I-5 in California is dreary and awful

"Don Kirkman" wrote in message
...
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


99 was non-stop, mostly 2 lanes each way from Bakersfield to Turlock, where
the only stop light(s) on the highway were until you reached Sacramento.
The light(s) were removed about 30 years ago when the Turlock bypass was
constructed. Have not driven South of Turlock for years, but the road has
probably been upgraded a lot because of the cities like Madera that have
grown. And having grandparents on Turlock area, I found the scenery rather
boring as a kid traveling the highway. . . Except for the Giant Orange
stops!

On the topic of boring interstates here is my rule of thumb for eating:

At those interchanges without a town you choices are usually:
Denny's.
A Denny's clone called something like Kountry Kitchen that conjures
images of home style cooking.
Fast food.
A mini-mart.

If you see a sign coming off the exit saying "(name of town) 3 miles"
drive the three miles for food.
My only exception might be if I stay at a motel and am leaving very
early (i.e. 5 a.m.) in which case I will have a simple breakfast at the
Denny's clone (it is hard to mess up scrambled eggs and bacon but I have
seen it done) but I will ask the desk clerk for recommendations ahead of
time.

--
To reply via e-mail please delete 1 c from paccbell

Bert Hyman wrote:
Richard Fangnail wrote:
Is I-5 devoid of sights by design?
If you want scenery, look to the west

From San Francisco to Los Angeles is . . .

About 450 miles and twelve hours: The best route is the Cabrillo
Highway (1) to Goleta, Highway 101 to Oxnard, the Pacific Coast
Highway (1) to the Santa Monica Freeway (10).

About 425 miles and eight hours: A lovely way is via Highway 101 all
the way.

About 400 miles and 6½ hours ('though some claim to do it quicker):
Via various roads, depending upon your point of departure, to
InterState Highway 5.


George Grapman said:
If you see a sign coming off the exit saying "(name of town) 3
miles" drive the three miles for food.

I have a few hamburgers a year, most of them purchased at In 'n' Out
in Kettleman City going up or down InterState Highway 5.

-- __________________________________________________ ______________
In Los Angeles, "short distances" ARE miles!
http://geocities.com/dancefest/ --- http://geocities.com/iconoc/
ICQ: http://wwp.mirabilis.com/19098103 ------- IClast at Gmail com


--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com

"Icono Clast" wrote in message
...

From San Francisco to Los Angeles is . . .
...
About 400 miles and 6½ hours ('though some claim to do it quicker): Via
various roads, depending upon your point of departure, to InterState
Highway 5.


I'm going from San Mateo to Orange county tomorrow. Is there a way to cut
across to I-5 that makes it more efficient then driving all the way down on
101?

Don
--
Ever had one of those days where you just felt like:
http://cosmoslair.com/BadDay.html ?
(Eating the elephant outside the box, one paradigm at a time)

Don - I'm just to the south of you. Here's what I do:

280 south to 85 south to 101 south to 152 east to 5 south to lala land. The
only bad part is the two lane portion of 152 from the intersection with 101
to that with 156.

From the intersection of 92 and 280 to that of 5 and 405, about 6 hours or
so, including a few stops....less if the traffic around Valencia is light,
more if it is heavy.

Highlight of the route is Harris ranch on the east side of 5 - wife loves
the clean restrooms and I really like the meats there. They pack the meats
"for travelling" - place a frozen "blue ice" type substance next to the meat
before wrapping it up.

Cheapest gas right now is at the Pilot station at Lost Hills, to the east of
the 46 and 5 intersection.

For those who find 5 dreary and boring...you really don't have to drive it,
you know. There are plenty of other alternatives as others have pointed
out. So if you don't like 5, just simply don't use it. As in much of this
life of ours, you can't have your cake and eat it very often. chuckle If
you think 5 is bad today, you should have driven it when it first opened,
when there literally were no amenities along the way...unless your packed
your own lunch, snacks, and drinks you didn't eat or drink from the time you
hit 5 near Tracy until you reaced the Grapvine area.


"Don Freeman" wrote in message
...

"Icono Clast" wrote in message
...

From San Francisco to Los Angeles is . . .
...
About 400 miles and 6½ hours ('though some claim to do it quicker): Via
various roads, depending upon your point of departure, to InterState
Highway 5.


I'm going from San Mateo to Orange county tomorrow. Is there a way to cut
across to I-5 that makes it more efficient then driving all the way down
on 101?

Don

Lawrence Akutagawa wrote:
Don - I'm just to the south of you. Here's what I do:

280 south to 85 south to 101 south to 152 east to 5 south to lala land. The
only bad part is the two lane portion of 152 from the intersection with 101
to that with 156.

From the intersection of 92 and 280 to that of 5 and 405, about 6 hours or
so, including a few stops....less if the traffic around Valencia is light,
more if it is heavy.

Why not take 92 east,880 north, forgot the number of the freeway that
connects with 580, and the go to 5? only time this is bad is during
commute times but the same holds true for 101 S at those hours.

Highlight of the route is Harris ranch on the east side of 5 - wife loves
the clean restrooms and I really like the meats there. They pack the meats
"for travelling" - place a frozen "blue ice" type substance next to the meat
before wrapping it up.

Two notes about Harris Ranch:

The steakhouse and the coffee shop (called the Ranch Kitchen) serve
the same meats. The coffee shop is cheaper and more casual
The coffee shop also serves great breakfasts.

Cheapest gas right now is at the Pilot station at Lost Hills, to the east of
the 46 and 5 intersection.

For those who find 5 dreary and boring...you really don't have to drive it,
you know. There are plenty of other alternatives as others have pointed
out. So if you don't like 5, just simply don't use it. As in much of this
life of ours, you can't have your cake and eat it very often. chuckle If
you think 5 is bad today, you should have driven it when it first opened,
when there literally were no amenities along the way...unless your packed
your own lunch, snacks, and drinks you didn't eat or drink from the time you
hit 5 near Tracy until you reaced the Grapvine area.


"Don Freeman" wrote in message
...
"Icono Clast" wrote in message
...

From San Francisco to Los Angeles is . . .
...
About 400 miles and 6½ hours ('though some claim to do it quicker): Via
various roads, depending upon your point of departure, to InterState
Highway 5.

I'm going from San Mateo to Orange county tomorrow. Is there a way to cut
across to I-5 that makes it more efficient then driving all the way down
on 101?

Don





--
To reply via e-mail please delete 1 c from paccbell

"Lawrence Akutagawa" wrote in message
t...
Don - I'm just to the south of you. Here's what I do:

280 south to 85 south to 101 south to 152 east to 5 south to lala land.
The only bad part is the two lane portion of 152 from the intersection
with 101 to that with 156.

Thanks Lawrence, I'll give it a shot tommorrow. Hopefully I can start early
enough (planning on leaving around 6 am) so that the two lane part you
mentioned won't be a problem. Coming back I will probably go up 101 so I can
stop in Paso to visit my sister, but the way down I want to get there in as
short a time as possible.

Thanks again,
Don

"George Grapman" wrote in message
. net...
Lawrence Akutagawa wrote:
Don - I'm just to the south of you. Here's what I do:

280 south to 85 south to 101 south to 152 east to 5 south to lala land.
The only bad part is the two lane portion of 152 from the intersection
with 101 to that with 156.

From the intersection of 92 and 280 to that of 5 and 405, about 6 hours
or so, including a few stops....less if the traffic around Valencia is
light, more if it is heavy.

Why not take 92 east,880 north, forgot the number of the freeway that
connects with 580, and the go to 5? only time this is bad is during
commute times but the same holds true for 101 S at those hours.

That would be 680 and I did a cursory calculation on that route the last
time I went down and the back tracking involved and the distance out to
Tracy seemed like it would cancel out the advantage of using I-5.

-Don

On 2 Jan 2007 13:31:08 -0800, "Ad absurdum per aspera"
wrote:

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.

That's the real reason for the routing. Along wiht the fact that
what was then US-99 pretty much ran down the sort of center of
the valley.

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.

"Precious" is open to debate. The environment of the valley was
radically changed by the damming of the mountain rivers feeding
the valley floor for irrigation, and the subesequent destruction
of the native flora and fauna and the plowing of the land for
crops destroyed the rest, all for the benefit of huge
agribusinesses. Once upon a time there was a huge seasonal lake
called "Tule Lake" in the valley. Not to mention the water
quality problems created by passing the water through fertilized
farm lands.

See the book, "Cadillac Desert".

--
************* DAVE HATUNEN ) *************
* Tucson Arizona, out where the cacti grow *
* My typos & mispellings are intentional copyright traps *

"Don Freeman" wrote in message
...

"George Grapman" wrote in message
. net...
Lawrence Akutagawa wrote:
Don - I'm just to the south of you. Here's what I do:

280 south to 85 south to 101 south to 152 east to 5 south to lala land.
The only bad part is the two lane portion of 152 from the intersection
with 101 to that with 156.

From the intersection of 92 and 280 to that of 5 and 405, about 6 hours
or so, including a few stops....less if the traffic around Valencia is
light, more if it is heavy.

Why not take 92 east,880 north, forgot the number of the freeway that
connects with 580, and the go to 5? only time this is bad is during
commute times but the same holds true for 101 S at those hours.

That would be 680

Sorry, obviously not 680.
205 is probably the highway you are referring to. But from looking at the
map 580 veers away from 205 and connects to I-5 directly.

-Don