San Francisco to Laredo, TX - I-40 vs I-10 ?

[DonnaR57]

I've thought that for years, but it's probably not the technology, it's probably the cost. Over the mountains would probably be cheaper than through the mountains. The other issues are probably getting the land rights, land conservation, animal rights, etc.

There's always US-50 "the loneliest highway" all the way through Nevada, past Fallon, until it runs into I-80. It might be less expensive for them to turn 50 into an interstate. Whether they'd do it or not, is anyone's guess. Hah.


Donna

[AZBuck]

We have technology to poke a 50 mile or so tunnel underneath Sierra Nevada mountain range if needed.

but it's probably not the technology

Well....there is the problem of supplying fresh air to the entire length of a 50 mile tunnel. Otherwise, it's going to fill up with CO2 and CO pretty quickly, and then it's just a race to see which kills the most drivers fastest.

Later Addition
For comparison, consider the Mont Blanc Tunnel under the Alps between Italy and France. It's 7¼ miles long, so only about one-seventh the length we're talking about. The toll for the tunnel is $50 one way at current exchange rates, which if linearly extrapolated would mean a toll of $350 for a 50 mile tunnel under the Sierra Nevada. In March, 1999 a truck caught fire near the mid-point of the tunnel. The fire lasted 53 hours, spread to 35 other vehicles, created intense heat and toxic fumes, and killed 39 people.

AZBuck

[delta9]

I'm going to be driving from the San Francisco area to Southern Texas over 4 days in early April. I was thinking of taking I-40 most of the way and then heading south on US 285 into Texas. I've read that parts of US 285 are dangerous so now I'm wondering if I should avoid that route and go another way?

Moderator Note: Merged Again. Please do not continue to create new threads to ask additional questions about this same trip.

[Midwest Michael]

No, the road is not dangerous, as long as you're being a safe driver.

It is going to be at least a couple hours slower than the route we previously recommended, and you'd previously indicated you were thinking of taking, however.

[delta9]

Thanks - Originally we were going to do the drive over 3 days taking I-10 but we want to limit our driving time to under 9 hours/day so we're adding an extra day to the trip. I'm was thinking that I-40 might be a more pleasant/scenic with more options for breaking up the drive

[Southwest Dave]

With 4 days this would meet your requirements of being on the road for under 9 hours a day, but will still likely equate to an average of a bit over 8 hours including rest stops etc.

[glc]

I-5 to CA-46 to CA-99 to CA-58 to I-40 to US-285 to US-90 to US-277 to US-83 to I-35 would work very well. Figure overnights around Needles CA, Albuquerque NM, and Ft. Stockton TX.

[Mark Sedenquist]

Well....there is the problem of supplying fresh air to the entire length of a 50 mile tunnel. Otherwise, it's going to fill up with CO2 and CO pretty quickly, and then it's just a race to see which kills the most drivers fastest.

Personally, it would freak me out to be in 50-mile tunnel through one of the most geo-active mountain ranges in the world.

The Rockies aren't nearly as active with fault-lines and such, but I always get a little nervous when I am driving through the Eisenhower Tunnel -- although most of my concern is hitting that lovely stretch of ice right after the tunnel on the east bound side in the winter months.

I assisted in a rescue during a crash and fire in a short tunnel in LA one time. Breathing was... very questionable during that incident and that tunnel was short enough to see both ends at the same time. Plenty of fresh air -- and without breathing apparatus it was almost impossible to breath in the tunnel.

Just my two cents...

Mark