| Key Bridge Funding: A Reality Check as of March 2026 |
The gap between what Maryland is assuming and what FHWA will actually fund remains enormous — and the latest changes to Maryland’s own public messaging only reinforce that reality.
When Congress authorized a 100% federal share for the Key
Bridge replacement, many people understandably assumed that meant the federal
government would pay whatever Maryland’s final project cost turned out to be.
Maryland’s public messaging encouraged that interpretation, repeatedly
describing the rebuild as “fully federally funded” and implying that the state
would not need to contribute a dollar. But the legal reality was always more
conditional. The 100% share applies only to eligible costs, and eligibility
is determined not by Maryland, but by the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA).
That distinction — between share and amount — is the foundation of the entire
funding tension.
Under federal highway law, FHWA must determine what portion of a project is
“eligible and reasonable” before applying the federal share. Congress changed
the share to 100%, but it did not pre approve Maryland’s scope, schedule, or
cost. FHWA still had to evaluate whether Maryland’s proposed design represented
a comparable replacement, whether the acceleration premiums were justified, and
whether the scope exceeded what the Emergency Relief (ER) program allows. In
other words, the 100% share was real, but the assumption that FHWA would accept
Maryland’s entire estimate was never guaranteed.
Maryland’s last public estimate, released at the 70% design milestone in
October, was $4.3–$5.2 billion. Internally, once acceleration premiums,
supply chain risk, contractor contingencies, and political schedule pressure
were layered in, the internal working number likely rose to $5.4–$5.8 billion.
Maryland never published that higher internal figure, but their behavior
strongly suggested they were carrying it.
FHWA, however, evaluates comparability based on what a normal speed, standards
compliant replacement would cost. Comparable U.S. cable stayed bridges with
1,200–1,400 foot main spans typically fall in the $1.8–$2.2 billion range when
built on a conventional schedule. That range reflects real world benchmarks:
normal procurement, normal labor, normal sequencing, and no acceleration
premiums. The only way to reach $4–6 billion is through compressed schedules,
overtime, premium steel slots, new central mix concrete plants, and contractor
risk pricing — none of which are eligible under ER rules.
Over the past year, FHWA sent several quiet but unmistakable signals that it
was not aligned with Maryland’s cost or schedule. The first was silence:
FHWA never publicly validated Maryland’s estimate, never used the $4.3–$5.2
billion figure, and never said it concurred with the scope or the acceleration.
In federal–state dynamics, silence is not neutrality — it is skepticism. The
second signal was FHWA’s repeated emphasis on “oversight,” “fiscal discipline,”
and “reasonableness,” coded language federal agencies use when they believe a
state’s estimate is inflated or includes ineligible elements. The third signal
was FHWA’s careful phrasing whenever it referenced the 100% share. It
consistently tied the share to “eligible ER expenses,” never to Maryland’s
actual project. That omission was intentional.
Maryland’s own behavior revealed that it understood the risk. Publicly, the
state projected absolute confidence: full federal funding, no state dollars, and
a fast track schedule. But internally, Maryland acted like an agency preparing
for a potential cap. It never once said FHWA had approved its estimate. It
repeatedly delayed the release of the revised cost, a classic sign that a state
is waiting for federal feedback it hasn’t received. And in technical documents —
the ones FHWA actually reads — Maryland quietly shifted from “fully federally
funded” to “100% federal share for eligible costs,” a subtle but telling retreat
from the political narrative.
Now, in early 2026, Maryland’s own FAQ has shifted again — and the changes are
revealing.
The funding section (as of 3-11-2026) now states (red highlighting mine):
"The State of Maryland continues to pursue the DALI’s
owner and manager for all of the damages caused by their negligence and
incompetence – including the cost to reconstruct the
Francis Scott Key Bridge – so that the parties responsible for this
tragedy pay for the damages they caused. The American
Relief Act, 2025, provides that if any additional funds are required to
build the new bridge beyond the compensation paid by the DALI,
the federal government will provide that funding."
This is a significant reframing. The earlier narrative
implied that federal funds would cover the entire project. The new language
implies that:
• the Dali litigation is the primary funding source, and
• federal funds are a conditional backstop, not a blanket guarantee.
This shift aligns with federal law — FHWA never promised to pay Maryland’s full estimate — but it represents a major rhetorical retreat from Maryland’s earlier certainty. It also signals that Maryland is preparing the public for the possibility that the Dali settlement will fall far short of the project cost, and that FHWA may cap the eligible amount. International maritime law will almost certainly limit the ship owners' liability to about $100 million (about 5% of the original $1.9 billion estimate).
A second FAQ change (as of 3-11-2026) is even more striking. The project
website now states:
“Construction is expected to begin in late 2025 with production pile
installation.”
This is not merely optimistic — it is retroactively
impossible. We are now well past “late 2025,” and:
• no Construction NTP was issued,
• no 100% design existed,
• no FHWA approval existed,
• no federal authorization existed, and
• production piles cannot legally be installed before Phase II.
This is the one activity that is explicitly prohibited before the Construction NTP. The FAQ is now asserting a milestone that never occurred, could not have occurred, and contradicts the contract itself. This is not an update — it is a narrative adjustment designed to preserve the illusion of schedule momentum.
These two FAQ changes — softened funding language and a retroactive construction claim — point to the same underlying reality: the project is under political pressure, and Maryland is adjusting its public messaging to maintain confidence even as the federal process remains unresolved.
Behind these shifts are three internal fears Maryland has carried from the beginning.
First, Maryland knows FHWA may reject the acceleration driven cost. The ER program has decades of precedent excluding overtime, compressed sequencing, premium procurement, and contractor acceleration pricing. Maryland’s “war speed” schedule depends on exactly those elements.
Second, Maryland knows it cannot fill a multibillion dollar gap if FHWA caps the eligible amount. MDTA cannot raise tolls enough, cannot borrow that much without risking a downgrade, and cannot rely on the legislature to backstop the project.
Third, Maryland knows the schedule depends entirely on the assumption of full federal funding. If that assumption cracks, the contractor will slow down, procurement will stall, and the political narrative will collapse.
If FHWA were to cap the eligible amount — likely around $1.9 billion, consistent with comparable cost logic — the consequences would unfold quickly. FHWA would issue a technical determination letter stating that $1.9 billion represents the eligible and reasonable cost of a comparable replacement. Maryland would be forced to acknowledge the gap, though it would do so cautiously, using phrases like “evaluating options” and “coordinating with federal partners.” CNTP would be delayed, because Maryland cannot issue a construction notice to proceed without a complete funding plan. Reporters would obtain the FHWA letter through FOIA or leaks, and headlines would reveal the true scale of the gap. The project website and social media accounts would shift tone overnight, dropping confident language and adopting cautious, process oriented phrasing.
Over the following months, Maryland would enter a period of financial and procedural triage. The contractor would slow down to a minimum burn rate. Maryland would explore every possible funding source — state funds, toll increases, GARVEE bonds, TIFIA loans, congressional earmarks — but none would be sufficient to fill a multibillion dollar gap. Bond rating agencies would issue warnings. Legislative committees would demand briefings. And Maryland would quietly begin exploring redesign options, because redesign is the only path that reduces the cost enough to fit within federal eligibility.
A redesigned bridge — built on a normal schedule, without acceleration premiums — would likely cost $1.8–$2.2 billion, aligning with FHWA’s comparability expectations. That redesigned version would take longer — likely pushing the opening into the early 2030s — but it would be fully eligible for federal funding. By the end of a year, the political narrative would shift from “fastest rebuild in history” to “responsible stewardship of federal funds.” The $4.3–$5.2 billion accelerated design would fade away. A more conventional, federally eligible design would take its place. The schedule would slip, but the project would stabilize.
In short, the 100% federal share was never a blank check. FHWA always retained the authority to determine the eligible amount, and Maryland’s own behavior — now reflected in its revised FAQ — shows it understands that risk. The tension between public confidence and federal caution was baked into the process from the beginning. The outcome — whether a cap, a redesign, or a slower schedule — will ultimately reflect federal rules, not the political narrative.
Bibliography
[1] American Relief Act / BRIDGE Relief Act – 100% Federal Share Language
U.S. Congress. American Relief Act of 2025, Division X — Bridge Replacement
and Emergency Relief Provisions.
https://www.congress.gov/
(Use the enrolled bill link once the final bill number is published.)
[2] FHWA Emergency Relief (ER) Program – Eligibility and Reasonable Cost
Rules
Federal Highway Administration. Emergency Relief Program Overview and
Manual.
https://www.fhwa.dot.gov/programadmin/erelief.cfm (fhwa.dot.gov in Bing)
https://www.fhwa.dot.gov/reports/erm/er.pdf (fhwa.dot.gov in Bing)
[3] Maryland Transportation Authority – Key Bridge Replacement FAQ
Maryland Transportation Authority (MDTA). Francis Scott Key Bridge
Replacement – Frequently Asked Questions.
https://keybridgerebuild.maryland.gov/faq (keybridgerebuild.maryland.gov in
Bing)
(Accessed March 11, 2026 — content subject to change.)
Legend
MDTA -
Maryland Transportation Authority
NTP - Notice to Proceed
CNTP - Construction Notice to Proceed
FHWA - Federal Highway Administration
_________________________________________________________________________________
Roads to the Future articles:
Baltimore Outer Harbor Crossing Replacement Proposal
Francis Scott Key Bridge (Outer Harbor Crossing)
Copyright © 2026 by Scott Kozel. All rights reserved. Reproduction, reuse,
or distribution without permission is prohibited.
By Scott M. Kozel, Roads to the Future
(Created 3-12-2026)