Talk:Interstate 275 (Michigan)/Archive 1

Archive 1

Does anybody mind

If I decide to eliminate that tag on top. Frankly I find it quite amusing. It shows zero info why its not compliant, i mean we have the ability to write it down so folks and figure it out. Its quite commical. this is the comment on the tag, Article not compliant with current project standards. which just happens to be what the tag itself means. --Mihsfbstadium 21:10, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Do not remove the tag until it is compliant with WP:IH and/or WP:MISH. It is there for a reason, and the reason is that it isn't compliant. We require that articles be compliant, or at least try to be compliant.  V60 ^{VTalk · VDemolitions · VRoads} 21:18, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

I understand that but uhm if people put tags up they need to spell out what needs compliance. Its a very simple idea and helps out other wikipedians to edit it so it can get compliant. Otherwise its a waste of space and annoying as all get out. --Mihsfbstadium 21:26, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

The tag is there because half to the whole article is not compliant. I can already say that 85% of this article is not compliant. Examples are the exit list, trivia section that should be removed, and the history section that needs to be prose.  V60 ^{VTalk · VDemolitions · VRoads} 21:32, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Its fustrating to read what you are typing. Why dont you take some time and spell out what needs fixing in the tag. I wont spend my time which I could be editing pages I taged in the talk page to fix instead of argueing with you on stupid tags that some other person has been throwing on every single page in the road project. Its getting to the point of being quite annoying.--Mihsfbstadium 21:55, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Do you realize that we have all sorts of these articles all over USRD? Furthermore, do you realize how much time would be wasted trying to describe all of the problems with every single article just so an editor who is not informed about the USRD standards can understand what is going on??? --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 02:30, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

I could care less about your time. How about the time for the editors to first waste thier time in trying to figure out what needs to be fixed. The main thing we all want is things to be fixed. You wont get that with vague fix tags that say nothing about what needs fixing. All it does is slow down the edit progress. --Mihsfbstadium 06:41, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

I'll make this clear and simple. Read WP:IH and examine the structure specified by that project for Interstate articles. Compare that structure, including the section names, the order of sections, and the exit list guide, to this article. If you don't see any differences or problems with this article, then there's no point continuing this discussion. --TMF ^{Let's Go Mets - Stats} 20:32, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Current state of construction

Can anybody give their input on the current state of construction of i-275? Particularly from Detroit, MI to Sandusky, OH. I heard they have been working on a stretch of that road for about 4 years. Is there any truth to that? ````Chaldean

I-275 actually does not run through the City of Detroit or into Ohio. Perhaps you are referring to its parent, I-75?Thomprod 02:10, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

Rewrite of History section

As suggested, I rewrote the History section as prose and added Wikilinks and web citations. This is my first attempt at such a large edit, so your comments are welcome. Thomprod (talk) 03:00, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Assessment

The article has all the "big four", so it's at C-class - CL — 05:12, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

GA review pass

I have some concerns about the quick pass of this article. Some prose issues from the first section:

• "This area is farmland and residential subdvisions in Frenchtown and Berlin charter townships near the community of Newport." does not make sense
• "There is access to the south side of the airport signed at Eureka Road or to the north side at I-94" Why "or"? Are not both available? What does this mean?
• "...passes a campus of Wayne County Community College and the headquarters of the Visteon Corporation, a major auto parts supplier spun-off from Ford Motor Corporation. Near these two campuses,..." There is only one campus, then there are two??
• "The interchange with the Jeffries": this appears to be a colloquialism for the Jeffries Freeway, and therefore seems to be inappropriate language.

Can either the nominator or reviewer please look again? Thank you. hamiltonstone (talk) 03:05, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

The nominator has addressed these issues. ---Dough4872 18:16, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

I-275 on 1955 planner

Well, if you want to be 100% technical, all of the freeways were shifted around from the 1955 Yellow Book. The Grand Rapids inset shows freeways planned more for the M-6 and M-11 corridors. Based on the plans of the time, I-96 would have cut to the south of Grand Rapids roughly to the north of where M-6 is located now and continued to Benton Harbor. Either I-196 or I-296 would have followed the rough path of M-11 on the west side. The other one would have run up the current US 131 corridor near downtown and over to the I-196 freeway running to Muskegon. Although in 1955, that might have still been I-94, I-94N and maybe I-294. These were rough drawings on maps to show the concept of where to place a corridor, and not exact diagrams for construction. Imzadi 1979 → 21:15, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

The source for I-275 being on the initial plan seems to be this 1955 drawing. However, that routing for the northbound freeway isn't anywhere near the present day routing. In fact the initial northbound leg shown in the drawning is exactly present day I-75 when it turns north from the Fort Street near Grosse Ile until it drifted over exactly follow Telegraph road. It then would have continued on though the meeting of I-96 (Grand River routing) and I-696 (its Eight mile routing) and connected back with the I-75 which was to follow the train tracks to downtown and then looping back to the northeast along a route which seems to be the route eventually chosen for the Lodge.

I posit that drawing shows freeways that were already being planned to be built by MDOT and Wayne County, namely the Lodge and Southfield expressways. They just didn't happen to get Federal blessing. -- KelleyCook (talk) 21:26, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

I don't know what you're looking at. File:Detroit, Michigan 1955 Yellow Book.jpg clearly shows a north–south freeway in the I-275 corridor, albeit farther east. It intersects a freeway that runs "To Lansing" (equivalent to modern I-96) and a freeway that runs east–west across the northern section of the metro area (equivalent to modern I-696). That the lines were shifted farther out in the metro area does not negate the fact that there is a north–south freeway that served the role of what is now I-275, with an intended extension north to a freeway that runs "To Flint". Imzadi 1979 → 22:33, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

I-275 crossings of CSX rail line in Wayne County, Michigan

The article falsely states that I-275 crosses the parallel CSX Transportation tracks three times. It only crosses those tracks twice: once between the Eureka Road interchange and the I-94 junction, and then again between the Ford Road and Plymouth Road interchanges.

Between Eureka Road and Carleton it runs parallel to those tracks (as stated accurately) but it does not cross them at all in that area.

72.240.88.110 (talk) 03:13, 27 September 2017 (UTC)David Patch, Toledo, Ohio.

@72.240.88.110: I just audited the rail crossings against Google Maps, and they're correct, unless names have changed. Imzadi 1979 → 04:36, 27 September 2017 (UTC)

OR?

"I-275 is shown running concurrently with I-96 through Livonia and Farmington Hills on MDOT maps, and other map makers and mapping service providers such as the American Automobile Association, Rand McNally and Google Maps label their maps in accordance with MDOT and not FHWA."

Is this section not WP:OR? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 20:06, 12 October 2022 (UTC)

This is literally a statement of what maps are showing. --Rschen7754 00:15, 13 October 2022 (UTC)

But where is the support for "label their maps in accordance with MDOT and not FHWA." Horse Eye's Back (talk) 00:32, 13 October 2022 (UTC)

Fact: per the FHWA's Route Log and Finder List, as noted in that paragraph in the article, the FHWA considers I-275 to end at the southern interchange with I-96 and M-14, and the agency does not consider I-275 to overlap I-96 and terminate at the northern interchange between I-96, I-696 and M-5.

Fact: in your the sentence, MDOT shows an I-96/I-275 concurrency on their maps, and the other mapmakers repeat that concurrency in their maps, ergo "in accordance with MDOT", but since FHWA does consider that concurrency to exist, those mapmakers then not labeling their maps in accordance with FHWA.

The paragraph in the article literally spells out the discrepancy between federal and state definitions of the highway, and the quoted sentence just states what the state map and those of third parties indicate in terms of the different federal and state definitions. Imzadi 1979 → 00:48, 13 October 2022 (UTC)

But what source says which they label their maps in accordance with? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 00:49, 13 October 2022 (UTC)

Are you suggesting that a newspaper article needs to say that the maps don't agree with the FHWA Route Log and Finder List? –Fredddie™ 00:55, 13 October 2022 (UTC)

A newspaper article would be ok, preferably we would have an academic paper or book. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 01:29, 13 October 2022 (UTC)