I-65 Indiana

[pianocello]

That is the one they built the interchange under the bridge. Same design as Beech Grove/I-465 but under the bridge.

Then of course Columbus/Cummins went and put their 2 cents in and had built some architectural marvel.

I love Columbus. But I swear everything in that town is completely over the top compared to what it needs to be.

I realize that is on purpose, Cummins deems it a requirement to attract talent.

There are legitimate structural reasons to build the arch bridge there... the interchange configuration requires longer bridges than if it were just a standard overpass. It could have been built with standard beams and girders, but those would have to raise the profile of I-65 to get enough clearance underneath. Instead, they just held up the whole thing with the arch. The fact that it looks nice may have factored into the decision to go that route, but I doubt it would be there if there weren't other good reasons to build it that way.

That said, it's a shame they didn't design it with enough space for a third lane on I-65. Unless they can replace the arch to leave enough room (and strength) for widening on the inside?

[Moose]

That is the one they built the interchange under the bridge. Same design as Beech Grove/I-465 but under the bridge.

Then of course Columbus/Cummins went and put their 2 cents in and had built some architectural marvel.

I love Columbus. But I swear everything in that town is completely over the top compared to what it needs to be.

I realize that is on purpose, Cummins deems it a requirement to attract talent.

There are legitimate structural reasons to build the arch bridge there... the interchange configuration requires longer bridges than if it were just a standard overpass. It could have been built with standard beams and girders, but those would have to raise the profile of I-65 to get enough clearance underneath. Instead, they just held up the whole thing with the arch. The fact that it looks nice may have factored into the decision to go that route, but I doubt it would be there if there weren't other good reasons to build it that way.

That said, it's a shame they didn't design it with enough space for a third lane on I-65. Unless they can replace the arch to leave enough room (and strength) for widening on the inside?

Its apparent you don't know how Columbus is... one only need look down the road but a mile to find a cable stayed bridge over a tiny river....

https://dailyjournal.net/2023/06/21/work-in-i-65-bridge-at-s-r-46-nears-end-new-signal-planned-nearby/

https://www.fhwa.dot.gov/eihd/columbus.cfm

https://www.aisc.org/globalassets/modern-steel/archives/1998/09/1998v09_columbus_gateway.pdf

Its a one off custom project from 1998 with the primary goal of being a welcoming landmark that looks good. Because it's Columbus..  There were cheaper ways to do that. But the locals got a special grant to do that and INDOT just said okay, as long as they are paying for it.

Ether way, it's going to be an obstacle to adding a lane, as they just spent a ton of money fixing that thing.

[pianocello]

Its apparent you don't know how Columbus is...

Ya got me there. I've stopped for coffee there in the middle of the night on a road trip, but that's about all the experience I have with the town.

Also don't get me wrong; I love that Columbus was able to find a way to stand out, especially along an INDOT roadway. I was just trying to rationalize the decision that was made to build the arched overpass in the first place; the grant makes it make more sense.

[Rothman]

Columbus = good architecture.

[Revive 755]

Ether way, it's going to be an obstacle to adding a lane, as they just spent a ton of money fixing that thing.

Looks like three lanes could be squeezed onto the existing bridge, although without shoulders.

[silverback1065]

Ether way, it's going to be an obstacle to adding a lane, as they just spent a ton of money fixing that thing.

Looks like three lanes could be squeezed onto the existing bridge, although without shoulders.

That would require a Level 1 Design Exception with the Feds, those aren't fun to do, they would likely not allow it.

[Revive 755]

^ Considering the number of interstate bridges with narrow or nonexistent shoulders out there (some which are not all that old), and depending how difficult Columbus wants to be, I could see that one being allowed.

[JREwing78]

AADTs in the area are around 40,000 vehicles per day on I-65; that's a busy 4-lane Interstate, but manageable. InDOT could get away with a SBD lane drop and NBD lane addition on I-65 at IN-46 if and when they bring the 6-lane section that far south. AADTs continue to drop south of Columbus, so there's no pressing need to widen this overpass.

Barring an unexpectedly large increase in traffic on I-65 in the next 20 years, this overpass will likely be adequate until its age dictates replacement.

[Moose]

Columbus = good architecture.

Columbus (because of Cummins) wants to be on the forefront of modern architectural design.
Most of that is buildings, but it extends to road infrastructure.

I will limit my further comments to the road infrastructure part, but the I-65 into town on IN-46 is seen to be the "Chance to make a great first impression" Hence the absolutely over the top cable stay bridges. Its a good thing for making good first impression. but it's a terribly expensive and over the top way of making a highway into town.

Like making IN-46 limited access near the river...
https://www.cmtengr.com/project/sr-46-and-sr-11-interchange/

Cummins is part of the driving force. They have thier fingers in everything that goes on in that town.
"INDOT, City of Columbus, L&I Railroad, and Cummins joined forces to have an interchange constructed. This project eliminates delays and greatly improves safety. The ramp junction with SR 11 also implements a Green-T intersection, a first of its kind in Indiana. "

[I-55]

^ Considering the number of interstate bridges with narrow or nonexistent shoulders out there (some which are not all that old), and depending how difficult Columbus wants to be, I could see that one being allowed.

I don't know of any INDOT bridges that have shoulder drop offs on interstate highways, hence I think the issues will come from them. INDOT will want consistency.

AADTs in the area are around 40,000 vehicles per day on I-65; that's a busy 4-lane Interstate, but manageable. InDOT could get away with a SBD lane drop and NBD lane addition on I-65 at IN-46 if and when they bring the 6-lane section that far south. AADTs continue to drop south of Columbus, so there's no pressing need to widen this overpass.

Barring an unexpectedly large increase in traffic on I-65 in the next 20 years, this overpass will likely be adequate until its age dictates replacement.

In the same way, INDOT will want a consistent 6 lane corridor. If anything, having the right lane exit off will just cause more issues with trucks merging at the last minute.

[I-55]

The northbound lanes are now open between US 52 and SR 47. They weren't open last weekend when I drove through.

Here's a link to the traffic cameras