Author Topic: Sierra Cascade  (Read 4430 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline sfisher

Sierra Cascade
« on: November 07, 2010, 01:31:14 pm »
I just purchased the Sierra Cascade Route and I wonder why the jaunt onto I 5? Why not the US  395 to Mt Shasta? (this highway has a wide shoulder and has been recently been repaved)
« Last Edit: November 07, 2010, 02:58:43 pm by sfisher »

FredHiltz

  • Guest
Re: Sierra Cascade
« Reply #1 on: November 07, 2010, 02:01:10 pm »
I-395? This does not appear on my maps. Something new? Where is it?

Fred

Offline John Nelson

Re: Sierra Cascade
« Reply #2 on: November 08, 2010, 11:07:57 am »
Not I-395, but US 395. I see it running north-south about 100 miles east of Mt Shasta, close to the Nevada border. It doesn't look like it comes anywhere near Mt Shasta, however.

FredHiltz

  • Guest
Re: Sierra Cascade
« Reply #3 on: November 08, 2010, 01:35:25 pm »
Got it. I must work on reading for comprehension. I drove parts of US 395 last summer. It is out on the flats, a fast two-lane road. This Google photo is representative. It illustrates why ACA did not go there.

Fred

Offline Pat Lamb

Re: Sierra Cascade
« Reply #4 on: November 08, 2010, 02:14:40 pm »
Hmm.  Between the lack of traffic and the wide shoulders, that looks eminently suitable for bicycles!

Online staehpj1

Re: Sierra Cascade
« Reply #5 on: November 08, 2010, 05:03:12 pm »
My impression was that the guy who picked the route for the SC (Bil Paul) actively avoided  anywhere flat.  At least the southern 1000 miles of the route is pretty much all either big climbs or big descents.  Whether that is good, bad, or indifferent depends on what you are looking for.

That said, I agree that the google picture makes that part of 395 look quite ride-able.

FredHiltz

  • Guest
Re: Sierra Cascade
« Reply #6 on: November 08, 2010, 07:04:33 pm »
Yes, but DULL!

Fred

Offline MrBent

Re: Sierra Cascade
« Reply #7 on: November 12, 2010, 10:37:22 pm »
A lot of 395 is quite nice, however.  My main complaint with the Sierra Cascades route is the run down 89 from Shasta to south of Quincy, give or take.  Freakin' terrible logging trucks, bad to no shoulder at times, scary.  Journals I've seen on the route comment on this as well.  Flat out nasty stretch of road.

Scott

FredHiltz

  • Guest
Re: Sierra Cascade
« Reply #8 on: November 12, 2010, 11:25:13 pm »
I drove it last July while scouting the route and have to agree. The Missoula crew is aware of the problem. There are no good alternatives. Jenn wrote a progress report here in her blog.

Fred

Offline MrBent

Re: Sierra Cascade
« Reply #9 on: November 15, 2010, 12:30:22 am »
Hey, Fred:  Thanks for the update.

I have mapped, but not ridden, this alternative:

http://ridewithgps.com/routes/34336

I know that the vast majority of this is paved, but there are some likely short dirt sections.  I'm really keen to check this out.  Should be some prime adventure cycling.

Maybe someone here can get on this route and report back?  I don't know when I'll be able to get to it.

Scott

FredHiltz

  • Guest
Re: Sierra Cascade
« Reply #10 on: November 15, 2010, 07:24:45 am »
I'd hate to miss Lassen, but the trade-off against traffic happens all the time. I would not be surprised to see Carla and crew come up with an alternate route out there to the east. Then we scenery-at-any-cost nuts can choose for ourselves.

Log trucks on narrow roads are a problem over on the Pacific Coast route in northern California too. At least they do not surprise you <grin>. I stepped off the road three or four times for them; a decent price for that spectacular scenery.

Fred

Offline MrBent

Re: Sierra Cascade
« Reply #11 on: November 15, 2010, 01:04:51 pm »
Hey, Fred:  I hear you.  Pedaling over Lassen was a fantastic part of our ride in that area.  I'm glad we did it.  I won't be riding 89 ever again in that region, however.

I look forward to seeing the eventual work-around.

Scott