I-5 in California is dreary and awful

"Richard Fangnail" wrote in message
oups.com...
Is I-5 devoid of sights by design? 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?


Also depends on which section of I-5 you travel. You realize it also goes
to the Oregon border in California. I-5 is the quickest, not the prettiest,
but quicker than the others. US 101 is prettier, and not much longer
distance and time wise. Unless you are trying to get to I-405 intersection
near any commute time. Best then to cut off and head over to Highway 1. We
travel down to SoCal maybe 10 times a year, and have used all the roads. We
still go I-5 for time.

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.

In article .com,
says...

Is I-5 devoid of sights by design? 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?

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. Maybe
I just drive it at the right time, but traffic from outside SF to LA is always
light, until Grapevine Hill, or so. Besides, the US Interstate system was
designed to get vehicles from one point to another quickly and safely. Some
ARE more visually interesting, i.e parts of I-40, parts of I-70, parts of I-
90, but they are, by design, higher-speed highways, not scenic backroads. For
some uninteresting scenery, try OTHER segments of the above-mentioned
interstates - now some of those are depressing.

Hunt

You want dreary, try I-80 in Nebraska


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

In article ,
George Grapman wrote:
You want dreary, try I-80 in Nebraska

I see your I-80 across Nebraska, and raise you I-70 across Kansas.

I've driven both, and I-70 in Kansas is even more nothing.

I-5 in the central valley is full of interesting things and is in
civilization compared to either of the two above stretches of road.

John
--
John Clear - http://www.clear-prop.org/

"John Clear" wrote:
I see your I-80 across Nebraska, and raise you I-70 across Kansas.
I've driven both, and I-70 in Kansas is even more nothing.

Is there any question as to why Dorothy dreamt of
being somewhere over the rainbow rather than in Kansas?

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.

It always seemed to me that much of I-5 through the Central Valley was
built as a service road for the California Aqueduct. The Aqueduct may
not be much to look at on its own, but imagine how much worse the rest
would be without it!

wrote:

It always seemed to me that much of I-5 through the Central Valley was
built as a service road for the California Aqueduct. The Aqueduct may
not be much to look at on its own, but imagine how much worse the rest
would be without it!

I'm not sure that I-5 was built with that in mind, but that the
aqueduct (known as the Vampire Ditch) might have been built with I-5 in
mind. Remember that the Interstate system was built with the idea of
creating the shortest distance between two points. In areas where
existing roads were the shortest (such as U.S. 40 through the Sierras
or U.S. 99 north of Redding), I-80 and I-5 respectively were laid right
over the top. In places where the highways jogged around to service
local towns (such as U.S. 66 in the Mohave Desert serving towns like
Amboy or U.S. 99 serving the Central Valley towns) the Interstates (40
and 5) was routed straight through to make the drive shorter.

This is why I prefer the old routes. They had character and they bent
with the topography. The Interstates often blasted right through hills
and didn't honor the topography and local character at all.

In article ,
Hatunen wrote:

On 1 Jan 2007 10:00:31 -0800, "Richard Fangnail"
wrote:

Is I-5 devoid of sights by design? 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?

What? You didn't think the huge cattle feed lot was visually
interesting?

It was more than just "visually" interesting on Saturday with the breeze
blowing toward the highway.

--
-Ernie-

George Grapman writes:

You want dreary, try I-80 in Nebraska

Been there, done that. Wyoming was a beautiful, though.

-- Patrick