Route to California advice needed

[John316]

I personally prefer highway 99 going up San Joaquin Valley since it is "the old road" and much more developed with places to stop and things to see. If you just want to drive up the Valley as fast as you can then yes I-5 is the way to go. But just miles of basically nothing with a few rest stops in between. Good Luck, TomC

IMHO, Tom nailed it. I have no particular affection for the Central Valley. I like to get there, and don't care about the rest stops. We roll hammered down as quick as we can.

Matt, I want to put a sign on our bus that says, "Heads out of your saddles please." lol

[Dave5Cs]

I live here too and I have to agree with John. I will and do take I-5 over99 the wreak road any day of the week. 5 is a breeze.

Dave5Cs from Galaxy S III

[siberyd]

Greetings,

If you want avoid major mountains and passes in California, your best route is I-10 west. Then up the 101 to the bay area.

The particulars would be 10 west to Redlands CA.
Take Hwy 210 N/W to I-5
Use truck lane through interchange.
Follow 5 north to Hwy 126.
Exit for Hwy 126 west to Hwy 101.
Hwy 101 north to bay area.

Gets you around 70% of LA traffic.

Siberyd

[RJ]

Gordie -

If the weather forecast is clear for the next week when departure day comes, the most direct, shortest and fastest route is I-80 (which does NOT go thru Denver) to San Francisco, then south on either 280 or 101 to San Mateo, depending on where exactly you need to be.  Just under 2300 miles, according to Google Maps.

Yes, you'll be going over the Rockies and the Sierras, which means you'll be spending some time in 2nd gear going up, and 3rd gear going down (or 4th if you've got a working Jake brake.)  IMHO, so what - it's part of the adventure!  Greyhound and others ran this route in their 4104s for years and maintained their schedules, just pay attention to the yellow trucker signs.

The route Jon listed above will avoid a lot of mountains and potentially nasty weather, but it's also 600 miles longer.

Your choice!

FWIW & HTH. . .

 

PS: Check your PM.

[Ed Hackenbruch]

We just did I-5 a month ago, came from the coast and got on to it just west of Lodi and ran all of the ways down to the 223 just on the southern edge of Bakersfield. Looked to me like they must have repaved that stretch in the last year or two, it was way better than the last time we came down on it 6-7 years ago. Have done 99 a few times too, more on ramps and merging traffic to have to keep an eye on.  Mileage difference is only a few miles  which surprised me as i thought 5 would be a lot farther.

[grantgoold]

Both roads will get you to Tracy, CA.

Many of the ideas and opinions offered so far are spot on. I would only echo what has already been said. The I-5 option provides better shoulders and often a smoother ride.  Hwy 99 offers more opportunities for fuel, food and sightseeing.  While I have not taken the bus south, (only north!) I would say if I were full of fuel and really only concerned about arriving in Tracy I would select 1-5 as a better drive without construction zones/narrow lanes (Bakersfield) and some tight turns around Fresno/Modesto and Livingston.

[Gordie Allen]

Thanks for all the info!  This is a great resource for building, and now I'm finding equally awesome for travel.  I've driven 80 to 76 to 70 to Moab, Utah for the last 18 years - in September.  The Great Plains in December is a little intimidating, Nebraska can be a long, cold, and windy drive.  I guess I'll take a close look at the weather at launch date and take 80 as RJ suggests if there's no threat of big snow or subzero temps.  The only other concern I might have is the need for chains.  Does anyone know if they are required on I-80?  I know they are on 70 from Denver to Glenwood Springs for big rigs, but don't know about single axle buses on 80.  I think we'll take the south route home at a more leisurely pace and seeing more of the southwest .

[John316]

Gordie,

I believe you have to have them. Look up the state laws, but I believe at least WY says they must be with you. If you take your time, you should be able to make it no problem. I have done that entire trip in February before, in the middle of snowstorms. Very doable, but be careful.

Have fun.

John

[Ed Hackenbruch]

I know that Wa.  and Or. require you to carry chains in any rig if you are going over any of the passes from Nov. 1st to April 1st.

[Gordie Allen]

So, do you all carry chains?

[RJ]

Gordie -

If the chain control sign is turned on, you've got to hang chains on the outside dual of your coach here in CA.

I've done it so many times going over 80 & 50 I can chain a bus faster than I can chain a car. . .

Most RV folk don't carry chains - they go south to avoid having to do so.

However, if you want to get a set to have "just in case," then buy a "singles" set with the cam locks, similar to what's posted via the link below.  Buying a set for duals is useless, because you cannot reach the inner dual on a bus - that's a "trucker only" debacle.  Add six HD rubber bungie cords, three per side, to keep things snug and you're good to go.  I do suggest you practice hanging them at home on dry pavement first - you don't want to have to learn at Oh Dark Thirty in a snowstorm!

Just watch the weather reports to help guide your choice.

FWIW & HTH. . .

 

http://tirechain.com/cams.htm

[John316]

So, do you all carry chains?

Yup, two full sets.

[Ed Hackenbruch]

Nope, i don't do snow.

[B_K]

It's been yrs since I had to worry about chains since we typically don't go where they are needed on a regular basis. (Although I have 1 set of cables, just to be legal when we do. They stay in the shop unless a bus is headed to snow country)

But my question is do they still have the "Chain Banks" out west?
Used to be most all the truck stops in or near the mountains stocked chains that you could "rent" and drop off at another truck stop when you were done with them. (I never used them as I carried my own, but could be a option for those one times users)
  BK