Facebook: Lake Charles LA (I-10) Bridge Dangerous. State DOT Response: ??

[racookpe1978]

And "everybody knows" Facebook has no bad quality information ever posted.
LAKE CHARLES, La. -- Thought it might interest most of you who use I-10 to Houston.

I attended a briefing on highway issues in South Louisiana held and hosted
by Congressman at which the main bridge in Lake Charles
was discussed among many other highway issues. Knowing of your frequent
travels to Houston via I-10 thru Lake Charles, I listened carefully when
they rated that bridge. Where the safety scale they use for bridge ratings
rated the bridge in Minneapolis (the one that fell) had a rating of fifty
plus, the Lake Charles bridge has a twenty-four rating, nearly twice as
dangerous.

Then Dr. Movassaghi, my friend and the former Sec. of
Transportation for the state, told me he never uses that bridge. He and
other highway dept. officials use the loop around Lake Charles. Simply put,
they are truly afraid of the bridge and are considering condemning it. I
urge you to preempt them and condemn it on your own when you are driving to
Houston or other points West that go through Lake Charles!!! It is
obviously a very dangerous bridge and should be closed.

P..S. My brother-in-law, Larry, is a "corrosion" specialist and has been for
over 40 years. About 2 years ago he was meeting someone in Lake Charles
and the designated "meeting" point was under the Lake Charles bridge it was
the fastest meeting point for them to do some oilfield stuff. Anyway---he
waited a while and told me that he studied the bottom part of the bridge,
and when he saw the amount and type of corrosion, he was concerned.

He has NEVER driven over the bridge again --and he goes there fairly
regularly--- he ALWAYS uses the I-210 Loop.

Feel free to share this with anyone. It's a choice - and I choose to take
the loop!!!

This came back from someone in San Antonio:
This is on the US Govt Civil Engineering Reports site - interesting some
parts are BLANKED out.

I have been informed that the bridge over Lake Charles in Louisiana on I-10
is rated structurally unsound by the State of Louisiana. My employer has
issued an advisory to all company employees that no company owned vehicle
may use the bridge.

"This advisory is submitted as a directive which restricts the use of the
Calcasieu River and Lake Charles Bridge on Interstate Highway #10 in the
area of Lake Charles, Louisiana (Coordinates 30 degrees 14 minutes and
13.28 seconds N and 93 degrees 14 minutes and 48.41 seconds West).

The above noted bridge is restricted by to "No Travel". This no
travel restriction applies to all vehicles owned and or operated by
[deleted]. Travel in this area must be directed to Interstate Highway #210
(Lake Charles By-Pass) or other routes which by-pass and avoid the above
noted bridge.

The state of Louisiana has rated this bridge at 2.4 on the National Bridge
Inventory Rating Scale of 0 to 9 with 0 being "Failed Condition". The
rating of 2.4 on the Calcasieu River Bridge classes this bridge at or near
"Critical Condition"."

So, how should the State DOT respond? In today's political environment, where the news is demonstrably "pushed" BY the news media to advocate one side of the visible political debate against the other, can any part of the "news media" OR the government OR the state bureaucracy (the DOT itself) be trusted to present in public the actual state of the bridge, and any risks of crossing the bridge on a daily basis? Where does the local engineering community come in - as either defenders of the public statements (if any) by the State DOT or state governments, or as challengers/auditers of the public DOT press releases?

Or is the whole issue itself a hoax?

 

[3DDave]

The Minneapolis bridge was always deficient in that the parts that failed had not been correctly analyzed, so any report of the bridge condition was based on bad information, aggravated because no one did a complete analysis and plan for the bridge improvement, leaving it to eye balling the placement of materials.

I think the best response is no response. Recall that Audi attempted to defend against the smear campaign for unintended acceleration and it cost them. Without detailed information, there is no basis to defend or decry by the local engineering community. The most pro-active thing is, like on the Minneapolis bridge, to note any items that are deformed in ways that are not in accordance with the plans. From "Engineer's of Dreams" the failure of the Quebec Bridge was easily avoidable had anyone stopped the process when bent beams were first noted. Likewise the bowed plates on the Minneapolis bridge were an early warning that flaws were overlooked.