Counties - Construction of Sidewalks and Crosswalks - Safe Alternative Routes to Public Schools
HB 394 requires each county board of education to prepare an annual report identifying, for every public school in the county, the areas where students are not eligible for school transportation because of distance and the pathways those students could use to travel to school using only “safe alternative routes.” The bill defines safe alternative routes to include roads with sidewalks and crosswalks at intersections, foot paths, and bike paths. County boards must post these reports on the county website each year.
The bill also requires each county governing body to review the report annually and construct any sidewalks and crosswalks needed to create the identified safe alternative routes for students. If the needed road improvements involve a road outside county control, the county must develop a plan with the entity or person that controls the road and make reasonable efforts to carry out that plan promptly. The bill applies to all counties and takes effect July 1, 2026.
HB 394 would add new duties to the Education Article and Local Government Article by creating a reporting and infrastructure-planning framework tied to student access to school. It would not change transportation eligibility rules directly, but it would require counties to assess where students lack bus service and to address gaps in pedestrian infrastructure by building sidewalks and crosswalks where needed. Counties would also have to coordinate with other road authorities when improvements involve roads outside county jurisdiction, potentially affecting state, municipal, or private road owners.
Based on the bill text and available context, the measure appears to be framed as a student safety and access initiative, with an emphasis on ensuring children can reach school by walking or biking on safer routes. There is no recorded committee testimony or vote history in the provided materials, so no formal support or opposition can be measured from the record here. The bill’s sponsors and the assignment to the Government, Labor, and Elections and Ways and Means committees suggest it is being treated as a policy and infrastructure measure with possible fiscal implications.
The main likely point of contention is the mandate placed on county governments to construct sidewalks and crosswalks each year based on the reports, which could create significant local costs and implementation burdens. Counties may also object to the requirement to coordinate improvements on roads they do not control, since that could require negotiation with state agencies, municipalities, or other entities and could delay projects. Supporters are likely to focus on student safety, walkability, and equitable access to school transportation, while critics may focus on cost, jurisdictional complexity, and the practical feasibility of completing the required infrastructure work.