Elsewhere in Colorado. Or Wyoming. Or Utah.

Several years ago while visiting the States I stopped at Rocky Mountain
National Park and was duly impressed. This summer I'll be driving from
Chicago to San Francisco with some friends who have never been to
America before. The question is, do I take them to see RMNP, or is there
someplace else, on or not-too-far-off the route, that is equally
magnificent, someplace that would be new for me, too?

(We have already decided on a slight detour off the motorway, once we
hit California, to see Yosemite.)

cheers,

Henry

On Jul 24, 1:32 pm, henry...@eircom.net (Henry) wrote:
> Several years ago while visiting the States I stopped at Rocky Mountain
> National Park and was duly impressed. This summer I'll be driving from
> Chicago to San Francisco with some friends who have never been to
> America before. The question is, do I take them to see RMNP, or is there
> someplace else, on or not-too-far-off the route, that is equally
> magnificent, someplace that would be new for me, too?
>
> (We have already decided on a slight detour off the motorway, once we
> hit California, to see Yosemite.)
>
> cheers,
>
> Henry

Although a fair detour, Yellowstone NP for the animals, thermal areas
and waterfalls with nextdoor Grand Tetom NP for excellent mountain
scenery. In Utah you could also visit Dinosaur NM for its dinosaur
beds and the two national parks by Moab, Arches NP and Canyonlands
NP. You also don't have to limit yourself to national parks and
monuments, there are plenty of scenic places in all of these states
that aren't either, and you will then also avoid the tourist hordes.

George

On Thu, 24 Jul 2008 14:32:40 +0300, Henry <henry999@eircom.net> wrote:
>Several years ago while visiting the States I stopped at Rocky Mountain
>National Park and was duly impressed. This summer I'll be driving from
>Chicago to San Francisco with some friends who have never been to
>America before. The question is, do I take them to see RMNP, or is there
>someplace else, on or not-too-far-off the route, that is equally
>magnificent, someplace that would be new for me, too?

>(We have already decided on a slight detour off the motorway, once we
>hit California, to see Yosemite.)

Yellowstone (although the sulfur makes some hikes really stink
literally)

Grand Canyon if it is on your way.

Grand Tetons

In colorado:
Pikes Peak cog train (everybody must be healty and be able to tolerate
very high altitude)

Drive down to boulder along route 119.

henry...@eircom.net (Henry) wrote:
> Several years ago while visiting the States I stopped at Rocky Mountain
> National Park and was duly impressed. This summer I'll be driving from
> Chicago to San Francisco with some friends who have never been to
> America before. The question is, do I take them to see RMNP, or is there
> someplace else, on or not-too-far-off the route, that is equally
> magnificent, someplace that would be new for me, too?
>
> (We have already decided on a slight detour off the motorway, once we
> hit California, to see Yosemite.)


What's missing from this inquiry is what your friends (in particular,
but you too) have seen elsewhere in the world.

For example, if they've been to the Alps, it might be better to skip
the Tetons because Alps-Tetons are generally similar. Thus, the US
Southwest's "Canyonlands" regions may be a greater scenic contrast
than their prior experiences.

The other thing to consider is the route and how many total miles.
Google Maps says that the basic route from Chicago to San Francisco
is ~2100 miles...altering basic routes to add the Grand Canyon (South
Rim) takes it to ~2500 miles, or an extra 400 miles (approx +1 travel
days)...its pretty easy to tempt yourself to ~3000 miles for a route
consisting of Chicago-Wall/Badlands-Rushmore-Yellowstone-Tetons-Salt
Lake-Zion-North Rim-Death Valley-King's Canyon (or Sequoia)-Yosemite-
San Francisco. Figure for a route like that that you're looking at
averaging 250 miles/day for 2 weeks (or a 500 mile day, followed by a
local sightseeing day, etc).

In general, the trick to sustained enjoyable long distance sightseeing
is to find your comfortable daily traveling distance and then plot out
a route that takes in what look like appealing "things to see" items
at intervals that are hopefully roughly equal to your comfortable
daily traveling distance. Of course, it never really works out, so
you'll have some long days followed by (relative) rest days/change of
pace.


-hh

-hh <recscuba_google@huntzinger.com> wrote:

> What's missing from this inquiry is what your friends (in particular,
> but you too) have seen elsewhere in the world.
>
> For example, if they've been to the Alps, it might be better to skip
> the Tetons because Alps-Tetons are generally similar. Thus, the US
> Southwest's "Canyonlands" regions may be a greater scenic contrast
> than their prior experiences.
>
> The other thing to consider is the route and how many total miles.
> Google Maps says that the basic route from Chicago to San Francisco
> is ~2100 miles...altering basic routes to add the Grand Canyon (South
> Rim) takes it to ~2500 miles, or an extra 400 miles (approx +1 travel
> days)...its pretty easy to tempt yourself to ~3000 miles for a route
> consisting of Chicago-Wall/Badlands-Rushmore-Yellowstone-Tetons-Salt
> Lake-Zion-North Rim-Death Valley-King's Canyon (or Sequoia)-Yosemite-
> San Francisco. Figure for a route like that that you're looking at
> averaging 250 miles/day for 2 weeks (or a 500 mile day, followed by a
> local sightseeing day, etc).
>
> In general, the trick to sustained enjoyable long distance sightseeing
> is to find your comfortable daily traveling distance and then plot out
> a route that takes in what look like appealing "things to see" items
> at intervals that are hopefully roughly equal to your comfortable
> daily traveling distance. Of course, it never really works out, so
> you'll have some long days followed by (relative) rest days/change of
> pace.

Thanks for your thoughtful reply. What's missing from my inquiry is what
I considered to be irrelevant detail. People try to be helpful and, yes,
that's nice -- but as it was only one or two of those who replied seem
to have taken in the specific requirement stated even in my
narrowly-focused original request: suggestions for a spectacular place
_on or not-too-far-off the route from Chitown to San Fran_. Instead,
they would have us flitting hither and yon, up to Yellowstone, down into
Arizona and all over the place. 'I hope you have plenty of time!' said
one. In fact, we have no time at all.

Actually, this is not going to be a sight-seeing trip. I did not
initially provide any more detail than I did because (a) it's not
pertinent but also (b) I suspect that many of the gentle readers here
will be shocked by our plan. What we -- there are four of us -- are
going to do is get in the car in Chi and drive straight through to the
Coast, with only the one diversion to Yosemite. There, I've said it.
Now, why would we want to do it like that? Simple: car rental (even with
the one-way surcharge) plus petrol divided by four costs a lot less than
four one-way plane tickets plus two extra nights in a hotel. We are all
veteran long-haul drivers and anyway the American 'Eisenhower' motorway
system makes it so _easy_. (I once drove from Denver to Chicago
_myself_, in a day.)

All we're looking for, really, is a nice place roughly halfway on the
journey where we can stop and decompress for a few hours. Rocky Mountain
National Park fits the bill perfectly but, as I said in the first post,
I've already been there -- thus my query as to a comparably scenic place
elsewhere in Colorado, or Wyoming, or Utah.

cheers,

Henry

On Jul 26, 9:29 am, henry...@eircom.net (Henry) wrote:
> -hh <recscuba_goo...@huntzinger.com> wrote:
> > What's missing from this inquiry is what your friends (in particular,
> > but you too) have seen elsewhere in the world.
>
> > For example, if they've been to the Alps, it might be better to skip
> > the Tetons  because Alps-Tetons are generally similar.  Thus, the US
> > Southwest's "Canyonlands" regions may be a greater scenic contrast
> > than their prior experiences.
>
> > The other thing to consider is the route and how many total miles.
> > Google Maps says that the basic route from Chicago to San Francisco
> > is  ~2100 miles...altering basic routes to add the Grand Canyon (South
> > Rim) takes it to ~2500 miles, or an extra 400 miles (approx +1 travel
> > days)...its pretty easy to tempt yourself to ~3000 miles for a route
> > consisting of Chicago-Wall/Badlands-Rushmore-Yellowstone-Tetons-Salt
> > Lake-Zion-North Rim-Death Valley-King's Canyon (or Sequoia)-Yosemite-
> > San Francisco.  Figure for a route like that that you're looking at
> > averaging 250 miles/day for 2 weeks (or a 500 mile day, followed by a
> > local sightseeing day, etc).
>
> > In general, the trick to sustained enjoyable long distance sightseeing
> > is to find your comfortable daily traveling distance and then plot out
> > a route that takes in what look like appealing "things to see" items
> > at intervals that are hopefully roughly equal to your comfortable
> > daily traveling distance.  Of course, it never really works out, so
> > you'll have some long days followed by (relative) rest days/change of
> > pace.
>
> Thanks for your thoughtful reply. What's missing from my inquiry is what
> I considered to be irrelevant detail. People try to be helpful and, yes,
> that's nice -- but as it was only one or two of those who replied seem
> to have taken in the specific requirement stated even in my
> narrowly-focused original request: suggestions for a spectacular place
> _on or not-too-far-off the route from Chitown to San Fran_. Instead,
> they would have us flitting hither and yon, up to Yellowstone, down into
> Arizona and all over the place. 'I hope you have plenty of time!' said
> one. In fact, we have no time at all.
>
> Actually, this is not going to be a sight-seeing trip. I did not
> initially provide any more detail than I did because (a) it's not
> pertinent but also (b) I suspect that many of the gentle readers here
> will be shocked by our plan. What we -- there are four of us -- are
> going to do is get in the car in Chi and drive straight through to the
> Coast, with only the one diversion to Yosemite. There, I've said it.
> Now, why would we want to do it like that? Simple: car rental (even with
> the one-way surcharge) plus petrol divided by four costs a lot less than
> four one-way plane tickets plus two extra nights in a hotel. We are all
> veteran long-haul drivers and anyway the American 'Eisenhower' motorway
> system makes it so _easy_. (I once drove from Denver to Chicago
> _myself_, in a day.)
>
> All we're looking for, really, is a nice place roughly halfway on the
> journey where we can stop and decompress for a few hours. Rocky Mountain
> National Park fits the bill perfectly but, as I said in the first post,
> I've already been there -- thus my query as to a comparably scenic place
> elsewhere in Colorado, or Wyoming, or Utah.
>
> cheers,
>
> Henry  - Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

Having driven from Illinois to the San Francisco area and back many
times in the distant past, one time in 30 hours, Interstate 80 is the
way to go. The problem is that there are no National Parks along this
route. However, you do cross the Continental Divide twice, you have
been given a suggestion by a previous poster about a possible short
scenic detour near the first crossing. The Wasatch Mountains just
east of Salt Lake City are also scenic, you could also make a short
detour there. My favorite experience along this route is having a
large wolf run across the road just in front of me at 3AM in the
mountains of eastern Nevada. Also look for the numerous pronghorn
antelope in Wyoming. The suggestion about Reno was also good. Lake
Tahoe is also on the way for another scenic suggestion.

I admit some of the suggestions are ridiculous, but my suggestion for
Yellowstone was based on an extra day or two for a wonderful
experience, after all, you weren't very specific.

George

>
> Thanks for your thoughtful reply. What's missing from my inquiry is what
> I considered to be irrelevant detail. People try to be helpful and, yes,
> that's nice -- but as it was only one or two of those who replied seem
> to have taken in the specific requirement stated even in my
> narrowly-focused original request: suggestions for a spectacular place
> _on or not-too-far-off the route from Chitown to San Fran_. Instead,
> they would have us flitting hither and yon, up to Yellowstone, down into
> Arizona and all over the place. 'I hope you have plenty of time!' said
> one. In fact, we have no time at all.
>
> Actually, this is not going to be a sight-seeing trip. I did not
> initially provide any more detail than I did because (a) it's not
> pertinent but also (b) I suspect that many of the gentle readers here
> will be shocked by our plan. What we -- there are four of us -- are
> going to do is get in the car in Chi and drive straight through to the
> Coast, with only the one diversion to Yosemite. There, I've said it.
> Now, why would we want to do it like that? Simple: car rental (even with
> the one-way surcharge) plus petrol divided by four costs a lot less than
> four one-way plane tickets plus two extra nights in a hotel. We are all
> veteran long-haul drivers and anyway the American 'Eisenhower' motorway
> system makes it so _easy_. (I once drove from Denver to Chicago
> _myself_, in a day.)
>
> All we're looking for, really, is a nice place roughly halfway on the
> journey where we can stop and decompress for a few hours. Rocky Mountain
> National Park fits the bill perfectly but, as I said in the first post,
> I've already been there -- thus my query as to a comparably scenic place
> elsewhere in Colorado, or Wyoming, or Utah.
>
> cheers,
>
> Henry - Hide quoted text -

RM National Park doesn't fit your itinerary at all as described above. Try
for a rest area someplace between Kearney NE and Cheyenne.
Regards, s

Graham Harrison <edward.harrison1@remove.> wrote:

> Green River, Wyoming. Head of the Flaming Gorge NRA.

This looks good! Thanks a lot.

cheers,

Henry

On Jul 27, 7:49 am, "Graham Harrison"
<edward.harris...@remove.> wrote:
> > All we're looking for, really, is a nice place roughly halfway on the
> > journey where we can stop and decompress for a few hours. Rocky Mountain
> > National Park fits the bill perfectly but, as I said in the first post,
> > I've already been there -- thus my query as to a comparably scenic place
> > elsewhere in Colorado, or Wyoming, or Utah.
>
> > cheers,
>
> > Henry
>
> Green River, Wyoming.   Head of the Flaming Gorge NRA.
>
> or, same area slightly north of the interstate, Kemmerer - the place where J
> C Penney lived - his first store is still there together with his home just
> up the street.   And just outside, Fossil Butte NM.

I love Fossil Butte NM, but not because it's very scenic, but the fish
and other fossils are excellent, and with a lack of tourists it's an
enjoyable area to visit, and there will be some animals around. It
reminds me of the Wyoming I used to live in for a summer around
Lander, nothing that great but just very enjoyable. However, I
wouldn't suggest making a detour just to visit there with limited time
unless wanting to obtain some excellent fossil fish. If going there,
stop at Ulrich's near the entrance for his excellent fossils on
display and they can be purchased.

If visiting Flaming Gorge (good place to catch a record trout),
consider heading down to Dinosaur NM just outside of Vernal, Utah
where the excellent dinosaur quarry exhibition is. It isn't that much
further, and then perhaps head for Provo or Park City to get back on
the interstate and you will also get some mountain scenery. Although
these places aren't too far from the interstate, you will spend a
considerable time visiting them. The Park City and Alta ski areas are
very close to the interstate just east of Salt Lake City making for a
much shorter stop.

George