Delegates hear bill to authorize limited speed cameras on I‑695 and I‑83; questions focus on placement, adjudication and traffic flow

Delegate Dana Stein presented House Bill 978 at the Baltimore County House Delegation hearing on Feb. 21, proposing the use of automated speed monitoring systems on selected high‑risk segments of I‑695 (the Baltimore Beltway) and I‑83 in the county.

The bill would allow State Highway Administration to place up to four cameras in each direction on the Beltway and up to three in each direction on I‑83 at locations identified as high risk for crashes that cause serious bodily injury or death. Drivers recorded exceeding the speed limit by 12 mph or more would face fines capped at $40; program revenue would first cover operating costs and then be dedicated to roadway repairs and safety improvements on county segments. The bill includes notice requirements: signage and digital speed displays for motorists. The statutory authorization would sunset in June 2030.

Delegates pressed sponsors on several implementation details. Questions and points raised included: - Location authority and distribution: an amendment clarifies State Highway Administration will determine camera locations. Delegates asked whether the statute should require geographic distribution to avoid clustering multiple cameras in a short corridor; Stein said placement will be driven by data showing high‑risk segments and suggested he would consider language to ensure distribution. - Overlap with work‑zone cameras and construction: delegates asked how the program would interact with current construction-related speed reductions; Stein said the administration could avoid placing program cameras in temporary work‑zone sections and that locations would be based on crash data. - Adjudication and erroneous tickets: delegates recounted cases where residents received disputed tickets or were victims of stolen plates. The bill allows defenses such as presenting a police report if tags or vehicles were stolen, and a person can request the speed-monitoring-operator’s presence at trial; delegates asked for quicker, less burdensome administrative review options, noting the disproportionate burden of challenging a small fine in person. - Fee cap: the bill sets the $40 cap; delegates confirmed that raising fines would require separate legislation.

Why it matters: Supporters said speed cameras reduced dangerous speeding on Baltimore City’s Jones Falls Expressway and argued the same approach could lower serious crashes on county interstates. Opponents and concerned delegates warned about traffic flow impacts (noting the Key Bridge outage and increased diversion traffic), the need for clear protections for mistaken citations, and the importance of preventing the program from being perceived primarily as a revenue source.

Next steps: The hearing produced extensive policy questions but no vote; sponsor and staff signaled willingness to refine language on distribution, adjudication procedures and construction overlaps before committee consideration.