Highways - Sidewalks and Bicycle Pathways - Construction and Reconstruction (The Honorable Anne Healey Pedestrian Safety Act of 2026)
HB1504, the Honorable Anne Healey Pedestrian Safety Act of 2026, revises Maryland law governing when the State Highway Administration must build or rebuild sidewalks and bicycle pathways along State highways. The bill keeps the existing rule that sidewalks are generally required when an urban highway is constructed or reconstructed, but it adds new direction for how the Administration should prioritize and share funding for sidewalk and bicycle pathway projects requested by local governments. In particular, it requires local governments to submit requests through their annual priority letters for inclusion in the Consolidated Transportation Program, and it gives special funding treatment to projects in sustainable communities, priority funding areas, and locations with substantial pedestrian safety concerns.
The bill also directs the Administration to prioritize funding for sidewalks and bicycle pathways that are on or adjacent to highways subject to a complete streets policy or a similar Vision Zero program. It preserves and refines existing cost-sharing rules, including allowing the State to fund some projects entirely, requiring 75/25 State-local cost sharing in certain priority funding areas when local contributions are insufficient, and allowing full State funding for some safety-driven projects, including right-of-way acquisition in certain cases. Local governments retain responsibility for maintenance and repair after construction, except where the Administration reimburses preapproved reconstruction costs for deteriorated segments that cannot reasonably be repaired.
HB1504’s impact on state law is to make pedestrian and bicycle infrastructure funding more explicit, more safety-focused, and more closely tied to local planning and annual transportation funding requests. It also strengthens procedural requirements by requiring public notice and community involvement for certain local-requested projects and by requiring local governments to secure needed right-of-way. The bill further protects existing pedestrian routes by prohibiting projects that would sever a major pedestrian route unless a reasonable alternative is provided.
The overall sentiment around the bill appears strongly favorable. It passed the House 131-0 and the Senate 44-0, indicating broad bipartisan support and little visible opposition. The lack of committee transcript material suggests no major public controversy was recorded in the available materials.
The main points of potential contention are not reflected in the votes but are inherent in the bill’s structure: how much of the cost the State should bear versus local governments, which projects should receive priority funding, and whether local governments can meet the new request, notice, and right-of-way obligations. The bill also creates a policy preference for complete streets and Vision Zero projects, which may matter to jurisdictions with different transportation priorities or limited local matching funds.
HB1504 amends Transportation Article § 8-630 to change how Maryland funds, prioritizes, and administers sidewalk and bicycle pathway construction and reconstruction along State highways. It adds a priority for projects on or adjacent to highways covered by complete streets or Vision Zero policies, requires annual priority-letter requests for certain local projects, and adjusts State-local cost-sharing rules, including full State funding in some safety and sustainable-community contexts. It also reinforces local maintenance responsibilities and preserves protections for existing pedestrian routes.
The bill appears to have been received very positively. It passed both chambers unanimously, with 131 yeas and 0 nays in the House and 44 yeas and 0 nays in the Senate. No committee transcript is available, but the voting record suggests broad bipartisan agreement and little to no opposition.
No explicit controversy is documented in the available materials, but the bill’s likely pressure points are fiscal and administrative: the balance of State versus local funding, the new requirement that local governments use annual priority letters, and the obligation for local governments to provide notice, community involvement, and right-of-way. Jurisdictions with limited budgets may be most sensitive to the matching-fund requirements, while advocates for pedestrian safety and complete streets are likely to support the bill’s prioritization framework.