Maryland Medical Assistance Program - Individuals With Intellectual and Developmental Disabilities - Provider Reimbursement
House Bill 440 would require the State Highway Administration to install a memorial sign on a specified segment of Maryland Route 210 in Prince George’s County, between mile markers 11.359 and 11.672 near the Kerby Hill Road ramps. The sign would commemorate individuals who died from injuries sustained in motor vehicle accidents on that stretch of roadway.
The bill also specifies the wording and visibility requirements for the sign. It directs that the memorial be visible to travelers on Route 210 and include the message: “IN MEMORY OF THE LIVES LOST ON MARYLAND ROUTE 210. WE ARE MAKING OUR HIGHWAY SAFER.” The measure would take effect October 1, 2025, and amends Transportation Article § 8-663, which currently designates Route 210 as the Piscataway Highway.
HB0440 would amend Maryland transportation law by adding a new memorial-sign requirement to existing statute governing Maryland Route 210. The State Highway Administration would be responsible for erecting and maintaining the sign at the specified location, creating a formal state-recognized roadside memorial on a segment of highway in Prince George’s County. The bill affects the Administration’s signage responsibilities and the public use of state highway right-of-way, but it does not create a new program or alter driver licensing, enforcement, or roadway safety standards directly.
The available record shows little to no recorded debate, committee testimony, or voting activity on the bill, and the measure was ultimately withdrawn by the sponsor in the House. Based on the bill text alone, the proposal appears memorial in nature and likely intended to honor victims and raise awareness about roadway safety. Because there are no transcripts or votes, there is no documented public sentiment in the record beyond the bill’s commemorative and safety-oriented framing.
No specific points of contention are documented in the provided materials. Potential areas of concern, if raised, would likely involve the appropriateness of memorial signage on state highways, the use of transportation resources for commemorative purposes, and whether the sign’s message or placement could be seen as advocacy rather than memorialization. However, the record provided does not identify any legislators, agencies, or outside groups taking a formal position for or against the bill.