Talk:Angeles Crest Highway/Archive 1

Archive 1

Mt. Baldy

A few edits have gone back and forth on including Mt. Baldy (Mt. San Antonio). Mt. Baldy isn't accessably from this highway like the rest of the ponits of interest are. I don't see why it should be on that list. —BenFrantzDale 13:05, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for your input. I re-added the Baldy reference for the sake of stability because the edit was made anonymously without a comment and it replaced Baldy with Mountain High. Since it seemed like a possibly commercially motivated edit and it wasn't explained, it seemed more balanced to leave Baldy in until it was clarified. I did not realize that Baldy wasn't accessibly from Angeles Crest Highway, but looking at the map it looks like only dirt roads connect Mt. Baldy Road to Angeles Crest Highway. I'll take Baldy back out. Thanks for catching that. Mike Dillon 16:02, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

Sourcing

The "Wrightwood Forum" is not an acceptable source for Wikipedia (nor is any web forum). Please read Wikipedia:Reliable sources. Mike Dillon 05:34, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

I've removed the "Wrightwood Forum" references and switched the Victor Valley Daily Press refs to use {{cite news}} instead of {{cite web}}. I also provided the actual publication dates of the articles, author names, and titles. Mike Dillon 15:08, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

Correction

I would like to make a correction in regards to camp 37. Camp 37 was the name or number of the prison camp. The families of the Divisionof highways workers lived in the free camp called Cedar Springs. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.105.169.177 (talk • contribs)

• Material in Wikipedia articles should be sourceable to reliable references. However, for the time being I've made the change you suggest. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 01:07, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Hwy 2 reopened

As of May 20 2009, the damaged section of Hwy 2 has been repaired and reopened. I removed the information below from Access and Closures because it is now outdated. However, it could be rewritten and added to the history section, if enough people felt the long term closure of that section had been notable enough.216.115.60.247 (talk) 23:48, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

However, the winter storms of 2004-05 caused several landslides and significant damage to the highway. Thus, the highway never reopened in the summer of 2005. Damage to the highway was estimated to be over 4 million dollars as of November 2005. Terri Kasinga, a spokeswoman for the California Department of Transportation, stated in November 2005 "It is definitely not going to open until next spring (of 2006)". However, a March 2006 storm caused even more extensive damage to the highway including a complete washout of a large section of roadway, further delaying the reopening of the highway. Total construction costs now exceed 10 million dollars. Pending the availability of construction funds to repair this new damage, construction is anticipated to begin spring of 2008. As of now this portion of the highway has been closed since October 2004. CalTrans' closure of the highway has caused concern for the United States Forest Service and other emergency services agencies because it hinders access, particularly with firefighting efforts.

• Thanks for the update. Keeing the material for historical purposes is a possibility, but I suspect that there have been enough washouts and other extraordinary closures that it isn't worth recording them.   Will Beback  talk  00:52, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Actually I have to amend that and say that I TRIED to remove the incorrect information (three times) but Wikipedia kept reverting it. So unless anyone else is able to get the changes to stick, I guess the page will remain incorrect.216.115.60.247 (talk) 15:29, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Another editor had a different view, and we need to work by consensus. Rather than deleting the info outright I found a source for the reopening and added to it, while trimming some of the old details and verbiage. But thanks for noticing the event and for helping to fix the article. Like the highway itself, sometimes we don't get to the destination in a straight line.   Will Beback  talk  09:30, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

Adventure Pass

'Although anyone can park at the side of the road and access the wilderness along the side of the road, doing so for extended periods of time, such as camping or hiking, requires a National Forest Adventure Pass available for a $5.00 fee.'

This sounds as if an Adventure Pass is required for hiking or camping which is not true. An Adventure Pass is required for parking.

If you read the National Forest website, [1], you'll see that it is a fee for recreation, the taq for which must be shown in your parked vehicle while you recreate. Presumably it's also due from folks who have walked into the forest, but it's only enforced on those with parked cars. That's a semantic difference, and in effect it's a fee for parking. IIRC, there's an exemption for First Amendment activities, like spiritual meditation or ecological education, but I'm not a lawyer. See the main article at National Forest Adventure Pass.   Will Beback  talk  10:24, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

Indefinite Closure in 2009

"Indefinite Closure in 2009" seems over-dramatic. It may only be "indefinite" because it is too early to assess the damage and make plans. Do we really expect a $10.5 million repair that was just completed to be abandoned? Perhaps, but I'm not convinced. I would suggest "Closure due to 2009 Station Fire" or some such. 96.247.113.188 (talk) 00:08, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

"Indefinite" just means there's no date set for re-opening. As it happenes I recently spoke to someone who works for the county in a related capacity, and I was told that replacing the signs and guardrails would take a minimum of two weeks, which seems pretty fast. A bigger challenge may be dealing with rock fall, mud slides, etc. But I agree with the general point. I'll go change the heading.   Will Beback  talk  01:05, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

I think we are losing sight of the fact that Wikipedia is intended to be an Encyclopedia. "...will remain open if weather permits, as western part the Angeles National Forest is now more subject to dust storms and rockslides due to the burn-off of plant cover..." not only attempts to predict the future ("will remain open") but also attempts to describe current conditions ("is now more subject"). 96.251.155.91 (talk) 22:17, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Crashes and fatalities

The road is somewhat notorious (original research!) for the number of crashes and fataltiies. Covering every one with even a single sentence would be overcoverage. However, I think it would make sense to collect well-sourced numbers on fatalities. I'm going to start doing this, with the idea that each month gets represented with a number, and those eventually get rolled up to counts for a year. In other words, seven fatalities in 2010, eight fatalities in 2011, one in jan 2012, two in feb 2012, etc. tedder (talk) 19:29, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

Mount Wilson

Mount Wilson is not on the highway. I modified the article. I think it would be very appropriate to say something about Red Box, which is at the junction of the Angeles Crest Highway and the "Mt Wilson Red Box Road" that connects the Angeles Crest Highway with Mount Wilson. Sam Tomato (talk) 03:45, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

Tunnel

Photo of tunnel under construction...I grew up running up and down the Angeles Crest Highway, and I don't recall any tunnels on this road. However there are tunnels on the Angeles FOREST Highway, which intersects the ACH a few miles before Red Box. Is this photo misplaced? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.138.159.60 (talk) 15:27, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

It's a well-known tunnel. I've added coordinates to the photo's file page on commons. --jnkyrdsprkl (talk) 03:38, 8 November 2014 (UTC)