Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the School Safety Infrastructure topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Bill Would Require Counties to Map and Build Safe Alternate Routes for Students; Counties Raise Implementation Concerns
Summary
Delegate Jen Tarasa asked counties to prepare public reports identifying safe routes for students ineligible for bus transportation and for local governments to build necessary sidewalks and crosswalks; county associations said the mandate overlooks interjurisdictional and resource constraints.
Delegate Jen Tarasa presented House Bill 811, a bill that would require county school boards to prepare and publish a report identifying areas where students are ineligible for bus service and to specify safe and alternative walking routes for those students. The measure would also require county governing bodies to review the report and construct sidewalks and crosswalks needed for the safe routes identified.
The nut graf: Sponsor framed HB 811 as a safety and equity bill intended to reduce pedestrian risk for students and to ensure parents and schools know whether safe routes exist; counties warned the bill assigns responsibility without accounting for multi‑jurisdictional roads, state highways or municipal maintenance responsibilities.
Sponsor testimony cited instances where students walk along busy roads and highlighted an incident in Prince George’s County in which two children were killed while walking to school. The bill would also require annual review of routes.
Michael Sanderson of the Maryland Association of Counties (MACo) testified in opposition as drafted. MACo’s witnesses said the proposal places full responsibility on counties even where sidewalks and crossings are on state highway right‑of‑way or within a municipality, and argued the law would be impractical without broader participation from municipalities and the State Highway Administration. Sanderson said past negotiations produced compromise language that focused on documenting grant efforts and coordination rather than a strict county construction mandate.
Asked whether a multistakeholder work group or a collaborative planning process would be acceptable, MACo said counties would participate and generally supported a process that brought school systems, municipalities and state highway authorities to the table but opposed an unfunded mandate requiring counties to build infrastructure regardless of jurisdictional control.
Ending: Sponsor indicated willingness to work on shared solutions and emphasized the bill’s safety purpose; MACo asked for an unfavorable report on the draft as written but offered to negotiate language that recognizes interjurisdictional realities and funding constraints.
