Talk:Interstate 275 (Florida)

U.S. Roads: Interstates / Florida Mid‑importance

	U.S. roads portal This article is within the scope of the U.S. Roads WikiProject, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to state highways and other major roads in the United States. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.U.S. RoadsWikipedia:WikiProject U.S. RoadsTemplate:WikiProject U.S. RoadsU.S. road transport articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
Topics	Interstate Highways
Locations	Florida
	This article has a map. If the file has an error, please work with the Maps department to correct it.
	This article has a junction list compliant with the Manual of Style on road junction lists.
	This article has a KML file. If the file has an error, please work with the Maps department to correct it.

Florida Low‑importance

	Florida portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Florida. If you would like to join us, please visit the project page; if you have any questions, please consult the FAQ.FloridaWikipedia:WikiProject FloridaTemplate:WikiProject FloridaFlorida articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Tampa Bay (inactive)

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Tampa Bay, a project which is currently considered to be inactive.Tampa BayWikipedia:WikiProject Tampa BayTemplate:WikiProject Tampa BayTampa Bay articles

Guild of Copy Editors

This article was copy edited by a member of the Guild of Copy Editors.Guild of Copy EditorsWikipedia:WikiProject Guild of Copy EditorsTemplate:WikiProject Guild of Copy EditorsGuild of Copy Editors articles

Comments

No mention of how I-275 used to be the end of I-75 and ended where I-4 begins today?--71.100.30.187 16:26, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I thought there was somewhere. Maybe in the I-75 article? Or I-4? --wknight94 19:47, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It's mentioned (albeit briefly) in the History section of this article. B.Wind 08:44, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There used to be a online Tampa blog that thoroughly described the history of I-275, as well as thorough descriptions of all the Tampa Bay Interstates and Tollways (even the cancelled ones). But it was permanently shut down as of December 2005. The old address was www.bayciti.net. I have no clue if the website will ever return. Wslupecki 19:48, 28 July 2006 (UTC).[reply]

Malfunction Junction

I heard from both news articles (I cannot locate those at this time) and a now shut-down Tampa Blog (mentioned above), that the I-4/I-275 Interchange, better known as Malfunction Junction, actually earned the notorius nickname about five years after the interchange was built in 1965. At that point, the junction was already seeing rush hour backups due to the immense ammount of traffic that the interstate was handling. This was blamed mostly on the rapid growth of Tampa in the 1970s.

I-75 vs I-275

I-75 is the basic north-south corridor starting in the north east and heading south through Georgia and down Florida's Gulf Coast to Naples, then crosses the state to end in Fort Lauderdale.

I-275 is the loop that branches off from I-75 north of Tampa, goes through Tampa and then over the bridge to Saint Petersburg, then over the Sunshine Skyway Bridge to hook up again with I-75 north of Sarasota.

I-4 sprouts out of the north-south corridor, I-95, on the east coast of Florida and heads down through Orlando to I-75 and then continues into Tampa to end where it pours into I-275 at Malfunction Junction which is pretty much in the middle of downtown Tampa.

I'm writing this because the article did not seem to point out that the bypass is I-275 and the main corridor is I-75. Mattisse 21:45, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I-275 is not a bypass. I-75 is the bypass. --SPUI (T - C) 00:09, 6 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The I-75 "bypass" was originally supposed to be I-75E. But that plan was rejected since Florida does not use split routes. Wslupecki 01:09, 6 August 2006 (UTC).[reply]

History Section Rewritten/Expanded

Thanks to a couple of historical FL interstate websites. I have greatly expanded the history of I-275, however, the section needs an expert review before I can go any further with that section. Wslupecki 14:11, 5 August 2006 (UTC).[reply]

Malfunction Junction opens two new lanes leading to I-4 this week

Reportedly, the opening of these new lanes has made an enormous difference in the backup of traffic around Malfunction Junction. The renovation of this junction is not complete, and the widening and other additions to I-4 is in progress with completion dates several years from now. Mattisse (talk) 12:29, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Malfunction Junction renovation is scheduled to be done by the end of 2006, with the I-4 widening/renovation to be finished by Summer 2008. Most of the new lanes throughout the I-4/I-275 interchange are open at this point and according to FDOT, the I-4 renovation is 80% complete. Wslupecki 01:57, 15 August 2006 (UTC).[reply]

Follow Up - 6/13/07: All new lanes of I-4 through Ybor are now open and the project itself is begining to wrap up. Tampa Bay Interstates has a couple of new photos of I-4 in Ybor and the progress that has been made thus far. Wslupecki 15:14, 13 June 2007 (UTC).[reply]

Nearly one month...and counting for Malfunction Junction

According to this Bay News 9 article, the Malfunction Junction reconstruction is entering the final stage of construction and should be done by mid-October 2006. Is'nt that something to jump for joy for? Wslupecki 16:21, 8 September 2006 (UTC).[reply]

Follow Up - 6/13/07: All of Malfunction Junction, including the ITS component, is complete as of April 2007. All the major work wrapped up back in December 06, but the ITS system was not complete until late March 07. Wslupecki 15:14, 13 June 2007 (UTC).[reply]

Brace yourselves. The I-275 reconstruction is far from over.

As you may know, from a recent St. Petersburg Times article (which I linked in the reference section of the article). The proposed reconstruction project between downtown Tampa and the Howard Frankland Bridge was delayed by about a year after bids that FDOT recieved came in at 40% above original estimates. As a result of this setback, FDOT may reconstruct the interstate in smaller stages. But until how that will be done, expect horrendous backups while commuting to and from downtown (even when Malfunction Junction is finished). Furthermore, expect even worse delays when the construction begins next year, because that renovation project won't be done until 2013 or so. Wslupecki 02:08, 15 August 2006 (UTC).[reply]

Follow Up - 6/13/07: I recently obtained more info regarding the I-275 widening project through Westshore to Downtown. Work will begin in September 2007 and is scheduled for completion around 2013 or 2014. For more info, see the section marked Increased cost of materials delay I-275 widening project. Wslupecki 15:14, 13 June 2007 (UTC).[reply]

Why still "Start"?

This article has a considerable amount of content, and while a clean-up is in order, clean-up is definitely part of the B-class criteria. If we clean this up to the standards it needs to be, it can easily make GA. Why should it be forced to jump from Start to GA that fast? I mean, I've seen much worse articles rated "Start", like the Pinellas Bayway, Florida State Road 692, Interstate 295 (Virginia), and Interstate 95 in Florida, to name a few. Also, I've seen equivalently good (and sometimes worse) B-class articles, such as Interstate 280 (New Jersey), Interstate 78 in New Jersey, Interstate 110 (Florida), and Interstate 5 for instance. I think this needs another look as to whether it truly is B-class or not. If a majority agrees it's just a Start, I'll accept and do what I can to fix it (quicker than I planned to, of course, because you're right, it does need some work), but I think a pularity would feel that this article should be upgraded. Eagles Fan In Tampa (formerly Jimbo) 16:06, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As of right now, the article structure is too jumbled to give this anything higher than start. It also lacks any kind of route description, something that I personally feel is necessary for a road article to be B-class. --TMF ^{Let's Go Mets - Stats} 16:10, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Granted, but if you look at the examples I've provided, you'll see that there are far worse articles at a B-class rating. Yes, it's jumbled, and the B-class definition says the article has "significant gaps or missing elements or references, needs substantial editing for English language usage and/or clarity, balance of content..." which would fit here. However, it also has "a majority of the material needed for a completed article," which is the case here. I still think a rethink is in order for this article. I definitely see your point, but I think qualifies for the criteria set forth and should be moved up. I'm gonna work on it in the meantime, but hopefully to GA, and not just B, as that would be the next step. Check out Interstate 295 (Delaware-New Jersey) for a GA, which is what I feel this article will hit with some thoughtful tweaks. Eagles Fan In Tampa (formerly Jimbo) 16:21, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Some commentary: I personally don't feel that I-295 (DE-NJ) is a GA, nor do I feel that half of the B-class examples you provided deserve to be B-class. I also feel that the B-class criteria should be moved up in that case, as my stance is that a high B-class article should be ready for GA consideration. If you disagree, feel free to file a reassessment here. --TMF ^{Let's Go Mets - Stats} 16:30, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I-375 Notice

On the exit list table, I have marked the I-375 on-ramp from southbound I-275 as "Temporarly Closed" as indicated by the maroon text. This is a result of a tanker fire that has closed the I-375 flyover from SB I-275. More info can be obtained from the reference links on the I-375 page. Wslupecki 14:36, 30 March 2007 (UTC).[reply]

:Follow Up - 4/22/07: WTVT has reported this morning (on Good Day) that the I-375 flyover has REOPENED. Can someone confirm this for me please? I cannot find any articles at this time that states that the ramp has indeed reopened. You may leave any comments on this issue @ the I-375 (FL) Talk page. Thanks. Wslupecki 17:47, 22 April 2007 (UTC).[reply]

Follow Up - 4/23/07: Tampa Bay Interstates has confirmed that the I-375 flyover, which has been closed since March 28 has REOPENED. Wslupecki 12:30, 23 April 2007 (UTC).[reply]

Follow Up - 6/13/07: I have removed the placeholder(s) in the exit table indicating the closure and reopening of the I-375 ramp. Since it has been over a month since the ramp reopened, the placeholders are no longer needed. Wslupecki 15:18, 13 June 2007 (UTC).[reply]

This image

Isnt this image unneeded because even now FL is still making state shields. Their is one state shield post out at 2006 and many others still generating state shield, although the state document MUC...... requires neutral sheild in 1993. I guess the FDOT is declining. Same situation with Georgia, and Idaho. Over summer ID post alot of state sheild, Maryland is also doing this same thing. --Freewayguy (Meet) 20:59, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, I'm confused. The state requires a neutral shield for the interstates but FDOT is continuing to make state shields for the highways? Wslupecki (talk) 01:18, 10 January 2008 (UTC).[reply]

There is no termination of state shields in provincal (Like after 1997 they no longer use state shields). Alot of states does this stuff. Using state shields when docunet requires neutral shields. Idaho DOT requires neutral shields but over 2007 Idaho had like 10 specific state shields, Oregon post 2 state shields on I-105/5 interchange. Much of the black states on interstate-guide is wrong. --Freewayguy (Meet) 20:54, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Are you sure about this? FDOT wrote the document, so not sure how they can decline what they wrote. There is also the possibility that they still have some state specific shields left and are using old inventory. --Holderca1^talk 21:04, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's obviously an old sign, and is marked as such. What's the problem? --NE2 10:43, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There is still numerous new state shields obviously I thought. They I thought is not error. Only if they vioate the state document entry like Missouri posting neutral shields. Also in California the state shields from the 99 to I-205 is missing state name tag. Those is consider error as blue business shields.--Freewayguy (Meet) 20:40, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I still don't know what you are talking about. You need to provide evidence to back up what you are saying. How do you know Florida is still posting state specific shields? Also, what does this comment mean? "Much of the black states on interstate-guide is wrong." --Holderca1^talk 21:02, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Come on guys This was post out like July 2007 as photo on Interstate-Guide. This is not an error but when state document ask state shiled they post nuetral shield than thats an error. I meant the black states on interstate-guide is wrong means the map they use to classify state-nuetral shields is done incorrect or impossible to classify. Flor. is a mix state shiled. I remeber seeing it on interstate-guide on (Flor gallery page) not just I-275 is posting state shields. Kansas should definitely be blue because there is an element making state shields mandatory.--Freewayguy (Meet) 02:09, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That link doesn't say anything about when FDOT posted. The galleries only say when the photo was taken. --Holderca1^talk 02:23, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

In many places the designs usually goes back and forth. Some neutral shields is actually older than state shields. Anyways the sign post can be 3 years older.--Freewayguy (Webmail) 19:55, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

63 miles?

where did the mileage listed for the highway come from? every time i am up at the northern terminus, the final mile marker is 59 something. At most, I'd say it's a 60 mile highway, but not 63. Just wondering where this is proven, because I can't attest to seeing it anywhere but here.--71.100.31.227 (talk) 01:35, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Clever composition

So many earlier writers thought that they were so d***ed clever using terms like "Malfunction Junction". That isn't clever or unique at all, since there have been "Malfunction Junctions" in Atlanta, Birmingham, Knoxville, Nashville, Memphis, Indianapolis, Chicago, Los Angeles, and ....
Beware that when you think you are being SO CLEVER, often you are just being stupid and boring.

Typing things in the raw text like [Pasco County, Floria|Pasco County] is just plain unnecessary. The is only one [Pasco County] in the world, so this works. Likewise for [Pinellas County] and many more. There is only one significant place named [Tampa], so this works, too, in the Wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.81.0.222 (talk) 05:31, 10 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Route description

The route description seems in itself to be history. It does not actually describe the road that well, only focusing on specific sections on the road. The only part of that section that is descriptive is the lane details. I think the route description needs to be redone. Any thoughts? PointsofNoReturn (talk) 21:42, 8 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I wrote a new route description and replaced the old one. The old description had too much history, but instead of deleting the history, I took portions of it and put it in the history section. I also used good parts of the old route description in the new one. If anyone wants to improve the description, feel free to do so. It also needs some pictures. PointsofNoReturn (talk) 18:41, 20 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Interstate 275 (Florida). 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:

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

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 06:16, 12 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Interstate 275 (Florida). 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/20111121040713/http://www.us-highways.com/fli.htm to http://www.us-highways.com/fli.htm

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

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 17:07, 15 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The North and South I-275 Bypasses

The ArchiveBot has preserved some related links to the Robert V. Droz's former site, and I preserved another related to the former I-275 bypasses that existed along Florida State Road 694, Gandy Bridge and Lee Roy Selmon Expressway until the mid-1990's. ---------User:DanTD (talk) 22:04, 20 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Malfunction Junction gets more money Sept. 2021

Not sure whether to put this here, an the I-4 article, or neither. Mapsax (talk) 00:20, 28 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Exit 41C

I don't feel comfortable enough editing the table to add, but there is an Exit 41C as evidenced in this picture on Commons https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Interstate_275_-_Florida_-_6877449452.jpg Mjrmtg (talk) 11:15, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That photo was taken before the current traffic configuration was updated after a 2016 widening project. Exit 41C was the former exit number for the Himes Ave interchange. It is now Exit 41B. Danster813 (talk) 06:08, 30 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

New Construction

We likely will have to update the History and Route Description sections once the current construction projects on the Howard Franklin Bridge, the section between I-4 and US-92/Hillsborough Avenue are complete. Danster813 (talk) 06:33, 30 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]