Talk:District of Columbia Route 295

Bridge dates

WikiProject class rating

This article was automatically assessed because at least one WikiProject had rated the article as start, and the rating on other projects was brought up to start class. BetacommandBot 15:25, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Merger proposal

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

The result of this discussion was no consensus. Daybeers (talk) 20:22, 10 April 2018 (UTC)

---

Since I-295 and DC 295 are both part of the Anacostia Freeway, and one highway transitions to the other at the I-695 junction, I propose that District of Columbia Route 295 be merged with Interstate 295 (Maryland–District of Columbia) into the single article Anacostia Freeway. I believe that the content in both articles can more easily be explained in the context of the single Anacostia Freeway, and that the merged article will not be too large nor will it cause any problems as far as undue weight is concerned. Greggens (talk) 08:49, 25 December 2016 (UTC)

• Don't merge - Its not a single freeway. DC 295 slightly more the Kenilworth Avenue Freeway than it is the Anacostia Freeway. In any case, its designation as the only district route deserves its own article. Famartin (talk) 12:29, 25 December 2016 (UTC)
• Oppose - I-295 and DC 295 are separate roads worthy of their own articles despite sharing a route number. Dough4872 16:05, 25 December 2016 (UTC)
• Lean support. The opposing !votes haven't done enough to convince me otherwise. –Fredddie™ 02:52, 26 December 2016 (UTC)
• Lean support: I like the concept of combining these two highways into one article. Its designation as the only DC-numbered route is less convincing in opposition than its number matching I-295 is in supporting the merge. However, I have a couple concerns:
  1. What is the official name of the freeway between East Capitol Street and Eastern Avenue that is sometimes called Kenilworth Avenue? If the official name is Anacostia Freeway, then we have strong evidence for making this move.
     • DC DOT lists it as Kenilworth Ave northeast of Capitol Street. http://ddot.dc.gov/sites/default/files/dc/sites/ddot/publication/attachments/FunctionalClass_2016.pdf Famartin (talk) 01:05, 27 December 2016 (UTC)

     • That map you linked is inconclusive. Kenilworth Avenue is the name given to the Frontage road on either side of the freeway as well, and the map, whose labels are rather sloppily applied, could just as easily be using that name to apply to just the two frontage roads. An actual text confirmation of the name would be best to settle such a dispute, a map with sloppily added street labels is hardly useful here. --Jayron32 20:50, 14 February 2017 (UTC)
     • FYI, if we're going to use a map, Google maps has labels which are much more clearly attached to specific roadways, and uses "Anacostia Freeway" for the whole thing, and uses "Kenilworth Avenue" for both frontage roads. --Jayron32 20:52, 14 February 2017 (UTC)

  2. Can we move Interstate 695 (District of Columbia) to Southeast Freeway (District of Columbia) if the 295 move occurs? I-695 has only been signed since 2011, so I suspect Southeast Freeway is the common name. I am fine with leaving I-395 as is.  VC  00:45, 27 December 2016 (UTC)
     • Why would we do that? While the name is used in reference to the road, it is not signed "Southeast Freeway" anywhere I have seen. Certainly, not along the main highways connecting to it, which sign is strictly as 695. That name is also not listed on the DC DOT map. While it was a name once used, it doesn't seem to be officially supported any longer, certainly not with any strength to rename the article. A redirect from Southeast Freeway to 695 is more appropriate. Famartin (talk) 01:05, 27 December 2016 (UTC)
• Support merge: It's a single, continuous road carrying the same route number, therefore it serves our readers better to treat it as a single article. There is precedent for treating such roads under one article, for example Interstate 540 and North Carolina Highway 540 and Interstate 15 in California/California State Route 15 and Interstate 110 and State Route 110 (California). I would agree that where a route number transitions from one facility to another, OR when one single continuous facility has multiple route numbers that enter and leave at different places to continue themselves on different roads, it would make sense to maintain different articles, but functionally I-295/DC 295/Anacostia Freeway/Kenilworth Avenue Freeway is functionally a single road. It makes more sense to treat it as such. --Jayron32 20:42, 14 February 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose The California examples work, but to list a technical standpoint, this I-295 is in DC and Maryland. I don't see a DC route on a part-Maryland article working out, even if it's less than a mile. To further my point, Pennsylvania Route 426, literally cut in half by New York State Route 426, has been kept separated. Cards84664 (talk) 22:10, 14 February 2017 (UTC)

However, to counter this, I will support the merge if I-295 (and possibly other aux Interstates) get individual state articles. (for example, CA 15 is only listed on I-15 in California.) (And yes, I am aware we don't do that.) Cards84664 (talk) 22:35, 14 February 2017 (UTC)

• Well, to give a counter-example, we have Route 286 (Massachusetts – New Hampshire) and Route 54 (Delaware–Maryland) which seem to work fine. --Jayron32 03:47, 15 February 2017 (UTC)

  Also, we only split interstates into different articles for each state if and only if the route is too long to handle in one article; in cases where length is not an issue, we keep interstate articles as a single article. Interstate 93 enters 3 states, but we don't split it up, as does Interstate 275 (Ohio–Indiana–Kentucky). There's no reason to have two separate articles for each of Maryland and DC for a route that is only 8 miles long. We don't create articles just to have them, we create them because we need them. --Jayron32 03:51, 15 February 2017 (UTC)

  So if we combine routes with the same number, they are both dwarfed in size next to Maryland 295. You're basically saying we can't merge that because while it's on the same freeway, it ends one ramp away from the border? It would be less confusing if we kept everything separated. Cards84664 (talk) 12:54, 15 February 2017 (UTC)

  I wouldn't include Maryland 295 in the routing; after all a section of Maryland 201 separates the Anacostia Freeway (I/DC 95) from MD 295 (Which begins at the U.S. 50 Interchange). Separate articles for the Anacostia Freeway and the Baltimore-Washington Parkway does make sense here, similar to the way that the Dan Ryan Expressway and the Kennedy Expressway have separate articles; though they continue through the Circle Interchange that location provides a clear delineation point between the two roads. --Jayron32 13:29, 15 February 2017 (UTC)

  How about making an article/draft for the Anacostia Freeway, give it a major junctions list, and we let everyone else debate over deleting the separate articles. Cards84664 (talk) 13:50, 15 February 2017 (UTC)

  Honestly, the Dan Ryan and Kennedy Expressway articles should redirect to Interstate 90 in Illinois much like Chicago Skyway and Northwest Tollway already do. That hasn't happened yet, probably because of I-94. –Fredddie™ 22:29, 15 February 2017 (UTC)

  A significant portion of the Kennedy is neither I-94 nor I-90. --Jayron32 15:52, 16 February 2017 (UTC)

• Oppose as DC 295 also includes Kenilworth Avenue per the excellent work above to look into it. Smartyllama (talk) 20:14, 3 May 2017 (UTC)

  No, it doesn't. There are two maps above: One is inconclusive because the labels are sloppily applied, and one conclusively shows the Anacostia Freeway on the whole length, with Kenilworth Avenue applied to the frontage roads. Try again. --Jayron32 15:11, 4 May 2017 (UTC)

  • No, you're reasoning is faulty. Google "Kenilworth Avenue Freeway". The Google labels are the ones slopilly applied. Famartin (talk) 16:40, 4 May 2017 (UTC)

• Oppose The highways are notable on their on right. — JJBers 16:39, 22 May 2017 (UTC)
• Support, but with a different title. How about Interstate 295 and District of Columbia Route 295? Similar to Interstate 210 and State Route 210 (California) and other examples proposed by Jayron32, but not with a parenthetical suffix because I-295 also goes to MD. epicgenius (talk) 00:18, 23 October 2017 (UTC)
• Support: I was going to close this merger proposal since there hasn't been any activity in a while, but seeing as it was fairly controversial, I was thinking maybe we could come to a consensus on it. I personally support the merger, but with the combined title epicgenius came up with above. –Daybeers (talk) 08:48, 5 March 2018 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Inaccurate/obsolete map

This map is apparently at least 12 years old. It was actually NEVER accurate/correct—as the entire length of I-295 has always, only been on the east (south) side of the Anacostia river. In addition to this blatant error, there have been major construction projects involving a new interstate, new bridges and various route changes. Would anyone like to update it or post a new map? 69.143.86.83 (talk) 20:28, 4 May 2019 (UTC)

I went ahead and made an interactive map. –Fredddie™ 02:49, 6 May 2019 (UTC)