WrightwoodCalif.com Forum
Public Forums => Hot Topics => Topic started by: Joe Schmoe on Oct 18, 16, 09:47:45 AM
-
-
These people seem to be blind to both the trashed nature of Azusa Canyon and the lack of FS funds to deal with the existing problem. Makes me wonder if the real reason they are pushing this again is to spread the trash out to other parts of the forest to lessen the concentration in Azusa Canyon.
Funny, I have a feeling no one in Wrightwood is saying, "Gee, I'd like to dine in Azusa tonight. Too bad it's so far." ::) And their complaints about traffic congestion are utter nonsense on all but a few of the busiest days.
If they absolutely had to do something, it should be a 1-way only single lane road (there are a couple of those out there, one notably in the Malibu hills) that begins at Hwy 2 and heads south into Azusa Canyon. NO northbound traffic into the comparatively pristine forest.
-
I wouldn't worry about it. Azusa has been lining politician's pockets for years in trying to get 39 opened again. It is entirely for financial gain. Having 39 open would bring thousands of people through their town to buy gas, eat at restaurants, etc. The trouble is that nobody has the money to maintain the road even if it was eventually opened. The State tried to dump it on the Forest Service. As stated, the Forest Service doesn't have the funds and refused.
While the excuses for opening it seem to have a little merit, it isn't really realistic. The road is already available and has been used as an "escape" route, in fact FS vehicles use it everyday in responding to motorcycle down calls near Islip Saddle. The road is useable in its current condition albeit as a single lane. Also the road would be closed all through the winter months, just as Hwy 2 is now, so snow players couldn't access Hwy 2, Mt High or Wrightwood, and with the first big storm the road will end up down in the bottom of the canyon, money just thrown away. It has happened time and time again over the decades, before 1978. It is a big waste of money. Caltrans knows it, they are just trying to pacify the politicians by agreeing to do another impact study of the Bighorn Sheep poulation. Even if they were to throw millions of dollars into getting it open again, it won't be open for too long. Hwy 39 is nothing but a money pit and the State knows it, the FS knows it and even the politicians know it but they have constituents to keep happy.
Of course, as mentioned, opening that road would severely impact the quiet nature of Angeles Crest Hwy as we know it, bring trash, graffiti, gangs and undesirables that currently make patrolling the lower end of 39 a nightmare for the FS, into our area. Don't believe me? Just monitor the FS frequencies as to what happens every weekend on the lower part of 39. Almost every weekend we patrol for the USFS the radio is crazy with what they deal with down there. My partner and I often say out loud, "Aren't you glad we don't volunteer down there?"
-
Here we go again!
The Wrightwood Forum has been following the on again - off again reopening of Hwy 39 since 2002.
I was the only public member of the Hwy 39 Bighorn Sheep Technical Advisory Committee that started in 2005 and attended all meetings. The main focus of the Hwy 39 Bighorn Sheep Technical Advisory Committee from the very first meeting was to insure that monitoring took place when the project moved forward, yet monitoring of the Hwy 39 Bighorn Sheep population was completely ignored in the EIR/EA. Then on December 17, 2008 Caltrans held a closed door meeting without inviting the only public member. The project was on again at that point.
Then in Jan 2012 it was declared off again. (see LA Times article below)
Yesterday's San Gabriel Valley Tribune article was the first I've heard about another push to reopen Hwy 39. From my experience the geological conditions along Hwy 39 will never be stable enough to support public traffic on a regular basis. Anything more than maintaining the existing emergency route is a total waste of taxpayer money.
For background:
Wrightwood Forum Topic Feb 2003 through Jan 2012
http://www.wrightwoodcalif.com/forum/index.php/topic,1270.0.html (http://www.wrightwoodcalif.com/forum/index.php/topic,1270.0.html)
LA Times article January 29, 2012
Walking away from a highway
Caltrans wants to hand off responsibility for California 39, but there are no takers.
http://articles.latimes.com/2012/jan/29/local/la-me-caltrans-highway39-20120129 (http://articles.latimes.com/2012/jan/29/local/la-me-caltrans-highway39-20120129)
-
Taming the Slopes
http://www.dot.ca.gov/ctjournal/2010-1/rockfall.html
-
Here we go again!
From my experience the geological conditions along Hwy 39 will never be stable enough to support public traffic on a regular basis. Anything more than maintaining the existing emergency route is a total waste of taxpayer money.
Exactly! Nobody has the money to maintain it, "No Funding, No Buck Rogers!" (from one of my favorite movies, The Right Stuff"). Oh, and while we are at it, let's rebuild the road that used to connect to "The Bridge to Nowhere" and beyond. After that road got washed out in the 30's they got the right idea. There are some places man just shouldn't build roads. Nature has made it clear many times over that Hwy 39, like the road that the "Bridge to Nowhere" used to be apart of, doesn't belong there. Again, it is just a money pit.
Again, Caltrans knows it, the Forest Service knows it, L.A. County knows it and none of them have the money to maintain it even if they were to spend all that money to rebuild it. I can't help but feel the State, County, Feds and politicians are just trying to put some oil on the squeaky wheel (The town of Azusa) by agreeing to yet ANOTHER environmental and Bighorn Sheep study.
May those men who lost their lives rebuilding it in the past RIP...
It'll never happen in my lifetime (as he keeps his fingers crossed).
-
Sheez....I wish Cal Tran send the $ for Highway 39 to the right people and re-do LPC Road. That would be a BIG help!!
-
Oh, and while we are at it, let's rebuild the road that used to connect to "The Bridge to Nowhere" and beyond. After that road got washed out in the 30's they got the right idea. There are some places man just shouldn't build roads. Nature has made it clear many times over that Hwy 39, like the road that the "Bridge to Nowhere" used to be apart of, doesn't belong there.
Off topic, but does anyone have a map that indicates where EXACTLY that road and/or Shoemaker Canyon Road were to go? I recall discussion that said the ultimate destination was Blue Ridge or Vincent Gap or something, but how EXACTLY were they intended to get there?
-
Here's where Terry posted about the Bridge
http://www.wrightwoodcalif.com/forum/index.php?topic=10321.0
-
Just a suggestion: Some of the posts in this thread are chock full of historical and useful information. So, maybe move a few of them to the WW History section as well. Just a thought. cheryl o7o
-
SR-39 Reopening - Public Scoping Meeting
There are 6 different alternatives being considered. Everything from do nothing to full reopening and some other alternatives in between.
Here is a link to a webpage with information on each alternative and with an email address to submit public comments.
I would encourage anyone with an opinion to submit their comments either during the public scoping meeting or submit via email.
https://dot.ca.gov/DOT/caltrans-near-me/district-7/district-7-projects/d7-sr39-reopening
(https://scontent-lax3-2.xx.fbcdn.net/v/t39.30808-6/318886863_5600795673322336_2565239697366792196_n.jpg?stp=dst-jpg_p526x296&_nc_cat=101&ccb=1-7&_nc_sid=730e14&_nc_ohc=-BRQ4P57-ZIAX89DbYr&_nc_ht=scontent-lax3-2.xx&oh=00_AfBRyMb8EYWjRJ5PhJxCmkctqbI-8w17TOZgFnOiWqxNtQ&oe=63959B4C)
-
Here we go again!
The Wrightwood Forum has been following the on again - off again reopening of Hwy 39 since 2002.
From Facebook
The Real Wrightwood Page
Jim Emery
SR-39 Reopening - Public Scoping Meeting
There are 6 different alternatives being considered. Everything from do nothing to full reopening and some other alternatives in between.
Here is a link to a webpage with information on each alternative and with an email address to submit public comments.
I would encourage anyone with an opinion to submit their comments either during the public scoping meeting or submit via email.
https://dot.ca.gov/DOT/caltrans-near-me/district-7/district-7-projects/d7-sr39-reopening
-
Sheez....I wish Cal Tran send the $ for Highway 39 to the right people and re-do LPC Road. That would be a BIG help!!
Probably the only way to do this would be to make Lone Pine Canyon a State Highway. CalTrans maintains Highway 2 because it's theirs, and generally does nothing about Wrightwood's streets because they're county.
One of the several problems with CA-39 is that if they remove State Highway status, they also have to restore the habitat, which they don't really have the money to do. I understand they tried to give the road to L.A. County and they didn't want the financial burden.
Full reopening would be very expensive. I think alternative 2 and 3 make some sense, alternative 6 is insane.
-
Opening 39 will only destroy more habitat. The local mountains can't take the pressure of humans as it is.
-
Probably the only way to do this would be to make Lone Pine Canyon a State Highway. CalTrans maintains Highway 2 because it's theirs, and generally does nothing about Wrightwood's streets because they're county.
One of the several problems with CA-39 is that if they remove State Highway status, they also have to restore the habitat, which they don't really have the money to do. I understand they tried to give the road to L.A. County and they didn't want the financial burden.
Full reopening would be very expensive. I think alternative 2 and 3 make some sense, alternative 6 is insane.
Will NEVER happen. Too much liability. State is actually turning over highways in other areas. Heard PCH through some of the beach cities is going through the process.
-
Sheez....I wish Cal Tran send the $ for Highway 39 to the right people and re-do LPC Road. That would be a BIG help!!
LPC is a County road, not a state road. CalTrans has no jurisdiction over it.
-
Will NEVER happen. Too much liability. State is actually turning over highways in other areas. Heard PCH through some of the beach cities is going through the process.
IIRC, CalTrans has been trying to convince LA County to take that bit of CA-39 for a long time.
-
https://www.ocregister.com/2022/12/27/band-of-bighorn-sheep-could-stop-caltrans-from-reopening-part-of-highway-39
Band of bighorn sheep could stop Caltrans from reopening part of Highway 39
Unique mammals living on the craggy slopes of San Gabriel Mountains are protected by state law
-
The Forgotten Highway
http://archive.uscstoryspace.com/2017-2018/erikajkl/Investigation/InvestigativeEK/?fbclid=IwAR38SJYoXofwnJX6k4GrcBlkZ1cYGjoafXuUl787UXIAHfmpPpMDBt2H87o
(http://archive.uscstoryspace.com/2017-2018/erikajkl/Investigation/InvestigativeEK/img/inv/gate2.jpg)
-
SR 39 12.15.22 Scoping Meeting Video
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F65g8V19vc4
-
SR-39 Reopening Draft EIR-EA February 2024
https://dot.ca.gov/-/media/dot-media/district-7/documents/env-docs/sr-39-reopening-draft-eir-ea-february-2024.pdf
-
https://dot.ca.gov/DOT/caltrans-near-me/district-7/district-7-projects/d7-sr39-reopening?fbclid=IwAR0TFMB4u8OLerit-YzchIZ2jzC1xsZMMRud9jV6DN-5NPsrtl7O-BAlM0Q
Public Hearing Information
In-Person Public Hearing
Date: April 16, 2024, 6:00 p.m.
Location: Azusa Auditorium (located off of Dalton Avenue and Foothill Boulevard) 213 East Foothill Boulevard. Azusa, CA 91702
Meeting will be livestreamed at: https://www.azusaca.gov/952/Watch-Meetings-Online
Virtual Public Hearing
Date: April 20, 2024 at 10:00 a.m.
Please register at: https://bit.ly/SR-39DEDPublicHearing
Hearing will be held via Zoom
Comment Period
March 13, 2024 to May 11, 2024.
-
https://dot.ca.gov/-/media/dot-media/district-7/documents/env-docs/sr-39-reopening-final-eir-ea-fonsi-january-2025_a11y.pdf
State Route 39 (SR-39/San Gabriel Canyon Road) Reopening Project
The California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) has determined that Alternative
2: Evacuation Route (Minimal Build) will have no significant impact on the human
environment
Alternative 2 – Evacuation Route (Minimum Build): This alternative proposes limited
roadway restoration. Access to the roadway would be strictly for emergency service
responders and maintenance access. The roadway would continue to be closed to
public highway traffic.