I-95/Penna Turnpike Interchange

[jemacedo9]

Also, just for comparisons sake, the PA Turnpike has the same issue with the Northeast Extension. In their case, exiting from the PA Turnpike mainline (I-276) onto the Northeast Extension (I-476 North) does not have an exit number either.

Even better, headed southbound on the NE Extension I-476, the exits to I-276 either direction are not numbered, but continuing straight on I-476 South IS labeled at Exit 20 | Mid-County, with left exit tabs.

NJ Turnpike does the same type of thing with the Newark Bay extension. If you're going West, the continuation of I-78 is signed as Exit 14. And up until recently, the "exit" for it from the main line didn't have its own exit number. The sign said "Exits 14, 14A, 14B, 14C". It was only recently condensed into an exit tab that says "Exits 14-14C". That still treats the Newark Bay extension as a giant exit ramp. And I could have sworn that the mid-county interchange had a list of exit numbers for all movements within the toll zone in the same way.

Heading eastbound on I-276, there is a sign that indicates I-276 East | Exits 339-359 and I-476 North | Exits 31 - 131.  Heading southbound on I-476, there is a similar sign (I-276 East | Exits 339 - 359 and I-276 West | Exits 333 - 2).  I can't remember if one exists on westbound I-276.

[roadman65]

FDOT before it adopted mile based exit numbers had at the east end of I-4 Exit 58 for straight through SR 400 with the ramps for I-95 not having exit numbers.   Of course I-4 is not a toll road, but it used the same concept as the NJ Turnpike uses at Exit 14.

BTW the Exit 14 is not an actual exit, but rather the number for the plaza.   Even if the NJTA did finally go mile based, I am sure of it that the I-78 through sign on the Newark Bay Extension would use the Turnpike mainline mile based exit number for the toll barrier.

Also another thing to figure if the NJ Turnpike did go mile based you would actually see exit numbers appear for the unnumbered exit for Columbus Drive in Jersey City, and for NJ 140 in Carneys Point.  The Exit 1 toll plaza would use the mile marker its at, so it would be one number more than what NJ 140 would be.  Also with the I-78 extension the 14C toll would be 2 numbers less than Columbus Drive.

Right now they cannot use exit numbers for reasons discussed because of the way the sequential system is into the closed ticket system and I doubt the NJTA will ever convert despite the rest of NJ been mile based for years.  I do not think NJDOT is like PennDOT where they used influence to PTC for going along with them on their campaign to change all exit numbers.  In NJ the NJDOT minds their own business and lets NJTA do what they want.

[NJRoadfan]

Current Exit 14 lines up with MP 59 or 60 (can't remember off hand) on both I-78 and I-95. One could sign the same exit all around.

[roadman65]

Current Exit 14 lines up with MP 59 or 60 (can't remember off hand) on both I-78 and I-95. One could sign the same exit all around.

If they use the I-95 scheme north of Exit 6 it would be.

IMO opinion if NJTA went mile based I believe that the Newark Bay Extension should be using I-78 mile markers from the Delaware River in Phillipsburg.  I do not think that using N whatever number would be right even though the next state NYSTA used them for I-190 in Buffalo at one time.  Even with that you have numbers on the Niagara Section that duplicate the I-87 numbering on the mainline Thruway, as NYSTA dropped the N prefix decades ago, but people from Buffalo do not consider the Niagara Extension to be the Thruway proper and most likely call it the one ninety or the one ninety thruway. So therefore no confusion plus the fact the Thruway Exits 3 and 4 for example which are in Westchester County are far enough away from Buffalo not to conflict anyway.

[PHLBOS]

Update regarding my posted comment on the I-95 link site a couple pages back (Reply #1064).  To my surprise, I received a reply (via email) the very next day.  According to the person that replied to me; the I-695 designation was indeed pondered but was discarded on the grounds that even 3dis have to connect to their parent route at both ends.  Needless to say, I replied back with several examples where such wasn't the case (including I-476 with respect to I-76).

The person also mentioned that the usual decision was already made circa 2015 yadda yadda yadda (I already knew that & mentioned such in my original comment).  And I replied that had I known of the exact site (since this redesignation involves/impacts three different transportation agencies) I would've chimed in sooner.

I also commented that a couple compromises should've been made with the extended I-295 option: one of them basically switching the east/west and north/south directions on the soon-to-be-former I-95 legs.  I also stated that had NJDOT objected to an additional I-295 direction cardinal change in a location that was within the state (at the US 1 interchange); the I-695 option should've been mandated right then & there.

I also posted a GSV link in my reply as towards how VADOT handled the curl along I-64 in the Norfolk area; no direction cardinals are used but supplemental INNER/OUTER LOOP signs are posted nearby and suggested that such be done for I-295 between the PA State Line and US 1.  Such would allow the PA stretch to remain rightfully marked as a north/south road regardless of what number was chosen (I-295, 395, 695).

Today I received another reply thanking for my insights but basically telling me what's done is done.  No surprise there.

While I wasn't personally expecting any change; I still felt compelled to post my thoughts on the matter.

[jp the roadgeek]

Current Exit 14 lines up with MP 59 or 60 (can't remember off hand) on both I-78 and I-95. One could sign the same exit all around.

If they use the I-95 scheme north of Exit 6 it would be.

They would both be Exit 59. 

[jeffandnicole]

...Today I received another reply thanking for my insights but basically telling me what's done is done.  No surprise there.

While I wasn't personally expecting any change; I still felt compelled to post my thoughts on the matter.

I think these agencies get quite of bit of correspondence in this manner: They look at an issue for 5, 10, 20 years. Hold meetings. Ask for input, etc. They get very little in response. They draw up plans, put it out to bid, and choose the winning bidder.  They go to do the road work, and suddenly get an avalanche of calls, emails and bad press from the general public claiming they never got a chance to say anything and they want the whole project changed at the 13th hour.

They were no doubt very gracious in their response, but it's probably a bit annoying to them to continue to have to deal with an issue that was agreed upon 3 years ago. Heck, even in that time we as a group were probably some of the very few people that knew it would be 295. There was still ample time to write the emails during that time...when there was still limited opportunity to lobby for a change.

[PHLBOS]

I think these agencies get quite of bit of correspondence in this manner: They look at an issue for 5, 10, 20 years. Hold meetings. Ask for input, etc. They get very little in response. They draw up plans, put it out to bid, and choose the winning bidder.  They go to do the road work, and suddenly get an avalanche of calls, emails and bad press from the general public claiming they never got a chance to say anything and they want the whole project changed at the 13th hour.

While true; aside from the I-95/PA Turnpike interchange ramp construction, the bulk of this project involves simply changing & updating signs. 

Should there be enough negative feedbacks regarding the signs' notations (after such are erected); unlike complaints regarding a ramp or the road design itself, remediation/correction efforts can be conceivably done in short order. 

[J N Winkler]

I think these agencies get quite of bit of correspondence in this manner: They look at an issue for 5, 10, 20 years. Hold meetings. Ask for input, etc. They get very little in response. They draw up plans, put it out to bid, and choose the winning bidder.  They go to do the road work, and suddenly get an avalanche of calls, emails and bad press from the general public claiming they never got a chance to say anything and they want the whole project changed at the 13th hour.

On the other hand, the agencies involved (FHWA, PTC, PennDOT, and NJDOT) could have done much more to solicit views from the public before committing to a particular redesignation plan.  What they were going to do has many similarities to what Arizona DOT proposed to do with I-19 about 14 years ago, which was to change from km-based to mile-based signing with corresponding changes in exit numbers.  A webpage (now no longer online) was created to outline the proposed change and invite public comment.  It included pattern-accurate sign illustrations showing the suggested "Old Exit" treatment.

They were no doubt very gracious in their response, but it's probably a bit annoying to them to continue to have to deal with an issue that was agreed upon 3 years ago. Heck, even in that time we as a group were probably some of the very few people that knew it would be 295. There was still ample time to write the emails during that time...when there was still limited opportunity to lobby for a change.

It is hard to comment on a proposed change without knowing precisely what it is.  The decision to go for I-295 was actually made midway through the advertising period for the main I-95/Turnpike contract (PennDOT ECMS 95444), and resulted in 88 sheets of addendum revisions to the part of the plans set that deals with I-95 redesignation.  PTC has its own letting platform and requires a difficult process for contractor registration to get access to construction plans.  It was not widely known that the I-95/Turnpike contract was cross-posted to PennDOT's ECMS, which does have anonymous guest access.  (In fact, I found the contract only after a routine run of a script that harvests contracts from the ECMS and is coded to ignore projects that are still open for bidding.)  And although I have mentioned ECMS and explained how to access it multiple times on this forum, I think I am still one of fewer than five forum regulars actually using it.

"Annoying" is not the phrase I would use for PHLBOS' email.  It may not be communication they want to receive.  However, it is precisely the kind of communication they should expect to receive if they retreat into a smoke-filled room to settle a high-visibility issue such as the route number of a major freeway segment.

[jeffandnicole]

I think these agencies get quite of bit of correspondence in this manner: They look at an issue for 5, 10, 20 years. Hold meetings. Ask for input, etc. They get very little in response. They draw up plans, put it out to bid, and choose the winning bidder.  They go to do the road work, and suddenly get an avalanche of calls, emails and bad press from the general public claiming they never got a chance to say anything and they want the whole project changed at the 13th hour.

On the other hand, the agencies involved (FHWA, PTC, PennDOT, and NJDOT) could have done much more to solicit views from the public before committing to a particular redesignation plan.  What they were going to do has many similarities to what Arizona DOT proposed to do with I-19 about 14 years ago, which was to change from km-based to mile-based signing with corresponding changes in exit numbers.  A webpage (now no longer online) was created to outline the proposed change and invite public comment.  It included pattern-accurate sign illustrations showing the suggested "Old Exit" treatment.

They were no doubt very gracious in their response, but it's probably a bit annoying to them to continue to have to deal with an issue that was agreed upon 3 years ago. Heck, even in that time we as a group were probably some of the very few people that knew it would be 295. There was still ample time to write the emails during that time...when there was still limited opportunity to lobby for a change.

It is hard to comment on a proposed change without knowing precisely what it is.  The decision to go for I-295 was actually made midway through the advertising period for the main I-95/Turnpike contract (PennDOT ECMS 95444), and resulted in 88 sheets of addendum revisions to the part of the plans set that deals with I-95 redesignation.  PTC has its own letting platform and requires a difficult process for contractor registration to get access to construction plans.  It was not widely known that the I-95/Turnpike contract was cross-posted to PennDOT's ECMS, which does have anonymous guest access.  (In fact, I found the contract only after a routine run of a script that harvests contracts from the ECMS and is coded to ignore projects that are still open for bidding.)  And although I have mentioned ECMS and explained how to access it multiple times on this forum, I think I am still one of fewer than five forum regulars actually using it.

"Annoying" is not the phrase I would use for PHLBOS' email.  It may not be communication they want to receive.  However, it is precisely the kind of communication they should expect to receive if they retreat into a smoke-filled room to settle a high-visibility issue such as the route number of a major freeway segment.

To be completely honest, I'm not sure if there truly was a comment period from any agency for this particular renumbering project.  If there was, it was several years ago.  It could've also been part of the larger project's public comment period (the NJ Turnpike widening and/or the PA Turnpike/95 ramp connection).

That said, there's a mountain of difference between what we care about on this group, and what the general public cares about.  In this area, a renumbering of a highway just isn't much of a concern.  Highways, in general, aren't really a concern.  They're jammed...everyone knows it...but people tend to focus more on mass transit and other commuting methods than highways around here.

Using recent news stories articles for reference:

NJ.com (Trenton Times, etc) had a story when the press releases first went out in regards to the renumbering.  As commenters can remain anonymous, the paper tends to get a large amount of comments, and this story proved no different, generating 60 comments.  The largest group of comments went to mocking Philly as a 2nd class city compared to NYC.  Several others dealt with tolls (the Scudders Fall Bridge will become a toll bridge soon) and the 95 issue with the NJ Turnpike. Not a single commenter seemed concerned with 95 being redesigned as 295.  http://www.nj.com/politics/index.ssf/2017/12/interstate_95_near_trenton_is_getting_a_new_number.html

NJ 101.5, the nearly-all NJ radio station, ran a story in early January.  From non-roadgeeks, the only real comment was actually talking about I-287.  Chris and Ray are longtime road enthusiasts who, as you can see, had a lot more knowledge of the situation.  Their discussion generated one additional comment...not really all that concerned about the renumbering.  http://nj1015.com/drive-north-to-go-south-or-is-that-west-why-theyre-renumbering-95295/

Planet Princeton, a local news source, wrote a story which generated 8 comments.  1 actually seemed to touch on the potential confusion...and the writer got it wrong (they were wondering if the cardinal direction wouldn't change at all).  https://planetprinceton.com/2017/12/21/i-95-in-mercer-county-to-be-renamed-i-295-in-early-2018-several-exit-numbers-to-change/

The Bucks County Courier Times, which is the county where the majority of the 95 renumbering will take place, just printed a story regarding the renumbering this past Sunday.  Its Facebook commenting generated 0 responses.  http://www.buckscountycouriertimes.com/news/20180218/project-to-connect-i-95-pa-turnpike-nears-major-milestone?start=2

The Philly Inquirer, the regions largest newspaper, doesn't appear to have written a story at all regarding the renumbering.

So, while we have scores, if not hundreds, of comments on our forum in regards to the renumbering, the millions of general public members in the region are more concerned about, well, just about anything else.

[vdeane]

It doesn't help that the proposed designation kept changing.  First it was I-295, then it was I-195, then I-695 appeared, and then at the 11th hour it was I-295 again.  Might have even been I-395 at some point.  I don't think the issues with the cardinal directions were known until the plans were out, either.

[PHLBOS]

I don't think the issues with the cardinal directions were known until the plans were out, either.

Precisely.

The only reason why I was leaning towards using a different number (I-695) for the I-95 stretch rather than extending the I-295 designation was strictly as a means of logically assigning direction cardinals (E/W for the NJ section, N/S for the PA section; not the other way around).  As I've stated before both here and on the fore-mentioned comments section; if continuing the I-295 designation was chosen, there still should be two direction cardinal change locations rather than one.  Otherwise, such leads to illogical direction cardinals for the old I-95 legs; which is what's presently taking place.  This issue's more pronounced in PA where a very clearly north/south stretch of highway is being signed east/west.  And before one mentions I-295 in DE; there's some differences.

1.  That road is roughly only half of the length as the PA stretch of Future I-295.
2.  Whereas I-295 does just a bend from NJ into DE; I-295, as we all know, does more of an arc around Trenton and into PA (where it, in reality, reverses direction).
3.  The decision for continuation of using the north/south direction cardinals along I-295 into DE was likely based on the notion at the majority of through-traffic mainly from I-95/495 to the NJ Turnpike/US 40 is heading north/south in terms of origin/destination.  Given the absence of the Somerset Freeway (the originally-planned I-95) and the later completion of I-295 roughly a decade after the Somerset Freeway was cancelled; most of the traffic along I-95/295 near Trenton is likely more local.

As far as the public's response to the media stories on this matter are concerned; I, personally, won't think such will take place full-swing until after all the signs are up.  While most won't care what number was chosen (I-295 or I-695 or whatever); they might sound off towards the illogical direction cardinals, particularly along the PA stretch.

Time will tell.

[jeffandnicole]

I don't think the issues with the cardinal directions were known until the plans were out, either.

Precisely.

The only reason why I was leaning towards using a different number (I-695) for the I-95 stretch rather than extending the I-295 designation was strictly as a means of logically assigning direction cardinals (E/W for the NJ section, N/S for the PA section; not the other way around).  As I've stated before both here and on the fore-mentioned comments section; if continuing the I-295 designation was chosen, there still should be two direction cardinal change locations rather than one.  Otherwise, such leads to illogical direction cardinals for the old I-95 legs; which is what's presently taking place.  This issue's more pronounced in PA where a very clearly north/south stretch of highway is being signed east/west.  And before one mentions I-295 in DE; there's some differences.

1.  That road is roughly only half of the length as the PA stretch of Future I-295.
2.  Whereas I-295 does just a bend from NJ into DE; I-295, as we all know, does more of an arc around Trenton and into PA (where it, in reality, reverses direction).
3.  The decision for continuation of using the north/south direction cardinals along I-295 into DE was likely based on the notion at the majority of through-traffic mainly from I-95/495 to the NJ Turnpike/US 40 is heading north/south in terms of origin/destination.  Given the absence of the Somerset Freeway (the originally-planned I-95) and the later completion of I-295 roughly a decade after the Somerset Freeway was cancelled; most of the traffic along I-95/295 near Trenton is likely more local.

As far as the public's response to the media stories on this matter are concerned; I, personally, won't think such will take place full-swing until after all the signs are up.  While most won't care what number was chosen (I-295 or I-695 or whatever); they might sound off towards the illogical direction cardinals, particularly along the PA stretch.

Time will tell.

The biggest change will be when PA starts to do their part - going from 95 North/South to 295 East/West.  Then if there's any noise, we'll hear it then.

As for NJ's changes, I went out at lunch to check everything out.  Basically, all the new mileposts have been installed on both 295 North and South.  Most of the old mileposts still remain as well.  Actually NJDOT was working with one milepost sign, around MP 68 or so.  Not sure what they might've seen, but they were looking at the top of it.

On 295 North, I believe all the overhead signs have been adjusted for the new number up to new 295 Exit 72 (Old I-95 Exit 4), along with some of the new 295 Exit 73 (Old I-95 Exit 3) signs.  Most of the ground-mounted BGS signs have been updated too up to that point.  It appears the old signage prior to new Exit 68 have been removed, but much of the old signage between Exit 68 and the NJ/PA state line remains.  In many cases, new smaller green signs, such as the 'Exit' gore signs, and supplemental signs such as for the College of New Jersey, are being replaced in full.  The new sign sits directly behind the old sign.  Surprisingly, many of these signs are actually slightly larger than the old sign they're replacing.

Most of the Blue Travel Services signs haven't been touched, and of the few that have, they are getting the bad overlay treatment with the new exit number.  As the new number is 2 digits rather than 1, the line will now be off-centered with a slightly different font.

On new 295 South, other than the mileposts, the only signs that have been modified are for new Exit 69A/B (Old Exit 7A/B).

A little surprising is that there's no real advanced notification of the new exit numbers, other than the yellow advisory signage at each exit.  On Rt. 29 North at the last traffic light prior to the I-95 interchange, there is a variable message sign advising motorists of the Exit renumbers on 95.  That was the only thing I saw prior to any of the actual changes.

[bzakharin]

NJ 511 has a warning about the renumbering when you ask for conditions on 295 (and, I assume, the old 95), so there's that at least.

[02 Park Ave]

Probably the best overall solution would have been to redesignate I-295 in DE and up to MM 60 in NJ as "I-195" and redesignate the remainder of I-295 in NJ and I-95 from US 1 in NJ to the PA Tok as "I-276".  Both Interstates could be considered East/West.

As the present I-295 would no longer return to I-95, the I-195 designation would be appropriate.  Extending the I-276 designation would have solved a lot of the concerns previously discussed and its available.

It would have entailed a lot of work but it would have avoided a lot of confusion.

[akotchi]

It will also be interesting when the signing in the Scudder Falls Bridge area is done by DRJTBC . . . because of the ongoing construction and work areas, the changes will likely be to smaller signs (or the addition of them) because the overhead structures probably can't go up yet.  Having seen NJDOT's plans, which include the tie-in to the ultimate signing at the bridge, there is not much notice of the change from North to West except on overhead advance toll signs, which presumably would not go up until just before the toll gantry is operational (a while off, I would think).

[PHLBOS]

Probably the best overall solution would have been to redesignate I-295 in DE and up to MM 60 in NJ as "I-195" and redesignate the remainder of I-295 in NJ and I-95 from US 1 in NJ to the PA Tok as "I-276".  Both Interstates could be considered East/West.

There's a couple flaws in what you're proposing:

1.  At present, only the through-I-95 ramps are being constructed at the PA Turnpike interchange.  The other movement ramps (including the I-276 East to former I-95 North aka your through-I-276 East) are not being constructed at the present time.

2.  As with the earlier "official" proposal to redesignate I-95/295 around Trenton as an extended I-195; the I-195 West to I-295 North movement (your through-I-195) is a single-lane cloverleaf ramp (The I-295 South to I-195 East ramp is similar).  Such is not desirable for a through-route and would require a reconfiguration of a perfectly-functioning 4-way interchange (an added cost).

As the present I-295 would no longer return to I-95, the I-195 designation would be appropriate.  Extending the I-276 designation would have solved a lot of the concerns previously discussed and its available.

As I explained to the individual on the site; there are plenty of even 3-digit Interstates that don't return to their parent route; and, contrary to popular belief, many of those were planned that way (example: I-476 in PA).

[cpzilliacus]

As I explained to the individual on the site; there are plenty of even 3-digit Interstates that don't return to their parent route; and, contrary to popular belief, many of those were planned that way (example: I-476 in PA).

I-270 (formerly I-70S) in Maryland never comes close to returning to its parent route.

[PHLBOS]

As I explained to the individual on the site; there are plenty of even 3-digit Interstates that don't return to their parent route; and, contrary to popular belief, many of those were planned that way (example: I-476 in PA).

I-270 (formerly I-70S) in Maryland never comes close to returning to its parent route.

While true, I was referring to 3-digit Interstate routes that were such from day one.  Regarding your I-270/70S example: one has to wonder why an odd 3-digit number (I-370) wasn't assigned for I-70S.  The argument against such might've been due to the highway not actually ending inside a city. 

[cpzilliacus]

While true, I was referring to 3-digit Interstate routes that were such from day one.  Regarding your I-270/70S example: one has to wonder why an odd 3-digit number (I-370) wasn't assigned for I-70S.  The argument against such might've been due to the highway not actually ending inside a city.

The reason for an even number I heard years ago was that since old I-70S and then I-270 terminated at another "not-dead-end" Interstate (I-495) at the "other end" away from I-70, then it was acceptable to have an even number (not sure I really agree with that - as you suggest, I-70S could have been I-370, with present-day I-370 being I-570, which came many years after I-70S became I-270).

[jeffandnicole]

As I explained to the individual on the site; there are plenty of even 3-digit Interstates that don't return to their parent route; and, contrary to popular belief, many of those were planned that way (example: I-476 in PA).

I-270 (formerly I-70S) in Maryland never comes close to returning to its parent route.

While true, I was referring to 3-digit Interstate routes that were such from day one.  Regarding your I-270/70S example: one has to wonder why an odd 3-digit number (I-370) wasn't assigned for I-70S.  The argument against such might've been due to the highway not actually ending inside a city. 

Heck, the PA Turnpike's I-276 doesn't return to its parent route!

[briantroutman]

The above gets at a question I've long had regarding odd vs. even first digits on 3DIs: What is the official policy, and what should it be? The sample numbering maps in the MUTCD are very simplistic–showing a dead-end spur as odd and a belt that returns to its parent as even.

In practice, a spur that dead-ends at a city, airport, or other non-Interstate road is assigned an odd first digit while a spur that terminates at any other Interstate (not necessarily its parent) is generally even. 3DIs that return to their parent are always even.

As I see it, the only possible value in differentiating between odd and even 3DIs would be if the even 3DIs always returned to their parents. Then–let's say you're driving across the country on fictional I-60, and approaching a city, you need to choose between I-60 and I-460. You could choose either route with the confidence of knowing that you'd stay on the same overall course, even if one route was more traffic congested, more circuitous, etc. than the other.

But if the even first digit simply signifies "I connect to another Interstate" , what value is that to the motorist? (Unless you're a roadgeek trying to soak up as many Interstate miles as possible. But even then, you'd already know what connects to what.)

Granted, we're already at a point where odd/even is basically meaningless from the public's perspective–and we're not about to see a massive nationwide 3DI renumbering–so the entire conversation is academic.

[PHLBOS]

I will give you the short version as listed on many Rand McNally road maps & atlases regarding 3-digit Interstates.

First digit even: route goes through or around a city.

First digit odd: route spurs into a city.

Obviously Rand McNally isn't going to go into a fully-detailed explanation/criteria on a simple map legend geared towards a largely lay audience; but IMHO the above sums it up rather nicely & is reasonably accurate.

Truth be told, I only started hearing of the has to connect to its parent route x number of times mantra when I first joined this site several years ago.

Granted, we’re already at a point where odd/even is basically meaningless from the public’s perspective —and we'’re not about to see a massive nationwide 3DI renumbering— so the entire conversation is academic.

In hindsight, and I even started a what if?-like thread in the Fictional Section some time back, it would've been better to have done the reverse of the odd/even prefix assignments.  Mainly since there are more choices of odd prefixes than even (5 vs. 4) and the fact that there seems to be more routes that go around or through a city rather than ones that simply spur into it.

[Beltway]

As I explained to the individual on the site; there are plenty of even 3-digit Interstates that don't return to their parent route; and, contrary to popular belief, many of those were planned that way (example: I-476 in PA).

I-270 (formerly I-70S) in Maryland never comes close to returning to its parent route.

I-264 in Virginia even ends as a spur to the VA Beach oceanfront area, and it does not have an odd number.

[PHLBOS]

I-264 in Virginia even ends as a spur to the VA Beach oceanfront area, and it does not have an odd number.

Prior to 1995, the eastern terminus of I-264 ended at I-64 while the highway continued as the Virginia Beach Expressway (VA 44).  In between the I-64 connections, I-264 went through Norfolk.