4 ms·
Depends on where you go. For instance, I've looked at driving Milwaukee to SF and would plan on doing it in 2.5 days. On the other hand, I've driven Chicago t
by kgermino 13y ago
Depends on where you go. For instance, I've looked at driving Milwaukee to SF and would plan on doing it in 2.5 days. On the other hand, I've driven Chicago to Yellowstone and we took 4 days to get there.
The biggest difference I see is that 80 is he most mind numbingly boring road in this country whereas (at least until Utah, even where Wyoming is a pretty drive there's not too much worth stopping for) along 90 or 94 there are many more spectacular views and places to check out along the way. Not to mention that the back roads on the northern end are far more interesting than driving the mile grid through cornfields :)
- oijaf888 13y agoI-10 is far more boring once you get into Texas and head west imo. 80 wasn't too bad since there were small towns, even if they didn't have much going for them, they at least allowed you to stop for a bit and maybe get a bite to eat. There's not even that in much of West Texas.
- kgermino 13y agoOuch. I probably shouldn't have spoken so absolutely. I've driven in most of the (Continental) U.S. but I've never been much North of Boston (i.e. Maine) or to some of the more desert regions of of the far southwest (Arizona, New Mexico, West Texas area). I have flown to San Diego though so maybe I'll just make sure to never drive there :)