Topic: Interstate 5 From Los Angeles to San Fran. (Read 16053 times)

stevemyster · « **on:** August 22, 2009, 07:42:28 PM »

Hey guys, I need your help. Im from south Louisiana and plan on driving to San Francisco between Christmas and New Year's. Generally speaking, how are the road conditions on Interstate 5 between LA and San Francisco? Is snow/ice common and how difficult is it to travel if so? Never been to California before, but if I understand correctly, the only places where there is winter weather is in the very high elevations. Thanks for the input.

roadfro · « **Reply #1 on:** August 22, 2009, 08:15:44 PM »

I haven't driven that stretch in winter, personally, so this is conjecture...I'm sure someone will correct me if I'm off base:

I-5 in California is fairly distant from the Sierra Nevada mountains, and is actually quite flat in many locations. That said, I'd imagine there's not much to worry about regarding snow or ice. Since it's also fairly distant from the ocean, I wouldn't imagine that fog would be a factor either.

Most likely, you won't have problems. I would check road conditions and weather reports before you go, just to be sure.

agentsteel53 · « **Reply #2 on:** August 22, 2009, 08:19:52 PM »

there is snow on occasion in the grapevine (the mountain pass just north of Los Angeles) - otherwise it is a completely uneventful drive. And I mean *completely*.

At some point, to get to San Francisco, you will have to get off the 5. 580 takes you to the east bay and, across the Bay Bridge on the 80, to the city proper. 152 is an often-used alternate to get to the south bay, but it can get slow. Take 101 after 152. 198 is very scenic; it's likely the best mountain crossing scenery-wise between the Central Valley and the 101.

flowmotion · « **Reply #3 on:** August 22, 2009, 11:18:50 PM »

Fog isn't completely uncommon during the winter time, occasionally it will come down thick and there will be a 30 car pileup.

But as agentsteel said, generally the drive is quite uneventful. If you're planning on driving on a weekend or holiday, traffic will be very heavy the whole way.

stevemyster · « **Reply #4 on:** August 23, 2009, 12:22:40 AM »

Thanks for being so informative guys. My girlfriend and I have been wanting to go to the bay area for a while now, but really wanted to drive instead of fly. Your posts have made me more comfortable with driving there as opposed to flying. Hopefully the trip will be as uneventful as you guys said it would. If you have the time feel free to offer suggestions on what to do while we are there. Also, we plan on stopping in L.A. for at least a few hours so if you have any suggestions for that area that would be great as well. Thanks again.

flowmotion · « **Reply #5 on:** August 23, 2009, 12:55:25 AM »

Hmm, as far as roadgeek attractions, I would recommend:

+ Golden Gate Bridge (natch) - drive across, park at the vista point and then check it out on foot.
+ Lombard "Curviest Street" (not really the curviest

)
+ Octavia Boulevard freeway to street conversion. Nicely done, but lots of traffic jams.
+ Yerba Buena Island - good views of the new Bay Bridge construction.
+ Drive to Muir Woods or Mount Tamalpias in Marin County. If you have time, head up to Point Reyes.

Also it's standard tourist advice, but it really is a whole lot of fun taking the Powell-Hyde cable car from Aquatic Park to Market Street - return on a F-Market historic trolley car.

Sykotyk · « **Reply #6 on:** August 23, 2009, 01:01:53 PM »

If you haven't driven the 101 yet, definitely go that way.

As mentioned, once you get over Grapevine, you're in the Central Valley which is a very uneventful drive all the way to I-580. If you insist on going through the Central Valley, CA-99 is a much more enjoyable route. It also goes through the bigger cities of the Central Valley (Fresno, Bakersfield, Modesto, etc).

But, Us-101 is such a much nicer drive.

Sykotyk

larryao · « **Reply #7 on:** September 02, 2009, 03:04:42 AM »

I agree US 101 is a lot more enjoyable drive from L.A. to San Fran. Some ocean view and rolling hills. you'll drive thru Santa Barbara, Pismo Beach, San Luis Obispo, and San Jose. and if you really have time from SLO take CA 1 thru Big Sur. that was one of the best drive i've every been, great ocean veiws!

agentsteel53 · « **Reply #8 on:** September 03, 2009, 01:34:36 AM »

1 has to be one of the most frustrating routes to drive, ever. RVs doing 20 mph; and barely any places to pass them. Of course, the "slow vehicles use turnouts" signs must be invisible to them.

larryao · « **Reply #9 on:** September 03, 2009, 03:04:02 AM »

yea I forgot that it is a 2 lane winding road and that can be a big problem with slow RVs in the way. I still think the veiws are great though. Also I just notice your coming in Dec, Jan which is during the raining season in Cali, and the 1 can have a problem with mudslides, which you might be better to stay on the 101 or the 5. I guess if you want to just get to SF I say take the 5, If however you want to see some nice scenery take the 101 and save hwy 1 for the late spring or summertime

agentsteel53 · « **Reply #10 on:** September 03, 2009, 04:13:24 AM »

the only time I did 1 was in July '04. I figured I had done it once, that absolved me of the responsibility of having to ever do it again!

I really like the 101 drive. the 5 gets terribly boring and extraordinarily cowy. There is only so many aromas of cow feces one can smell before it gets old! 1 is just crazy clogged ... the only time I'd do it again is under moonlight at 2am! ... and 99 is nice but there is just no connection to the Bay Area that doesn't involve an awful two-lane road.

mapman · « **Reply #11 on:** September 04, 2009, 12:30:55 AM »

Quote

99 is nice but there is just no connection to the Bay Area that doesn't involve an awful two-lane road.

That's not true -- CA 120, a four-lane freeway, connects CA 99 and I-5 only two miles north of I-205.

agentsteel53 · « **Reply #12 on:** September 04, 2009, 12:41:40 AM »

that still implies having to take 580 in. It's the *south* bay that is not easily accessible from I-5. To get to San Jose, the most optimal route is 152, which is terrible.

mapman · « **Reply #13 on:** September 05, 2009, 01:47:59 AM »

True. While the new flyover at CA 152/CA 156 near Casa De Fruta has helped traffic flow tremendously, the two-lane section between there and Gilroy is still inadequate.

Chris · « **Reply #14 on:** September 05, 2009, 04:18:29 AM »

Quote from: agentsteel53 on September 04, 2009, 12:41:40 AM

that still implies having to take 580 in. It's the *south* bay that is not easily accessible from I-5. To get to San Jose, the most optimal route is 152, which is terrible.

I also wondered why there's no freeway from the San Jose area to the I-5. Of course, it means they would have to cross a mountain ridge, but that has been done before. Or maybe an I-5 <-> US 101 connection just south of San Jose. But San Jose wasn't really big back in 60's (pop. 200k, nearly 1 million today)

mightyace · « **Reply #15 on:** September 05, 2009, 11:31:54 AM »

Quote from: Chris on September 05, 2009, 04:18:29 AM

But San Jose wasn't really big back in 60's (pop. 200k, nearly 1 million today)

That's the thing we have to remember with a lot of highway setups is that they were designed for the population patterns of that era.

mapman · « **Reply #16 on:** September 05, 2009, 06:58:50 PM »

Quote

I also wondered why there's no freeway from the San Jose area to the I-5.

There are some plans, but there's either currently no funding or no will to make the upgrades. VTA has obtained buy-off from San Benito County to upgrade CA 152 into a four- to six-lane freeway, along a partially new alignment -- first along the northerly couple of miles of CA 25, then a new alignment through northern San Benito County back to the existing CA 152 near Lovers Lane, and finally along the existing CA 152 to CA 156. (This buy-off took over 20 years to obtain).

CA 152 is currently a four-lane expressway between CA 156 and Los Banos (a.k.a Pacheco Pass), with a handful of existing interchanges -- more would be required to convert to a freeway, along with wider shoulders through the more mountainous parts of the pass. To the best of my knowledge, no one is looking into such an upgrade right now.

A freeway bypass of Los Banos is proposed, but only funded for about half of its length (between roughly I-5 and CA 165).

The rest of CA 152 is, like Pacheco Pass, a four-lane expressway, again with a handful of existing interchanges. More interchanges would be required to convert it to a freeway, something no one is pursuing right now.

Quote

That's the thing we have to remember with a lot of highway setups is that they were designed for the population patterns of that era.

That, and commute trends that could never have been dreamed of in the 60's, such as thousands of people living in the Central Valley and commuting into the Bay Area. Two of my co-workers do this every day.

agentsteel53 · « **Reply #17 on:** September 05, 2009, 07:27:07 PM »

I don't mind the four-lane expressway. It's that two-lane section that needs to be upgraded first!

TheStranger · « **Reply #18 on:** February 07, 2010, 01:37:18 AM »

Quote from: agentsteel53 on September 05, 2009, 07:27:07 PM

I don't mind the four-lane expressway. It's that two-lane section that needs to be upgraded first!

Isn't an expressway replacement for 152 between 101 and 156 slated to happen, um, this decade? Well, emphasis on "this decade", which considering the way California road projects outside of Metro San Diego works could be "three decades from now..."

As for a future freeway connection between San Jose and the Central Valley, I know Tracy area politician Richard Pombo has been one to suggest the Route 130 freeway between SJ and Patterson, which probably is prohibitively expensive to build.

EDIT: An update from Dan Faigin's site - http://cahighways.org/145-152.html#152 - notes that an alignment using part of Route 25 southeast from US 101 has been chosen for the relocated Route 152...

english si · « **Reply #19 on:** February 07, 2010, 08:15:44 AM »

I did LA-SF via I-5 on New Years Day a few years ago - it was fine weather wise - not fantastic, but nothing that would cause problems. Came back via 101 and Big Sur - rather foggy (SF was having a storm, and we weren't that far ahead of it moving south). Big Sur wasn't that great vista-wise - could have been the close weather, but you had mountain one side, ocean the other - not really that great (I've done better similar things in Catalonia). There wasn't 200miles of near-straight, flat, dull driving like on I-5 though.

Leaving LA on I-5 and crossing into the Bay Area on I-580 were rather good, better than anything I saw on the way back, but the more coastal route of 101 is more consistently interesting, and on-average, more interesting.

mapman · « **Reply #20 on:** February 08, 2010, 12:24:57 AM »

Quote from: TheStranger on February 07, 2010, 01:37:18 AM

As for a future freeway connection between San Jose and the Central Valley, I know Tracy area politician Richard Pombo has been one to suggest the Route 130 freeway between SJ and Patterson, which probably is prohibitively expensive to build.

When Pombo was not re-elected a few years back, his idea left with him.

Quote

EDIT: An update from Dan Faigin's site - http://cahighways.org/145-152.html#152 - notes that an alignment using part of Route 25 southeast from US 101 has been chosen for the relocated Route 152...

The latest idea being floated around by the Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority (VTA) is to make the new alignment a toll road, in order to help fund its construction. No decision has been made yet to formally pursue the idea.

News:

Author Topic: Interstate 5 From Los Angeles to San Fran. (Read 16053 times)