Key Bridge (Round Who Knows But Probably Not Last)

[Beltway]

The Gordie Howe timeline has nothing to do with FHWA's Major Project requirements.

My question still stands:
If you believe FHWA can authorize construction on a Major Project without an approved financial plan, cite the statute or FHWA guidance that allows it.

Everything else is noise and static.

[Max Rockatansky]

This whole thread is noise and static.

I agree.

[The Ghostbuster]

It seems like, once again, all this thread does is go Round And Round: https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=0u8teXR8VE4&pp=ygUPcm91bmQgYW5kIHJvdW5k0gcJCQQLAYcqIYzv&ra=m.

[kphoger]

Why would PA want ... a fence around ... New Jersey. I don't think they would want it.

My question ... is noise and static.

I agree.

[freebrickproductions]

It seems like, once again, all this thread does is go Round And Round: https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=0u8teXR8VE4&pp=ygUPcm91bmQgYW5kIHJvdW5k0gcJCQQLAYcqIYzv&ra=m.

But will it go around in circles?

[PColumbus73]

It seems like, once again, all this thread does is go Round And Round: https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=0u8teXR8VE4&pp=ygUPcm91bmQgYW5kIHJvdW5k0gcJCQQLAYcqIYzv&ra=m.

[PColumbus73]

It seems like, once again, all this thread does is go Round And Round: https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=0u8teXR8VE4&pp=ygUPcm91bmQgYW5kIHJvdW5k0gcJCQQLAYcqIYzv&ra=m.

[Plutonic Panda]

It seems like, once again, all this thread does is go Round And Round: https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=0u8teXR8VE4&pp=ygUPcm91bmQgYW5kIHJvdW5k0gcJCQQLAYcqIYzv&ra=m.

[Rothman]

Spoke with a member of MdTA's Key Bridge team today over the phone (protip: Fill out the contact form rather than e-mailing them directly).  He confirmed that yes, $700m is indeed the number that will be paid to Kiewit.  He said that cost will continue to be reimbursed by the Emergency Relief program, along with State contributions from insurance and litigation payments (he did say such payments would replace the federal portion of the $700m, rather than represent first-instance funding).  $73m was indeed only the price for the design itself and he considered it part of the $700m.  The $700m is for a whole host of pre-construction activities, including pile driving, a lot of additional foundation work, concrete approach work, and building some serious temporary bridges to assist with future construction of the actual bridge (said they'd be a couple of miles long altogether somehow).

He did say that even the $700m price tag for this Phase 1 work was one of the reasons Kiewit was "let go" (his words).

[kphoger]

The bottom line is they are already in $700M

Phase 1 wasn't $700 million ... There was also no "settlement." Kiewit wasn't fired, and Phase 2 was never authorized or funded, so there was no termination payout to make.

The news article reporter slipped a digit -- added a zero. The editor didn't catch it.

The $700 million claim comes from a reporting error.
Bottom line: the number is real at the project level, but it has nothing to do with what Kiewit is being paid.

Spoke with a member of MdTA's Key Bridge team today over the phone ... He confirmed that yes, $700m is indeed the number that will be paid to Kiewit ... He did say that even the $700m price tag for this Phase 1 work was one of the reasons Kiewit was "let go" (his words).

But, but, but, but....

[Beltway]

I'm not questioning your conversation, but the numbers you're repeating don't match how federal ER funding or PDB contracting actually works.

A $73 million Phase 1 contract cannot become a $700 million payable amount without a Board action, a posted contract modification, a federal concurrence, and a new FMIS obligation. None of those exist.

FHWA obligates ER funds to the project, not to the contractor, and MDTA can only pay a contractor up to the value of the executed contract.

So whatever was said on the phone, it can't mean Kiewit is being paid $700 million, because that would violate the procurement framework your agency operates under.

Where have they posted this info on the project website? If they haven't, that says a lot about their transparency.

The "let go" line is just the normal PDB off‑ramp after GMP negotiations failed. It has nothing to do with Phase 1 being $700 million -- and it can't, because there's no Board action, no contract modification, and no federal authorization that would allow that number in the first place.

[Beltway]

Spoke with a member of MdTA's Key Bridge team today over the phone (protip: Fill out the contact form rather than e-mailing them directly).  He confirmed that yes, $700m is indeed the number that will be paid to Kiewit.  He said that cost will continue to be reimbursed by the Emergency Relief program, along with State contributions from insurance and litigation payments (he did say such payments would replace the federal portion of the $700m, rather than represent first-instance funding).  $73m was indeed only the price for the design itself and he considered it part of the $700m.  The $700m is for a whole host of pre-construction activities, including pile driving, a lot of additional foundation work, concrete approach work, and building some serious temporary bridges to assist with future construction of the actual bridge (said they'd be a couple of miles long altogether somehow).
He did say that even the $700m price tag for this Phase 1 work was one of the reasons Kiewit was "let go" (his words).

10-33

[Rothman]

The bottom line is they are already in $700M

Phase 1 wasn't $700 million ... There was also no "settlement." Kiewit wasn't fired, and Phase 2 was never authorized or funded, so there was no termination payout to make.

The news article reporter slipped a digit -- added a zero. The editor didn't catch it.

The $700 million claim comes from a reporting error.
Bottom line: the number is real at the project level, but it has nothing to do with what Kiewit is being paid.

Spoke with a member of MdTA's Key Bridge team today over the phone ... He confirmed that yes, $700m is indeed the number that will be paid to Kiewit ... He did say that even the $700m price tag for this Phase 1 work was one of the reasons Kiewit was "let go" (his words).

But, but, but, but....

I preferred: "More journalistic malpractice mirrored from the echo chamber."

[Plutonic Panda]

The construction of the new bridges will be split into 4 contracts for a total of 4-5 billion dollars:

https://www.equipmentworld.com/roadbuilding/article/15826310/mdta-to-rebid-key-bridge-rebuild-with-4-contracts

[Beltway]

The post‑collapse I‑695 designation does not elevate the Francis Scott Key Bridge to federal "national significance" because FHWA treats Interstate numbering as an administrative classification rather than a strategic one, and the corridor still fails every substantive criterion used to justify extraordinary federal funding.

The bridge is not part of the Interstate mainline system in any functional sense, is not on the Primary Highway Freight System, is not a designated freight corridor, is not a STRAHNET or STRAHNET‑connector military route, and does not serve any port, airport, or intermodal facility in a way that affects national throughput.

Its loss created no national‑level economic disruption, no supply‑chain impairment, and no isolation of any region, because I‑95, I‑895, and local arterials absorbed the displaced traffic and the Port of Baltimore returned to normal operations within weeks.

FHWA Emergency Relief rules did not change with the designation, ER caps remain in place, and the corridor does not meet the statutory or discretionary thresholds for nationally significant freight or highway projects under INFRA or Mega programs.

Congress likewise does not treat a post‑hoc Interstate shield as evidence of national importance; it evaluates freight impact, defense mobility, port dependence, detour feasibility, and economic harm, all of which the Key Bridge corridor fails.

As a result, the I‑695 designation has no practical effect on funding eligibility, does not strengthen Maryland's federal case, and does not make an 80:20 or 100% federal share any more plausible.

Congress evaluates "national significance" through a political‑economic lens rather than FHWA's technical criteria, focusing on whether a facility's failure disrupts interstate commerce, impairs national freight movement, affects military mobility, threatens a major port or airport, isolates a region without viable detours, or produces measurable national‑level economic harm.

The Francis Scott Key Bridge meets none of these thresholds: its collapse did not impede the Port of Baltimore, which returned to normal throughput within weeks; it did not disrupt any national freight corridor, because the route is not part of the Primary Highway Freight System; it did not affect military mobility, because the corridor is not on STRAHNET; it did not isolate any region, because I‑95, I‑895, and local arterials absorbed the displaced traffic; and it did not produce national‑level economic losses, because supply chains and trucking patterns stabilized rapidly.

Congress also distinguishes between Interstate numbering and Interstate importance, and a post‑collapse I‑695 designation does not transform a state‑owned toll bridge into a nationally strategic asset. In congressional terms, the Key Bridge is a regional mobility facility, not a national chokepoint, and therefore does not justify extraordinary federal cost shares such as 80:20 or 100 percent.

[Rothman]

https://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=37185.75#msg3046854

[Beltway]

Your post consists solely of a link to someone else's quip.

I'll respond when you present an actual position.

[GaryV]

I'll respond when

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4NwP3wes4M8

[hotdogPi]

I guess this means if we stop discussing the project, this thread will die on its own. I think this would be a good outcome for all of us.

[PColumbus73]

It's clear that Scott was pair bonded with the previous bridge and the proposed replacement will just be a cheap imitation, a sullied, secondhand bridge unworthy of his affections. The Spreadsheet probably had little hearts in it.

[Max Rockatansky]

It's clear that Scott was pair bonded with the previous bridge and the proposed replacement will just be a cheap imitation, a sullied, secondhand bridge unworthy of his affections. The Spreadsheet probably had little hearts in it.

Nah, he just wanted some of the hot tunnel action.  These outbursts is what being rejected looks like. 

[kphoger]

Texas SH‑87 ... was a low‑volume coastal spur with no national economic role. It has no relevance to a major interstate‑class replacement project.

The ... Francis Scott Key Bridge ... loss created no national‑level economic disruption

Fascinating, that severing a highway with a national economic role caused no national economic disruption.

Please explain.

[Beltway]

The distinction is between a theoretical national economic role and a measured national economic impact.

A facility can be classified on paper as part of a broader economic network without its temporary loss producing any measurable national‑level disruption. FHWA, BTS, and MARAD all use specific metrics for that: freight diversion costs, port throughput, STRAHNET dependency, detour feasibility, and supply‑chain delay modeling.

In the Key Bridge case, the data we have so far shows:
– Port of Baltimore throughput returned to normal within weeks
– I‑95 and I‑895 and I-695 West absorbed the displaced traffic
– No national freight corridor was severed
– No STRAHNET route was impaired
– No region was isolated

So the "national economic role" classification doesn't automatically translate into "national economic disruption" when the facility is lost. That's the distinction I'm drawing. If you have a federal source that defines the corridor as nationally significant in the statutory sense -- PHFS, STRAHNET, INFRA/Mega eligibility, etc. -- I'm open to reviewing it.

[kphoger]

a federal source that defines the corridor as nationally significant in the statutory sense

I mean, I guess you could argue that "national" isn't the exact same as "interstate and interregional".

(a) — In General — For the purposes of this title, the Federal-aid system is the National Highway System, which includes the Interstate System.

(b) — National Highway System

  (1) — Description — The National Highway System consists of the highway routes and connections to transportation facilities that shall —

    (C) — serve interstate and interregional travel and commerce.

[The_Ginger]

The distinction is between a theoretical national economic role and a measured national economic impact.

A facility can be classified on paper as part of a broader economic network without its temporary loss producing any measurable national‑level disruption. FHWA, BTS, and MARAD all use specific metrics for that: freight diversion costs, port throughput, STRAHNET dependency, detour feasibility, and supply‑chain delay modeling.

In the Key Bridge case, the data we have so far shows:
– Port of Baltimore throughput returned to normal within weeks
– I‑95 and I‑895 and I-695 West absorbed the displaced traffic
– No national freight corridor was severed
– No STRAHNET route was impaired
– No region was isolated

So the "national economic role" classification doesn't automatically translate into "national economic disruption" when the facility is lost. That's the distinction I'm drawing. If you have a federal source that defines the corridor as nationally significant in the statutory sense -- PHFS, STRAHNET, INFRA/Mega eligibility, etc. -- I'm open to reviewing it.