🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <bvnd1d$1qh6$1@machaut.medieval.org>, mccomb@medieval.org (Todd
Michel McComb) wrote:

> In article <1pGTb.645$n86.162@newssvr23.news.prodigy.com>,
> Simon Belmont <123@abc.xyz> wrote:
> >I've heard others talk of portions of Hwy 5 being scenic so I
> >thought the route was OK.
> 
> The Grapevine, which is a mountain pass just north of Los Angeles,
> is indeed spectacular, but that's a very short portion of the drive.
> The rest of I-5 is as dreary as a highway can possibly be.


From his posts and the newsgroups this is going to, I think this guy is
from Texas.  I've never driven there, but I've heard those people know all
about dreary highways.


:-)


There are scenic portions of I-5, but not the leg you are going on.  Note
also, that I-5 doesn't actually even go to SF, and you'll need to turn off
to get there (I always take 580).  It used to be that roads connected the
towns along the way.  They threw that concept out the window for this
portion of I-5.  It looks like someone took a map and a ruler and drew a
straight line to find the shortest distance.  There are no Mom&Pop places
along the way because there is no place to live.  There is practically
nothing along the way.  It used to be far worse, but now there are gas
stations and fast food places.

101 is much more scenic, but it will take much longer to travel.  It
depends whether you are more interested in getting to SF or having a good
trip.

Note that many of the recommendations on this thread fail to specify
whether they are for I-5 or 101.

-- 
Dan Abel
Sonoma State University
AIS
dabel@sonic.net