I-5 in California is dreary and awful

(John Clear) writes:

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.

Done that too, however it became interesting at the time by being
covered with a foot of unplowed snow.

-- Patrick

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.

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

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 *

On Tue, 2 Jan 2007 05:17:46 +0000 (UTC),
(John Clear) wrote:

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.

I-10/I-20 across west Texas is the worst. I think eveyone should
have to drive it at least once in his or her life.


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

"David Kaye" wrote in message
oups.com...
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.


Interstates were built as defense supply routes. President Ike spent
several months crossing the country with a convoy early in his military
career. When he saw the autobahn in Germany, he realized the value and got
congress to implement the interstate system. Originally there was a section
every few miles that could be used as an aircraft landing strip. I-5
follows the hills as the land is cheaper and not much elevation change.
Same reason the ditch is there. Allows the least pumping expense.

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

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

It seems to me I heard somewhere that wrote in
article .com:

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!

I'm not sure which came first, I-5 or the canal, but like all parts of
the Interstate Highway system I-5 had its beginnings back when
Eisenhower pointed out the need for dependable travel routes in case of
national emergency. The route was approved in 1947 and the number
finalized in 1958. The goals of the system were

- To connect by routes, as direct as practicable, the principal
metropolitan areas, cities, and industrial centers.

- To serve the national defense.

- To the maximum extent practicable, to connect at suitable border
points with routes of continental importance in Canada and Mexico.

Both I-5 and the California Aqueduct were built in stages, so it's hard
to match the dates the western San Joaquin Valley sections were
completed.
--
Don Kirkman

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