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.
. Show me the mountain views from Sacramento state to compare(sac State= east sac. Fresno State = east Fresno)
Sacramento has the same views of the Sierras as Fresno. Sac State has those same views. Come on up I'll show you around and show you the views.
Sacramento's mountain access is Underated in general and on this forum too.
1. It's not just about elevation rather its about access and amenities, and diversity of amenities as well.
2. And Sacramento has more and much easier access to the Sierras than Fresno,
3. and Sacramento has more options within its closest portion of the Sierras over Fresno.
4. Sacramento has an interstate (I-80) and a major highway US 50 into the Sierras. Also, there is Highway 16 connection to Highway 88 to Sierras from Sacto Area. There is also a major highway that traverses and connects those other Highways within the Sierra Foothills - Highway 49.
5. The Tahoe Area has more and diverse accommodations within the Sierras not limited by the rules of a National Park like Yosemite.
6. Also, Sacramento is CLOSER to Yosemite than Fresno is to Tahoe. Sacramentans first choice would be to go to the Tahoe Area , just because it is closer, but Yosemite is not that far either; whereas, if fresno folks want some variety and want to skip Yosemite and go to Tahoe for more variety it would be further for them to get to Tahoe than if Sacramentans did the reverse and skipped Tahoe for Yosemite instead.
7. Also, Sacramento is CLOSER to Coast Redwood filled mountain ranges than Fresno.
If you're in the Glendale / Pasadena area, the San Gabriel Mountains begin right behind the cities.
Some trailheads are actually located alongside suburban streets.
I didn't say "access to the best mountains," because I don't claim that the San Gabriels
are the aesthetic equals of the Sierras or the Rockies or the Cascades.
But for "best access" to some kind of mountains, I think LA is probably #1.
I'd still take Denver. Way more mountains near Denver and more variety in landscapes.
Access is very important, but it isn't everything.
So sac has more Sierra towns and freeways?
Congrats, but I'm not considering amenities here. And I think you're the only person who's brought that up. If sac is so ahead of others, you shouldn't have to move the goal post to help it win.
I've never heard a single person say that Sacramento has gorgeous mountain views. Ever.
I've heard some people say Fresno does(when the conditions are right). And that's saying something cause fresnans love downplaying everything about Fresno. Fresnans don't brag like sacramentans.
Fresno doesn't need Yosemite because it has its own Yosemite sibling named kings canyon. You can see some beautiful stuff 1-1.5 hrs away. And when you tire of Kings canyon, you can easily drive to sequoia because they're connected to each other.
Sac has more lower Sierra mountains and more foothills. Plus, lake Tahoe is two hrs away.
Fresno has more dramatic foothills(larger?) And more dramatic/larger sierras. Larger coastal mountains near Fresno, but sac is closer to theirs, so it's a wash.
Theres no correct choice here, but you shouldn't say sac has the best Sierra access in all of California because it's very debatable.
Last edited by dontbelievehim; 11-25-2021 at 02:35 PM..
There's no correct choice here, but you shouldn't downplay sjv towns like youre doing. Not even giving a mention to other towns shows extreme bias.
Don't,
It's not just about Sacramento having more foothill/mountain towns and freeways, it's about Sacramento having more access to the foothills and mountains, and having a diversity of options within those mountains and foothills, and Sacramento has more of them than fresno .For example, if you are not a real-outdoorsy person, non-camper and the like, you have more options to enjoy the Sierras from Sacramento than from fresno.
I've never heard a single person say fresno has gorgeous mountain vies. EVER. I've never heard a Sacramentan ever brag about Sacramento. I talk about Sac's amenities but don't brag, in fact, I'm one of the few who does talk about Sac's amenities.
Sacramento doesn't need Yosemite nor Kings Canyon because we have TAHOE, really nothing quite like it. Also, Sacramento is closer to the Cascades, Lassen and Shasta.
It's actually a plus that Sacramento have lower mountains and foothills as they are easier to deal with for older folks and disabled and non-outdoorsy folks than the higher elevations. This is another example of diversity of options. From the eastern towns of the Sac Metro, Tahoe is 45mins away or less. Yes, the southern Sierra has higher peaks, but, we have 9,000 to 10,000 peaks as well, if you really need that, but its just not that necessary for like 90% of most folks.
Regarding coastal, bays, lakes, and coastal valleys, Sacramento is a lot closer than fresno.
Yes, I agree you shouldn't show extreme bias, I don't need to talk about sjv because I know you will.
Don't,
It's not just about Sacramento having more foothill/mountain towns and freeways, it's about Sacramento having more access to the foothills and mountains, and having a diversity of options within those mountains and foothills, and Sacramento has more of them than fresno .For example, if you are not a real-outdoorsy person, non-camper and the like, you have more options to enjoy the Sierras from Sacramento than from fresno.
I've never heard a single person say fresno has gorgeous mountain vies. EVER. I've never heard a Sacramentan ever brag about Sacramento. I talk about Sac's amenities but don't brag, in fact, I'm one of the few who does talk about Sac's amenities.
Sacramento doesn't need Yosemite nor Kings Canyon because we have TAHOE, really nothing quite like it. Also, Sacramento is closer to the Cascades, Lassen and Shasta.
It's actually a plus that Sacramento have lower mountains and foothills as they are easier to deal with for older folks and disabled and non-outdoorsy folks than the higher elevations. This is another example of diversity of options. From the eastern towns of the Sac Metro, Tahoe is 45mins away or less. Yes, the southern Sierra has higher peaks, but, we have 9,000 to 10,000 peaks as well, if you really need that, but its just not that necessary for like 90% of most folks.
Regarding coastal, bays, lakes, and coastal valleys, Sacramento is a lot closer than fresno.
Yes, I agree you shouldn't show extreme bias, I don't need to talk about sjv because I know you will.
I think you're conflating cute with gorgeous, chim. Those cute views might be gorgeous to you in Sacto, but come down here and you'll see what gorgeous really is.
And east Fresno to 5k mountains is about the same distance as sac is to Folsom lake. It's not possible for it to look exactly the same. Plus, you get the feeling of being surrounded by mountains in east Fresno. That isn't true for any part of sac proper.
Plenty of easy hikes in the Sierra national parks. Government does its best to make these parks as accessible to everyone as possible. Sure, 70 year olds can't mountain climb or do steep hikes, but they can still enjoy themselves.
Best thing sac has is the Tahoe basin and surrounding mountains. That's an amazing feather in your cap. Congrats, but there's enough lakes down here that you won't ever feel like you're missing out. Visit some and see for yourself.
Interactive map of elevation in California. You'll love this, chim. Scroll around and compare places
For the simple question of 100 miles / 2 hours (weekend distance) access to big mountains and alpine terrain, Denver cannot be beat, from the major cities OR smaller mentioned metros. There is a TON of easily accessible alpine terrain and more trails in that area, more than a normal person would ever have time to hike. More skiing acres than anywhere else in that radius as well.
The CO Rockies, particularly the Front Range(s), are the most accessible mountains in the west US by a long shot. Other ranges are sexier and more lush and more pristine, but for access, the Front Range wins, thanks to those miners back in the day putting roads all over the place...
I 70 and the other highways out of Denver are a blessing and a curse. Weekend traffic means 2 hrs doesn't get you far, but weekday traffic means you can access a LOT more terrain than smaller areas can because interstate travel is so much faster than backroad. Beyond that, there's a ton of paved and not too gnarly gravel roads in the mountains around Denver.
If you want close by weekday access, other cities like Colorado Springs rank better. But for the question of 1-2 day drive range access, Denver handily beats SLC, Seattle, COS, Albuquerque, Boise... SLC would need the Uinta Range flipped vertically and more accessible to compete.
Saying all this though, there's a LOT to be said for flora and variety. Put those into the mix and this becomes a much more debatable topic. Beetle killed spruce and lodgepoles put a dent in the outdoor experience.
From a sheer mountaineering perspective Seattle has better options within a 100 mile radius. Colorado Rockies are not glaciated and not as dramatic.
Really though you are right from an access perspective. The Rockies in Colorado have much more high roads you can easily access. The Cascades have fewer maintained roads. Maintaining high roads in the cascades is pretty much impossible. Both North Cascades Highway and Chinook Pass close during the winter and do not open till late Spring due to high snowfall.
Last edited by Thealpinist; 11-27-2021 at 12:50 AM..
From a sheer mountaineering perspective Seattle has better options within a 100 mile radius. Colorado Rockies are not glaciated and not as dramatic.
Really though you are right from an access perspective. The Rockies in Colorado have much more high roads you can easily access. The Cascades have fewer maintained roads. Maintaining high roads in the cascades is pretty much impossible. Both North Cascades Highway and Chinook Pass close during the winter and do not open till late Spring due to high snowfall.
Thanks, Alpinist! I am in Seattle area now but cannot stand how busy everything is most of the year and no sun. Everything in the PNW is landlocked until July, which is hard. I am considering relocating to CO or MT at least for half of the year. (more so CO) Are you located there? if so, could I message you?
How would you compare CO to UT, SLC or more northern areas? (true alpine areas)
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.
taking the question literally....
