KeiJidosha
Well-known member
While my vote is for the 101, it is for similar reasons. More cities, spaced at convenient intervals for charging, with plentiful lodging, dining, and shopping. A less hurried pace than the sustained 80 mph speeds of I-5. And generally more temperate climate. It is how EVs have been getting between northern and southern California for more than 10 years for a reason.planet4ever said:Which is why I would say, "Neither of the above." The idiots back in Washington didn't seem to understand anything about California when they drew up the interstate system. They built I-5 out in the west side alkali flats where no one lived and little could grow except cotton. Then they downgraded the main artery through the Central Valley from US 99 to CA 99. All of the cities, most of the places to eat and sleep, and nearly all of the interesting places to visit or relax are on 99. It is still a freeway and still the lifeline through much of the 450 mile long Great Valley.cwerdna said:I think I-5 would be a lot more useful since I suspect most people take that route instead of the slower (and more dangerous route) of 101.
<snip>
There isn't a whole lot to see and do on I-5 between the Bay Area and LA. Much of it is the middle of nowhere.
Oh, forgot to mention, not quite true from San Jose, but from San Francisco or anywhere north of 580, it's only 25 miles and half an hour longer to the LA area by 99 than by I-5. So put the DC chargers where they will do the most good for everyone, on 99. If you are one of the half million people living in Fresno, wanting to go to Bakersfield or Stockton, chargers on I-5 are useless. Of course if you live in Kettleman City (pop. 1400) that's a different matter.
Ray
What each of us wants is for charging to be located where it is convenient and useful.