 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
Car Forum / Driving, Maintenance, Tuning / Driving / September 2006Seattle to Minnesota - at Thanksgiving
I'm contemplating driving to Minnesota and back for Thanksgiving. The quickest route is I-90 to US 212 to US 85 to I-90 to US 63 to US 52. The total distance will be 300+70+510+200+10+406+218+40 ~ 1760 miles. I plan to do the first 670 miles to Bozeman, MT, in an afternoon (about 9 hours) with the last 1100 miles in a day (about 14 hours). US 212 is 210 miles; I-90 is 260 miles. Assuming minimal speed enforcement, US 212 will far and away be faster; however two mountain passes are signed for chains (west of Busby and west of Ashland). There are four major mountain passes on I-90: Snoqualmie (3022', WA), Lookout (4725', ID/MT), Homestake (6375', MT), and Bozeman (5760', MT). How likely is it that the route will be impassable? What are the roadway conditions generally like in late November? Will US 212 suffer from a lack of winter maintenance that would make it make it much less desirable than using I-90 through Wyoming? There's already snow in the mountains, of course, and all these passes have a potential for snow, but I'm guessing the I-90 route has to be better than taking I-82/84 to I-80 and then back up and certainly less troublesome than I-70, which traverses much higher passes in Colorado. I'm also betting on it against I-94, simply because it's colder in North Dakota . . . The return trip will be easier, since it can be done in two 12-hour days with a stay in Buffalo, WY, or Sheridan, WY. -- Scott O. Kuznicki, P.E. Civil (Traffic) Engineer Dedicated Highway Enthusiast Driving Enthusiast: '03 525i 5-speed '90 Ninja 250R (cheap fun!) > I'm contemplating driving to Minnesota and back for Thanksgiving. The > quickest route is I-90 to US 212 to US 85 to I-90 to US 63 to US 52. [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > How likely is it that the route will be impassable? What are the > roadway conditions generally like in late November? That's a good question. I grew up in the middle of that route, and remember trick-or-treating meant wading through snow most years. You are going to be driving through snow in a few areas, that much I'm sure of. However, I doubt very much that the route will be impassable at any point. Not in November. To be safe, carry an emergency kit in the car with you. Waterproof matches, candles, old (large) coffee cans, blankets, bright orange flags/triangles, high energy candy bars, small shovel, bag of cat litter, etc. But you probably won't need it. -Dave > I'm contemplating driving to Minnesota and back for Thanksgiving. The > quickest route is I-90 to US 212 to US 85 to I-90 to US 63 to US 52. [quoted text clipped - 33 lines] > '03 525i 5-speed > '90 Ninja 250R (cheap fun!) I'm not sure about your usual practice, but 1100 miles is pushing it for 14 hours...I usually figure 16-17. 670 miles in 10 hours in that area is a good rule of thumb. My usual calculation is posted speed minus 10 mph (or roughly 60 mph average) allowing for stops and/or hazards. I'd say stick to I-90 since the passes are of lower elevation. Also be ready for potential bypass routes. In November the snow truble may be minimal, but there are states that will close stretches of Interstate in a blizzard; even western Nebraska. I used 90&94 on my trip to Seattle in July. > > I'm contemplating driving to Minnesota and back for Thanksgiving. The > > quickest route is I-90 to US 212 to US 85 to I-90 to US 63 to US 52. [quoted text clipped - 39 lines] > minus 10 mph (or roughly 60 mph average) allowing for stops and/or > hazards. <snip> Agree. 970 miles in 9 hrs requires 74 mph average. 1100 in 14 requires 78 mpg This would require doing around 100 mph to allow for traffic delays, refuel stops etc. Back before the freeways I was making coast to coast trips in passenger cars regularly. By really driving hard (not speeding excessively, say 10 mph over posted) and doing fast pit stops I could figure an average over the day of right at 50 mph. Now with the freeways, your 60 mph average is in the ball park. Even that will call for planning stops so you can grab a toilet break while your burger is being prepared. Anything over a 10 minute stop shoots your average badly. Planning a trip with an average over 9 or 14 hours in the mid 70s is not realistic. Harry K > Planning a trip with an average over 9 or 14 hours in the mid 70s is > not realistic. > > Harry K I don't know about that. The last long trip I took, I drove 16 hours straight (with a few stops for gas/restroom/food), and averaged 73MPH, judging by the total miles I drove divided by the total time I was travelling. That is, NOT based just on the speedometer. But, in order to do that, I had to drive overnight. If I'd have hit traffic anywhere, that might have sunk my average speed quite a bit. -Dave > If I'd have hit traffic anywhere, that > might have sunk my average speed quite a bit. Or a long stretch of even moderate and very manageable snow, which slows you down and also makes for higher-workload driving, which in turn often leads to an early bedtime. And that's assuming people up ahead of you don't wipe out, locking things up for miles and miles in conditions that would've been eminently driveable with decent tires and moderate speed and good common sense. I once got caught in no more than a middling snowstorm around Flagstaff on a busy travel holiday and spent the next two hours or so enduring something much like an especially bad big-city commute. You can see then how watching the weather forecasts and allowing yourself some flexibility in departure time/date, and Plan B stops along the way, can spare you a transient bit of nastiness. I knew a front was coming, and how people with bald tires or bad skills tend to react to snow up there over the top, and had I left home three hours earlier as planned I'd have missed it clean -- but I fell victim to just one more thing before I leave-itis and waltzed right into it. I had plenty of time to ponder the dumbbell in the mirror before the traffic finally broke free on the downgrade off the Mogollon Rim, lemme tell ya... Enjoy your trip, --Joe PS. As others have advised, it's better to spend trunk space on winter survival gear and not need it, than to be stuck out there in the high lonesome visualizing the part of the basement it's in! > Back before the freeways I was making coast to coast trips in passenger > cars regularly. By really driving hard (not speeding excessively, say [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > you can grab a toilet break while your burger is being prepared. > Anything over a 10 minute stop shoots your average badly. Not so much. I drove for a distance of 880 miles at an average speed of 68 mph. I drove mostly around 80 mph for nearly the entire trip. > Not so much. I drove for a distance of 880 miles at an average speed of > 68 mph. I drove mostly around 80 mph for nearly the entire trip. Doing 80 mph in Ohio is asking for trouble. SL is 65, and OH highway patrol has nothing better to do than drastically enforce the SL. Unfortunately, OH is my gateway to east coast. Same goes for Kentucky. And I find that more and more cops are using instant-on radar. >> Not so much. I drove for a distance of 880 miles at an average speed of >> 68 mph. I drove mostly around 80 mph for nearly the entire trip. > Doing 80 mph in Ohio is asking for trouble. SL is 65, and OH highway > patrol has nothing better to do than drastically enforce the SL. > Unfortunately, OH is my gateway to east coast. My trip was through the states of LA, AL, GA, TN, VA, and WV. By the time I got to VA, I was too tired to go much over the limit anyway. > Same goes for Kentucky. And I find that more and more cops are > using instant-on radar. That's why you don't go that much over the limit when there's no visible traffic ahead of you. > That's why you don't go that much over the limit when there's no visible > traffic ahead of you. The problem is that the vast majority of vehicles do <= SL+10. If you're doing SL+20, you're an easily noticeable outlier, and an experienced trooper may save the instant-on radar puls for such outliers, and leave the cars doing SL+10 alone. Maybe I'm paranoid, 'cause I got 2 tickets within 6 months, both laser. > > That's why you don't go that much over the limit when there's no visible > > traffic ahead of you. [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > the cars doing SL+10 alone. Maybe I'm paranoid, 'cause I got 2 tickets > within 6 months, both laser. Obviously you're not talking about I-95; SL+15 seems to be the norm. SL+20 or more is not unusual, despite the fact that that can get you a "reckless" ticket in VA for merely keeping with the flow of traffic in the passing lane. It's not entirely uncommon to see a long, long line of traffic going 75+ in a 55 on I-95 through VA. nate > Obviously you're not talking about I-95; SL+15 seems to be the norm. > SL+20 or more is not unusual, despite the fact that that can get you a > "reckless" ticket in VA for merely keeping with the flow of traffic in > the passing lane. It's not entirely uncommon to see a long, long line > of traffic going 75+ in a 55 on I-95 through VA. SL + 10 seems the norm for the vast majority of vehicles in IN, IL, OH, KY. Maybe speed enforcement is stricter in the Midwest? Whenever I drove in the South, it was at the height of the summer vacation, and congestion was horrible (I-95 in SC was bumper-to-bumper in both lanes for example) so speeding for long periods of time was not a possibility. > SL + 10 seems the norm for the vast majority of vehicles in IN, IL, OH, > KY. > Maybe speed enforcement is stricter in the Midwest? No, most of the Midwest doesn't have ridiculously low SL to begin with - only somewhat low. (I-294 excepted) 70+10 < 55+20. > > I'm not sure about your usual practice, but 1100 miles is pushing it > > for 14 hours...I usually figure 16-17. 670 miles in 10 hours in that > > area is a good rule of thumb. My usual calculation is posted speed > > minus 10 mph (or roughly 60 mph average) allowing for stops and/or > > hazards. Good point. 48 mph is my figured average for two-lane rural roads with medium traffic. On congested interstates (I-65, I-80, etc) I expect to make 66-70 mph average, with speed not exceeding 75 to 78 mph. And that is precisely what I've done during all the one-day return trips from Columbia, SC, to Chicago, IL, that I've made in the last three years. Out west, light traffic and improved geometrics make higher speeds easily obtainable. > Agree. 970 miles in 9 hrs requires 74 mph average. > 1100 in 14 requires 78 mpg 78 mpg? That would be awesome. I got just shy of 26 mpg this last summer during my latest Festival of Speed. > This would require doing around 100 mph to allow for traffic delays, > refuel stops etc. No. Two hours of stops on the 14-hour transit requires 92 mph. With no work zones and minimal traffic delays, I expect only one hour of stops (2 15-minute fuel/food stops and 3 10-minute rest stops) and an average of 84 mph (cruising speed of 90 mph). > Planning a trip with an average over 9 or 14 hours in the mid 70s is > not realistic. Perhaps for you and perhaps in the East, but I've done it. On my trip to MT from western MN this summer, I used US 12, I-94, and I-90 and was able to average 100 mph for two separate hours, one on US 12 (in west-central SD and ND) and one on I-94 (milepost 140 to 40). I-94 worked only because I saw two troopers immediately upon entering; US 12 because it was empty. The 875 miles I drove that day were put down in 11 hours TOTAL, with 75% of the driving on two-lane roads. My stops for that transit included about 45 minutes overall and didn't include small towns and work zones, which only served to lower the average speed. Most of the time, I had the cruise control set at 90 mph and did not need to alter that rate, due to light traffic and favorable road conditions. In states with prima facie speed limits, this is an acceptable practice. Perhaps it is a mistake to assume ideal conditions for high-speed travel during winter (in excess of 85 mph), especially along I-90 in mountain passes and in the more-likely-enforced areas, such as MN and SD. However, I have to make an assumption of good roads, since the "bad" is a sliding scale over distance and average speed effects. On the contrary, on a blizzard-conditions drive from St Louis to Chicago in January 2006, I was able to average 70 mph (two cops attempted to give chase from median crossovers, but could not accelerate quickly enough), because I was attentive and driving a properly-equipped vehicle that I know how to handle. What I'm hearing from other posters is that, even when mountain passes are open, average speeds will be lower than summertime conditions. If that is consistently the case, it will have to be a factor in calculations. In other news, I'm looking into Amtrak to St. Paul. Do you think I have a death wish? :-) -- Scott O. Kuznicki, P.E. Civil (Traffic) Engineer Dedicated Highway Enthusiast Driving Enthusiast: '03 525i 5-speed '90 Ninja 250R (cheap fun!) >> I plan to do the first 670 miles to Bozeman, MT, in an afternoon >> (about 9 hours) with the last 1100 miles in a day (about 14 hours). > I'm not sure about your usual practice, but 1100 miles is pushing it > for 14 hours...I usually figure 16-17. The best I was able to do in 13 hours was 880 miles. That was with gas stops and one stop to eat at a fast food place. At my average speed, it would take me 15 hours to get close to 1100 miles. Also, in the last hour or so, I was too tired to maintain more than 60 to 65 mph. > I'm contemplating driving to Minnesota and back for Thanksgiving. The > quickest route is I-90 to US 212 to US 85 to I-90 to US 63 to US 52. > The total distance will be 300+70+510+200+10+406+218+40 ~ 1760 miles. > > I plan to do the first 670 miles to Bozeman, MT, in an afternoon > (about 9 hours) That's quite an afternoon.... > with the last 1100 miles in a day (about 14 hours). Have you done the math on that leg? You will have to average almost 80mph. Rather than schedule so tightly, build in another day or two to take into account contingencies such as weather. Use any extra time for visiting.... > US 212 is 210 miles; I-90 is 260 miles. Assuming minimal speed > enforcement, US 212 will far and away be faster; however two mountain [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > > How likely is it that the route will be impassable? Not too likely it will be impassable. The interstates are kept pretty well plowed. > What are the > roadway conditions generally like in late November? Likely clear, but I don't know of anyone who could forecast weather that far in advance. > Will US 212 > suffer from a lack of winter maintenance that would make it make it > much less desirable than using I-90 through Wyoming? To be honest I would just stick with I90. I've hit snow on the northern interstates in June and October. > There's already snow in the mountains, of course, and all these passes > have a potential for snow, but I'm guessing the I-90 route has to be > better than taking I-82/84 to I-80 and then back up and certainly less > troublesome than I-70, which traverses much higher passes in Colorado. > I'm also betting on it against I-94, simply because it's colder in > North Dakota . . . You are guessing pretty good. > The return trip will be easier, since it can be done in two 12-hour > days with a stay in Buffalo, WY, or Sheridan, WY. [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > '03 525i 5-speed > '90 Ninja 250R (cheap fun!) > I plan to do the first 670 miles to Bozeman, MT, in an afternoon > (about 9 hours) with the last 1100 miles in a day (about 14 hours). Wow. Do you base these projections on experience? Because in my experience they're completely unrealistic. On such long distances an average speed of 70 mph would be a great achievement. >> I plan to do the first 670 miles to Bozeman, MT, in an afternoon >> (about 9 hours) with the last 1100 miles in a day (about 14 hours). [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > they're completely unrealistic. On such long distances an average speed > of 70 mph would be a great achievement. I must achieve greatness on a regular basis, then. Every long road trip I've taken, I've managed to keep my overall average speed up to 70MPH or better. No, I don't have to piss off a lot of cops along the way to do it, either. -Dave > >> I plan to do the first 670 miles to Bozeman, MT, in an afternoon > >> (about 9 hours) with the last 1100 miles in a day (about 14 hours). [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > better. No, I don't have to piss off a lot of cops along the way to do it, > either. -Dave Where are you driving? The boonies? My last two longish drives: Indianapolis to Hilton Head Island, SC, and Indianapolis to Philadelphia, PA, I averaged 60 mph, and I sped whenever safe to. The night driving parts were OK, but daylight brought massive congestion. And only a very brave man would consistently speed on I70 in Ohio. The OH state troopers are the biggest a.sholes in America. To say nothing of the enormous number of semis travelling I70. > > >> I plan to do the first 670 miles to Bozeman, MT, in an afternoon > > >> (about 9 hours) with the last 1100 miles in a day (about 14 hours). [quoted text clipped - 19 lines] > in Ohio. The OH state troopers are the biggest a.sholes in America. To > say nothing of the enormous number of semis travelling I70. I think this just goes to show how poor of a driver you must be! I constantly keep 75-80 MPH in Ohio, Indiana, Kentucky, West Virginia, North Carolina, South Carolina, etc. Practically, any state I've been in, I have managed 75-80 MPH sans the urban city centers - not suburbs or rural areas. > I think this just goes to show how poor of a driver you must be! > > I constantly keep 75-80 MPH in Ohio, Indiana, Kentucky, West Virginia, > North Carolina, South Carolina, etc. Practically, any state I've been > in, I have managed 75-80 MPH sans the urban city centers - not suburbs > or rural areas. Interesting. Do you drive a turbine-powered tank that plows through slower traffic that gets in your way? Or maybe you're a cop? Or perhaps you dont understand the concept of mean speed. Mean trip speed means distance/door-to-door time. So time wasted on urban interstates in Pittsburgh of Philadelphia or Chicago or time spent behind micro-passing semis on I70 in Ohio counts. Nobody is interested in your peak speed. > > I plan to do the first 670 miles to Bozeman, MT, in an afternoon > > (about 9 hours) with the last 1100 miles in a day (about 14 hours). [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > they're completely unrealistic. On such long distances an average speed > of 70 mph would be a great achievement. Yes, they are based on experience, in ideal conditions, which I had this summer. See my other post in this thread for details. -- Scott O. Kuznicki, P.E. Civil (Traffic) Engineer Dedicated Highway Enthusiast Driving Enthusiast: '03 525i 5-speed '90 Ninja 250R (cheap fun!) > I'm contemplating driving to Minnesota and back for Thanksgiving. The > quickest route is I-90 to US 212 to US 85 to I-90 to US 63 to US 52. > The total distance will be 300+70+510+200+10+406+218+40 ~ 1760 miles. Minnesota comprises a rather large destination. Would Rochester MN be too difficult to type? Why do people ask for route advice from a state or to a state... that's what I wanna know. > I plan to do the first 670 miles to Bozeman, MT, in an afternoon > (about 9 hours) with the last 1100 miles in a day (about 14 hours). More planning is in order, Most of 90 across ID has lots o' curves. Speed enforcement from Seattle to Spokane is pretty thick as it is through MT and WY during periods of inclement weather, espacially for drivers with out-of-state plates. With a WA plate MT and WY LEO's are very likely to assume you're an idiot since so many idiots from WA drive through there. > US 212 is 210 miles; I-90 is 260 miles. Assuming minimal speed > enforcement, US 212 will far and away be faster; however two mountain > passes are signed for chains (west of Busby and west of Ashland). Minimal doesn't mean none and traffic is fairly scant across 212 upping your odds of being picked off. Not to mention being collected by a drunk and/or lesser skilled driver. And you're a long way from help if you should happen to need it. > There are four major mountain passes on I-90: Snoqualmie (3022', WA), > Lookout (4725', ID/MT), Homestake (6375', MT), and Bozeman (5760', > MT). > > How likely is it that the route will be impassable? Near zero if you mean will the passes be "closed" due to weather. There's more chance they'll be closed due to a spectacular crash. And don't discount Pipestone Pass E of Butte, it can be worse than all the others. > What are the > roadway conditions generally like in late November? Extremely variable on a moments notice. > Will US 212 > suffer from a lack of winter maintenance that would make it make it > much less desirable than using I-90 through Wyoming? If it's snowing yes, if not, no. The road has been improved in recent years but it's no picnic in bad weather. It's often narrow and has no shoulder along much of its length... not to mention the frost heaves... It's not a route you should choose to make better time if the weather is marginal. > There's already snow in the mountains, of course, and all these passes > have a potential for snow, but I'm guessing the I-90 route has to be > better than taking I-82/84 to I-80 and then back up and certainly less > troublesome than I-70, which traverses much higher passes in Colorado. > I'm also betting on it against I-94, simply because it's colder in > North Dakota . . . I would remain flexible, set no plan in stone and prepare to make adjustments enroute. It often is colder in NE but sometimes it's too cold to snow and the weather on 80 much worse, not to mention the traffic. > The return trip will be easier, since it can be done in two 12-hour > days with a stay in Buffalo, WY, or Sheridan, WY. Planning that trip based on the best case scenerio would be pure folly, IMO... and I think your plan exceeds that. ----- - gpsman gpsman wrote: <brevity snip> > > There are four major mountain passes on I-90: Snoqualmie (3022', WA), > > Lookout (4725', ID/MT), Homestake (6375', MT), and Bozeman (5760', > > MT). > And don't discount Pipestone Pass E of Butte, it can be worse than all > the others. And you omiited 4 of July Pass on the ID/MT border. Homestake and Pipestone can be considered one pass, and usually are, so you're really only one "real" pass short. Camp's Pass on 212 is relatively minor but there a few other minor passes along the mountainous portions of your proposed route that may prove significant to your travel time/safety... including the one that ends with a stop light in Lame Deer, E bound. ----- - gpsman > I'm contemplating driving to Minnesota and back for Thanksgiving. The > quickest route is I-90 to US 212 to US 85 to I-90 to US 63 to US 52. [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > > How likely is it that the route will be impassable? Your problems might not be just snow, but also rain. Last November, heavy rains caused a major slide on I-90 just east of Snoqualmie Pass. The freeway was closed for several days, and was reduced to one-lane traffic in each direction for weeks. I-90 west of the pass has also experienced some problems with slides and loose rock. I've not driven east of Snoqualmie Pass during the late fall or winter months. But, I do know that beginning in November, eastern Washington gets a regular dose of snow, and at minimum, ice. What seems likely is that you'll not find the roads impassable, but you'll have to drive more slowly, messing up your planned schedule. Your trek to Bozeman might take significantly longer than 9 hours, for example.  SignatureRobert I. Cruickshank roadgeek, historian, progressive > I've not driven east of Snoqualmie Pass during the late fall or winter > months. But, I do know that beginning in November, eastern Washington > gets a regular dose of snow, and at minimum, ice. What seems likely is > that you'll not find the roads impassable, but you'll have to drive more > slowly, messing up your planned schedule. Your trek to Bozeman might > take significantly longer than 9 hours, for example. Snoqualmie is the wild card in most drives over the Cascades. Even with four lanes uphill, trucks can (and often do) occupy three right lanes, while slow-moving drivers feel they can sit in the left lane and pace powerful mid-size heavy trucks and vehicles with light trailers. It's very dangerous to have slow vehicles camping out in the left two lanes like they do, but with due concentration, it isn't too difficult to carefully slalom through the mess and maintain a respectable average somewhere in the mid-60's. Have you ever been nailed around EXIT 18 in Issaquah? WSP runs aerial patrols there and picked my motorbike out of the crowd about four weeks ago. $153 for 80/60 and they claim they have video, which I want! -- Scott O. Kuznicki, P.E. Civil (Traffic) Engineer Dedicated Highway Enthusiast Driving Enthusiast: '03 525i 5-speed '90 Ninja 250R (cheap fun!) > Have you ever been nailed around EXIT 18 in Issaquah? WSP runs aerial > patrols there and picked my motorbike out of the crowd about four [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > Scott O. Kuznicki, P.E. > Civil (Traffic) Engineer If you get it, can you post it somewhere, with a link here, so we all can see it? Please? -Dave > > Have you ever been nailed around EXIT 18 in Issaquah? WSP runs aerial > > patrols there and picked my motorbike out of the crowd about four [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > If you get it, can you post it somewhere, with a link here, so we all can > see it? Please? -Dave In order to obtain the last State Police video I subpoenaed, I had to agree not to duplicate or otherwise distribute it in any form. I'm assuming most agencies have that restriction. "Please?" You sound almost too eager . . . it's not like he pistol-whipped me or something. At least not on camera. -- Scott O. Kuznicki, P.E. Civil (Traffic) Engineer Dedicated Highway Enthusiast Driving Enthusiast: '03 525i 5-speed '90 Ninja 250R (cheap fun!) > In order to obtain the last State Police video I subpoenaed, I had to > agree not to duplicate or otherwise distribute it in any form. I'm > assuming most agencies have that restriction. It depends on whether the video can be considered public information. I'd assume that the FIOA of the state would apply to the video. Given the fact that similar videos are broadcast on shows such as Cops, I don't see why something like that would be privileged information (especially after the trial is over). > > > Have you ever been nailed around EXIT 18 in Issaquah? WSP runs aerial > > > patrols there and picked my motorbike out of the crowd about four [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > agree not to duplicate or otherwise distribute it in any form. I'm > assuming most agencies have that restriction. That seems odd. Can't give a copy to your lawyer ? Can't have a copy assessed by independant experts you intend to call in your defense? The prosecution is required to provide to the defense copies of any evidence it intends to submit at trial. Once that material is provided to you I see no reason you couldn't post every bit on the web as you deem fit. http://www.thesmokinggun.com/ does it all the time. ----- - gpsman >> If you get it, can you post it somewhere, with a link here, so we all can >> see it? Please? -Dave > > In order to obtain the last State Police video I subpoenaed, I had to > agree not to duplicate or otherwise distribute it in any form. I'm > assuming most agencies have that restriction. Why are they afraid of the truth? > > I've not driven east of Snoqualmie Pass during the late fall or winter > > months. But, I do know that beginning in November, eastern Washington [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > > Snoqualmie is the wild card in most drives over the Cascades. It is still faster than any other route. Mostly due to multiple lanes and the relative lack of traffic past Issaquah. On any of the other routes (save I-84 through N. Oregon), you always get behind Gramps and his land yacht, going ten under and not knowing WTF those turnouts are for. Hwy 2 sucks really hard on this one. Hwy 20 is a little far out of the way, for this trip, at least. > Even > with four lanes uphill, trucks can (and often do) occupy three right [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > too difficult to carefully slalom through the mess and maintain a > respectable average somewhere in the mid-60's. I rarely do less than 75 up and over on dry pavement, but the "truck slalom" is often required. Over the top, most folks KRETP, IME. > Have you ever been nailed around EXIT 18 in Issaquah? WSP runs aerial > patrols there and picked my motorbike out of the crowd about four > weeks ago. I never go more than about 65 there, just because it *feels* like you should be able to go 80. Wide, flat and relatively little traffic (after having been crammed into it on I-5 or 405). I am assuming it's a revenue generator location, where the 85%ile would be near 80. Same past N. Bend down to Ellensburg all the way to Vantage - you can kick some tail along there, if you know where the troopers like to hide. But slow down near E-burg - the WSP loves to nail folks there. Past Vantage to Moses Lake it's pretty wide open. E.P. > I'm contemplating driving to Minnesota and back for Thanksgiving. > The quickest route is I-90 to US 212 to US 85 to I-90 to US 63 to [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > I plan to do the first 670 miles to Bozeman, MT, in an afternoon > (about 9 hours) with the last 1100 miles in a day (about 14 hours). I would suggest adding an additional day for this trip. I highly doubt that you will be able to maintain an 80 MPH average speed under winter conditions, particularly in the mountains. Some of the high country sections will often have chain requirements that will seriously slow you down. > US 212 is 210 miles; I-90 is 260 miles. Assuming minimal speed > enforcement, US 212 will far and away be faster; however two [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > suffer from a lack of winter maintenance that would make it make it > much less desirable than using I-90 through Wyoming? Chances are, the biggest problem you will have weather-wise will be close to home. Snoqualmie Pass usually closes several time per winter due to snowfall or avalanche. During these events, I-90 will usually be closed during and immediately after the event. They will usually have at least one lane open each way by the next day. Generally, east of there, the main problem is wind driven snow, particularly on the plains where they will close long sections of highway with high enough winds (if you get out of town and have trouble, they won't come after you until the weather situation eases). You can still see heavy snow at each mountain range but usually the Cascades will suck most of the moisture out of the storms. > There's already snow in the mountains, of course, and all these > passes have a potential for snow, but I'm guessing the I-90 route > has to be better than taking I-82/84 to I-80 and then back up and > certainly less troublesome than I-70, which traverses much higher > passes in Colorado. I'm also betting on it against I-94, simply > because it's colder in North Dakota . . . Generally, I would agree with you on I-80 and I-70. I-94 isn't that much colder than I-90 (usually not more than 10 degrees). I one is going to be sitting in the range of 28-32 degrees (most likely to get ice) for a significant amount of time, go the other way. ND usually gets its first cold snap/blizzard in November. It can also regularly see temps in the 40's throughout the winter. > The return trip will be easier, since it can be done in two 12-hour > days with a stay in Buffalo, WY, or Sheridan, WY. Again, if you can do it in 2 days, great. Don't be suprised if you end up spending a night in western SD/ND and another in Missoula, C'dA or Spokane. Signature--Andy -------------------------------------------------- Andrew G. Tompkins Software Engineer Beaverton, OR http://home.comcast.net/~andytom/Highways -------------------------------------------------- > > I'm contemplating driving to Minnesota and back for Thanksgiving. > > The quickest route is I-90 to US 212 to US 85 to I-90 to US 63 to [quoted text clipped - 66 lines] > http://home.comcast.net/~andytom/Highways > -------------------------------------------------- Something that has not been mentioned so far. That trip is scheduled for Thanksgiving. One of the heaviest holidays for traffic. Even someone willing to volunteer for revenue (tickets) will have a hard time driving much over SL+10 due to congestion. Just Snoqualamie alone will hold his speed to around 70. I have driven that both directions in the middle of a week on non-holiday periods. It is basically congested all the way normally. I wouldn't want to drive it on a holiday. Harry K |
Reply to this Message |
 Sign In
 Join
 My Latest Posts My Monitored Threads My Blog My Photo Gallery My Profile My Homepage Start New Thread Enable EMail Alerts Rate this Thread
|
©2008 Advenet LLC Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.