AARoads Forum

Lots of interstates in the great plains have a reputation for being boring. But which one is the best?

I-129?

Quote from: 1 on April 26, 2020, 05:22:24 PM
I-129?

should have specified, major 2di, not 3dis.

Quote from: Roadgeekteen on April 26, 2020, 05:16:09 PM
But which one is the best?

Best for what? Taking a nap behind the wheel???

If you view those Interstates as boring, go with I-90 in South Dakota with the highest speed limit (most of it 80mph). Downside is that services are pretty thin between Rapid City and Mitchell, except for tourist trap Wall (been there, done that, not going back).

Quote from: ilpt4u on April 26, 2020, 05:26:38 PM

Quote from: Roadgeekteen on April 26, 2020, 05:16:09 PM
But which one is the best?

Best for what? Taking a nap behind the wheel???

Most interesting/scenic.

I-90 and I-94 at least get you to a National Park each. 

I will not cast a vote

The only one I have driven is I-80 in Nebraska...Not a whole lot of interesting/scenic going on that drive

I-70 has the Flint Hills, though those are basically less extreme and less forested Ozarks.

SM-G965U

Quote from: oscar on April 26, 2020, 05:27:06 PM
If you view those Interstates as boring, go with I-90 in South Dakota with the highest speed limit (most of it 80mph). Downside is that services are pretty thin between Rapid City and Mitchell, except for tourist trap Wall (been there, done that, not going back).

What's wrong with Wall? I liked everything about the I-90 experience in South Dakota. The speed limit, the middle-of-nowhere feeling, approaching the Badlands at sunrise... it was all great.

70 > 94 = 90 > 80

94's Badlands are better than 90's (and for those who aren't aware, ND's and SD's Badlands are not the same)

Quote from: TheHighwayMan394 on April 26, 2020, 05:54:42 PM
94's Badlands are better than 90's (and for those who aren't aware, ND's and SD's Badlands are not the same)

I am quite aware, yes. What you can see from I-90 itself in South Dakota is not exactly jaw-dropping, but the National Park is full of true wonders.
As far as North Dakota, don't remind me that I've never driven I-94 across the state, which is something I've always wanted to do. That and US 2. Hopefully I can get both checked off the bucket list someday.

90 at the Missouri River is pretty cool too. It's amazing how quickly it changes from corn to ranches.

South Park had an opinion, but I guess this would have to be 76 if it were an interstate.

Quote from: TheHighwayMan394 on April 26, 2020, 05:54:42 PM
70 > 94 = 90 > 80

94's Badlands are better than 90's (and for those who aren't aware, ND's and SD's Badlands are not the same)

It doesn't hurt 94s case that it has actual NPS viewpoints too. 

Quote from: SectorZ on April 26, 2020, 07:33:05 PM

South Park had an opinion, but I guess this would have to be 76 if it were an interstate.

76 is an interstate.

Quote from: Roadgeekteen on April 26, 2020, 09:40:30 PM

Quote from: SectorZ on April 26, 2020, 07:33:05 PM
<snipped>

South Park had an opinion, but I guess this would have to be 76 if it were an interstate.

76 is an interstate.

Yes, but all it does is connect Denver to I-80, so it doesn't go through the Great Plains like the ones in the poll.
I-76 is in Nebraska for a whopping two and a half miles.

I voted, but I'm probably not very qualified to vote.  I've only driven I-70 and I-80 extensively.  I voted for I-40 because, for the relatively short portion I've driven, I enjoyed the opportunity to deviate by only a few miles and see old sections of Route 66 history.

Oh, and I-80 through Nebraska sucks.

I-40 is would probably be my choice because it isn't really all that plains-y. Everything east of US-81 is pretty hilly and increasingly forested as you go east. You only really get the real plains experience across the Texas panhandle, and by the time you get sick of it, you're in New Mexico.

I-80 is the only other option I've actually done, and dear God, it's a slog. Although it may have been made worse because the driver of the car I was in insisted on playing nothing but Garrison Keillor the whole way.

I-80 across Nebraska pretty much stays in the Platte River Valley.  I drove across it once when it was foggy and the visibility was far less than optimal.  Definitely not fun.

I haven't driven I-90 or I-94, and prefer I-70 over I-40.

The last time I headed east I took US 54 through Wichita and I-35 from there to Kansas City.  The route includes a small city or two and the heart of the Flint Hills, and is definitely shorter than following the Interstates from Albuquerque to Kansas City.

Quote from: Scott5114 on April 26, 2020, 10:05:57 PM
I-80 is the only other option I've actually done, and dear God, it's a slog. Although it may have been made worse because the driver of the car I was in insisted on playing nothing but Garrison Keillor the whole way.

This is what's known as "The Fifth Circle of Hell".

Only ones I've done are I-70 through Kansas (going west) and I-94 across most of South Dakota (going east, turned onto I-29 south). I don't really remember much about either trip, other than enjoying I-70 in the Manhattan area because it was nowhere near as flat as I thought it would be.

I've only done 40, 70, and 80.

40 has a fairly short stretch of actual plains - as Scott said, by the time it gets truly boring, you're done. It also has the benefit of being broken up by Amarillo - the only route to really have a sizable city between I-25 and I-29/35.

70 is a real snoozefest except for the Flint Hills, and then feeds into the nightmare that is 70 across MO.

80 is pretty comparable to 70 except it has better (for me anyway) connections to the east, and plentiful services across NE. Plus the sandhills provide a bit of visual interest as you go west.

Most of what I know is from either watching a certain trucker on YouTube or by playing around with Mr. Google's things (I've crossed North Dakota on I-94 yesterday and today on Street View).

I have to agree with what has been said of I-40. Just by looking at a map, I-40 is too far South to be really plains. And judging by satellite imagery, I-40 appears to run along the transition zone between the plains and Western Texas.

From what I have seen, I-70 is perhaps the most boring crossing of the plains. Just a looooooong gentle slope from Salina to Denver, without even major rivers on the way.

I think I-80, mostly running along the Platte River, doesn't give a correct impression of Nebraska. One has to get out of the Interstate to see that Nebraska is not that flat and boring, and the further West one deviates, less distance to a landscape change is.

Both I-90 and I-94 at least have the monotony broken by the Missouri river about halfway through (and in the case of I-94 also by Bismarck). I-90 may have the least tedious crossing, as going Westbound it is basically done by the time one reaches Wall. After that, is down and up the Cheyenne River valley, and then it's not that long to the Black Hills (but then again, I haven't seen much of I-90). I was surprised to see I-94 is rather hilly after Bismarck, and also has a decent amount of curves compared to the others. Not to mention the passage through the Badlands. However the hassle can continue well into Montana, despite the Yellowstone River valley.

At least this is only limited to Interstates. US 2 retains a Great Plains (more like Prairies) feeling until well beyond I-15!

Take US 36. It's quick across Missouri and half of Kansas, and nice hills out to Denver with few semis.

I-94 was a nice drive, got to see a lot of varied topography and the stretch through the Badlands was nice. Stop off at the overlook in TR National Park. Worth a stop.
The only problem was that going westbound once you get to Montana, you are still 260 miles from Billings.

I-90 isn't bad. I remember going across SD in the early 90's during late summer nights. Cool if you can watch thunderstorms from a distance, no fun driving through them. Westbound is the better-looking direction as you see the Badlands and the Black Hills rising behind them.

I-70 in Kansas and I-80 in Nebraska are hell for people who like to drive. Nothing to see, no great places to stop. Avoid like the plague.

Haven't driven I-40 across the plains but would like to someday.

I have driven all of them, though none of them in the last 20 years.  None struck me as being even remotely interesting.  I picked I-40 because the view is least like what I'm used to in the upper Midwest.  90 and 94 get interesting as you get close to Montana, but on the whole, if I had to do one again, I'd do 40.

I have to admit that I like the wide open spaces of the plains, and I think they are perfect for people who like to drive. As I said in an earlier thread:

Quote from: CtrlAltDel on September 11, 2016, 04:23:11 PM
I like the mountains, but I also like the plains. The wide sky, the endless horizon, the ability to travel seemingly forever, the waves of grain, the infinite openness, all of that is something I find very powerful yet peaceful.

Some find it boring, but most certainly not me.

My favorite of those listed is I-70, although I think that's partially due to more or less random circumstances. The last time I was on I-70 across the plains, it was a perfect fall day, whereas, the last time I was on I-90, I drove through the mother of all thunderstorms, which was great while I was approaching it, but not so great when I actually hit it.

Quote from: westerninterloper on April 27, 2020, 06:52:22 PM
Take US 36. It's quick across Missouri and half of Kansas, and nice hills out to Denver with few semis.

I'm actually planning on doing this for my next trip out west. Almost did it on the last one, but opted for 70 instead due to inclement weather.

Quote from: deathtopumpkins on April 29, 2020, 11:00:34 AM

Quote from: westerninterloper on April 27, 2020, 06:52:22 PM
Take US 36. It's quick across Missouri and half of Kansas, and nice hills out to Denver with few semis.

I'm actually planning on doing this for my next trip out west. Almost did it on the last one, but opted for 70 instead due to inclement weather.

I drove US 36 (the CKC) across Missouri eastbound several years ago. Four lanes, mostly free-flowing, and very little traffic. I only went far enough into Kansas to turn around so I could get a clinch of the route in Missouri, but I have to say it was an enjoyable drive across the Show-Me State.

Quote from: CNGL-Leudimin on April 27, 2020, 06:08:57 PM
I think I-80, mostly running along the Platte River, doesn't give a correct impression of Nebraska. One has to get out of the Interstate to see that Nebraska is not that flat and boring, and the further West one deviates, less distance to a landscape change is.

Thank you - I have maintained this for many years, much to the disbelief of others.  At some point, someone decided that I-80 should run along the Platte River valley.  Probably because that's where most of the larger towns/cities are located (thanks to the water source).  In doing so, the road also goes out of it's way (over hundreds of miles) to avoid anything scenic or interesting.  Go just a few miles north of I-80 along much of it's path in NE and you'll start to encounter the Sand Hills and some pretty interesting scenery.  Many areas actually have groves of pine trees nestled in sheltered locations.  And there are world class (links) golf courses located in the region, miles from any town.  But if you're heading along I-80, all you see are ugly/scrubby cottonwoods and flat dull scenery. 

I-80 manages a similar miracle through Wyoming, by the way: somehow managing to avoid nearly all Rocky Mountain scenery for a 403 mile cross-section of the state. For those who never traversed Wyoming on I-80 and who expect hours of Yellowstone/Teton-style wonderment, get ready for the disappointment of a lifetime! 

Blame it on the Oregon and California Trails.  Those long-ago guides to travelers learned how to optimize their trips for more important things than scenery. 

Quote from: GaryV on April 29, 2020, 01:51:01 PM
Blame it on the Oregon and California Trails.  Those long-ago guides to travelers learned how to optimize their trips for more important things than scenery.

Sure, and I think I addressed that too - as the towns settled along the water source.  Despite understanding why, it's still true that I-80 tries hard to avoid passing anything scenic.  Unless you consider traveling through a low flat valley for hundreds of miles, bracketed by scruffy trees, to be scenic.  Because of this, people think Nebraska is an ugly and featureless state and that's not so.

The water, plus South Pass being the most gradual gradient through the Rockies.

Quote from: rarnold on April 28, 2020, 04:30:46 PM
I-94 was a nice drive, got to see a lot of varied topography and the stretch through the Badlands was nice. Stop off at the overlook in TR National Park. Worth a stop.
The only problem was that going westbound once you get to Montana, you are still 260 miles from Billings.

It was also surprised by I-94 as I cruised it on Street View (I'm doing a virtual road trip, I departed Chicago on April 23 and I expect to reach my final destination Seattle tomorrow, I'm currently in Spokane). And I agree with the problem, that 400+ km from the state line to Billings was a PITA. And even worse considering I'm hopping between Ronald McDonald Houses, in my route Bismarck-Billings was the longest gap between two. However I chose that route because there are even longer gaps further South (not to mention along I-80...).

Quote from: StogieGuy7 on April 29, 2020, 01:47:08 PMThank you - I have maintained this for many years, much to the disbelief of others.  At some point, someone decided that I-80 should run along the Platte River valley.  Probably because that's where most of the larger towns/cities are located (thanks to the water source).  In doing so, the road also goes out of it's way (over hundreds of miles) to avoid anything scenic or interesting.  Go just a few miles north of I-80 along much of it's path in NE and you'll start to encounter the Sand Hills and some pretty interesting scenery.  Many areas actually have groves of pine trees nestled in sheltered locations.  And there are world class (links) golf courses located in the region, miles from any town.  But if you're heading along I-80, all you see are ugly/scrubby cottonwoods and flat dull scenery. 

I-80 manages a similar miracle through Wyoming, by the way: somehow managing to avoid nearly all Rocky Mountain scenery for a 403 mile cross-section of the state. For those who never traversed Wyoming on I-80 and who expect hours of Yellowstone/Teton-style wonderment, get ready for the disappointment of a lifetime! 

You're welcome. If in the USA most people would prefer to fly over rather than drive through the Great Plains, here in Spain very few, if any, would go there. I'm pretty sure that even in the middle of nowhere, very well off the beaten path, there is much awaiting to be discovered. I'm curious about what Kansas, Nebraska, and especially (since it is the least visited state) North Dakota have to offer to the traveler. South Dakota at least has an obvious landmark, Mount Rushmore.

Hell, US 30 is more interesting than I-80 despite only being a few miles away from it. And when you've had enough of it it's easy to flip back to 80 and shut your brain off.

Quote from: StogieGuy7 on April 29, 2020, 01:47:08 PM

Quote from: CNGL-Leudimin on April 27, 2020, 06:08:57 PM
I think I-80, mostly running along the Platte River, doesn't give a correct impression of Nebraska. One has to get out of the Interstate to see that Nebraska is not that flat and boring, and the further West one deviates, less distance to a landscape change is.

Thank you - I have maintained this for many years, much to the disbelief of others.  At some point, someone decided that I-80 should run along the Platte River valley.  Probably because that's where most of the larger towns/cities are located (thanks to the water source).  In doing so, the road also goes out of it's way (over hundreds of miles) to avoid anything scenic or interesting.  Go just a few miles north of I-80 along much of it's path in NE and you'll start to encounter the Sand Hills and some pretty interesting scenery.  Many areas actually have groves of pine trees nestled in sheltered locations.  And there are world class (links) golf courses located in the region, miles from any town.  But if you're heading along I-80, all you see are ugly/scrubby cottonwoods and flat dull scenery. 

I-80 manages a similar miracle through Wyoming, by the way: somehow managing to avoid nearly all Rocky Mountain scenery for a 403 mile cross-section of the state. For those who never traversed Wyoming on I-80 and who expect hours of Yellowstone/Teton-style wonderment, get ready for the disappointment of a lifetime! 

Quote from: StogieGuy7 on April 29, 2020, 02:00:31 PM
Unless you consider traveling through a low flat valley for hundreds of miles, bracketed by scruffy trees, to be scenic.  Because of this, people think Nebraska is an ugly and featureless state and that's not so.

This goes for Kansas, too.  Travel north-south on a state route in either Kansas or Nebraska, and you'll get a completely different perspective on the state than if you took the Interstate across it east-west.

Quote from: kphoger on April 29, 2020, 07:12:08 PM

Quote from: StogieGuy7 on April 29, 2020, 02:00:31 PM
Unless you consider traveling through a low flat valley for hundreds of miles, bracketed by scruffy trees, to be scenic.  Because of this, people think Nebraska is an ugly and featureless state and that's not so.

This goes for Kansas, too.  Travel north-south on a state route in either Kansas or Nebraska, and you'll get a completely different perspective on the state than if you took the Interstate across it east-west.

I am open to changing my mind on this, but I think this is not true for the Dakotas. They're flat and boring regardless of direction. If anything, I-90 across South Dakota (which is winning the poll, BTW) is more interesting than I-29 across either state.

Quote from: webny99 on April 29, 2020, 09:18:46 PM

Quote from: kphoger on April 29, 2020, 07:12:08 PM
This goes for Kansas, too.  Travel north-south on a state route in either Kansas or Nebraska, and you'll get a completely different perspective on the state than if you took the Interstate across it east-west.

I am open to changing my mind on this, but I think this is not true for the Dakotas. They're flat and boring regardless of direction. If anything, I-90 across South Dakota (which is winning the poll, BTW) is more interesting than I-29 across either state.

Having traveled a lot in the Dakotas (my father was born and raised in the northeastern corner of South Dakota, and I still have relatives in both Dakotas), I completely agree, at least for the parts east of Bismarck for ND and of the Missouri River for SD.

After 22 or so years in the roadgeek community, I will say I am thoroughly confused by those of you who say you are "roadgeeks" but find roads boring. What are you looking for "entertainment?" Or what do you consider fun?  :hmmm:

I had no problem with I-80 in Nebraska. Sand hills out west, sunflowers, railroads, and the Platte River valley. And as mentioned previously in this thread, US 30/Lincoln Highway is nearby as well.

Quote from: Hot Rod Hootenanny on April 30, 2020, 12:01:26 PM
After 22 or so years in the roadgeek community, I will say I am thoroughly confused by those of you who say you are "roadgeeks" but find roads boring. What are you looking for "entertainment?" Or what do you consider fun?  :hmmm:

1.  Not everyone on this forum calls him- or herself a "roadgeek".

2.  Some people find design more interesting, others construction, others signage, others historical routings, others numbering, others fictional plans, etc.  If you think about it, that stuff is really more "geeky" than just looking at scenery from the road.

Quote from: kphoger on April 29, 2020, 07:12:08 PM
This goes for Kansas, too.  Travel north-south on a state route in either Kansas or Nebraska, and you'll get a completely different perspective on the state than if you took the Interstate across it east-west.

And not all E-W routes are like that. After the Wichita meet (the one where I had car trouble on the way) I ended up clinching US 166. It was a very interesting drive and nothing at all like I remember my 1991 jaunt across I-70 being.

Quote from: hbelkins on April 30, 2020, 03:05:32 PM

Quote from: kphoger on April 29, 2020, 07:12:08 PM
This goes for Kansas, too.  Travel north-south on a state route in either Kansas or Nebraska, and you'll get a completely different perspective on the state than if you took the Interstate across it east-west.

And not all E-W routes are like that. After the Wichita meet (the one where I had car trouble on the way) I ended up clinching US 166. It was a very interesting drive and nothing at all like I remember my 1991 jaunt across I-70 being.

Oh, yeah, US-166 across eastern Kansas is surprisingly scenic.  The 55mph speed limit just gets old after a while...

Quote from: kphoger on April 30, 2020, 03:31:52 PM

Oh, yeah, US-166 across eastern Kansas is surprisingly scenic. 

Any route through the Flint Hills is a treat.

Quote from: Hot Rod Hootenanny on April 30, 2020, 12:01:26 PM
After 22 or so years in the roadgeek community, I will say I am thoroughly confused by those of you who say you are "roadgeeks" but find roads boring. What are you looking for "entertainment?" Or what do you consider fun?  :hmmm:

Getting a bit off topic, but to go down that rabbit hole...

I can enjoy driving and travel and roads and still find certain roads or segments boring. I-80 across Nebraska fits that bill for me. I-57 in Illinois, the interstate closest to me, fits that bill also.

I have been getting to a point, that if time difference is under 1 hour, and time is not of the essence, I'd rather take non-interstate highways – travel on US and State Highways with at-grades and towns. Why? Going thru the small towns here and there adds variety to the trip, and the one four way stop in town? Adds a change of pace so the driving brain isn't on 75 MPH autopilot for forever. I do find the IL speed limit of 55 MPH on 2 lane rural highways ridiculously low, tho

I enjoy football and baseball also, but there are plenty of contests that are, in fact, boring

Quote from: ilpt4u on April 30, 2020, 07:38:00 PM

Quote from: Hot Rod Hootenanny on April 30, 2020, 12:01:26 PM
After 22 or so years in the roadgeek community, I will say I am thoroughly confused by those of you who say you are "roadgeeks" but find roads boring. What are you looking for "entertainment?" Or what do you consider fun?  :hmmm:

Getting a bit off topic, but to go down that rabbit hole...

I can enjoy driving and travel and roads and still find certain roads or segments boring. I-80 across Nebraska fits that bill for me. I-57 in Illinois, the interstate closest to me, fits that bill also.

I have been getting to a point, that if time difference is under 1 hour, and time is not of the essence, I'd rather take non-interstate highways – travel on US and State Highways with at-grades and towns. Why? Going thru the small towns here and there adds variety to the trip, and the one four way stop in town? Adds a change of pace so the driving brain isn't on 75 MPH autopilot for forever. I do find the IL speed limit of 55 MPH on 2 lane rural highways ridiculously low, tho

I enjoy football and baseball also, but there are plenty of contests that are, in fact, boring

Very well put.  Both interstates 55 and 57 through IL are interesting the first time that you drive them, but quickly become mind-numbingly boring after that first time.

I-80 headed west through Nebraska is different than this.  If you're driving cross-country, you get just past Omaha and the scenery opens up and you get a feeling of making progress heading west.  Then you hit the Platte River Valley and it "seems" like you're just running in place for like 3-4 hours.  Of course, in reality that's not so - it just feels that way. Once you get out of it (heading toward Ogalala), you do finally get to experience the high plains scenery that you may have looked forward to since Indiana.  Then again, you're probably also looking forward to seeing the Rockies by this point, perhaps not knowing that Wyoming is about to tease and disappoint you for the next several hours...   

Quote from: StogieGuy7 on May 01, 2020, 12:21:57 PM
Very well put.  Both interstates 55 and 57 through IL are interesting the first time that you drive them, but quickly become mind-numbingly boring after that first time.

I'll take I-57 a million times over I-55.  And this is from someone whose job used to have him driving I-57 on a daily basis, usually about 30-40 miles of it but occasionally up to 100 miles of it.

I didn't mind driving on 80 through Nebraska, although admittedly it can get boring at times. The drive from Omaha till North Platte doesn't seem as long to me. It's just that last stretch from there all the way to Wyoming that is kind of a slog, and so is most of Wyoming. Side note: the stretch from Lincoln to Omaha has changed a lot since I was a kid. It used to be mostly farmland once you got past the NE-50 exit. With Sarpy county growing, that drive doesn't seem as long as it used to. It prolly also helps to have 3 lanes each way and a 75 mph speed limit lol.

I liked 70 in Kansas till at least Hays. I found it boring from there till I got just outside Denver.

I grew up in northwestern Kansas, and I have an appreciation for the landscape in that part of the country.  But even I can barely stand I-70 between Limon and Salina.  West of Limon, I quite enjoy the endless rolling grassland all around, with mountains gradually coming into view.

Since there's not a lot to look at on any of the options mentioned in the OP, when I have crossed the "Great Prairie" I more often than not shift into "railgeek" mode, preferring Interstates that follow rail lines.  This causes issues with I-80; while the parallel UP line has more than enough rail traffic to hold one's interest, it's best seen from US 30 rather than the paralle I-80 (it's a bit better out west of US 385, where the line is a bit closer to the freeway).  While the UP "Kansas Pacific" line parallels a lot of US 70 -- particularly between Denver and Limon, CO, there's just not a lot of traffic on the Topeka-Denver section except for grain-elevator action (short and irregularly scheduled trains).  I-40 and I-90 are, as the priest in "Holy Grail" would say, right out; both used to have parallel rail lines with uneven use, but the old Rock Island "Choctaw" line next to I-40 was removed starting in 1982, while the Milwaukee line paralleling I-90 (but only east of the Missouri River) was sold to a local short line in 1980 and cut back to Chamberlain, SD; very sporadic action there.  But the best readily visible RR action of those Interstates listed in the OP is on I-94, paralleled by the old Northern Pacific main, now a BNSF line.  The part running through the Badlands near the MT/ND state line gets a lot of coal and grain traffic, and eastbounds out of Glendive, MT have a heavy gradient getting out of the Yellowstone River valley and often put on a good show slogging up the hill via multiple locomotives on very long trains. 

Too bad the OP didn't consider I-20 across west Texas to be part of the Great Plains; more train action, mile-for-mile, than any of the others -- and most of it from Pecos east to Ft. Worth very visible from the Interstate.   Plenty of traffic (mostly containers) especially since after 1996 UP rerouted most of that traffic out of L.A. over those former Texas & Pacific tracks to their DFW-area offloading facilities. 

Quote from: sparker on May 01, 2020, 01:30:53 PM
Since there's not a lot to look at on any of the options mentioned in the OP, when I have crossed the "Great Prairie" I more often than not shift into "railgeek" mode, preferring Interstates that follow rail lines.  This causes issues with I-80; while the parallel UP line has more than enough rail traffic to hold one's interest, it's best seen from US 30 rather than the paralle I-80 (it's a bit better out west of US 385, where the line is a bit closer to the freeway).  While the UP "Kansas Pacific" line parallels a lot of US 70 -- particularly between Denver and Limon, CO, there's just not a lot of traffic on the Topeka-Denver section except for grain-elevator action (short and irregularly scheduled trains).  I-40 and I-90 are, as the priest in "Holy Grail" would say, right out; both used to have parallel rail lines with uneven use, but the old Rock Island "Choctaw" line next to I-40 was removed starting in 1982, while the Milwaukee line paralleling I-90 (but only east of the Missouri River) was sold to a local short line in 1980 and cut back to Chamberlain, SD; very sporadic action there.  But the best readily visible RR action of those Interstates listed in the OP is on I-94, paralleled by the old Northern Pacific main, now a BNSF line.  The part running through the Badlands near the MT/ND state line gets a lot of coal and grain traffic, and eastbounds out of Glendive, MT have a heavy gradient getting out of the Yellowstone River valley and often put on a good show slogging up the hill via multiple locomotives on very long trains. 

Too bad the OP didn't consider I-20 across west Texas to be part of the Great Plains; more train action, mile-for-mile, than any of the others -- and most of it from Pecos east to Ft. Worth very visible from the Interstate.   Plenty of traffic (mostly containers) especially since after 1996 UP rerouted most of that traffic out of L.A. over those former Texas & Pacific tracks to their DFW-area offloading facilities.

Considered, but is Texas really the plains? Heard many say that even I-40 doesn't go through the plains.

The Panhandle probably is. I don't really know about south of I-20, though.

Actually, IMO the best Plains route, Interstate or conventional, for railgeeking has been NE 2 (no pun intended) from Alliance to Grand Island, NE; paralleling the BNSF "coal conduit" originating in the Powder River, WY mining zone.  Back in the late '80's, when most of the midwest power companies still relied on coal-fired generating plants, there was an eastbound coal hauler averaging 100+ cars every 10 minutes like clockwork; I understand that with plants switching over to natural gas or simply being closed the traffic is now down to about a third of its 1989 peak.  Still, the road's a nice if slower alternative to schlepping down I-80!

Quote from: Roadgeekteen on May 01, 2020, 01:46:20 PM
Considered, but is Texas really the plains? Heard many say that even I-40 doesn't go through the plains.

Clearly you've never visited the Texas Panhandle.

What has actually been said about I-40 has specifically mentioned the Texas panhandle as being the only truly plains stretch along the route.

Well, except for CNGL-Leudimin (pinche español :sombrero:), and even he clarified that it runs along the edge of the plains.

Quote from: Scott5114 on April 26, 2020, 10:05:57 PM
You only really get the real plains experience across the Texas panhandle

Quote from: deathtopumpkins on April 27, 2020, 04:29:21 PM
40 has a fairly short stretch of actual plains - as Scott said

Quote from: CNGL-Leudimin on April 27, 2020, 06:08:57 PM
Just by looking at a map, I-40 is too far South to be really plains. And judging by satellite imagery, I-40 appears to run along the transition zone between the plains and Western Texas.

How are we defining the area to cross? Depending on the latitude, the "plains" start or end a little earlier.  For example, all of I-90 in southern Minnesota is plains, where due south in Missouri or Arkansas, I would not consider that the plains.  I think for the sake of discussion, we say the western edge is about equal to Denver's longitude and the eastern edge is the eastern border of the Dakotas, Nebraska, Kansas, and Oklahoma (or at least once you get outside of the metro area that happens to be on/very close to the border, i.e. Fargo, Sioux Falls, Omaha, and Kansas City)

Case For I-40
It actually passes through cities.  Oklahoma City is the largest metro area in the area defined above.  Amarillo is the second largest.  The Eastern Oklahoma side is relatively hilly and has trees.  Intersects five different interstates (I-27, I-35, I-44, I-235, I-240) and has multiple business interstates.

Case Against I-40
The rest of Oklahoma is nothing to look at.  The Texas panhandle is flat as a pancake.  The portion of I-40 in Eastern New Mexico is more or less flat, desert wasteland.

Case For I-70
The portion east of Salina is actually relatively hilly and pretty for Kansas.  Once you get past Limon, you see mountains in the distance.  Intersects two interstates outside of KC and Denver (I-135 and I-470). 

Case Against I-70
Eastern Colorado is largely terrible.  Everything west of Salina is the same kind of terrible.  Kansas has no business interstates if you're into those.

Case For I-80
Towns are staggered relatively well through Nebraska to give you something to "look forward to(?)" (Lincoln, Grand Island, Kearney, North Platte).  Intersects two other interstates outside of Omaha and Cheyenne (I-76, I-180). 

Case Against I-80
Flat as a pancake and pretty much no scenery from Lincoln westward.  Nebraska has no business interstates if you're into those.

Case for I-90
Nearing the Missouri River Valley and west is quite scenic, even into Wyoming with rolling hills.  80 mph speed limit.  The Corn Palace.  Intersects one other interstate (I-190) and has multiple business interstates.

Case Against I-90
Anything east of the Missouri River Valley is the same flat as a pancake as some of the other highways.

Case For I-94
Theodore Roosevelt National Park in North Dakota is scenic, although less so than western South Dakota.  Some hilliness continues into extreme eastern Montana.  Intersects one (unsigned) interstate (I-194) and has multiple business interstates.

Case Against I-94
The rest of the whole stretch is flat with no towns to speak of outside of Bismarck.

For me, I'd rank them I-90, I-40, I-94, I-70, I-80.

And just for completeness, I've driven I-90 once, I-40 twice (but not the stretch in eastern Oklahoma a.k.a. the prettier part), I-94 once, I-70 around 40 times, and I-80 around 12 times.

Chris

To me, it seems wrong to discredit a highway for being flat, when it's specifically "the plains" that we're crossing.

Quote from: kphoger on May 01, 2020, 06:39:35 PM
To me, it seems wrong to discredit a highway for being flat, when it's specifically "the plains" that we're crossing.

Flat roads can be just as good as hilly roads. It's all about the entire experience.

I live in Denver now and have taken I-80 dozens of time traveling to Ohio and Ontario. I love that there are towns every 10 miles or so, plus they have rest areas at very convenient spots. I agree, the Lincoln to Omaha stretch is the best scenery and also six lanes which helps. It does occur as a slog with the heavy truck traffic. Last time I bailed and took US 6 and US 34 from west of Lincoln to Brush, Colorado.

I've taken I-70 a handful of times. I do like the hills west of Topeka, at least when it's not snowing. But, yes, the most interesting scenery in western Kansas is the long S-curve from paralleling US 40 to US 24.

I've been on sections of I-90 but mostly from Douglas, WY to Spearfish. I'm not sure that's still the plains, but it was scenic and hilly.

I spent quite some time near Dickinson, ND and I-94 in back in 2012-13. I never did make it west of Belfield where Teddy Roosevelt NP is. But at least I-94 is a 75 MPH highway and pretty straight. You can also follow old Highway 10 intact within a mile of it through most of North Dakota.

Really best thing about I-80 -- specifically EB -- knowing that there's a great steak waiting for you at
Cattleman's in Lincoln!!!!

Give me a "boring" ride across the northern plains any day over the insanity that is roads like I-70 in Missouri or much of I-95.  Hilly, flat, whatever, if you look around there are things to see.  Just observing the fact that there's so much open space for miles on end, right next to an interstate highway, is interesting to me.  The incredible flatness of eastern North Dakota is something to see in its own right.  And like many of us say on this forum so often, get off the interstates when you can and there's always a series of little towns to experience, if only for a few minutes as you pass through.  To each his own, though.

One my most memorable moments from a road trip growing up was crossing eastern South Dakota in 1985 on I-90 during an August afternoon mostly dry thunderstorm.  You could see the bolts of lightning striking the rolling hills, then one struck barely off the right shoulder just as we were passing.  I think it's still the closest I've ever been to a lightning strike, hearing the thunder which was much more like an explosion, and seeing the big cloud of dust, probably mixed with smoke, kicked up around the strike.  And of course the other highlight was seeing the actual Oacoma, South Dakota, after reading about it at the top of the Mass Pike so many times when crossing the Berkshires.

Quote from: sparker on May 01, 2020, 07:57:27 PM
Really best thing about I-80 -- specifically EB -- knowing that there's a great steak waiting for you at
Cattleman's in Lincoln!!!!

I didn't know about that, will need to check it out someday. But I do try to get a steak dinner in Omaha whenever I'm passing through. All of the several places I tried (one downtown, one near the stockyard, a few in the suburbs) were good, though some were rather pricey.

Quote from: kphoger on May 01, 2020, 06:39:35 PM
To me, it seems wrong to discredit a highway for being flat, when it's specifically "the plains" that we're crossing.

At least for me, part of the appeal of driving is turning the steering wheel.  Maybe I shouldn't have said flat, but rather "stick straight".   :)

Chris

I can only vouch for 90 or 94. 

I absolutely love 94 around Teddy Roosevelt NP.  But that's not enough for me to give it a higher rating than 90.  94 just feels like it drags forever in a lot of other places.

90 I mostly did at night and that honestly might be why it seems like it went faster. (It was still 75 then in SD)  Even though it was a long straight shot from Gillette to Sioux Falls, it really didn't seem that long.

Approaching Rapid City from the West on 90 at night is really cool.  I also like the section of 90 in Eastern MN and around LaCrosse.

While I like the Twin Cities a lot, I also appreciate that 90 doesn't go through any large cities either.

Quote from: oscar on May 01, 2020, 08:32:21 PM

Quote from: sparker on May 01, 2020, 07:57:27 PM
Really best thing about I-80 -- specifically EB -- knowing that there's a great steak waiting for you at
Cattleman's in Lincoln!!!!

I didn't know about that, will need to check it out someday. But I do try to get a steak dinner in Omaha whenever I'm passing through. All of the several places I tried (one downtown, one near the stockyard, a few in the suburbs) were good, though some were rather pricey.

The restaurant is out on US 6 heading east out of town, sandwiched between the highway and the BNSF main line.  It's a bit pricier than the chain steakhouses (Stuart Anderson, Outback, etc.) but well below what you can expect from the likes of Ruth's Chris or Morton's; one can generally get out of there with a full dinner for about $40-50/person (unless you order a couple of craft beers or really good bottle of wine).  Discovered it back about '82 when going to the now-discontinued Consumer Electronic Summer Show in Chicago -- they had at least 3 billboards on 80 coming in from the west, so their presence was certainly "out there".  We were staying overnight in Omaha, so it was decided to eat there and get it somewhat digested by the time we got to the hotel.  Pleasantly surprised, of course; don't let the glitzy archetypal-Western decor put you off -- the food, including the "all-in" baked potato, is excellent. 

Quote from: kphoger on April 30, 2020, 03:31:52 PM
The 55mph speed limit just gets old after a while...

Come east and 55 will feel like a treat before too long...

Quote from: webny99 on May 01, 2020, 10:45:24 PM

Quote from: kphoger on April 30, 2020, 03:31:52 PM
The 55mph speed limit just gets old after a while...

Come east and 55 will feel like a treat before too long...

NY has 55 on most rural roads, especially upstate.

Quote from: Roadgeekteen on May 01, 2020, 10:49:09 PM

Quote from: webny99 on May 01, 2020, 10:45:24 PM

Quote from: kphoger on April 30, 2020, 03:31:52 PM
The 55mph speed limit just gets old after a while...

Come east and 55 will feel like a treat before too long...

NY has 55 on most rural roads, especially upstate.

I know! This (https://www.google.com/maps/@43.3473875,-76.6487578,3a,75y,70.23h,79.38t/data=!3m7!1e1!3m5!1sbhSKrl4Fn0ZwHcF7NpaP9w!2e0!6s%2F%2Fgeo0.ggpht.com%2Fcbk%3Fpanoid%3DbhSKrl4Fn0ZwHcF7NpaP9w%26output%3Dthumbnail%26cb_client%3Dmaps_sv.tactile.gps%26thumb%3D2%26w%3D203%26h%3D100%26yaw%3D128.12924%26pitch%3D0%26thumbfov%3D100!7i13312!8i6656!5m1!1e1) is a personal favorite 55 mph back road.

But that's exactly the point: 55 is the upper bound, since we don't have anything higher than that on non-freeways. So when you hit a 55 zone, you're not going to be saying "I wish this limit was higher!". You're going to be saying "This is a treat that I must enjoy while it lasts!".

Quote from: webny99 on May 01, 2020, 11:14:14 PM

Quote from: Roadgeekteen on May 01, 2020, 10:49:09 PM

Quote from: webny99 on May 01, 2020, 10:45:24 PM

Quote from: kphoger on April 30, 2020, 03:31:52 PM
The 55mph speed limit just gets old after a while...

Come east and 55 will feel like a treat before too long...

NY has 55 on most rural roads, especially upstate.

I know! This (https://www.google.com/maps/@43.3473875,-76.6487578,3a,75y,70.23h,79.38t/data=!3m7!1e1!3m5!1sbhSKrl4Fn0ZwHcF7NpaP9w!2e0!6s%2F%2Fgeo0.ggpht.com%2Fcbk%3Fpanoid%3DbhSKrl4Fn0ZwHcF7NpaP9w%26output%3Dthumbnail%26cb_client%3Dmaps_sv.tactile.gps%26thumb%3D2%26w%3D203%26h%3D100%26yaw%3D128.12924%26pitch%3D0%26thumbfov%3D100!7i13312!8i6656!5m1!1e1) is a personal favorite 55 mph back road.

But that's exactly the point: 55 is the upper bound, since we don't have anything higher than that on non-freeways. So when you hit a 55 zone, you're not going to be saying "I wish this limit was higher!". You're going to be saying "This is a treat that I must enjoy while it lasts!".

This (https://www.google.com/maps/@40.7506353,-77.8939844,3a,75y,254.33h,79.81t/data=!3m7!1e1!3m5!1sKCxmJfc9NsfFU1dH3I2nZA!2e0!6s%2F%2Fgeo3.ggpht.com%2Fcbk%3Fpanoid%3DKCxmJfc9NsfFU1dH3I2nZA%26output%3Dthumbnail%26cb_client%3Dsearch.revgeo_and_fetch.gps%26thumb%3D2%26w%3D96%26h%3D64%26yaw%3D315.4323%26pitch%3D0%26thumbfov%3D100!7i13312!8i6656) is a personal favorite 35 mph back road.

PA legally has a 55 default on two-lanes but it seems more like the default is 45, 35 in towns. Many towns will push their state routes to 25, and 55 is only allowed in the literal middle of nowhere. Almost any 55 in Pennsylvania could be a 65, at least, with absolutely no problem, and most 45s could be 55. While we're at it Pennsylvania has a lot of 55 freeways left over from the NMSL days which should be way higher, stuff like  (this (https://www.google.com/maps/@40.8118228,-78.0670635,3a,75y,289.04h,74.35t/data=!3m7!1e1!3m5!1s6LlN0MLxG_8qHT6PpzhjZg!2e0!6s%2F%2Fgeo1.ggpht.com%2Fcbk%3Fpanoid%3D6LlN0MLxG_8qHT6PpzhjZg%26output%3Dthumbnail%26cb_client%3Dmaps_sv.tactile.gps%26thumb%3D2%26w%3D203%26h%3D100%26yaw%3D202.248%26pitch%3D0%26thumbfov%3D100!7i13312!8i6656) and this (https://www.google.com/maps/@40.7906503,-77.8082719,3a,75y,69.31h,82.04t/data=!3m7!1e1!3m5!1sDQEWPepm_IYSUr2I2gMUcw!2e0!6s%2F%2Fgeo1.ggpht.com%2Fcbk%3Fpanoid%3DDQEWPepm_IYSUr2I2gMUcw%26output%3Dthumbnail%26cb_client%3Dsearch.revgeo_and_fetch.gps%26thumb%3D2%26w%3D96%26h%3D64%26yaw%3D274.25037%26pitch%3D0%26thumbfov%3D100!7i13312!8i6656) and lots of four-lane divided not-quite-freeway at 55 as well (like this (https://www.google.com/maps/@40.4549157,-79.1302833,3a,75y,81.18h,83.53t/data=!3m7!1e1!3m5!1s1d4lxlVoKc1pAKhXTJzxFw!2e0!6s%2F%2Fgeo0.ggpht.com%2Fcbk%3Fpanoid%3D1d4lxlVoKc1pAKhXTJzxFw%26output%3Dthumbnail%26cb_client%3Dsearch.revgeo_and_fetch.gps%26thumb%3D2%26w%3D96%26h%3D64%26yaw%3D296.21362%26pitch%3D0%26thumbfov%3D100!7i16384!8i8192)). Lots of our 65 zones could be higher and we have some 65 and 70 which could be 80 or more.

Point is, it's dumb. My friends out west, enjoy your freedoms.

Quote from: webny99 on May 01, 2020, 11:14:14 PM

Quote from: Roadgeekteen on May 01, 2020, 10:49:09 PM

Quote from: webny99 on May 01, 2020, 10:45:24 PM

Quote from: kphoger on April 30, 2020, 03:31:52 PM
The 55mph speed limit just gets old after a while...

Come east and 55 will feel like a treat before too long...

NY has 55 on most rural roads, especially upstate.

I know! This (https://www.google.com/maps/@43.3473875,-76.6487578,3a,75y,70.23h,79.38t/data=!3m7!1e1!3m5!1sbhSKrl4Fn0ZwHcF7NpaP9w!2e0!6s%2F%2Fgeo0.ggpht.com%2Fcbk%3Fpanoid%3DbhSKrl4Fn0ZwHcF7NpaP9w%26output%3Dthumbnail%26cb_client%3Dmaps_sv.tactile.gps%26thumb%3D2%26w%3D203%26h%3D100%26yaw%3D128.12924%26pitch%3D0%26thumbfov%3D100!7i13312!8i6656!5m1!1e1) is a personal favorite 55 mph back road.

But that's exactly the point: 55 is the upper bound, since we don't have anything higher than that on non-freeways. So when you hit a 55 zone, you're not going to be saying "I wish this limit was higher!". You're going to be saying "This is a treat that I must enjoy while it lasts!".

As Minnesota just finished raising thousands of miles from 55 to 60...this is precisely not how I see it.  :awesomeface:

Quote from: Ketchup99 on May 02, 2020, 11:23:18 AM
This (https://www.google.com/maps/@40.7506353,-77.8939844,3a,75y,254.33h,79.81t/data=!3m7!1e1!3m5!1sKCxmJfc9NsfFU1dH3I2nZA!2e0!6s%2F%2Fgeo3.ggpht.com%2Fcbk%3Fpanoid%3DKCxmJfc9NsfFU1dH3I2nZA%26output%3Dthumbnail%26cb_client%3Dsearch.revgeo_and_fetch.gps%26thumb%3D2%26w%3D96%26h%3D64%26yaw%3D315.4323%26pitch%3D0%26thumbfov%3D100!7i13312!8i6656) is a personal favorite 35 mph back road.

Did they recently lower the speed limit?  In GSV, I don't see anything lower than 40 or 45 in either direction.

Quote from: TheHighwayMan394 on May 02, 2020, 03:12:38 PM

Quote from: webny99 on May 01, 2020, 11:14:14 PM

Quote from: Roadgeekteen on May 01, 2020, 10:49:09 PM

Quote from: webny99 on May 01, 2020, 10:45:24 PM

Quote from: kphoger on April 30, 2020, 03:31:52 PM
The 55mph speed limit just gets old after a while...

Come east and 55 will feel like a treat before too long...

NY has 55 on most rural roads, especially upstate.

I know! This (https://www.google.com/maps/@43.3473875,-76.6487578,3a,75y,70.23h,79.38t/data=!3m7!1e1!3m5!1sbhSKrl4Fn0ZwHcF7NpaP9w!2e0!6s%2F%2Fgeo0.ggpht.com%2Fcbk%3Fpanoid%3DbhSKrl4Fn0ZwHcF7NpaP9w%26output%3Dthumbnail%26cb_client%3Dmaps_sv.tactile.gps%26thumb%3D2%26w%3D203%26h%3D100%26yaw%3D128.12924%26pitch%3D0%26thumbfov%3D100!7i13312!8i6656!5m1!1e1) is a personal favorite 55 mph back road.

But that's exactly the point: 55 is the upper bound, since we don't have anything higher than that on non-freeways. So when you hit a 55 zone, you're not going to be saying "I wish this limit was higher!". You're going to be saying "This is a treat that I must enjoy while it lasts!".

As Minnesota just finished raising thousands of miles from 55 to 60...this is precisely not how I see it.  :awesomeface:

I know. And you don't live in the east. So we've come full circle.  :spin:

Quote from: kphoger on May 02, 2020, 03:33:27 PM

Quote from: Ketchup99 on May 02, 2020, 11:23:18 AM
This (https://www.google.com/maps/@40.7506353,-77.8939844,3a,75y,254.33h,79.81t/data=!3m7!1e1!3m5!1sKCxmJfc9NsfFU1dH3I2nZA!2e0!6s%2F%2Fgeo3.ggpht.com%2Fcbk%3Fpanoid%3DKCxmJfc9NsfFU1dH3I2nZA%26output%3Dthumbnail%26cb_client%3Dsearch.revgeo_and_fetch.gps%26thumb%3D2%26w%3D96%26h%3D64%26yaw%3D315.4323%26pitch%3D0%26thumbfov%3D100!7i13312!8i6656) is a personal favorite 35 mph back road.

Did they recently lower the speed limit?  In GSV, I don't see anything lower than 40 or 45 in either direction.

It used to be higher but my town has been dropping every limit they possibly can. It's now part 35, part 45. The part I showed is, I'm pretty sure, now 35.

Quote from: Ketchup99 on May 02, 2020, 06:51:18 PM

Quote from: kphoger on May 02, 2020, 03:33:27 PM

Quote from: Ketchup99 on May 02, 2020, 11:23:18 AM
This (https://www.google.com/maps/@40.7506353,-77.8939844,3a,75y,254.33h,79.81t/data=!3m7!1e1!3m5!1sKCxmJfc9NsfFU1dH3I2nZA!2e0!6s%2F%2Fgeo3.ggpht.com%2Fcbk%3Fpanoid%3DKCxmJfc9NsfFU1dH3I2nZA%26output%3Dthumbnail%26cb_client%3Dsearch.revgeo_and_fetch.gps%26thumb%3D2%26w%3D96%26h%3D64%26yaw%3D315.4323%26pitch%3D0%26thumbfov%3D100!7i13312!8i6656) is a personal favorite 35 mph back road.

Did they recently lower the speed limit?  In GSV, I don't see anything lower than 40 or 45 in either direction.

It used to be higher but my town has been dropping every limit they possibly can. It's now part 35, part 45. The part I showed is, I'm pretty sure, now 35.

I see you're from a town with a major university.  Here's the thing -- a significant percentage of those, particularly state universities, have an urban planning program (regardless of where they're located); "exclusionary" urbanism tends to dominate those programs, including the invariable anti-car attitude.  And more often than not those folks gain internships in the local planning agencies as part of their curriculum -- and a few tend to get hired right there upon graduation (cf. City of Portland [OR] and PDX Metro vis-a-vis the PSU urban planning department).  At that point, the "garbage can" method of policy formulation -- predetermined solutions looking for a place and/or situation where they may be applied -- is instituted.  And one of the easiest places to do that is with in-town speed limits -- lowering them as a general principle to (a) attempt to enhance safety of non-automotive street occupants as well as (b) increase the perception of city driving as being more of a PITA than it's worth.  The former is actually a worthy goal, but the latter is less salient; those who need to traverse the city to engage in business or social activity will generally just suck it up and put up with the fact it takes 10 minutes more to get where they're going, but overall they're just a wee bit more pissed off than they were before.  It won't drive anyone who requires an automobile any more than sporadically to switch to a transit mode -- particularly in locales with less-than-comprehensive/exemplary systems.  But speed limits are low-hanging fruit to planners -- it's easy to inundate city councils with stats and generally convince those not intrinsically opposed to such to accede to these measures.  Thus in recent years the movement to kick street speed limits into low gear has gained traction as planning departments assume this particular "one-size-fits-all" approach to such matters.

Quote from: sparker on May 02, 2020, 09:33:07 PM

Quote from: Ketchup99 on May 02, 2020, 06:51:18 PM

Quote from: kphoger on May 02, 2020, 03:33:27 PM

Quote from: Ketchup99 on May 02, 2020, 11:23:18 AM
This (https://www.google.com/maps/@40.7506353,-77.8939844,3a,75y,254.33h,79.81t/data=!3m7!1e1!3m5!1sKCxmJfc9NsfFU1dH3I2nZA!2e0!6s%2F%2Fgeo3.ggpht.com%2Fcbk%3Fpanoid%3DKCxmJfc9NsfFU1dH3I2nZA%26output%3Dthumbnail%26cb_client%3Dsearch.revgeo_and_fetch.gps%26thumb%3D2%26w%3D96%26h%3D64%26yaw%3D315.4323%26pitch%3D0%26thumbfov%3D100!7i13312!8i6656) is a personal favorite 35 mph back road.

Did they recently lower the speed limit?  In GSV, I don't see anything lower than 40 or 45 in either direction.

It used to be higher but my town has been dropping every limit they possibly can. It's now part 35, part 45. The part I showed is, I'm pretty sure, now 35.

I see you're from a town with a major university.  Here's the thing -- a significant percentage of those, particularly state universities, have an urban planning program (regardless of where they're located); "exclusionary" urbanism tends to dominate those programs, including the invariable anti-car attitude.  And more often than not those folks gain internships in the local planning agencies as part of their curriculum -- and a few tend to get hired right there upon graduation (cf. City of Portland [OR] and PDX Metro vis-a-vis the PSU urban planning department).  At that point, the "garbage can" method of policy formulation -- predetermined solutions looking for a place and/or situation where they may be applied -- is instituted.  And one of the easiest places to do that is with in-town speed limits -- lowering them as a general principle to (a) attempt to enhance safety of non-automotive street occupants as well as (b) increase the perception of city driving as being more of a PITA than it's worth.  The former is actually a worthy goal, but the latter is less salient; those who need to traverse the city to engage in business or social activity will generally just suck it up and put up with the fact it takes 10 minutes more to get where they're going, but overall they're just a wee bit more pissed off than they were before.  It won't drive anyone who requires an automobile any more than sporadically to switch to a transit mode -- particularly in locales with less-than-comprehensive/exemplary systems.  But speed limits are low-hanging fruit to planners -- it's easy to inundate city councils with stats and generally convince those not intrinsically opposed to such to accede to these measures.  Thus in recent years the movement to kick street speed limits into low gear has gained traction as planning departments assume this particular "one-size-fits-all" approach to such matters.

Don't worry, I'm painfully aware of all that...
The speed limit drops don't deter anyone from using these roads, and in fact nobody even pays them any mind. A major, five-lane street running through downtown - Atherton Street, US-322's old alignment - was reduced to 25 not only downtown but well beyond it. Nobody cares and the prevailing speed, which was 40 before, is still 40. We actually have a decent public transit network if you're trying to get to the Penn State campus, but if you aren't, it's hopeless. Our city council (or technically borough council for no good reason at all) did not require any statistics to go on their speed limit reduction bend and happily turned as many 35s into 25s and 45s into 35s as they possibly could. Maybe this is what happens when you have six retirees and one non-retiree on the Council.

Perhaps this is all better for another thread... back to the topic, best interstate through the Plains?

Between 2003 and 2009, I drove from Seattle/Portland to Flint/Detroit and back 26 times, and growing up did similar trips a further 10 times.


In the winter I preferred I-80/84 for the journey, as I felt the roadway was more consistently open, less weather, fewer high mountain passes.
I typically look I-90/94 as it was a shorter route than pure I-90 or I-80/84, and the drive across Eastern Montana, North Dakota, and Minnesota always seemed to eek out the best MPG on my Taurus (36 MPG), likely due to winds and geography.
I-90 seems to be the most scenic, but only took it a few times, as the N/S drop to Wyoming felt like a waste of time.
I never took I-70 as an Adult, but do remember taking I-70 during our first family cross-country trip driving from San Diego to Indy.  It seemed decent enough, but honestly the only thing I remember once we left Ouray, CO was Fudruckers near Kansas City.


I'm login to have to give my vote to I-94

Quote from: TEG24601 on May 03, 2020, 10:14:45 AM
Between 2003 and 2009, I drove from Seattle/Portland to Flint/Detroit and back 26 times, and growing up did similar trips a further 10 times.


In the winter I preferred I-80/84 for the journey, as I felt the roadway was more consistently open, less weather, fewer high mountain passes.
I typically look I-90/94 as it was a shorter route than pure I-90 or I-80/84, and the drive across Eastern Montana, North Dakota, and Minnesota always seemed to eek out the best MPG on my Taurus (36 MPG), likely due to winds and geography.
I-90 seems to be the most scenic, but only took it a few times, as the N/S drop to Wyoming felt like a waste of time.
I never took I-70 as an Adult, but do remember taking I-70 during our first family cross-country trip driving from San Diego to Indy.  It seemed decent enough, but honestly the only thing I remember once we left Ouray, CO was Fudruckers near Kansas City.


I'm login to have to give my vote to I-94

Re the choice of 84/80 vs. 90 or 90/94 as a winter choice:  94 (particularly) and 90 generally have a better chance of being closed across the plains than does 80 across NE -- but the wind situation (unless there's a storm front coming down from Canada) across Wyoming mitigates against that route (also subject to closures as well).  And as regards the considerable N-S "drops" or "humps" experienced between Billings, MT and Buffalo, WY on I-90, it's matched by the I-84 section multiplexed with I-15 in northern Utah.  And I-94, which followed old US 10 which in turn followed the old Northern Pacific rail line, the first to attack the Northwest, has than northern "hump" through Glendive, MT eventually followed by a return SE between Fargo and Minneapolis to access the Twin Cities -- by no means the most direct route (which, arguably, would be by default US 12 -- although it really doesn't serve much of a population base between its segmental end points of Miles City, MT and Minneapolis -- probably why it wasn't considered for inclusion in the Interstate system).  The basic fact is that all the Interstate corridors across the northern half of the country are in some respect indirect due to a combination of topology and population distribution. 

And I appreciate the fact that there's still a few Fuddruckers out there (we're down to two, rather distantly spaced, here in the greater Bay area).  Great burgers (even semi-great wedge fries!).