In December Pro-Mosel filed a criminal complaint against the building of the bridge citing insufficient planning, especially in regard to the safety of construction on a known landslide. Our complaint included a statement by renowned geological engineer, Prof. Azzam of RWTH Aachen, who was surprised that the building plans did not reach prescribed safety norms.
Following this, Prof. Azzam was invited to discuss his misgivings with the responsible authority in Mainz – the Landesbetrieb Mobilität Rheinland-Pfalz (LBM). The outcome of this meeting in December was an agreement to hold another meeting in January after further consideration of the issues. However in the meantime the building authority appears to have been tasked with trying to subtly undermine Prof. Azzam’s standing in the press (of which there has again been a great deal, none of it positive for the bridge). Today, that tactic proved to be yet another miscalculation.
From today’s article in a leading publication of the building industry, International Construction News bi-BauMagazin, we learn that Prof. Azzam has now called for a building freeze, because he says the mountain in Ürzig is anything but safe. “The mountain creeps“, and building must be stopped.
Prof. Azzam was shocked about what he found in his study of the plans: a harrowing record of incompetence, ineptitude and self-aggrandisement. Although there is a landslide at the Ürziger mountain, the required DIN standards for proof of stability have not been met. The whole planning is based purely upon an opinion. The studies that have been made are not complete or understandable. He could not find supporting documentation for earthquake and water security. Prof. Azzam said the whole thing “is just so off the cuff“. That you can build under these circumstances is “incomprehensible” to him and he considers the project to be “irresponsible“. He holds life to be in danger.
Until the meeting a few weeks ago, Prof. Azzam thought it very possible that the documents he had seen were not complete and therefore he did not have all the necessary evidence, in particular for the stability of the bridge. He realised that this was not the case when the missing evidence was not presented at the meeting. The representatives of LBM could not even present evidence of the correctness of their own statements.
Summarised and translated from the following article, the full version of which will be printed in the 12th January edition: