Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Hey everyone, me and my dad are planning on taking our next road trip vacation to Alaska next year. My suggestion was to go thru Washington, to British Columbia, thru Yukon, and into Alaska.
I don't know why my dad thought of this other way, but he thinks that we should go thru Minnesota. I'm guessing he wants to go that way so we pass more provinces of Canada, but he swears that it's also the shortest way to go, which I don't understand. Clearly my suggestion is the shortest way.
I think you're going to go a lot further east than necessary if you go through Minnesota.
There's an easy way to solve your problem with your dad: sit him down in front of the computer, log your departure/arrival info into yahoo maps, and it'll punch up the shortest route both distance-wise and time-wise.
I recommend somone pull out a map, or go to mapquest.....from the state of California, go North on I-5 from CA through Oregon and North to Washington state, then you stay on the main highway in NW British Columbia Once in Alaska you take the Alaska Marine Highway/Ketchikan Highway.....from Southern part of Alaska. take appropriate picture id/passport, blankets and the such incase you breakdown in Alaska..extra clothing, etc....
The only reason I can see to go through Minnesota is to see that part of the U.S. or the part of Canada just to the north. It is definitely much shorter to travel straight up to Alaska as you proposed, going through Washington, British Columbia, and the Yukon Territory. I would like to visit both Minnesota and Alaska some time in the future, but I wouldn't even consider doing both on the same trip, unless I had lots of time to spend.
You can drive up straight north to Alaska and on the return drive you can come back through Montana. Last summer I drove my parents down from Anchorage to Montana. On the way down we drove down to Washington via Highway 97 and 97C in British Columbia and connected with Highway 2 across Washington State to Spokane and I90. On the return from Baker Montana, we drove north to Saskatchewan and went west on Highway 16 through Edmonton and north on Highway 43 until we got to Dawson Creek, Mile 0 of the Alaska Highway.
The difference in those two routes is only 186 miles? Wow, who knew? For an extra three hours of driving, I'd do it. Of course, by the time the OP drives back, they may be so sick and tired of driving that even three more hours is too much!
Hi.
can you please give me an advice which route to take? how to prepare? etc.
i am going to drive from Los Angeles to Anchorage in this February with my 97 Honda Civic Coupe.
will appreciate your help
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
driving form Lo Angeles to Anchorage in Winter
