why are interstates that bad for cross country driving?

This message is not archived
 >> Stay informed about: why are interstates that bad for cross country driving? 

Concrete Bob wrote:

> I will generally avoid the Los Angeles area unless I am going through
> during "off" hours. When the 210 is completed, I may just go I-10,
> I-210, I-5, US 50...But only to drive on the new section of the
> Foothill Freeway in Beautiful Rialto/Colton.

Taking the Foothill Freeway would be a bad idea unless you can guarantee
you'll hit it in the middle of the day.

Even the San Bernardino County portion gets busy now. I remember about a year
ago when Los Angeles TV stations ran stories about the new portion of the 210
and how no one was driving on it.

And of course, I-210 between Duarte and Sylmar has been around for some time
and tends to get a lot of traffic.


--
Steve Sobol, Professional Geek ** Java/VB/VC/PHP/Perl ** Linux/*BSD/Windows
Apple Valley, California PGP:0xE3AE35ED

It's all fun and games until someone starts a bonfire in the living room.
 >> Stay informed about: why are interstates that bad for cross country driving? 

Scott en Aztlán wrote:
> On 20 Jun 2006 14:36:24 -0700, "Jason Pawloski" <jpawloski.TakeThisOut@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
> >> What alternate would you suggest? Just curious....
> >
> >Anything that would avoid LA traffic. US 93 to I-40 to I-15 to CA-58 to
> >I-5 is still a mostly-freeway alternative.
>
> I-15 is a nightmare anywhere between San Diego and Las Vegas.

I think to get from CA-58 from I-40, you only need to stay on I-15 for
about 3 miles or so.

> So much for "avoiding LA traffic."
>
> >When I went back from Sacramento, I went south on US 101 and followed
> >pretty much the reverse of the first suggestion above. Even though US
> >101 is clearly a longer trip than I-5, its clear to me that it was
> >still quicker than going all the way through LA.
>
> You're out of your mind. The 101 is posted at 55 - 65 MPH throughout
> most of its length - only one short stretch is posted 70 MPH (I-5 is
> 70 MPH most of the way). And the nightmare traffic through Santa
> Barbara adds an extra hour to your trip.

That's funny, because there's one thing I've noticed about driving in
California: when I am on rural stretches with little traffic, I always
travel slower than when I am in traffic. On I-10 approaching LA,
outside the city I'll usually go about 75 MPH in the 70 zone, sometimes
up to 80 if I feel good. After CA 60 though and there are all the cars
around, I never pay attention to my speed and go with the flow of
traffic. I usually average about 80-85.

The US 101 southward was the exact same way, but even more exaggerated.
It was pretty busy. Not crowded, but busy. It was a Sunday afternoon
and there was really only one traffic snarl - no more than 10 minute
delay. But I probably averaged 75 MPH easily. At one point I was going
90 MPH because everyone else was. I'd say 80-85 MPH was the norm.
Occassionally I'd have to back off because I was going too fast to feel
comfortable, even though all the cars around me were going that speed.

So my experience with US 101 was very positive. I can see how it can
back up though. Just curious, what day/time did you travel?

Jason
 >> Stay informed about: why are interstates that bad for cross country driving? 

"Nachiketa Sahoo" <nsahoo.RemoveThis@gmail.com> wrote in message
>
> Why are the two lane roads
> like US66, US50 or US80 are preferred for cross country driving and not
> any interstate?
>
> Any thoughts from anybody who has driven cross country?

Having driven cross-country at least 15-20 times, including 6 times by
motorcycle, and made numerous partial crossings, I will echo what so many
others have offerred. If you want to *get across* the country, stick to
the Interstate system. If you want to *see* the country and meet the
country, use the US system.
 >> Stay informed about: why are interstates that bad for cross country driving? 

"Scott en Aztlán" <scottenaztlan.DeleteThis@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>
> If I have the choice, I always take the Interstate.

No surprise there.
 >> Stay informed about: why are interstates that bad for cross country driving? 

Well, they both are and aren't, depending on the particular route and
on what you're after.

The two-lanes don't necessarily have better scenery but do have a lot
more chance of actually going through something scenic rather than
going past the general vicinity. Much more integration with the
culture and economy of the older parts of town, which may run the gamut
from the charm of days gone by to postindustrial economic depression
and urban decay.

More likely to run the gamut of stoplights and grade crossings too; and
the speed limits will often be lower . You often find that the travel
time is greater even though the distance is shorter.

Interstates tend to avoid those things in the name of sweeping curves,
gentle grades, avoidance of distractions, and deliberatedly limited
access. The things to see and do at the interchanges run toward what
some call "Generica" -- the culturally homogenized services and
experiences that are more or less the same across the country -- and
usually just meet basic needs in a way that slams your doors and points
you back onto the road quickly.

Of course, some US and even state highways have been four-laned and
freeway-ized to near-Interstate standards...

Enjoy your trip,
--Joe
 >> Stay informed about: why are interstates that bad for cross country driving? 

This message is not archived
 >> Stay informed about: why are interstates that bad for cross country driving? 

This message is not archived
 >> Stay informed about: why are interstates that bad for cross country driving? 

Nachiketa Sahoo wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> <snip>
>
> Any thoughts from anybody who has driven cross country?
>
> Thanks,
> N
>

As others have said, it depends how much time you have on your hands,
what your budget for fuel is, and if your primary interest is the
destination, or the journey.

Personally I'm someone who tends to enjoy the journey, and will avoid
motorways/interstates whenever possible in favour of a scenic route.
But if I'm in a hurry to get somewhere, travelling on the motorway at
the SL + 7 will be my choice.
 >> Stay informed about: why are interstates that bad for cross country driving? 

> Ad absurdum per aspera said in rec.autos.driving:
> The things to see and do at the interchanges run toward what
> some call "Generica" -- the culturally homogenized services and
> experiences that are more or less the same across the country -- and
> usually just meet basic needs in a way that slams your doors and points
> you back onto the road quickly.

True. In my experiences, if you want to find a adequate place to eat,
you'll find it at the exits, but if you want to find someplace *good* to
eat, head for the town.

--
'And then we wonder why the UFO's won't
stop by and say hello..."
--George Carlin
 >> Stay informed about: why are interstates that bad for cross country driving?