Talk:Interstate 35W (Minnesota)

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 This article is within the scope of the U.S. Roads WikiProject, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to 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.
Topics Interstate Highways Minnesota State Highways
B This article has been rated as B-Class on the quality scale. (add assessment comments)
High This article has been rated as High-importance on the importance scale.
This article needs a map. Please work with the Maps task force to create and add a map to this article.
WikiProject Minnesota This article is within the scope of WikiProject Minnesota, which aims to improve all articles related to Minnesota.
B This article has been rated as B-Class on the assessment scale.
Mid This article is on a subject of mid-importance within Minnesota articles.

This article has been rated for quality and/or importance but has no comments yet. If appropriate, please review the article and then leave comments here to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the article and what work it will need.

Contents

[edit] Bridge and discontinuity

It makes sense to say that the route is now discontinuous, as it is now impossible to travel from one end to the other. The fact that the bridge will eventually be replaced is irrelevant. --TMF Let's Go Mets - Stats 04:20, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

  • I tend to agree with this - the fact that the bridge is gone - temporarily or not - makes it discontinuous right now - until a new bridge is opened. master sonT - C 04:28, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Support. I support keeping the statement that the route is discontinuous, as it will be for some significant amount of time. Obviously the bridge isn't going to be repaired over night. --Son 04:36, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
  • The route isn't intended to be discontinuous. Looking at the list List of gaps in Interstate Highways, I don't see any criteria in there saying that a demolished or destroyed bridge makes a route discontinuous. Just mentioning the collapse of the bridge in the article is enough to make most reasonable readers realize that you can't drive from Forest Lake to Burnsville any more via I-35W, whether we use the term "discontinuous" or not. I'd suggest calling MnDOT in the morning to ask if the route is now discontinuous, but they'll probably be preoccupied. --Elkman (Elkspeak) 04:49, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
    • We don't need anything official to say the route is separated nor do we need anything official to say the route is discontinuous. To me, a road is discontinuous when it's no longer connected, and 35W is no longer whole. Regardless, right now, the lead of the article makes no mention of the fact that the entirety of the route is no longer navigable from beginning to end, when the purpose of the lead is to provide a summary of the article. --TMF Let's Go Mets - Stats 05:00, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
      • Yeah, the bridge is currently destroyed, therefore I-35W is discontinuous at the moment. -- JA10 Talk • Contribs 05:05, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
I would have to disagree. As someone who lives in California, we experience many structural collapses, recently the Mac Arthur Maze. We still consider the route to be continuous, only if the DOT decides to rebuild the structure in any shape or form. --wL<speak·check> 05:19, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
But the road is no longer physically continuous. To call the road continuous when it physically is not is heavily misleading. --TMF Let's Go Mets - Stats 05:22, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
Currently, I-35W has no alignment over the Mississippi, and the DOT has not anounced a change on the routing. So, 35W can't fly over the river without a bridge, meaning its discontinuous. -- JA10 Talk • Contribs 05:27, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
It's just as discontinuous as Texas State Highway 87. There's a chunk missing; nobody can properly clinch I-35W until the bridge is rebuilt. —Scott5114↗ 05:36, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

It's not a discontinuous route officially, no more than a route with a rolling roadblock or a temporary closure is discontinuous. We shouldn't use terms that imply an official discontinuity, but we can certainly say that it's partly closed. Now, on a more practical note, have they announced where traffic will be required to exit in each direction? This will be good for the exit list. --NE2 05:38, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

On a related, note, though, I think we should add a "Bridge rebuilding" subsection to the Future section where information on a rebuilding schedule, etc. can be added as the information becomes avaialble. I suppose we could put one there now because, even though the official word is that it's too early to speculate on such a project, it's just common sense that a new bridge will have to be constructed, and as quickly as possible given the route's major importance to the area. 68.146.47.196 11:59, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

Not until we have a source that officially states that a rebuilding has been confirmed master sonT - C 13:05, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

Update: MN-280 was designated the Detour route (intersections being closed to convert it to a temporary freeway) so 35W is not discontinuous after all. master sonT - C 12:44, 2 August 2007 (UTC)


Comment - Please keep in mind original research. Personally concluding that I-35W is discontinuous because the bridge is currently destroyed is original research. Writing these articles is not that difficult. Just use whatever reliable sources say is going on. If reliable sources say it is discontinuous, then use that. If reliable sources say something else, then use that. -- Jreferee (Talk) 18:38, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

If it isn't physically continuous, it's discontinuous. It's common sense to me. But the creation of an official detour along TH 280 makes this whole discussion a moot point. --TMF Let's Go Mets - Stats 19:14, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Exit list

Sorry about the temporarily missing county route shields; they're all uploaded now. --NE2 23:59, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] I added a geo coords for the Crosstown Commons

I wanted the reader to see how Crosstown Commons is laid out and I added a link to maps, but the template I used has the side effect of adding a link to the upper-right-hand corner. I hope that such is tolerable.--SallyForth123 00:02, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] According to the bridge collapse article...

A section of I-35W got reopened. Could someone who is familiar with the area fix the article? --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 22:02, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Mississippi River crossing debate

I combined the History and Future sections into a History section since the future is really just history altogether. I also advise that the I-35W collapse information is NOT relevant to this article other than the bridge collapsed and interrupted the highway. The height of the bridge, the span of the bridge, when it went down, the number of deaths, etc these are not relevant to the HIGHWAY. There are many articles which contain this information on Wiki and do not need to be repeated here, that is why we have links. Its only because people are being blasted by CNN every two seconds that somehow there feels a need to report it on Wikipedia. Ahem, media does not dictate what is more important on Wikipedia. And should people feel zealous to do more improvements, 35W is undergoing major modifications including the Cedar Lake Road reconstruction and Lake Street Access project both which will drastically change the highway through Minneapolis. Go do some sourcing it's out there but not on your television. Davumaya 20:41, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

This is called summary style. Summary style is not too laconic that it leaves out major details. --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 20:44, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
Sure, a RELEVANT summary though. The bridge's purpose to 35W, not the incident's relation to transportation. Davumaya 20:55, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
This is highly relevant, and the summary does not relate to transportation. Furthermore, when people start reverting you, that is an indication that consensus may be against your changes. --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 20:58, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
Lol the delusional consensus of two people. Do what you like Rschen7754, I am not stopping you from clicking the edit button. Davumaya 21:02, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Summary style, section 2.1: for those not wanting to slog through the bridge collapse article, a brief summary should be given in this article. --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 21:13, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
Agreed, the use of summary style is logical, works well in this case, and is usually recommended by the FA people. Also, history and future should really be separate; putting them together could be confusing.—Scott5114↗ 21:17, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
  • I'm putting forward what is at debate is yes having the section but not in the detail that it is. I would kindly ask Rschen7754 that you elaborate how the specific details of the event relate to the highway itself. The specific details of: the redundacy of indicating it was near University Avenue (it is near Washington Ave, above West River Parkway and 2nd Street SE and near Main Street, are you even from Minneapolis to know the redundancy of this?), the redundancy of saying the Mississippi Bridge fell into the Mississippi, what time it occurred, the fact it is a metal arch bridge, the length and height. These parts I disagree with because should I want those details I would go immediately to the related article itself. A SUMMARY does not include these specific details. I'm just a bit baffled at your insistence to continually include them when your contact stays relatively intact and the fact you cannot see the redundancy in a lot of it. No one has argued for the specific details but for merely a summary which is not the same. I would ask other contributors to debate on the details in which I am proposing to remove. I am aghast at the effort to do this mere simple improvement to the article. .:DavuMaya:. 21:04, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

On Wednesday, August 1, 2007, a portion of the I-35W Mississippi River bridge near University Avenue in the city of Minneapolis collapsed into the Mississippi River around 6:05pm CDT. The metal arch bridge had a length of approximately 1,900 feet (580 m) and a roadway height of over 100 feet (30 m) above the river. The bridge connected Minneapolis southwest of the Mississippi River to Northeast Minneapolis and served residents in the northern suburbs of the metro area.[11][12][13] A replacement bridge is in the planning stage; it is expected to be complete by late 2008.[14]

Revised:

On August 1, 2007, a portion of the I-35W Mississippi River bridge the city of Minneapolis collapsed. The bridge connected Minneapolis southwest of the Mississippi River to Northeast Minneapolis and served residents in the northern suburbs of the metro area. A replacement bridge is in the planning stage; it is expected to be complete by late 2008.[14]

  • The details explain the significance of the bridge. Furthermore, as the bridge was a part of the highway, details about it should be included regardless. --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 21:33, 1 September 2007 (UTC)