An Act amending the act of June 1, 1945 (P.L.1242, No.428), known as the State Highway Law, in construction, improvement, maintenance and repair of State highways, further providing for duty on Depart . . .ment of Highways.
Summary
HB312 would amend Pennsylvania’s State Highway Law to add a specific resurfacing requirement for certain state highways. Under the bill, all state highways with a state route number of two or three digits would have to be resurfaced at least once every 25 years. The Department of Transportation would also be required to coordinate this work with engineering districts, metropolitan planning organizations, and rural planning organizations.
The bill further directs the department to create a 25-year resurfacing plan for each engineering district covering all qualifying highways in that district. In the final year before the end of each plan cycle, any qualifying highway that has not yet been resurfaced during that 25-year period would be given immediate priority. The department would also have to publish a public, county-organized list showing each qualifying highway and the last year it received a complete or partial resurfacing.
Impact
HB312 would add a new statutory duty to the Department of Transportation under Section 401 of the State Highway Law, creating a long-term resurfacing mandate and planning requirement for two- and three-digit state routes. It would not change ownership of roads or funding formulas directly, but it would impose a statewide scheduling, reporting, and prioritization framework that could affect PennDOT maintenance planning, district-level capital programming, and coordination with regional planning bodies. The bill would also increase public transparency by requiring publication of resurfacing history for covered highways.
Sentiment
No committee transcript or recorded vote information is provided, so there is no direct evidence of support or opposition from hearings or floor action. Based on the bill text alone, the measure appears to be framed as a maintenance and accountability proposal intended to improve roadway condition and planning predictability. The absence of recorded debate means the overall sentiment cannot be assessed beyond the bill’s apparent policy purpose.
Contention
The main potential points of contention are likely to be the cost, feasibility, and rigidity of the 25-year resurfacing mandate. PennDOT and transportation planners could view the requirement as difficult to meet if funding, labor, or project sequencing do not align with the statutory timeline, while supporters may argue that the bill creates needed accountability and prevents deferred maintenance. Another possible issue is whether the bill’s focus on two- and three-digit state routes leaves out other state highways, and whether the public reporting requirement is administratively burdensome or useful for oversight.
In transportation network service, further providing for rates and forms of compensation; and, in taxes for highway maintenance and construction, further providing for allocation of proceeds.
In supplemental funding for municipal highway maintenance, further providing for supplemental funding for municipal highway maintenance; and, in taxes for highway maintenance and construction, further providing for imposition of tax.
In supplemental funding for municipal highway maintenance, further providing for supplemental funding for municipal highway maintenance; and, in taxes for highway maintenance and construction, further providing for imposition of tax.