03:58 PM |