Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Ridge Route/archive1

Ridge Route
Another self-nomination that has been expanded since its original nomination, withdrawn over a disagreement over another subject. Photos are from Caltrans and are used as public domain material per their own terms of use. More photos of the road as it appears today are coming courtesy of Avnative who lives at the route's southern tip and just finished driving it specifically to photograph it for this article. - Lucky 6.9 00:59, 23 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Hmmm. . . Avnative's actual living location is not the southern tip. He lives in an undisclosed, secure location in the Antelope Valley in an otherwise unremarkable structure in the manner of Dick Cheney, though! --avnative 00:00, Aug 24, 2004 (UTC)


 * Support. zoney | talk 10:35, 23 Aug 2004 (UTC)
 * Wow, this is really impressive compared to what it was! Definitely support! zoney &#09619; &#09608; &#09618; talk 13:58, 26 Aug 2004 (UTC)


 * Witholding support until the Beale's Cut/Swede's Cut situation is checked out (please see Talk:Ridge Route). I'd also like my pictures reviewed by User:Lucky 6.9 (and I'd also appreciate having zoney take a look see as well).  Once these issues are resolved, I'd say we have an outstanding article and will support.  --avnative 13:56, Aug 23, 2004 (UTC)
 * Object, almost there I think. The article claims - "was one of the largest and most daunting feats of road engineering ever attempted up to that time". That is a large claim that either needs to be substantiated or removed. Further, there is next to no information on the engineering feat itself.  What made it large?, or especially - larger than other road projects like railroads over mountains?  There is one picture and short explanation of Beale's cut, with a vague reference to there being other cuts.  In summary, expansion of the engineering project itself and the contruction of the route would be in order. - Taxman 14:25, Aug 23, 2004 (UTC)


 * Taxman, after doing some reading of Scott's excellent book at the library, I made copies of some pertinent pages of it. The "was one of the largest and most daunting feats of road engineering ever attempted up to that time" quotation in the article actually reads on p. 243, paragraph 1 of Scott's book in this way: "On one hand the Ridge Route was declared one of the most remarkable feats of highway engineering on the continent, and on the other it was said to potentially be the most dangerous road in the world bar none!"  The citation number in the book, 366, leads the reader to the following source: "All Aboard for Ridge Route - But Watch Your Step!"  Touring Topics  November 1919, p.11.   Touring Topics  is the former name of the member magazine of the Automobile Club of Southern California, now referred to as  Westways .  If the sentence under discussion in the article is changed to reflect that - stating "According the Automobile Club of Southern California, the Ridge Route was one of the largest and most daunting feats of road engineering ever attempted up to that time" I think we have a solution at hand.  On "what made it large? or especially - larger than other road projects like railroads over mountains?":  I don't think Lucky and I are trying to say the project was large - I think instead we're trying to get across the notion that the construction was a remarkable engineering feat similar to other engineering feats as noted in the current edit of History of California.  To that end, here's a quote from Scott's book on p. 77 (last two sentences): "The  San Francisco Chronicle  reported: 'One of the most remarkable engineering feats accomplished by the State Highway Commission(sic).  It is Southern California's Magnum Opus in mountain highway construction.'"  The citation, number 197 in Scott's book, is for "The Great Short Cut over Tehachapi Mountains,"  California Highway Bulletin , July 1, 1916, p. 2.  My solution is to answer Taxman's question under discussion to say "The  San Francisco Chronicle  was reported to say in a 1916 edition of the  California Highway Bulletin  that the Ridge Route was "one of the most remarkable engineering feats accomplished by the State Highway Commission.  It is Southern California's Magnus Opus in mountain highway construction."  Soooo. . . do you like my solution for wording the article?  I think I've met your objections.  Let's work on getting the wording agreeable to all concerned here, alright?  (smile)  --avnative 23:09, Aug 29, 2004 (UTC)
 * I like the additions very much. But now you've got even more detailed information in the above discussion that is not in the article.  Also citing the statements is good. Once some more of the above references are in the references section, simply put (Pool 1997, p197) or some such.  I will try to do that myself, but I may not have a chance until as late as tomorrow. - Taxman 14:35, Aug 30, 2004 (UTC)
 * Consider it done. Please check the text once again and see if you like it now!  --avnative 00:36, Aug 31, 2004 (UTC)


 * Fixed the mix-up regarding Swede's Cut and Beale's Cut. They are different cuts.  The ruggedness of the mountain range, the sheer length of a highway across the ridge and the level of engineering technology of the time are what had deemed the task to be impossible and led to the discussion of splitting California at the mountains.  I'll see what I can do to clarify that. - Lucky 6.9 17:35, 23 Aug 2004 (UTC)
 * I've just clarified the reasons why the task of building the road seemed impossible. Hope it's OK now. - Lucky 6.9 17:46, 23 Aug 2004 (UTC)
 * Good start, but I was looking for more along that same path. It's clear, I'd just like more material. Do you have a source for the statement "such a road had never been attempted" or "was considered (by whom?) to be the greatest feat of road engineering to date"?  I know, sources are tough, but good ones are what make articles great.  Also, what made the cuts, tunnel, and bridge "major"?  How big were they, in comparison to other bridges and tunnels done in the US or elsewhere? How many miles of cuts, tons of rock removed, etc.?  Railroad tunnels through the Rocky Mountains were commonplace years before the Ridge Route was made, why was this considered special, and who thought it was impossible? - Taxman 20:57, Aug 23, 2004 (UTC)
 * I think a Westways Automobile Club of Southern California article from their archives or perhaps something from KCET public television, Los Angeles - perhaps from Huell Howser's staff or Huell himself - would cure this. A good USC history professor wouldn't hurt, either.  In any case, I believe Taxman's concerns would be able to be met.  It might be useful to qualify the claim some more, and state that "the road had never been attempted" over these particular mountains and "was considered" by California state government road authorities (Sacramento) "to be the greatest feat of road engineering to date."
 * I think Taxman misses a critical point: in that time period considering the technology available (horses and blades with steam shovels) getting these items to the work site - even today an isolated place - was a tremendous effort, comparable to the building of the Central Pacific Railroad building its roadbed over the Sierra Nevada Mountains. They didn't build things quickly with those now-antiquated tools compared to today.  We need to consider that in the story, and recognize the decision to build the road (with a 50 year state bond) was a big deal.  Let's also consider the fact that before the Ridge Route was built, one either went along the coast along the general path of US Highway 101, or traveled up the San Gabriel Mountain range's canyons to the Antelope Valley and through Tehachapi Pass to get to the San Joaquin Valley from Los Angeles.  Either route took an extra day to do this - which at the time of the early 1900's in using early day automobiles, was killing commerce and driving up transportation costs for Californians.  Hope my take on history here is useful to this discussion.
 * No, that's my point. If it is comparable to the building of the Central Pacific Railroad, which was successfully completed 50 years before the Ridge Route, why in the world would the Ridge route be considered impossible? I guess we could just end it with saying the California Road commission thought it impossible... Is there any evidence for who it was that thought it impossible? In any case, because of the above, I still take issue with "was considered to be the greatest feat of road engineering to date" - by whom? It had already been done 50 years before, albeit for a railroad.  I do like what's being added very much though. Just have issues with a few overly broad, unsupported statements still - Taxman 16:22, Aug 25, 2004 (UTC)
 * Again, Taxman's concerns should be able to be met by consulting the above sources, and even Caltrans might be able to come to the rescue regarding specific amounts of rock removed, etc. etc. They well could have some old records - they have the Pasadena Freeway construction records and photos from the late 1930's for example - I've seen 'em!  --avnative 00:00, Aug 24, 2004 (UTC)


 * Man, that's something I'd like to see! In the meantime, I've expanded that section in question even more. - Lucky 6.9 04:00, 24 Aug 2004 (UTC)
 * Yeah, buddy! I found a treasure trove of info on the early history and pre-history on ridgeroute.com from the Scott book!  I've expanded that section tremendously.  Off to add some of Avnative's new photos! - Lucky 6.9 04:04, 25 Aug 2004 (UTC)


 * I stayed up until two in the morning tweaking this article, adding pictures, etc. I don't know how much clearer I can emphasize the scope of the project.  I used all the online info from the Harrison Scott book. - Lucky 6.9 16:43, 25 Aug 2004 (UTC)


 * Further clarification: The construction of the road was deemed impossible by the engineering standards of the day which in turn led to the discussion regarding the division of the state.  I've outlined that in the article. - Lucky 6.9 18:15, 25 Aug 2004 (UTC)
 * As commented above, that is odd considering such a similar engineering project was completed 50 yrs before for the railroads including tunnels through rock more solid than sandstone if I'm not mistaken. - Taxman 16:44, Aug 26, 2004 (UTC)
 * Excellent article, but the photos that originate from the state of California should be labelled (on the photo pages) as { {PD-CAGov} }. See Image copyright tags.  Fair use implies these are copyrighted, and may restrict others from using the photos. These are public domain photos. Ydorb 20:18, Aug 25, 2004 (UTC)


 * Ah, thanks for the tip. I've tagged the Caltrans photos, but I'm claiming fair use on the speed limit sign photo given its age.  Got that one at ridgeroute.com. - Lucky 6.9 22:28, 25 Aug 2004 (UTC)


 * Again, whew! I found a smidgen more info regarding the difficulty of building a highway as compared to a railroad.  I just don't know how much clearer I can make it.  You have to see those mountains to get an idea of how rugged they are.  I think they just dynamited through to build 99, but that probably wasn't an option for the original roadway. - Lucky 6.9 19:11, 26 Aug 2004 (UTC)


 * I spent some time reading old LA Times articles about this. I added these to the sources section when I saw facts metioned in the article. A few points: 1. Almost every article makes a very big deal about how the whole route has no grade greater than 6%. It's even written on the map I uploaded.  The wikipedia article says the Ridge Route required grades over 30%.  2. The comment about "adding as much as a day to the trip" is misleading.  I saw one article that said something about how a loaded truck that required two days to make the trip to Bakersfield, could now do it in one.  Apparently the alternate route had some steep grades that drastically slowed heavily loaded trucks.  For passenger cars, it saved several hours. There should be a mileage measure of the new shorter distance LA to Bakersfield via the Ridge Route compared to the old way.  3. The postcard image has three lanes.  The Wiki article says "Mostly bypassed by 1933 with the coming of the three-lane "Alternate Ridge Route".  Is the postcard of the alternate ridge route or the original. 4. The "speed limit strictly enforced" seems questionable.  The LA Times had an article about speed records on the LA-Bakersfield run.  One guy did a round trip in 7 hours.  The best averaged 70 mph one-way! 5. The article, overall, could use some reorganization.  I'd suggest the  following based on the observation that its history ran through an arc.  The Need (Why was it proposed?  Who supported it?  Who opposed it?) The Construction (What challenges did it pose?   How long did it take?) The Features (Similar to current section, but it should also include Notable Stops section).  The Demise (What superseeded it?  Why?  How did the alternate Ridge Route come about?)  The Remains (same as the Today section). Ydorb 21:46, Aug 26, 2004 (UTC)


 * Very thoughtful points. 1. Those steeper grades were found going south from about Owl Garage into Castaic, and especially going north from Ft. Tejon to Grapevine (the town).  Check out Deadman's Curve in the Grapevine mountain grade and see what the grade was for it there.  2. You made our point - commercial trucks could save a day's travel by taking the Ridge Route.  True, for passenger cars the time savings was not as great.  I read the mileage measures you refer to on ridgeroute.com and will try to get those inserted into the text ASAP.  3.  I believe the postcard is of the Alternate Ridge Route - the road which later became US 99.  4. You're right about the "speed demons!"  My dad has told me about them. . .  but he also remembers hearing law enforcement cracking down as fast as they could to prevent unsafe driving.  A losing battle some days, others not.  The reorganization proposal and outline seems good to me.  Good considered thought on your part.  I would support such a reorganization of text for the article.  --avnative 23:44, Aug 26, 2004 (UTC)


 * I misunderstood a line in the Harrison Scott description regarding the steepness of the grades. Frankly, I thought thirty percent was way too high, especially for cars with vacuum- or gravity-fed fuel systems.  I've fixed it.  Info regarding enforcement of the speed limit, time it took to skirt the mountains and such was posted online.  I can't find any mention of the supporting groups beyond that of the Auto Club.  The need was apparent because of the talk of divding the state and the cost of transportation.  As far as supersecedence and demise are concerned, the alternate route and US 99 pretty much did it in since it was straighter and faster.  Good point regarding the postcard.  That's certainly the alternate. - Lucky 6.9 21:56, 26 Aug 2004 (UTC)


 * Added Avnative's excellent 1916 quote about the scope of the project. - Lucky 6.9 03:04, 30 Aug 2004 (UTC)


 * Nice work, everyone. I believe we have the single most comprehensive article on this subject anywhere on the internet! - Lucky 6.9 04:11, 31 Aug 2004 (UTC)