Maryland Transportation Authority - Patapsco River Toll Bridge - Design
Summary
HB302 requires the Maryland Transportation Authority (MDTA) to design the entrances, exits, and related access roads for the new bridge over the Patapsco River so that drivers who do not actually cross the bridge are not charged a toll. The bill is aimed at the replacement bridge that will serve as the successor to the collapsed Francis Scott Key Bridge.
In practical terms, the measure directs MDTA to structure the roadway approach so toll collection applies only to vehicles using the bridge itself, rather than to nearby traffic that may use connecting roads or access points. The bill does not set toll rates or create a new tolling program; instead, it imposes a design requirement on the state transportation authority and takes effect October 1, 2026.
Impact
HB302 would add a new section to Title 4 of the Transportation Article, creating a statutory mandate for MDTA in the planning and design of the Patapsco River replacement bridge. It would affect the authority’s bridge design and tolling layout decisions by requiring access points and associated roads to be configured so that non-crossing vehicles are not subject to tolls. The bill would primarily affect MDTA, future bridge users, and nearby motorists whose routes could otherwise be captured by toll infrastructure.
Sentiment
Based on the bill text and the absence of recorded committee testimony or votes in the provided materials, the bill appears to be presented as a targeted, practical transportation measure rather than a broadly controversial proposal. Its purpose is straightforward and consumer-protective, focusing on preventing toll charges for drivers who are not using the bridge. No formal support or opposition is documented in the supplied context.
Contention
The main policy issue is how the replacement bridge and its access roads should be designed to separate toll-paying bridge traffic from untolled local or bypass traffic. Any disagreement would likely center on engineering feasibility, toll-enforcement design, and whether the statutory mandate could constrain MDTA’s planning flexibility. Because no committee discussion or vote history is provided, no specific legislators, agencies, or stakeholder groups are identified as opposing or supporting the bill.