Prince George's County - Speed Monitoring Systems - Maryland Route 5 PG 315-26
HB0401 would authorize Prince George’s County to place and operate speed monitoring systems on Maryland Route 5, subject to existing notice, signage, and operational requirements in state law. The bill adds Maryland Route 5 to the list of locations where automated speed enforcement is permitted in Prince George’s County and requires that, before citations are issued, the county provide public notice, install the required warning signs, and ensure each speed-monitoring sign is paired with a real-time display showing a driver’s speed.
The bill also directs how revenue from citations issued on Maryland Route 5 would be used. After the county recovers implementation and administration costs, any remaining fines would be remitted to the Comptroller and distributed to the State Highway Administration for state and local highway and pedestrian safety improvements on and near Maryland Route 5 in Prince George’s County. The bill would take effect October 1, 2026, and it amends both the Courts and Judicial Proceedings Article and the Transportation Article to create this new enforcement and funding framework.
HB0401 would amend Maryland’s automated speed enforcement laws to add Maryland Route 5 in Prince George’s County as an authorized location for speed monitoring systems and to create a dedicated use for resulting fine revenue. It would also require a real-time speed display at each applicable sign location and extend the existing citation, signage, and penalty structure to this roadway. The bill affects Prince George’s County, the State Highway Administration, and drivers traveling on Maryland Route 5, while leaving the underlying civil penalty schedule largely unchanged.
The available record shows no committee testimony or recorded votes, and the bill was ultimately withdrawn by the sponsor in the House. Based on the text alone, the measure appears to be framed as a traffic safety proposal focused on speeding reduction and pedestrian protection rather than a broader enforcement expansion. The absence of recorded opposition or support in the provided materials makes the overall sentiment difficult to measure, but the sponsor’s withdrawal suggests the bill did not advance to a final vote.
The main policy issue is the use of automated enforcement on Maryland Route 5, which can be contentious because speed cameras are often debated as either a safety tool or a revenue-generating enforcement method. The bill attempts to address that concern by restricting the use of net revenue to highway and pedestrian safety improvements on and near the corridor and by requiring real-time speed display signage. Any disagreement would likely center on whether Route 5 meets the criteria for camera placement, whether the cameras are the best way to improve safety, and whether the revenue restrictions are sufficient to ensure the program is safety-focused.