California

[Plutonic Panda]

That is so surprising to me given the fact I look at Caltrans website and there's minimal improvements planned when full on freeways should be what is proposed for some of the segments.

[pderocco]

Max, you seem to be closer to this area and more traveled than me, is it normal to have so much traffic? It wasn't necessarily stop and go except a few of usual culprits just the steady unrelenting amount and then you see some poor soul on a road trying to make a left turn. I watch it and weep. Is it just summer traffic? Related to CA-1 closures?

You didn't say what road you were on, but if it's I-5, it's probably pretty normal. When there are only two lanes to choose from, and there are a lot of trucks, a significant percentage of the time you're stuck behind one truck in the left lane inching its way past another in the right lane. I think I-5 would be improved by much more than 50% by adding a lane in each direction.

Also, I wouldn't think CA-1 closures would affect I-5. The small amount of traffic normally on CA-1 (small compared to freeways) would probably end up on US-101.

I'm lucky, in that I'm never driving between LA and SF except for pleasure, so I can always take my time and use alternate routes like CA-33, or CA-25, or CA-166. I've always hated I-5 in the SJ Valley.

[Max Rockatansky]

Max, you seem to be closer to this area and more traveled than me, is it normal to have so much traffic? It wasn't necessarily stop and go except a few of usual culprits just the steady unrelenting amount and then you see some poor soul on a road trying to make a left turn. I watch it and weep. Is it just summer traffic? Related to CA-1 closures?

You didn't say what road you were on, but if it's I-5, it's probably pretty normal. When there are only two lanes to choose from, and there are a lot of trucks, a significant percentage of the time you're stuck behind one truck in the left lane inching its way past another in the right lane. I think I-5 would be improved by much more than 50% by adding a lane in each direction.

Also, I wouldn't think CA-1 closures would affect I-5. The small amount of traffic normally on CA-1 (small compared to freeways) would probably end up on US-101.

I'm lucky, in that I'm never driving between LA and SF except for pleasure, so I can always take my time and use alternate routes like CA-33, or CA-25, or CA-166. I've always hated I-5 in the SJ Valley.

Wasn't it Sparker who used to talk about taking 25 and 198 between 101 and 5?  That's really the ultimate right there if you want a scenic backroad detour that doesn't really add much travel time. 

[jdbx]

Max, you seem to be closer to this area and more traveled than me, is it normal to have so much traffic? It wasn't necessarily stop and go except a few of usual culprits just the steady unrelenting amount and then you see some poor soul on a road trying to make a left turn. I watch it and weep. Is it just summer traffic? Related to CA-1 closures?

You didn't say what road you were on, but if it's I-5, it's probably pretty normal. When there are only two lanes to choose from, and there are a lot of trucks, a significant percentage of the time you're stuck behind one truck in the left lane inching its way past another in the right lane. I think I-5 would be improved by much more than 50% by adding a lane in each direction.

Also, I wouldn't think CA-1 closures would affect I-5. The small amount of traffic normally on CA-1 (small compared to freeways) would probably end up on US-101.

I was driving home from San Diego yesterday afternoon/evening, so I got a nice 8 hours on I-5 on a Thursday to contemplate this. I think part of the problem is that when many of these highways were built, the population was significantly less than it is today.  Consider that there are just as many lanes on I-5 between Wheeler Ridge and Tracy as there were when the highway was initially built, decades ago. I do believe that the split speed limit adds to the congestion, but there absolutely is a need for an additional lane in each direction. Obviously that is a pipe dream, but at least the addition of some climbing lanes on uphill stretches and longer merge lanes near major interchanges could do wonders.

[kkt]

Most of the I-5 right of way is wide enough for a third lane in each direction, I think.

[Max Rockatansky]

The West Side Freeway is wide enough for six lanes and a high speed rail in the median.  The problem with I-5 along the West Side Freeway (relating to Panda's question to me earlier) is the weekend rushes.  I-5 gets a ton of the traffic coming/going from LA and the Bay Area on weekends.  99 usually is the better on weekends bet since most GPS software won't suggest it and long haul freight vehicles usually stick to I-5.  The detour time usually is offset by not having to sit in traffic jams.

[ClassicHasClass]

Yeah, I hardly ever take I-5 anymore through the Central Valley, at least south of Stockton.

[cl94]

99 can get bad on weekdays during rush hour, but yeah, that's 100% the better option on weekends. And it's getting better as more sections are widened to 6-8 lanes and micropassing trucks stop being an issue.

[Quillz]

99 can get bad on weekdays during rush hour, but yeah, that's 100% the better option on weekends. And it's getting better as more sections are widened to 6-8 lanes and micropassing trucks stop being an issue.

It's so weird. My parents are still of the "interstate = better" mentality and as a result will always take I-5 no matter where they need to go in the Central Valley. Bakersfield, just take I-5 to CA-58. Visalia, just take I-5 to CA-198. Fresno, just take I-5 to CA-41. They always get nervous when I drive them somewhere on CA-99 because "what's wrong with the 5?"

[FredAkbar]

I use I-5 to get from the SF bay area to Vegas (via Bakersfield, CA-58, etc). According to Google Maps, it's ~10mins faster (and 11 miles shorter) to take I-5 (I usually cut over to CA-99 on Stockdale Hwy + Westside Pkwy, and this will only get easier when the Centennial Corridor is done) than to go immediately to CA-99 via I-205 and CA-120.

Do you guys disagree with that estimate, or just think that CA-99 is generally a more enjoyable drive even if it takes a few minutes longer?

[Quillz]

Depends on what you mean by "enjoyable." CA-99 at least offers variable scenery in terms of going through the major population centers. I-5 is just a slog for me, it's boring and there is little variance. I actually have almost fallen asleep driving on it sometimes because there's nothing. You need some visual stimulus when driving.

[Max Rockatansky]

I-5 and CA 99 aren't roads you take for "enjoyment."   99 will give you less potential problems and frustrations.  99 will also give you reasonable access to services and perhaps an oddity or two given it is a older freeway.  To me, those are worth the investment of an 11 minute paper detour. 

If you want an "enjoyable"  routing take 25, 198, 33 and 58 from the Gilroy area to Bakersfield.  You'll get plenty of mountains with 25/198 and lord of open country on 33.

[FredAkbar]

Okay, instead of "more enjoyable" I guess I should have said "less annoying".

I am generally optimizing for travel time when I go to Vegas, but I'm ok with a *slight* detour if the road has more lanes or less waiting (I've definitely felt the claustrophobic aspect of I-5 while sitting in dense sections of traffic, waiting for trucks to pass each other, etc). Maybe I'll give 99 a shot.

[sprjus4]

CA-99 is probably less "monotonous"  than I-5, is what I think is being said. In terms of, inducing drowsiness.

[cl94]

99 is less monotonous, certainly. I wouldn't call it particularly "interesting" and the quirks are disappearing as segments get upgraded, but there's quite a bit more variety. For a freeway route between SoCal and NorCal, 101 is easily the winner in terms of scenery and it's not much of a contest.

[kkt]

Although 101 is still a few bypasses short of a freeway.

[cl94]

Although 101 is still a few bypasses short of a freeway.

All of 101 south of San Francisco is 4-lane expressway at this point. I don't even think there is a light along that stretch.

[Max Rockatansky]

Although 101 is still a few bypasses short of a freeway.

All of 101 south of San Francisco is 4-lane expressway at this point. I don't even think there is a light along that stretch.

There isn't, the whole stretch is free of traffic lights.

[kkt]

No traffic lights, but short merging lanes and substandard shoulders abound.

[SeriesE]

99 has lots of sections under construction. Those construction zones in 2 lane segments with split/crossover lanes are very stressful to drive

[Max Rockatansky]

Atwater should be wrapping up sooner or later.  Tulare I've noticed doesn't tend to slow down all that often.  Tulare also has a couple bailout options if you need to get off 99 depending on the travel direction. 

The thing that I've always hated about I-5 is that if there is a problem there is no easy detours.  Any detours that exist usually require advanced knowledge of the Central Valley farm roads.

[Quillz]

Although 101 is still a few bypasses short of a freeway.

All of 101 south of San Francisco is 4-lane expressway at this point. I don't even think there is a light along that stretch.

There isn't. Last signal light was removed in Santa Barbara in 1992. Every mile of 101 between Los Angeles and San Francisco is either freeway or expressway. North of there, there was once talk of a Eureka bypass but the city didn't want it. (A bypass around Willits was built some years ago).

[Quillz]

Atwater should be wrapping up sooner or later.  Tulare I've noticed doesn't tend to slow down all that often.  Tulare also has a couple bailout options if you need to get off 99 depending on the travel direction. 

The thing that I've always hated about I-5 is that if there is a problem there is no easy detours.  Any detours that exist usually require advanced knowledge of the Central Valley farm roads.

What about using CA-33 as a detour in most cases? It seems like it generally parallels the 5.

[Max Rockatansky]

Atwater should be wrapping up sooner or later.  Tulare I've noticed doesn't tend to slow down all that often.  Tulare also has a couple bailout options if you need to get off 99 depending on the travel direction. 

The thing that I've always hated about I-5 is that if there is a problem there is no easy detours.  Any detours that exist usually require advanced knowledge of the Central Valley farm roads.

What about using CA-33 as a detour in most cases? It seems like it generally parallels the 5.

That works fine sometimes.  The trouble with 33 is that it goes through some pretty slow towns and swings fair distance from I-5 (especially south of 145). 

Most commonly I use 33 between Firebaugh and Santa Nella if I'm trying to make the 99-5 transition.  I usually jog across the Central Valley via Avenue 7 1/2 and Avenue 7 east of Firebaugh.  Definitely nowhere near the traffic on those two roads compared to 180 or 152.

[roadman65]

Although 101 is still a few bypasses short of a freeway.

All of 101 south of San Francisco is 4-lane expressway at this point. I don't even think there is a light along that stretch.

There isn't. Last signal light was removed in Santa Barbara in 1992. Every mile of 101 between Los Angeles and San Francisco is either freeway or expressway. North of there, there was once talk of a Eureka bypass but the city didn't want it. (A bypass around Willits was built some years ago).

What gets me is the fact very few follow US 101 straight through SF.  The ramp from Van Ness to the Central is hardly used with motorists and that particular ramp is US 101 proper to transition from arterial to freeway for the last time SB.