Talk:California State Route 173/Archive 1

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on California State Route 173. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20101103112619/http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/cgi-bin/displaycode?section=shc&group=00001-01000&file=260-284 to http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/cgi-bin/displaycode?section=shc&group=00001-01000&file=260-284

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 08:04, 29 July 2017 (UTC)

Add imagery to Article
I had uploaded 8 images of this route, specifically the Closed and Unpaved Segment. It’s on Commons, in the Category: California State Route 173. I’d appreciate it if any imagery was added to the article. Louis7892 (talk) 04:28, 22 August 2022 (UTC)

Edit: I made this topic, but I forgot to log in.

California State Route 173's unpaved segment may reopen soon?
I've found a few now hidden and archived sources from the Lake Arrowhead Municipal Advisory Council that since the Minutes report of the monthly meeting on Jun. 2/2022 that a committee named the "Hwy 173 Ad Hoc Committee" (Which the name I do not entirely understand) has been established in order to advocate for the reopening of the closed segment of the aforementioned highway. It's listed on the referenced PDF file under section 7.0 "New Business". In the following meetings' Minutes reports until the Aug. 4/2022 under the "Old Business" section always said: "... shared information regarding the Hwy 173 road closure issues. He discussed the plan to move forward and address the issue with Caltrans. Funding will be the biggest obstacle." On the last Minutes Report, for the meeting on Oct. 6/2022, under the 6.0 "Old Business" section, which I'll edit on this topic for privacy concerns, it said: "[Name] shared information regarding the Hwy 173 road closure issues. He has met with Sheriff [Name], Fire Chief [Name], who were both willing to support this effort. The next step will be to meet with Caltrans," The mentioned issues with the route is that it should be opened as an emergency route, especially for the residents in Deer Lodge Park. Most recently, in another meeting on Feb. 8/2023, specifically in the last few paragraphs with the highlighted text, a statement has been said supporting why the route should reopen. If the route reopens, it'll bring a huge advantage for the communities in the mountains as it been closed for nearly 20 years, since 2003. It'll take at least 1 year in order to reopen, such as land reclamation, grading, retainment walls, guard rails and pavement would be required for it to happen, ever since the fires affecting the route. Louis7892 (talk) 16:06, 15 February 2023 (UTC)

Dubious claim about highway's unpaved segment
California State Route 173 does not seem to be the only state highway in California with an unpaved segment, as claimed in the article; see California State Route 270 in Mono County, which is unpaved for 3.5 miles on its eastern end (though that section is maintained by the California Department of Parks and Recreation rather than Caltrans). Hdjensofjfnen (tap) 08:02, 10 May 2023 (UTC)