Key Bridge (Round Who Knows But Probably Not Last)

[bwana39]

Honestly , you should be able to look at the current value of the original bridge's cost add 10% for inflation during the build and the cost for the dolphins and viola. Probably around $950,000.000 to $1B. To replace it with 2x2. Let's say double the materials and labor to make it 4X4. So around 2 billion.    The estimates are 2 to 2.5X that?????

Well, you figured it out in a few minutes.  Please contact Maryland and provide your estimate to them for acceptance for Phase 2.

I said SHOULD. My bet is a billion will not cover the engineering costs.

Dear heavens, you've just barged into this thread without reading much.  The project is already well into design.

Dear Heavens... Design is 70% done by Kiewit. Most if not ALL of except for the geology will be at least reviewed if not thrown away.  Just because Kiewit is not  FIGG does not mean it doesn't almost start from scratch. Kiewit could not even put a realistic price on what they were proposing to build.  I STILL bet that $1B will not cover the engineering costs. I get that you work day in and day out in this. So much so that you see it as necessary and routine. The bottom line is they are already in $700M which is mostly engineering. Engineering costs for bridges generally runs in the 20 to 25% range. This is only the preliminary engineering.

I also get that you believe the sunk costs here justify the construction (whatever the cost). That replacing a bridge that was destroyed regardless of the price and utility is prudent.

FINALLY, yes, I threw some numbers. Numbers that hold no reality in today's market. They certainly cannot build the bridge Kiewit has designed for that price. I doubt that you could build ANY bridge for that price there.  I am saying that we are building bridges (and highways) that are not markedly better for over twice the relative cost. (Note, I escalated the price for modern needs such as emergency shoulders, and 4 lanes each direction.)   Why? How do we get them in line with the economy or the economy in line with them.

[PColumbus73]

Let's appreciate that Beltway tried to argue that the problems with this project are completely unrelated to the country's dysfunctions with infrastructure projects by listing a number of supposedly dysfunction-free megaprojects, which included the Tappan Zee Bridge, a project that was infamously stuck in development hell for decades until Cuomo the Younger came in and said "you will build it my way and you will like it", and despite giving it his personal NY touch, the project still was built late, over budget, with defective bolts, and the state suing the contractor over faulty cables.

Years of planning delay while they still had a working 7-lane bridge. NYSTA has the revenue capacity to build a $3.5 billion bridge (two bridges 3.1 miles long and each 96 feet wide). 496‑mile ticketed system with little in the way of widening projects needed. Big revenue generator.

Yes, the new Tappan Zee had real construction problems -- not catastrophic, but significant enough to trigger investigations, lawsuits, and public scrutiny. Construction close to on time and on budget. Worth $3.5 billion.

I would put it in the category of a successful megaproject

Tappan Zee Bridge, decades late, over-budget, faulty materials: It's fine actually, R E L A X

Key Bridge, victim of a disaster, cost estimate nudged up, changed contractors: I will personally kill this project.

-Beltway... allegedly

[Beltway]

Years of planning delay while they still had a working 7-lane bridge. NYSTA has the revenue capacity to build a $3.5 billion bridge (two bridges 3.1 miles long and each 96 feet wide). 496‑mile ticketed system with little in the way of widening projects needed. Big revenue generator.
Yes, the new Tappan Zee had real construction problems -- not catastrophic, but significant enough to trigger investigations, lawsuits, and public scrutiny. Construction close to on time and on budget. Worth $3.5 billion.
I would put it in the category of a successful megaproject

Tappan Zee Bridge, decades late, over-budget, faulty materials: It's fine actually, R E L A X
Key Bridge, victim of a disaster, cost estimate nudged up, changed contractors: I will personally kill this project.
-Beltway... allegedly

The comparison doesn't hold.

The dysfunction on the Tappan Zee was in the 20‑year planning paralysis, not the delivery phase -- and that paralysis occurred while the state still had a fully functional 7‑lane freeway bridge with no weight limits and no emergency forcing action.

Once NYSTA finally committed to a scope and financing plan, the design‑build team delivered a 3‑mile dual‑span cable‑stayed bridge for about the expected cost. The construction defects were real but manageable, and they didn't destabilize the project.

The Key Bridge is the opposite category: a disaster‑driven rebuild with no pre‑existing scope, no revenue backing, and a cost profile that has escalated from $1.7 to $8-9 billion before final design. Contractors have withdrawn, risk allocation is unresolved, and the federal funding mechanism adds layers of process that NYSTA never had to deal with.

Treating those as equivalent is analytically wrong. One is a conventional megaproject with normal construction issues; the other is a federally funded emergency rebuild that has turned into a megaproject with unstable scope and pricing.

My reaction is consistent: stable scope + stable funding + rational procurement = manageable project.

Unstable scope + unstable cost + unclear risk = red flags.

That's not hypocrisy. That's Project Delivery 101.

[Rothman]

Honestly , you should be able to look at the current value of the original bridge's cost add 10% for inflation during the build and the cost for the dolphins and viola. Probably around $950,000.000 to $1B. To replace it with 2x2. Let's say double the materials and labor to make it 4X4. So around 2 billion.    The estimates are 2 to 2.5X that?????

Well, you figured it out in a few minutes.  Please contact Maryland and provide your estimate to them for acceptance for Phase 2.

I said SHOULD. My bet is a billion will not cover the engineering costs.

Dear heavens, you've just barged into this thread without reading much.  The project is already well into design.

Dear Heavens... Design is 70% done by Kiewit. Most if not ALL of except for the geology will be at least reviewed if not thrown away.  Just because Kiewit is not  FIGG does not mean it doesn't almost start from scratch. Kiewit could not even put a realistic price on what they were proposing to build.  I STILL bet that $1B will not cover the engineering costs. I get that you work day in and day out in this. So much so that you see it as necessary and routine. The bottom line is they are already in $700M which is mostly engineering. Engineering costs for bridges generally runs in the 20 to 25% range. This is only the preliminary engineering.

I also get that you believe the sunk costs here justify the construction (whatever the cost). That replacing a bridge that was destroyed regardless of the price and utility is prudent.

FINALLY, yes, I threw some numbers. Numbers that hold no reality in today's market. They certainly cannot build the bridge Kiewit has designed for that price. I doubt that you could build ANY bridge for that price there.  I am saying that we are building bridges (and highways) that are not markedly better for over twice the relative cost. (Note, I escalated the price for modern needs such as emergency shoulders, and 4 lanes each direction.)  Why? How do we get them in line with the economy or the economy in line with them.

Keep in mind the $700m is not solely design work, but also preliminary construction work that occurred during Phase 1.  I'd also wonder if some of that funding was a "settlement" in terms of what a contractor was due if fired from Phase 2.  Anyway, yes, a review of the design and, more importantly, the construction estimate (item-by-item) will be made, but your argument requires separating the design costs from construction activities in that regard and public information is pretty inconsistent.

You've made a lot of assumptions about what I have and have not said.  I don't believe sunk costs are justification for continuing a project.  I have never said that because Maryland has spent $X that they should just proceed because of that investment. 

In terms of why projects increase in cost from their original estimates -- which is quite common (although I have to say more of NYSDOT's recent estimates have finally absorbed inflation more appropriately after COVID's havoc -- personal opinion emphasized) -- there are all sorts of reasons.  Market inflation can be more severe than anticipated.  Unanticipated circumstances in the field.  Material needs just changing during design (changing items).  Federal or state requirements have been changing more rapidly than usual partially due to the current federal administration's approach to management.  That can cause changes as minimal as revising paperwork to needing design changes to be compliant.  Anyway...all sorts of reasons.

Please look to China if you want to look into ways of getting an economy in line with a megaproject.  We tend not to do things like that here and just rely on the invisible hand of the market to determine prices (keeping in mind Build America FHWA requirements). ;D

Anyway, the impetus behind the project is that an Interstate bridge designated to carry HAZMATs was destroyed.  That's all there is to it.

Heard it said about design-build that "You get it done twice as fast for twice the price."  There is less competition in bidding on such projects.  Progressive design-build isn't legal in every state, either partially because of those concerns.  I've heard that large firms are staying out of megaprojects in those states as lobbying hardball -- which also gives an idea of how valuable the lesser competition is to such firms.

Still, it all comes down to the contractor bid on the contract.  Maryland rejected the first one, essentially.  We'll see what happens now with the new contractor and the price.  Have to say I don't expect a dramatic reduction in price (I said so in this thread somewhere up above).  If anything, Maryland will just be able to say they "tried."  We'll also see if Bezos is able to get MD to foot more of the bill in covering the overage. 

[Beltway]

Phase 1 wasn't $700 million -- it was $73 million, and the majority of that was emergency construction work: debris removal, channel clearing, temporary structures, mobilization, geotech, and early works. Design was only a fraction of the package.

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.

[Rothman]

Phase 1 wasn't $700 million -- it was $73 million, and the majority of that was emergency construction work: debris removal, channel clearing, temporary structures, mobilization, geotech, and early works. Design was only a fraction of the package.

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.

*sigh*

https://marylandmatters.org/briefs/key-bridge-work-to-be-awarded-in-separate-contracts-in-effort-to-keep-costs-down/

or

https://www.cbsnews.com/baltimore/news/key-bridge-contractor-disappointed-split-maryland-escalating-rebuild-costs/

Multiple sources say Kiewit will be paid $700m not only for design, but the pre-onstruction activities...

[Beltway]

The $700 million figure in the article doesn't correspond to any MDTA or FHWA contract value. The executed Phase 1 contract is $73 million -- that's the number in the board action and the federal emergency authorization. Phase 2 was never awarded, so there's no termination, no settlement, and no additional contract value to inflate Phase 1. The article appears to conflate ongoing 2026 work with the Phase 1 contract, but that number doesn't exist in any official document.

[Rothman]

The $700 million figure in the article doesn't correspond to any MDTA or FHWA contract value. The executed Phase 1 contract is $73 million -- that's the number in the board action and the federal emergency authorization. Phase 2 was never awarded, so there's no termination, no settlement, and no additional contract value to inflate Phase 1. The article appears to conflate ongoing 2026 work with the Phase 1 contract, but that number doesn't exist in any official document.

*sigh*

Not my problem if you don't read.

"Kiewit is being paid $700 million and will stay on with the project at least through the end of the year, laying the groundwork for a new bridge until Maryland picks a new contractor."

[vdeane]

Let's appreciate that Beltway tried to argue that the problems with this project are completely unrelated to the country's dysfunctions with infrastructure projects by listing a number of supposedly dysfunction-free megaprojects, which included the Tappan Zee Bridge, a project that was infamously stuck in development hell for decades until Cuomo the Younger came in and said "you will build it my way and you will like it", and despite giving it his personal NY touch, the project still was built late, over budget, with defective bolts, and the state suing the contractor over faulty cables.

Years of planning delay while they still had a working 7-lane bridge. NYSTA has the revenue capacity to build a $3.5 billion bridge (two bridges 3.1 miles long and each 96 feet wide). 496‑mile ticketed system with little in the way of widening projects needed. Big revenue generator.

Yes, the new Tappan Zee had real construction problems -- not catastrophic, but significant enough to trigger investigations, lawsuits, and public scrutiny. Construction close to on time and on budget. Worth $3.5 billion.

I would put it in the category of a successful megaproject

"Years" in this case is more like decades and was long enough that they actually decided to (and finished) a new bridge deck in the time.  Thankfully they were able to take it apart and use it on other projects across the state, so that didn't turn out to be wasted money.

I'm sure many here would dispute "little in the way of widening projects needed", which the bridge itself ironically illustrates as it simply moved the congestion from not being eight lanes from the bridge to Nyack.  And yep, such a big revenue generator that Cuomo needed to move the Canal Corporation from the Thruway Authority to the Power Authority.  Your "analysis" also ignores that toll increases are a political hot potato in NY, which is why the Thruway went from having no transponder discrimination to acting like MA (which has somewhat reasonable three-tier system) to discontinuing the out of state E-ZPass rate in favor of using the (much higher) bill by mail rate just a year or two later.  Also, any real or perceived use of upstate money to subsidize anything downstate tends to be met with outrage, and I wouldn't be surprised if the bridge was one of the reasons why there were proposals floated to take all the counties north/west of Westchester and Rockland Counties and give them to PA a few years back.

[Beltway]

Years of planning delay while they still had a working 7-lane bridge. NYSTA has the revenue capacity to build a $3.5 billion bridge (two bridges 3.1 miles long and each 96 feet wide). 496‑mile ticketed system with little in the way of widening projects needed. Big revenue generator.
Yes, the new Tappan Zee had real construction problems -- not catastrophic, but significant enough to trigger investigations, lawsuits, and public scrutiny. Construction close to on time and on budget. Worth $3.5 billion.
I would put it in the category of a successful megaproject

"Years" in this case is more like decades and was long enough that they actually decided to (and finished) a new bridge deck in the time.  Thankfully they were able to take it apart and use it on other projects across the state, so that didn't turn out to be wasted money.

Same with the Woodrow Wilson Bridge. All of the eastern half of the Beltway was widened to 8 lanes by 1977, except the 6-lane WWB and approaches which was a major bottleneck. It was from 1961 and had structural weaknesses and the deck was deteriorated and needed to be completely redecked in 1983.  It took until 1997 to get a regionally approved NEPA alternative on how to expand the WWB. Then it took 2000-2009 to build the new 12-lane bridges and approaches.

That is just common highway planning when you have a functional but aging and inadequate section of Interstate highway, and the solution is extremely expensive, $2.4 billion in that case to expand 7.5 miles of Beltway.

I'm sure many here would dispute "little in the way of widening projects needed", which the bridge itself ironically illustrates as it simply moved the congestion from not being eight lanes from the bridge to Nyack.  And yep, such a big revenue generator that Cuomo needed to move the Canal Corporation from the Thruway Authority to the Power Authority. 

Well that would be one of the sections to be widened. Technically the entire mainline would benefit from 6-lane widening, based on weekend demands. But they had the foresight to build it to the same standards that were used in the 1970s and 1980s on rural Interstate highways -- wide medians, independent roadways on much of the length, wide clear roadsides of 25 or 30 feet.

Whereas the narrow PA Turnpike needs a total rebuild to 6 lanes and that is the ultimate plan; about 125 miles is complete and another 90 miles now in design. Frankly 90% of the length of the Thruway has stood the test of time and functions pretty well at 4 lanes.

Your "analysis" also ignores that toll increases are a political hot potato in NY, which is why the Thruway went from having no transponder discrimination to acting like MA (which has somewhat reasonable three-tier system) to discontinuing the out of state E-ZPass rate in favor of using the (much higher) bill by mail rate just a year or two later.  Also, any real or perceived use of upstate money to subsidize anything downstate tends to be met with outrage, and I wouldn't be surprised if the bridge was one of the reasons why there were proposals floated to take all the counties north/west of Westchester and Rockland Counties and give them to PA a few years back.

Why would PA want them? Sounds like the wisecrack I heard in the PennDOT Harrisburg central office about building a fence around District 6-0 (SE PA) and giving it to New Jersey. I don't think they would want it.

[Beltway]

The $700 million figure in the article doesn't correspond to any MDTA or FHWA contract value. The executed Phase 1 contract is $73 million -- that's the number in the board action and the federal emergency authorization. Phase 2 was never awarded, so there's no termination, no settlement, and no additional contract value to inflate Phase 1. The article appears to conflate ongoing 2026 work with the Phase 1 contract, but that number doesn't exist in any official document.

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

Period.

[Rothman]

...and he's back to trolling.

https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/2026/04/29/why-was-kiewit-dropped-as-contractor-for-5-billion-key-bridge-in-md/89851558007/

[Beltway]

Almost impossible to find a non-paywalled edition.

The $700 million claim comes from a reporting error. The newspapers took federal obligations to the overall project and misread them as payments to Kiewit. Those are completely different things.

Kiewit's actual scope is Phase 1 only, and that work is nowhere near $700 million. There is no Phase 2 contract, no GMP, and no contractual pathway for a payout of that size.

Part of the confusion comes from the project website itself -- it's extremely opaque about financial structure, federal obligation reporting, and contract segmentation. Without that context, it's easy for outside reporters to misinterpret project‑level federal obligations as contractor compensation.

Bottom line: the number is real at the project level, but it has nothing to do with what Kiewit is being paid.

[Rothman]

Almost impossible to find a non-paywalled edition.

The $700 million claim comes from a reporting error. The newspapers took federal obligations to the overall project and misread them as payments to Kiewit. Those are completely different things.

Kiewit's actual scope is Phase 1 only, and that work is nowhere near $700 million. There is no Phase 2 contract, no GMP, and no contractual pathway for a payout of that size.

Part of the confusion comes from the project website itself -- it's extremely opaque about financial structure, federal obligation reporting, and contract segmentation. Without that context, it's easy for outside reporters to misinterpret project‑level federal obligations as contractor compensation.

Bottom line: the number is real at the project level, but it has nothing to do with what Kiewit is being paid.

I certainly didn't hit a paywall...unlike with your Washington Post editorial...where you only cared about the headline...

From the Banner article:

"Under the plan unveiled Tuesday, the work will be broken into four contracts:

    Demolition of remaining bridge structures in the Patapsco and on land. State officials estimate the bids will be between $50 million and $100 million when the job is put out to bid this summer, with work possibly starting this fall.
    Construction of the southern highway approach to the bridge, including highway and 3,ooo feet of bridge, grading, wetlands work and tolling systems, lighting and the like. That is expected to cost $300 million to $400 million and be advertised this fall or winter, with work starting in the spring.
    Construction of a similar northern approach, with s shorter bridge section and longer at-grade roadway, expected to cost $200 million to $300 million and be advertised this with construction next spring.
    The largest piece, the construction of the bridge itself and protection for the bridge piers against a future boat strike. Requests for contractor qualifications will go out this summer, with possibly starting next summer. The cost of that work is expected to be between $3.5 billion and $4 billion.

All told that work would range between just over $4 billion to $4.8 billion. That's on top of the roughly $700 million that Kiewit is expected to get for the first phase of the project, which included design, some demolition and installation of pilings that will eventually support the new bridge ."

From the CBS News article:

"Kiewit is being paid $700 million and will stay on with the project at least through the end of the year, laying the groundwork for a new bridge until Maryland picks a new contractor.

"Kiewit will continue working on the bridge. We need the public to know that work will not stop on this bridge," Gartner said.

The new contractor will work with Keiwit's [sic] design.

"I'd like to refer to it as our design now because that's part of the contract. They delivered the design to us, and that's what we will use for this bridge, and that's what we'll carry forward," Gartner said.

He told WJZ he is confident there are other contractors with the expertise to do this work, noting four companies bid on the project originally."

Your lack of sources is also noted.

[Beltway]

The Banner and CBS and the other papers are repeating/mirroring the same basic reporting error. Neither one is quoting an MDTA contract, a board action, or an FHWA obligation log. They are paraphrasing each other, not citing a procurement document.

There is no $700 million Kiewit contract in any MDTA action, FHWA authorization, or PDB document. The only executed contract is the $73 million Phase 1 early‑works package. Phase 2 was never awarded, no Guaranteed Maximum Price was accepted, and there is no contractual mechanism for a payout of that size.

The Banner's own math doesn't match MDTA's official $4.3 billion to $5.2 billion cost range. Their "$700 million on top of $4.0 to $4.8 billion" would put the project at $4.7 to $5.5 billion, which contradicts the state's numbers. That alone shows the $700 million figure isn't a contract value.

What the reporters misread were federal obligations to the project, not payments to Kiewit. Obligations include emergency relief, design progression, utilities, environmental work, and project‑level budget authority. Most of that money never goes to Kiewit.

If there were a $700 million Kiewit contract, it would appear in MDTA's board actions and FHWA's Emergency Relief logs. It doesn't, because it doesn't exist.

[Rothman]

Official stated costs of a project can be exceeded by various expenditures and accounting mechanisms.  Can take a while for the official costs to catch up in reporting.

We'll see if corrections are made...

https://www.wypr.org/wypr-news/2026-04-28/maryland-will-switch-contractors-as-it-enters-phase-two-of-key-bridge-rebuild

[Beltway]

More journalistic malpractice mirrored from the echo chamber.

If MDTA won't post the details then these papers should be ignored on those claims.

[Rothman]

More journalistic malpractice mirrored from the echo chamber.

If MDTA won't post the details then these papers should be ignored on those claims.

Went on a long, nearly 14-hour day trip today and had an "epiphany"...despite it being something I mentioned quite some time ago in this thread somewhere...so more like a "duh":

For basic design-build projects, the final design (engineering phases V-VI) and construction authorizations are combined into one.  Progressive design-build gets even more conglomerated than that, of course.

https://www.fhwa.dot.gov/cfo/projfundsmgta1.cfm -- See note about funding authorization being combined for design-build.

MDTA will have followed the guidance set and authorized the needed funding along with estimated construction costs already if Kiewit is really through 70% of design (i.e., past PE, which would also have ended with the categorical exclusion determination and into detailed/final design).  That would explain the $700 million number.  Like you said, the only contractor hired has been Kiewit, so they're out there doing the work (pilings and whatever approach work, etc.), other than in-house support or utility betterment kind of stuff.

If I'm right (*puts on a deerstalker and grabs a calabash pipe*) -- and I believe that I am -- it actually galvanizes what I said before about only needing a NEPA re-eval and reaffirms that going back to reopen NEPA at this point doesn't make any sense -- especially since MDTA is saying they're just looking for a contractor to construct Kiewit's design more cheaply than redesigning the project.

Instead of just going based upon my own experience with design-build projects and given the swiss cheese status of FHWA's current design-build guidance, I'll see what I can confirm tomorrow.

Still, the short of it is, from a FHWA perspective, the construction Federal Aid Project (FAP) is already authorized/advance constructed/and I'd imagine partially obligated.

[Beltway]

The "combined authorization" language you're citing applies to ordinary design‑build projects, not Major Projects.

For a Major Project like the Key Bridge, FHWA cannot authorize construction until Maryland submits a complete, fully funded financial plan and FHWA approves it. That hasn't happened. This has been said umpteen times.

Kiewit's 70% design is not a construction authorization. And the $700 million number isn't real -- the actual federal Emergency Relief allocation is $73 million for early works, demolition, channel clearing, temporary structures, mobilization, geotech, and partial design. Some reporter added a zero and everyone else repeated it.

Until the financial plan is approved, FHWA cannot obligate funds or issue a Construction NTP. A NEPA re‑eval is required because the project's cost, scope, and design have materially changed.

For comparison:
$780 million builds a brand‑new 6,100‑foot, two‑lane CBBT tunnel.

There is no way on God's Earth that $700 million has been spent on the Key Bridge.

[Rothman]

The "combined authorization" language you're citing applies to ordinary design‑build projects, not Major Projects.

I'm quoting this so it stands the test of time here.

Beltway can't differentiate between project delivery methods and how project size is classified by FHWA. 

Anyway, I'm certainly open to the possibility that I'm wrong.  I'm just not going to take Beltway's word for it (especially given that statement) and confirm it for myself.

[kphoger]

As someone who used to play the viola, why is there one in this project?

To play the world's saddest song, of course.

"Voilà" autocorrected to "viola" ??

How do you know?  You're not the one who typed it.  Maybe he really meant the cost of the sad-song-viola.

[kphoger]

Tappan Zee Bridge, decades late, over-budget, faulty materials: It's fine actually, R E L A X

Key Bridge, victim of a disaster, cost estimate nudged up, changed contractors: I will personally kill this project.

-Beltway... allegedly

The comparison doesn't hold.

But the capsule stands.  RELAX.

I'm quoting this so it stands the test of time here.

It's nice that we have a good legacy steward around here.  Thank you for your service.

[Beltway]

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.

[Beltway]

"Voilà" autocorrected to "viola" ??

How do you know?  You're not the one who typed it.  Maybe he really meant the cost of the sad-song-viola.

Given the current state of MDTA's documentation, a viola would be the least surprising missing cost item.

I assure you I'm relaxed. The analysis just doesn't change because someone types "RELAX."

[kphoger]

I am sure he could shut down the bridge for a significant time if he wanted to.

Relax.

The bridge will open in a month or two.

While there's certainly reason to be skeptical that "security" is the reason for delaying the bridge opening, any good Executive Branch attorney should be able to make enough of an argument to mount a successful defense for a while.

Relax.

The bridge will open in a month or two.

The analysis just doesn't change because someone types "RELAX."

Apparently.

When did the Gordie Howe open?