Beyond the immediate response, there's another issue I see. The Infrastructure Law is being seen as the money pot for rebuilding the bridge, with the feds covering 100%. Congress will be asked for more money to shovel into the project.

More money will not be provided by Congress. Because it will be requested by a Democratic President for work in a Blue state.

So in order to cover the cost of completing whatever demolition the ship didn't do, and the rebuild, using the infrastructure law, money will have to be freed up that otherwise is planned to be spent on other transit, road, and bridge projects. If you don't already have an approved funding agreement with the feds for your Infrastructure Law-funded project, expect at least a big delay while all the numbers are sorted out. WAG for cost of the bridge job, since this is no longer the 1970s, somewhere in the $5-10B range; could be much more if somebody demands a monument/design statement as happened with the Bay Bridge.

If the ship's insurance and perhaps a spiff from Singapore come through, some day, perhaps some of the funds used could be replenished, if the authorization (law) doesn't expire first; how the reimbursement would be handled would be up to Congress at the time, of course.

And: will the replacement include bus lanes and/or rail? Baltimore has both light and heavy rail transit, but of course nothing was previously attached to the bridge. I'd expect pressure for at least a bus lane so they could call it BRT.