Maryland Transportation Authority - Patapsco River Toll Bridge - Design
HB 302 requires the Maryland Transportation Authority to design the entrances, exits, and related access roads for the new bridge over the Patapsco River, which is intended to replace the collapsed Francis Scott Key Bridge. The bill’s core requirement is that the bridge approach and exit configuration must be laid out so that a vehicle that does not actually cross the bridge cannot be charged a toll.
The bill adds a new section to the Transportation Article directing the Authority to incorporate this toll-avoidance safeguard into the bridge design. It does not change the general definition of the Authority, but it does create a specific statutory mandate tied to the replacement bridge project. The act would take effect October 1, 2026.
HB 302 would amend Maryland Transportation law by adding Section 4-408 to require the Maryland Transportation Authority to design the replacement Patapsco River bridge and its access infrastructure in a way that limits toll collection to vehicles that use the bridge itself. This would affect the Authority’s planning and engineering decisions for the new crossing and could influence how toll plazas, ramps, and connecting roads are configured. The bill is narrowly focused on the replacement of the Francis Scott Key Bridge and does not broadly alter tolling rules for other Maryland bridges.
Based on the bill text and available context, the measure appears to be framed as a consumer-protection and fairness provision, ensuring drivers are not charged for merely using nearby access roads or bypass routes. There is no recorded committee testimony or vote history in the provided materials, so no formal opposition or support is documented here. The available context suggests a practical, design-focused approach rather than a controversial policy overhaul.
The main point of potential contention is how the new bridge and its approaches should be engineered to separate tollable bridge crossings from untolled local or bypass traffic. Supporters would likely favor the bill as a safeguard against unintended toll charges, while any concerns would likely come from the Maryland Transportation Authority or project planners about added design constraints, cost, or operational complexity. Because no hearing transcript or vote record is provided, specific arguments from either side are not available.