Bridge Structural Failure Warning: I-10 Lake Charles, Louisiana

Is the railroad bridge next to it in any better condition?

Unknown, we don't drive locomotives so it is not exactly germane to our operations.

For all you asking who is John Galt--- a character in Ayn Rand's novel Atlas Shrugged.

Thanks for the warning. I know someone nearby whom I'll strongly encourage to take that bridge as often as possible.

E, you are such a great friend! =b

BTW I was in Austin last week for the opening of the Lege, If I'da had more time in town (and didn't have a seven year old in tow) I woulda offered to buy you a cuppa coffee or an adult beverage.

I love your John Galt thing. I think the book should be required reading in this day and age. I'm originally from Orange TX and often drive down from Memphis and always use the I10 bridge out of Lake Charles. I'll use 210 from now on. Many thanks for the information. Brenda Patterson

How can a bridge classed as unsafe be left in service? Surely it should be classified with a max weight or max axle weight?

In a litigious society like the states what happens if a vehicle crosses the bridge and it collapses?

Chas

and the vehicle collapses?

It's probably one or more of the following:
False alarm
The people responsible don't know it's dangerous yet
Corruption
Risk assessment (it'll take time to assess and repair the bridge, and it costs for sure to close it...)

It's Louisiana, what can I say? This is the same state that spent all the money that was supposed to go to repairing and maintaining the levees on building casinos (and other assorted payoffs to the well connected). It's like the Chicago Way, only in creole.

Bring it to Illinois and our Gov will sell it to the highest bidder.

Read as unsound, defined well into the warning category, risk is a factor of all conveyance though often overlooked no less the value required of thinking critically.

It should be posted? Yes. What is the time frame and procedure of signage deployment in this state?

If my company did that here in PA we would be out of business. PA is ranked two or three in the nation for number of bridges. Something like one out of every three bridges is ranked deficient one a scale of 1-100 many being under 10 in the area I live. Deficient doesn't mean it's going to fail.

Yes, you are right.
Taking a more reasoned approach than my previous contribution(!): if the bridge is believed to be "near-critical", I assume that it would be continuously monitored, and automatically closed somewhat before it becomes dangerous.

"...it would be continuously monitored..."

Ummm...well, the levees around the Big Easy supposedly WERE continuously monitored...by somebody...and when the time came to warn of a failure, it was after the fact. I can't say as how I'd make that assumption, myself.

I think you're comparing apples to oranges. A bridge is a totally different creature then a levee system is. On a normal basis in PA they are inspected once a year. When there deficiency level drops below a certain point they are inspected and watch more often. The major problem in PA is that there are so many bridges and only a half dozen crews per Engineering District to do the work.

Not all that different I think, but my comparison wasn't bridges to levees, it was "continuously monitored" to "warn in advance". Having the one does not guarantee the other, whether it's a bridge, a levee, or any other structure/system. Besides, catastrophic failure can happen without any overt signs far enough in advance to warn the general public.

So your saying we should put monitoring systems on every know structure out there to know how and when they will fail. You build it I'll be glad to buy it off you. I know structures that have failed after a couple of years in service and others like 250 year old covered bridges where people still drive over. Its not a matter if a man made structure will fail but when, in-order to know when you would have to be god-like. The deficiency scores are a gage for the bridge engineers to know how soon and what parts of the bridge might need work done on it. They are not there to say the bridge is going to fall in to a river. We are supposed to be engineers here not chicken little.

Surely you did not think I meant periodic human monitoring?

Obviously I mean quasi-continuous unattended monitoring using strain gauges and alignment and spacing measures, each of which would have a preset fault level that communicates with the traffic control system so it will automatically set red lights at the entrances to the bridge. That is in place routinely on large bridges (even in Europe), regardless of whether they are considered at risk. Such systems are readily implemented on smaller structures if there is any doubt about integrity. Here is a US example of a consultancy specialising in this line of work.

To my knowledge there is no signage on the approaches to the bridge that would indicate the bridge is in trouble.

Am I thinking of the right area are there not large over hi-way information screens?

There are. A friend of mine was there last week and saw no mention of the bridge being in trouble, although there is certainly the means to make it known.

They aren't even requiring reduced speed? When does that kick in?

There are places in San Antonio where the on-ramp from a street to a highway is not marked at all, anywhere. You find out where it leads only by taking it. Some kind of weird signage phobia there and it's rampant (that's a pun, btw).

Maybe they're looking for someone who can spell the words correctly.

I gather that you do have traffic information systems that currently show nothing. That is as it should be. Warnings and diversions should only be in place when they are needed - i.e. once the monitoring systems indicated that safety factors were being exceeded
(Given the appropriate settings, you would have quite a few minutes in which to divert the traffic).

No, no, not at all. What I meant was that even with a monitoring system of any sort in place, it does not automatically follow that there will be sufficient advance notice (or a recognition of that notice) to sound an alarm. Some catastropic failures can happen nearly instantaneously. Preventive maintenance measures are surely more reliable.

The monitors mainly tell you when and where to provide the preventative maintenance. But, in case of unexpected onset, they can and do warn hours or days in advance of incipient failure (mostly known from scaling the results from models, because the levels should be set so that removing the loading delays the failure long enough to correct the worst of the problem)

Your web site is nice but impractical. You have any idea of the cost to install one of those systems on every bridge out there. In PA alone there are over 4,000 "structurally deficient" bridges those rate less then 50 on a scale of 0-100. Most states barely have the funds to keep up with paving projects let alone replace a bridge that gives you a bumpy ride or needs a new paint job or some of the concrete is scaling.

I've never been on this bridge and without seeing any of the reports no one here can truely say why they scored it the way they did. A bumpy ride just tells me that the riding surface is terrible not the structure of the bridge. If a bridge where to bounce around from one truck driving over it with any type of traffic volume it would have been in the river 7+ years ago.

"Your web site is nice but impractical. You have any idea of the cost to install one of those systems on every bridge out there."

We got billions and billions to give to corrupt bankers, to spend on bonuses, and luxury jets, but no money to monitor and fix our bridges. What the f is wrong with this country?

The latest multi-billion dollar handout package calls for a bunch of bridge and highway repair work. Probably a tenth of what's needed, but it could be a start.

That seems to be the standard "expert" view, but it seems to me that it misses many of the implications.

If one bridge gets close to collapse, preventing that and the attendant costs would save money. If not, it would identify precisely which repairs were needed, and allow the lives of existing bridges to be extended - also saving money overall.

OK, I understand the issues with annual budgets, so you start with the features that you judge to be the most critical.

OK folks lets talk real world not fairy tale time. Money talks and if you don't have the budget it's not going to get fixed no matter how many neat devices we come up with it.

PA has an annual in the red budget of 23 billion dollars. Maintenance and building of our infrastructure is over 85 billion, that's PA only add the other states into it and the money coming in is a drop in the bucket. It will get used on mainly overlay maintenance projects, quick and dirty bridge repairs, and some minor pre designed projects.

I see no extra money to be wasting on a monitoring system that going to cost tens to hundreds of billions of dollars to install on ever bridge. So far the system in place is working fairly well. The main problem is the grading system used and the misinterpretation by Joe public and what those findings/scores mean.

I repeat a low score does mean the bridge is going to fall down at any moment a high score doesn't mean it will last forever. They're rating to let the bridge maintenance personnel know that the bridge may need to be monitored more frequently, repairs need to be done, etc.

I don't think that you have addressed the point I was trying to make, which is that appropriately used, continuous monitoring saves money.
Of course you don't want to monitor everything continuously, just the areas where the trade-off between periodic monitoring, risk and repair/replacement makes it economic. You need to include in your sums the effect of improved targeting of repairs. Also bear in mind that the combination of developments in software and sensors means that the break-even points are shifting with time.
The sums are worth doing - even in cash-strapped PA.

If it so economical why was it used only on a half a dozen bridges, if that, across the country back in '06. Being in on many money "saving" investments the state and local governments have been involved with it usual doesn't ends up saving money, and causes the tax payers more of there hard earn cash.

It's kind of like the automated deicer we used to put on our new bridge they look great on paper until you start using them. Then you start adding up the cost for maintenance to system, the repairs to the bridge, and damage payments to car owners. With in a year or two they where pretty much all dismantled.

There is already proven system out there that works, and its cheaper then the system your proposing. Why mess with it? This country is in this problem because of Joe public's demanded to have a quick route to everywhere. So the government built all these bridges and roadways to get them there with out anyone thinking about how are we going to be able to take care of these structures.

Deicing systems?? Perhaps we should stick to comparing like with like - in the early stages (where existing procedures are not wholly discontinued) continuous monitoring should not add to the risk (although you will not see the full cost benefits either).

But the reason it is not being used extensively is probably that professionals are (rightly) conservative, and share the types of concern that you raise. Assuming you are right about the numbers of systems in use, variations in the performance of structures on different subsrata mean that half a dozen bridges will only be sufficient to clarify matters if the cost differences are very large. Hopefully the numbers in use will be gradually increased once practitioners can see that the existing few systems in use do not suggest the figures are adverse. Once the numbers of systems in use are sufficient, the figures will (if allowed) speak for themselves.

BTW, rejecting something out of hand purely because it is not extensively used in the USA seems very strange when some parts of the world already use it rather more extensively. Are you suggesting that the economics are different, or do we have different criteria? (I note from your signature that you don't entirely reject all things European)

The deicer was an example of really simple monitoring system that was supposed to save lives and PA a lot of money instead cost us a ton and didn't work out like it was supposed to. I don't like wasting my tax money on something when there is already a good system in place.

I'd say PA, TX, or CA by themselves have more "bad" bridges then most European countries have bridges. The last report I read on the number of Bridges in trouble in the US was close to 64% There are over 900,000 bridges over 25 ft length. So less bridges less roads more tax money used for monitoring systems

You put your system on the worst how do you decide? You have over 500,000 "bad" bridges to pick from and lets go really conservative on this $100,000 a pop for each bare bone system. (we won't take in maintenance and monthly service fees that the technicians will be getting) What state is going to be able to afford these systems plus have money left over to do the repairs which easily is over $1,000,000 each bridge? Last time I check just about every state in the Union was in the red. No money no system no bridge maintenance. I'd use the system we have in place, explain the scoring to Joe public so they actual understand what it means and the terminology, and use the money we get for actually repairing the bridges instead of wasting it on

The really kicker is that in-order to determine which bridge might need to be monitor you still need a good old inspector out there to check it out.

I don't know if I agree that the problem is politicians or inspections systems, rating systems. I had the impression that the problem was that the bridge might fall down. Recently there was a financial Ponzi case where some guy kept telling "Inspectors" that Madoff was running a Ponzi scheme. Years before New Orleans was flooded by Katrina Scientific American ran an article basically predicting all that happened. I told my unfriendly neighbors who moved to New Orleans before they left and before Katrina to give a Helicopter pilot a retainer to come and get them. Bet it crossed their mind. Bridge in bad shape and at risk of catastrophic failure is the problem. For some of you guys it would appear to be a job opportunity. Suggest you send adverts to the appropriate departments, and put up one TV commercial featuring the bridge. Hey, This Bridge is in Trouble. Our BLahBlah Company has a nice design. Build now, or Build Later. -We're available.

P.S. Typically TV Stations will make ads for about nothing, and just charge for the time to show them.

Yep, that's the one. Notice I-210 which loops south? That is the bypass to take.

I forwarded this warning to our corporate transportation Superintendent. Her reply:

"The state of Louisiana hasn't let us travel on the bridge over IH10 in many years. They always route off on 210. My driver's say the bridge over Lake Charles bounces like a rubber ball."

I suppose that the great state of Louisiana will wait for the bridge to collapse like the one in Minnesota did, that way everyone will know for sure And why not to take it. I went over that bridge about 7 years ago and it bounced, scared the s*** outa me.

You are talking about the state where the Congressman caught with $90,000 worth of marked bills in his freezer, and who commandeered a military convoy during Katrina to RETRIEVE the marked money, and was UNDER INDICTMENT FOR BRIBERY was reelected.

You are talking about the state where the Mayor of NOLA threw the entire city disaster plan out the window and instead of using school buses to evacuate the city. left them in their parking lots to flood while he put thousands of people into the superdome which was nowhere to be found on the hardened and prepared shelters list at all (the structure was not sound enough, nor was there any pre-placed disaster relief supplies there) and then had the unmitigated gall to get on national TV and scream at the Federal Government for buses and tacitly accuse the federal government of racism because the buses did not miraculously appear out of thin air immediately, and claimed that the flooding of the ninth ward was intentionally done, and that it was a scheme to reduce the number of blacks in the city and bragged that the city would remain "chocolate", was reelected.

I would contend that La. gets the government it deserves more often than not.

At least the I-10 bridge is safe (Kam Movassaghi only loses his job if it fails)

He's a louisiana politician, lying comes more naturally than breathing to him.

link to the FACTS

http://www.katc.com/global/story.asp?s=9634488

do your homework.

A Lousiana politician talking is not fact. In fact more often than not, it is just the opposite.

HOAX

This viral email concerning the Lake Charles bridge is bogus. Below is a statement released in January by Dr. William D. Ankner, secretary of the Louisiana Department of Transportation and Development. You can also view the statement on the agency's website at http://www.dotd.louisiana.gov/pressreleases/release.aspx?key=971.

Statement from DOTD Secretary William D. Ankner, Ph.D.
regarding the I-10 Bridge in Lake Charles

The Interstate 10 bridge in Lake Charles is safe. Former DOTD Secretary Kam Movassaghi assures DOTD that he did not make the disparaging remarks that are attributed to him in an email about the condition of the bridge. It is irresponsible for individuals to leverage Dr. Movassaghi's excellent reputation, causing panic among citizens.

If the bridge were not safe, I would close it immediately, as I have done dozens of times for other bridges across Louisiana. DOTD wants to replace the I-10 bridge, which is more than 50 years old, and we are looking at long-term funding options. In the meantime, we will maintain our ban of overweight trucks and continue our aggressive inspection and repair schedules to keep the bridge in safe condition.

I refer you to this web site for LA DOTD's statement on the subject: http://www.dotd.la.gov/about/ankner.aspx

Born and raised in Moss Bluff and never liked that bridge growing up.

I'm 40 something and when I visit home I still avoid that bridge. What are they going to do?

I heard about this story from a math teacher at my high school in new caney, tx! I thought your story was crazy! My uncle is always going over that bridge to go to the casino and when i told him... I think he will think twice about going over it again!