Transportation - Paratransit Services - Interjurisdictional Routes
HB0058 would amend Maryland’s transportation law governing county-funded elderly and handicapped transportation services, commonly referred to as paratransit. The bill requires counties applying for state funding to identify county-administered paratransit services that provide transportation within designated service areas, including interjurisdictional routes between counties and facilities in specified health system networks. It also requires the local area agency on aging to approve the project as part of the application process.
The bill further directs the Secretary of Transportation, in consultation with the Departments of Aging and Disabilities, to adopt procedures to ensure counties cooperate in establishing interjurisdictional paratransit routes. Counties receiving funds would be required to use the money only for equipment acquisition or replacement and operating costs, to serve elderly and handicapped residents in the service areas identified, and to coordinate with other counties to better meet statewide transportation needs. The bill specifically contemplates routes serving facilities in networks such as Adventist HealthCare, Johns Hopkins Medicine, LifeBridge Health, Luminis Health Maryland, MedStar Health, and the University of Maryland Medical System.
HB0058 would narrow and clarify the conditions under which counties may receive state elderly and handicapped transportation funding under Transportation Article § 2-103.3. It adds application requirements, interjurisdictional route expectations, and coordination duties, while preserving the existing funding structure and use restrictions for county transportation services. Counties, the Secretary of Transportation, the Department of Aging, the Department of Disabilities, and local area agencies on aging would all have defined roles in reviewing, approving, and implementing these services.
The available context shows the bill was introduced and received a House hearing, but there are no committee transcripts or recorded votes to indicate strong support or opposition. Based on the text, the bill appears to be framed as a service-improvement measure aimed at expanding coordination and access for elderly and disabled riders, suggesting a generally practical and administrative policy approach rather than a controversial one. However, the absence of discussion records means the level of support or concern cannot be determined from the provided materials.
The main potential points of contention are the new mandates placed on counties, including the requirement to identify specific interjurisdictional routes and to coordinate with other counties and local aging agencies as a condition of funding. Counties may view these requirements as limiting local discretion or adding administrative burdens, while supporters would likely argue they improve access to medical facilities and better use state transportation funds. Another possible issue is the bill’s focus on named health system networks, which could raise questions about whether the legislation is too specific or whether it favors certain provider systems over others.