Email response from Chief of Finance & Technology, David Hansen:
…That assessment is an engineering estimate stating that at worst case a barge could hit a Pier, damaging it such that it may have to be replaced during which we would shut down one of the bridges (recall the Lesner is two) for 4 to 6 weeks. Nowhere do we believe the size and velocity create the mass to collapse one of the bridges. This assessment was generated though engineering discussions to include bridge consultants. Should you have a certified professional engineer opinion that differs we would be very receptive to entertaining a professional discussion on the matter.
For those of you who’ve been asking, we have a couple open FOIA requests for docs relating to Safety & the Lesner Bridge.
#WeLoveShoreDrive 
NONFEASANCE – The intentional failure to perform a required duty or obligation; the failure of an agent (employee) to perform a task he/she has agreed to do for his/her principal (employer), as distinguished from “misfeasance” (performing poorly) or “malfeasance” (performing illegally or wrongly).
MISFEASANCE – management of a business, public office or other responsibility in which there are errors and an unfortunate result through mistake or carelessness, but without evil intent and/or violation of law.
One additional comment; to suggest it is the responsibility of citizens to pay for from pocket and conduct engineering studies/analyses to pose an opposing opinion from that of city employees, incidently paid for by the same out of pocket expense [taxes] by said citizens, further demonstrates the unacceptable hubris currently installed. Perhaps all of this is simply nothing more than a poor choice of words or semantics… it would appear to be a trending behavior though – – “…entertaining a professional discussion…” Truly, now – – “entertaining”; I, for one, am NOT entertained.
Premised on that email response, Mr Hansen, yet again, apparently reveals what may be in large part the modus operandii behind this entire proposal…the anecdote. Something significantly more than “engineering estimate”, “This assessment was generated though engineering discussions…” and “Nowhere do we believe…” are not sufficient to characterize and quantify the damage to a bridge by an allision, nor would it withstand the liabilities in a Court of Law. Mr Hansen, as a prior Commander, US Army COE, should know this; perhaps he does. Additionally, to be so cavalier as to suggest that IF an allision occured it would be acceptable to secure ANY PART of a MAJOR EVACUATION ROUTE is nothing less than ludicrous… perhaps he may know this as well… PERHAPS – – “Engineering ESTIMATE” – – TRULY, Sir! For the City to be made knowledgeable, placed on notice, and informed of the RISK involved opreating random barge traffic in proxity to ANY BRIDGE, especially one with high volume flow rates, and casually dismiss it would prove MISFEASANCE and/or NONFEASANCE should a bridge allision occur during hurricane season, securing this FEDERAL HIGHWAY and endangering citizenry. Noone thought the CHALLENGER would dissintegrate on launch; it did because poor decisions were made and folks failed to act – –