Worst stretch of road?

Driving California 58 between Bakersfield and I-5 made me think of
this: What would you nominate as the nastiest stretch of major
thoroughfare (neglecting city streets and minor rural roads and
inherently scenic/tourist routes) that you've driven recently?

That part of 58 is quite heavily traveled, as it connects much of the
country with a fair bit of the West Coast, yet for some reason it
remains much as it has been since, oh, for all I know, maybe
Steinbeck's heyday. Two lanes. Skimpy and/or precipitous shoulders
between you and the telephone poles. Extensive driveway access and
cross traffic for everything from homes to farms to roadside businesses
of every kind (including some places to get about half in the bag on
your way home from work). A fair number of people who drive it have
been driving way too long without rest in far too much of a hurry... or
just habitually drive with mindless reflexive aggression (see also the
aforementioned variety of package stores and taverns), so they go way
too fast and make brutally stupid passing decisions. Oh, yes, and at
various times of year it can have blowing dust or such pea soup fog
that a couple of the bigger businesses have a strobe light at the
front gate to help non-local truck drivers find the hole.

So what's your favorite and why?

Cheers,
--Joe

On 18 Dec 2005 17:29:28 -0800, "Ad absurdum per aspera" >
wrote:

>Driving California 58 between Bakersfield and I-5 made me think of
>this: What would you nominate as the nastiest stretch of major
>thoroughfare (neglecting city streets and minor rural roads and
>inherently scenic/tourist routes) that you've driven recently?
>
>That part of 58 is quite heavily traveled, as it connects much of the
>country with a fair bit of the West Coast, yet for some reason it
>remains much as it has been since, oh, for all I know, maybe
>Steinbeck's heyday. Two lanes. Skimpy and/or precipitous shoulders
>between you and the telephone poles. Extensive driveway access and
>cross traffic for everything from homes to farms to roadside businesses
>of every kind (including some places to get about half in the bag on
>your way home from work). A fair number of people who drive it have
>been driving way too long without rest in far too much of a hurry... or
>just habitually drive with mindless reflexive aggression (see also the
>aforementioned variety of package stores and taverns), so they go way
>too fast and make brutally stupid passing decisions. Oh, yes, and at
>various times of year it can have blowing dust or such pea soup fog
>that a couple of the bigger businesses have a strobe light at the
>front gate to help non-local truck drivers find the hole.
>
>So what's your favorite and why?
>
>Cheers,
>--Joe

The Pennsylvania Turnpike is the one that I have give me the willies the most
often. It is _always_ turning, and there are usually numerous construction
zones with revenue enhancing low speed limits that half the people slow down
for (but not to the actual limit) and half don't. There's Jersey barriers or
guard rails within inches of the traveling surface in places, and if its night
and raining, it's worth getting off the damn thing and finding some surface
roads to use. I actually did that once, and made my way thru central
Pennslyvania south to I-68 to continue my trip. "Surface" roads in central PA
_also_ have an inane 45 mph limit, but then again there's not many people on
'em, and that makes 'em somewhat safer.

Dave Head

Dave Head wrote: <brevity snip>
> The Pennsylvania Turnpike...
-----
I can't disagree with that.

It's tough to pick from so many piece-of-**** *stretches* of highway
but I'd mention the Grapevine and the 405 in it's entirety in SoCal;
the 205 from Tracy to the 580 in NoCal stands out... and anywhere
within the range of scent of Chicago. Chicago sucks so bad it ****s up
the roads from N Indiana all the way to Beloit WI and Davenport IA, not
considering the traffic. We are talking about "roads"... right?
-----

- gpsman

Dave Head wrote:
> On 18 Dec 2005 17:29:28 -0800, "Ad absurdum per aspera" >
> wrote:
>
>
>>Driving California 58 between Bakersfield and I-5 made me think of
>>this: What would you nominate as the nastiest stretch of major
>>thoroughfare (neglecting city streets and minor rural roads and
>>inherently scenic/tourist routes) that you've driven recently?
>>
>>That part of 58 is quite heavily traveled, as it connects much of the
>>country with a fair bit of the West Coast, yet for some reason it
>>remains much as it has been since, oh, for all I know, maybe
>>Steinbeck's heyday. Two lanes. Skimpy and/or precipitous shoulders
>>between you and the telephone poles. Extensive driveway access and
>>cross traffic for everything from homes to farms to roadside businesses
>>of every kind (including some places to get about half in the bag on
>>your way home from work). A fair number of people who drive it have
>>been driving way too long without rest in far too much of a hurry... or
>>just habitually drive with mindless reflexive aggression (see also the
>>aforementioned variety of package stores and taverns), so they go way
>>too fast and make brutally stupid passing decisions. Oh, yes, and at
>>various times of year it can have blowing dust or such pea soup fog
>>that a couple of the bigger businesses have a strobe light at the
>>front gate to help non-local truck drivers find the hole.
>>
>>So what's your favorite and why?
>>
>>Cheers,
>>--Joe
>
>
> The Pennsylvania Turnpike is the one that I have give me the willies the most
> often. It is _always_ turning, and there are usually numerous construction
> zones with revenue enhancing low speed limits that half the people slow down
> for (but not to the actual limit) and half don't. There's Jersey barriers or
> guard rails within inches of the traveling surface in places, and if its night
> and raining, it's worth getting off the damn thing and finding some surface
> roads to use. I actually did that once, and made my way thru central
> Pennslyvania south to I-68 to continue my trip. "Surface" roads in central PA
> _also_ have an inane 45 mph limit, but then again there's not many people on
> 'em, and that makes 'em somewhat safer.
>
> Dave Head


I agree, and to add, the last time I was on the PA 'pike, the road
surface was so bad between the Ohio state line and Cranberry -
previously the nicest stretch before they "patched" it - that I actually
tried changing lanes out of the rightmost to see if the passing lane was
any smoother (it wasn't.) It was literally so bad that my friend who
was trying to use his laptop in the passenger seat had to give up -
everything kept trying to unplug itself (power cord, inverter, USB
connection to the little GPS thing) and he couldn't hold himself steady
enough to type anyway. After hammering over 20 miles of badly "patched"
pavement I swore the next time I went to Indiana I'd take I-68 to I-70 -
and I did. Not to mention that every single damned electronic sign
contained an X-band radar source, rendering the V-1 useless.

Honorable mention goes to Ohio River Blvd. (PA-65) between Sewickley and
Beaver Falls for the same reason.

Hopefully these two roads have improved because it's been a couple years
since I've been on the turnpike and maybe two decades for Ohio River
Boulevard...

nate

--
replace "fly" with "com" to reply.
http://home.comcast.net/~njnagel

In article >,
Nate Nagel > wrote:
>
>and I did. Not to mention that every single damned electronic sign
>contained an X-band radar source, rendering the V-1 useless.

Can't you turn off X-band on the V-1? I'm pretty sure the state
troopers don't use X-band, and the locals don't patrol the Turnpike.
--
There's no such thing as a free lunch, but certain accounting practices can
result in a fully-depreciated one.

Matthew Russotto wrote:
> In article >,
> Nate Nagel > wrote:
>
>>and I did. Not to mention that every single damned electronic sign
>>contained an X-band radar source, rendering the V-1 useless.
>
>
> Can't you turn off X-band on the V-1? I'm pretty sure the state
> troopers don't use X-band, and the locals don't patrol the Turnpike.

I'm not sure, I could RTFM. I was not aware that they had completely
abandoned X-band, so I didn't bother even trying.

nate

--
replace "fly" with "com" to reply.
http://home.comcast.net/~njnagel

Ad absurdum per aspera wrote:
> Driving California 58 between Bakersfield and I-5 made me think of
> this: What would you nominate as the nastiest stretch of major
> thoroughfare (neglecting city streets and minor rural roads and
> inherently scenic/tourist routes) that you've driven recently?
>
> That part of 58 is quite heavily traveled, as it connects much of the
> country with a fair bit of the West Coast, yet for some reason it
> remains much as it has been since, oh, for all I know, maybe
> Steinbeck's heyday.

I've never quite understood why CA-58 between Barstow and I-5 was never
made part of the Interstate Highway system as the western portion of
I-40. I-40 inexplicably starts at I-15 in Barstow even though lots of
interstate commerce begins its journey in the agricultural lands of
California's San Joaquin Valley. I-40 terminating at I-5 would have
made a lot more sense.

- Peter

Peter Lawrence wrote:
> Ad absurdum per aspera wrote:
> > Driving California 58 between Bakersfield and I-5 made me think of
> > this: What would you nominate as the nastiest stretch of major
> > thoroughfare (neglecting city streets and minor rural roads and
> > inherently scenic/tourist routes) that you've driven recently?
> >
> > That part of 58 is quite heavily traveled, as it connects much of the
> > country with a fair bit of the West Coast, yet for some reason it
> > remains much as it has been since, oh, for all I know, maybe
> > Steinbeck's heyday.
>
> I've never quite understood why CA-58 between Barstow and I-5 was never
> made part of the Interstate Highway system as the western portion of
> I-40. I-40 inexplicably starts at I-15 in Barstow even though lots of
> interstate commerce begins its journey in the agricultural lands of
> California's San Joaquin Valley. I-40 terminating at I-5 would have
> made a lot more sense.

I'd assume it was the cost of one extra freeway, and the lack of a need
for it back then. Remember that the IHS is all based on allowed
amounts of mileage, so it probably came down to more useful freeways
being designated (and funded) first.

Once it's up to Interstate standards I'd be surprised if California
didn't at least try to get it designated I-40.

Dave

I'm not sure about this, myself. Over the ~20 years that I've been
driving that route, they've fitfully four-laned and otherwise improved
several parts of 58 between Bakersfield and Barstow. Some stretches
reach California "freeway" standards and a couple of bits around the
cities are Interstates in all but name.

There are still a few stretches of two-lane there, and of course people
drive like perfect fools on them instead of waiting for the upcoming
multilane, divided portion to make their move; and a really nasty (and
of course thickly travelled) intersection called Kramers Junction
deserves one's full and undivided attention. But that last stretch out
to I-5 is the worst due to the fog potential and the density of
crossroads and driveways, and is quite heavily traveled by vehicles of
every sort.

For sure it ideally ought to be four-laned, if not made into freeway,
the whole distance, but with neither the state nor the Feds exactly
rolling in clover these days, I'm not holding my breath...

--Joe

(Matthew Russotto) wrote:


>Can't you turn off X-band on the V-1? I'm pretty sure the state
>troopers don't use X-band, and the locals don't patrol the Turnpike.

I turned it off on mine:
https://store.valentine1.com/lab/MikesLabRpt3.asp
Unfortunately, these days most door openers are K-band, Also the
laser portion keeps going off for GM SUV brake lights and those orange
illuminated highway warning signs.
I'm considering disabling laser as well, since it's NEVER given me
advance warning of a laser trap.
--
Email reply: please remove one letter from each side of "@"
Spammers are Scammers. Exterminate them.