Part G
Transportation and Motor Vehicles
Mass Transit
Farebox Recovery
Since 1982, the Mass Transit Administration (MTA) has been required by law to recover through fares and other operating revenues at least 50 percent of eligible net operating expenses of bus service under its Baltimore jurisdiction. The 50 percent recovery level was chosen because the Baltimore bus service had historically recovered about 50 percent of its costs. Over the years the farebox recovery mandate was updated to include additional transit services, including Baltimore Metro subway and light rail services. The Maryland Rail Commuter (MARC) train service is also subject to a 50 percent farebox recovery requirement.
Senate Bill 811/House Bill 1248 (both passed) lower the farebox recovery requirement for the Baltimore transit systems from 50 percent to 40 percent, while also requiring the MTA to establish a cost recovery goal of 50 percent. In addition, the bills lower from 50 percent to 40 percent the percentage of costs used to calculate "service deficits" for purposes of providing annual grants from the Maryland Department of Transportation (MDOT) to the Washington Suburban Transit District and to Prince George's and Montgomery counties for eligible local bus service.
The Baltimore transit system has been unable to meet farebox goals since fiscal 1996 due to the low recovery rate for rail services. These services have high fixed costs that bus service does not have, such as security at rail stations and maintenance of tracks, signals, and electric systems. The rail systems have not been able to generate sufficient ridership to meet the farebox recovery requirements.
In December 1999, the Commission on Transportation Investment (CTI) recommended that the 50 percent farebox recovery requirement be replaced with performance indicators and management audits. The CTI also recommended that should the farebox recovery change, State financial support and service policies should be applied equitably to the Baltimore and Washington transit areas. Senate Bill 811/House Bill 1248 incorporate, in part, the recommendations of the CTI.
Net adjusted operating expenditures for fiscal 2001 for the MTA bus and rail lines are estimated at $181.7 million. Expected revenues are $79 million, representing a farebox recovery of 43.5 percent. In order to meet a 50 percent recovery rate, the MTA would have had to either cut $23 million in service or increase fares $0.35 to raise $11.8 million in revenues. The legislation will allow MTA to continue its current and projected level of service while being in compliance with the farebox recovery mandate. However, to the extent a lower farebox recovery requirement decreases incentives to control mass transit costs or raise additional revenues, State mass transit expenditures for the MTA will increase. For each 1 percent reduction in farebox recovery, State MTA subsidy costs from the Transportation Trust Fund (TTF) increase $1.8 million annually.
Net adjusted operating expenditures for fiscal 2001 for the Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority (WMATA) and local bus service are estimated at $720.7 million. Expected revenues are $375.6 million, representing a farebox recovery of 52.1 percent. Accordingly, the bill's changes to the "service deficit" definition will not affect the current level of State participation in the WMATA and local bus service system. However, to the extent a lower farebox requirement decreases incentives to control mass transit costs or to raise additional revenues, State mass transit expenditures for WMATA will increase. For each 1 percent reduction in farebox recovery, State WMATA subsidy costs from the TTF increase $1.4 million annually.
Senate Bill 811/House Bill 1248 also require the MTA and Prince George's and Montgomery counties to: (1) establish performance indicators for their respective transit systems to track service efficiency; and (2) submit an annual performance report to the Senate Budget and Taxation Committee, the House Ways and Means Committee, and the House Appropriations Committee by December 1 of each year.
Finally, the legislation creates an 18-member Transit Policy Panel to study and make recommendations on the Baltimore and Washington transit systems. The panel is required to report its findings and recommendations to the General Assembly by December 1, 2000. The bills terminate the panel at the end of December 2000.
Mass Transit Funding
In order to create a dedicated source of mass transit funding (in addition to funding from the TTF), Senate Bill 286/House Bill 1 (both failed) would have dedicated 20 percent of sales and use tax revenue (one cent of the five cent tax) to a newly-created Mass Transit Account of the TTF. The revenue dedication would have been phased in, so that in fiscal 2001, 2 percent of the sales and use tax revenue would have been dedicated to the Mass Transit Account, increasing 2 percent per year until fully phased in in fiscal 2010. The Mass Transit Account would have been used only to fund the capital and operating expenses of the MTA, the capital and operating expenses of the WMATA, and local grants to local jurisdictions for mass transit capital and operating expenses. The Mass Transit Account funds would have been in addition to projected TTF funding for mass transit as identified in the approved Consolidated Transportation Program (CTP) for fiscal 2000 through 2005.
General fund revenues would have decreased by approximately $51.8 million in fiscal 2001 and revenues to the TTF would have increased by a corresponding amount, due to the dedication of 2 percent of sales tax revenue to the Mass Transit Account of the TTF. The bills would have provided that, when fully phased in in 2010, approximately $805 million of the projected $4.0 billion in sales and use tax revenue would be dedicated to the TTF.
In its December 1999 report, the CTI identified at least $27 billion in unmet transportation capital needs over the next 20 years, of which $6.1 billion are mass transit projects.
Hughesville-Lexington Park Railway Corridor Commission
Senate Joint Resolution 8 (passed) requests the Governor to establish a ten-member Hughesville-Lexington Park Railway Corridor Commission to consider ways to initiate implementation of the recommendations of the 1998 Hughesville to Lexington Park Right-of-Way Preservation Study. According to the 1998 study, the Southern Maryland Railroad right-of-way from Hughesville to Lexington Park is slowly disappearing. The study recommends that the railroad right-of-way be preserved. The study concludes that it is in the best interest of the State to protect existing railroad rights-of-way for possible future use because the cost of acquiring rights-of-way is escalating due to population growth and increasing land values. The commission's report is due by July 1, 2001.
Highways
House Bill 949 (passed) provides that a property owner whose property is subject to a "quick-take" condemnation by the State Roads Commission is entitled to receive any amount paid into the court for that property within ten business days of the written request for the funds. Currently, in proceedings for "quick-take" condemnation of property, the State Roads Commission must pay to the owner, or into the court for the benefit of the property owner, the estimated fair value and fair compensation for the property to be condemned. The property owner is entitled to receive the funds from the court upon written request while awaiting the final award from the condemnation proceedings. There is no time frame specified in current law by which the property owner should receive the funds.
House Bill 1010 (passed) alters the informational sign program administered by the State Highway Administration (SHA). The bill allows SHA to post signs informing motorists of attractions as well as other services along controlled access highways throughout the State as long as such signs comply with applicable federal standards.
SHA is required to consult with the Department of Business and Economic Development and local officials concerning the type, size, number, lighting, and placement of signs under the program and to report back to the General Assembly in 2002 concerning the installation of signs under the program.
Bicycle and Pedestrian Access: House Bill 1147 (passed) provides for a Director of Bicycle and Pedestrian Access in the Office of the Secretary of Transportation. The bill requires the director to develop and coordinate policies and plans for the provision, preservation, improvement, and expansion of access to transportation facilities in the State for pedestrians and bicycle riders, including the development of a statewide bicycle-pedestrian 20-year master plan before October 1, 2002. The master plan must include short-term and long-range goals and reasonable cost estimates for reaching those goals. In addition, the master plan must establish objective performance criteria against which progress in achieving the goals can be measured.
Each fiscal year, MDOT is required under the legislation to budget an amount sufficient to fund projects and programs determined by the Secretary to be necessary to achieve the bicycle and pedestrian transportation goals detailed in the master plan. The goals may include the construction and maintenance of public bicycle areas, bicycle ways, and sidewalks.
Aviation
House Bill 17 (passed) requires the Maryland Aviation Administration (MAA) to implement a Regional Air Service Development Program in fiscal 2001. The bill authorizes the MAA to grant to any person the privilege of operating scheduled regional air service to and from any community in the State that is determined by the MAA to be in need of, and capable of supporting, such air service. If the MAA determines that financial assistance is warranted, it may grant or loan funds to the person operating the air service. Grants associated with this service must be approved by the Board of Public Works.
The legislation requires the MAA to develop a strategic plan for regional air service in the State prior to granting any person the privilege to operate such service. The strategic plan must at least identify and consider: (1) the areas of the State most in need of regional air service; (2) the target passenger market in the State; (3) optimal flight and fare schedules to serve the target market in an efficient and cost-effective manner; (4) options for aircraft to be employed; and (5) direct and indirect operating costs and potential revenue sources, including passenger fares and federal, State, and local revenues. The MAA must also recommend to the Secretary of MDOT the policies and spending priorities to implement the strategic plan.
The measure requires the Secretary to seek full funding of the program in the department's annual budget request beginning in fiscal 2001 and in each year thereafter. The bill limits State financial assistance to $1 million in fiscal 2001, $2 million in fiscal 2002, and $3 million in fiscal 2003 to support regional air service at a maximum of three airports in each year. The program is to be funded, to the extent authorized by federal law, through the TTF, available federal funds, or general funds if other funds are insufficient to cover the cost of the program. During the 2000 session, Supplemental Budget No. 2 added $1.0 million in general funds to the Board of Public Works' budget for this purpose. The bill also requires MDOT to seek federal funding under the federal Air-21 program.
MDOT has issued a Request for Expressions of Interest (EOI) for regional air service from the Baltimore/Washington International Airport to Cumberland, Hagerstown, and St. Mary=s County airports for a three- year period. The MAA advises that these routes will be targeted as a result of the bill. The EOIs will gauge the level of interest from private air carriers.
Finally, the MAA is required under the legislation to submit to the General Assembly by December 1, 2001, a report on the initial results of the program. Additionally, the MAA is required to submit a report to the Governor and the General Assembly by December 1, 2002, that evaluates the effectiveness of and the need for the Regional Air Service Development Program and the feasibility of continuing regional air service without a State subsidy. The report is to include recommendations regarding the continued financial support of the program from the general fund. House Bill 17 has a sunset date of June 30, 2003.
Priority Funding Areas
Senate Bill 731/House Bill 1189 (both passed) require MDOT to establish measurable transportation goals and benchmarks on alternatives to automobile transportation in priority funding areas and to report annually on the attainment of the goals and benchmarks. Beginning with the year 2002 CTP and the Maryland Transportation Plan, the bills require MDOT to report to the General Assembly regarding: (1) the establishment of measurable performance indicators or benchmarks in priority funding areas designed to quantify the goals and objectives specified in the Maryland Transportation Plan; and (2) the degree to which the projects and programs contained in the CTP and approved Maryland Transportation Plan attain those goals as measured by the performance indicators or benchmarks. The legislation specifies the types of indicators that MDOT should use to establish and measure goals and benchmarks. The report must be submitted each year prior to the legislature's consideration of the proposed CTP and Maryland Transportation Plan.
A similar initiative is being undertaken through fiscal 2001 operating budget committee narrative. The adopted language requires MDOT to develop a "Managing For Results" report that will accompany the CTP and be incorporated in the Maryland Transportation Plan. The report is to quantify the goals and objectives in the Maryland Transportation Plan and explain the effect the projects and the programs in the CTP have on attaining those goals and benchmarks.
Senate Bill 731/House Bill 1189 also establish a 13-member advisory committee to advise MDOT on the establishment of transportation goals, indicators, and benchmarks.
Business Regulation
Automotive-Related Industries
During the 1998 session, the General Assembly established a Task Force to Study the Comprehensive Licensing of Automotive-Related Industries (see Chapter 378, Acts of 1998). The role of the task force was to address problems regarding automotive-related industries not subject to regulation or licensing by the Motor Vehicle Administration (MVA). While motor vehicle dealers, salesmen, manufacturers, distributors, factory branches, driving schools, automotive dismantlers and recyclers, and scrap processors are all licensed under the Maryland Vehicle Law, many related industries are not and in some cases this fosters illegal activity. The task force was to consider a broad-based effort to address all forms of unlicensed automobile-related activity, including auctions and automotive repair facilities. During the 1999 session, the task force was reestablished with a broader membership, reflecting additional automotive industries (see Chapter 318, Acts of 1999). The 1999 task force report to the General Assembly served as the basis for the legislation passed during the 2000 session.
Senate Bill 149/House Bill 114 (both passed) require automotive repair facilities and vehicle storage facilities to keep and maintain, for at least one year, accurate and complete records regarding vehicles that are being repaired or stored at the facilities and specified used major component parts located on the premises. Records of automotive repair facilities and vehicle storage facilities, as well as vehicle auctioneers, are subject to inspection by the MVA, the Department of State Police, or a law enforcement officer with a county or municipal police department or sheriff's office who is assigned to an antitheft unit. In lieu of producing records for inspection, a facility can produce other satisfactory evidence of proof of ownership or right of possession.
The bills authorize MVA inspectors to issue citations for violations involving required business records and unlicensed business activities. The bills also establish civil penalties of $500 for a first offense and $1,000 for subsequent offenses, to be assessed against an automotive repair facility, a vehicle storage facility, or a vehicle auctioneer that fails to maintain the required records or to allow an authorized inspection. Additionally, the bills modify the applicable criminal penalty for operating as an automotive dismantler and recycler or scrap processor without a license.
Driving Schools
Under Maryland's new graduated licensing system which took effect July 1, 1999, each new driver is required to complete a standardized driver education course regardless of the driver's age. The course involves 30 hours of classroom instruction and six hours of driving under professional supervision. The new graduated licensing system doubled the number of individuals required to complete driver education each year. Prior to July 1999, driver education was only required for new drivers under the age of 18. However, the General Assembly and the MVA continued to have concerns about ensuring quality instruction by each school.
Senate Bill 40/House Bill 541 (both passed) authorize the MVA to immediately suspend a driver's school or driver instructor's certification in cases where the MVA determines there is a danger of immediate, substantial, and continuing harm to the public if the certification is continued pending a hearing. However, the MVA must grant an administrative hearing within seven days of a request for a hearing and render an immediate decision after the hearing as to whether or not a certification suspension or revocation shall be continued. The bills also expand the grounds upon which the MVA may act against the certification of a driving school or driving instructor by including a conviction of any crime of moral turpitude.
Commercial Vehicles
Commercial Vehicle Information Systems and Network Transponders
The Commercial Vehicle Information Systems and Network (CVISN) is a program initiated by the Maryland Department of Transportation to allow for the electronic screening and clearance of individual commercial vehicles on the highway. The CVISN program operates by the use of transponders installed in commercial vehicles that transmit information about a vehicle to inspectors, allowing them to determine which vehicles should stop for inspections and which can bypass weigh stations and other inspections.
Senate Bill 45 (passed) prohibits a person from knowingly removing a CVISN transponder from the vehicle to which it is registered and placing it in another vehicle. A CVISN transponder must stay with the vehicle to which it is originally registered in order for the program to be effective. The registered owner of a vehicle containing a CVISN transponder that is not registered to that vehicle is liable for a violation of this prohibition, unless the operator or a person other than the registered owner is found to be solely responsible or the registered owner is the lessor of the vehicle under certain circumstances. A person convicted of removing a CVISN transponder and placing it in another vehicle is disqualified from a driving a commercial motor vehicle for one year and may be fined up to $500 or imprisoned for up to six months.
Fines
Commercial Drivers' Licenses: House Bill 207 (passed) establishes a three-tiered criminal penalty structure for specified offenses under the Maryland Commercial Driver's License Act. The enumerated offenses relate to the unauthorized operation of a commercial motor vehicle, operation without a required or appropriate endorsement, or driving a commercial vehicle without the appropriate class of license. The bill increases the applicable penalties and is structured to provide increased deterrence aimed at repeat offenders.
Safety Inspections and Violations: The driver of a commercial vehicle must stop and submit to measurement or weighing of the vehicle when directed to stop by a police officer or a CVISN transponder to determine if the size or weight of the vehicle is in violation of the law. House Bill 448 (passed) gives a police officer the authority to take a vehicle into temporary custody in order to inspect the vehicle if the driver does not comply with the police officer's or CVISN transponder's directions to stop for an inspection. In addition to penalties imposed on the driver for failing an inspection, a driver who fails to stop is responsible for additional costs incurred in inspecting the vehicle and a criminal penalty of up to $1,000 for a first offense, up to $2,000 for a second offense, and up to $3,000 for a third offense.
House Bill 448 makes it an offense to move a vehicle with an oversized or overweight load without the required permit or in violation of any condition of the permit. In addition, the bill modifies the penalties for vehicle weight violations, employing a graduated scale with harsher penalties for more severe violations. Finally, the bill imposes a graduated scale of criminal penalties applicable to specified vehicle safety violations, with increased penalties applicable to the repeat offender.
Driver Licenses
Issuance and Renewals
The MVA is developing a new driver's license system that is scheduled for implementation during the Spring of 2001. The new system will enable the MVA to renew drivers' licenses by mail or the Internet and renew photo licenses for applicants who are out of the State. In anticipation of this new system, House Bill 1274 (passed) repeals a requirement that an applicant for renewal of a license appear before the MVA in person. However, unless the applicant is absent from the State, the MVA may not renew a license for more than one consecutive term without requiring the applicant to appear in person. The MVA plans to continue to require a vision test at each renewal, but a digital file photo would be used in cases where an applicant renews a driver's license without appearing in person. The bill also repeals a requirement that a photograph for a license or an identification card for an individual under 21 be shown as a profile view and authorizes the MVA to establish the procedure for taking such photographs. Finally, the bill extends from six months to one year the time after the expiration of a license during which a license may be renewed without retaking a driving test.
House Bill 532 (passed) allows the MVA to issue a 90-day temporary license valid only in Maryland to a qualified applicant for reinstatement of a suspended or revoked license, renewed driver's license, or duplicate or corrected driver's license if the applicant's privilege to drive is revoked or suspended in another state for failing to comply with a licensing requirement that would not have resulted in a license revocation or suspension for a comparable violation in Maryland. The right to a temporary license only applies if the initial violation that led to the revocation or suspension did not occur within the past five years and the MVA determines that the applicant will be able to take any actions required by the other jurisdiction for reinstatement of the privilege to drive in that jurisdiction. The MVA is required to adopt regulations governing the issuance of temporary licenses under the bill.
License Restrictions
As a result of several high profile vehicle crashes involving minors, several bills intended to limit the number of passengers a teenage driver could transport in a motor vehicle were considered this session. House Bill 125 (failed), House Bill 333 (failed), and Senate Bill 152/House Bill 127 (both failed) would have prohibited a person under the age of 18 who holds a provisional license from operating a vehicle that is occupied by more than two passengers under the age of 21. (House Bill 125 exempted members of the licensee's immediate family from the passenger restriction.) In addition, the bills would have prohibited a person under the age of 18 who holds a provisional license from operating a vehicle if the driver and each passenger are not restrained by a seat belt or child safety seat.
Suspensions and Revocations
Homicide by Motor Vehicle: Under current law, if a person is convicted of homicide by motor vehicle while intoxicated, intoxicated per se, or under the influence of alcohol, drugs, or a controlled dangerous substance, that person receives a 12 point assessment against their license and the MVA is required to revoke the license. However, the person may appeal from the revocation and the MVA is then required to stay its decision for up to 120 days. House Bill 1108 (passed) requires the MVA to revoke the license of any person convicted of homicide by motor vehicle while intoxicated or under the influence of alcohol, drugs, or a controlled dangerous substance and prohibits the issuance of a temporary license pending an administrative appeal.
Outstanding Arrest Warrants: House Bill 1259 (passed) requires the MVA to suspend the driver's license or privilege to drive of a person who is named in an outstanding arrest warrant upon notification by a law enforcement agency that has met criteria established by the MVA and entered into an agreement with the MVA. The bill also requires the MVA to refuse to register or transfer a vehicle if the applicant is named in an outstanding arrest warrant. These requirements only apply to an arrest warrant that is at least 31 days old and which the law enforcement agency attempted, but failed, to serve on the person named in the warrant because of an inability to locate the person.
In order to facilitate the process of suspending the license or refusing to register the vehicle of a person named in an outstanding arrest warrant, House Bill 1259 authorizes specified identifying information contained in the arrest warrant to be released to the MVA. The MVA must notify a person of any action that will be taken as a result of an outstanding arrest warrant and give that person the opportunity to contest the action. However, the only issue in a hearing to contest an action is mistaken identity. Under the legislation, once a person's license has been suspended, or a registration refused, the MVA may not reverse that action until it has been ordered to do so by a court or until a law enforcement agency informs the MVA that the person named in the warrant has been arrested or that the warrant has been otherwise satisfied.
Drunk and Drugged Driving
As in previous sessions, drunk driving continued to command considerable attention. Several bills were introduced with differing approaches to curb the incidence of drunk and drugged driving in Maryland. Attempts were made to modify the Ignition Interlock System Program, modify license suspensions due to drunk driving, and increase penalties for subsequent drunk and drugged driving offenses. These measures were largely unsuccessful.
Administrative Per Se Offenses
If a police officer stops a person for suspected drunk or drugged driving, and the person refuses to take a breath or blood test to determine alcohol content or takes a test which results in an alcohol concentration of 0.10 or more, the police officer is required to confiscate the person's driver's license. The person is then eligible to receive a 45-day temporary license if the original license was issued by the State of Maryland. At the time of the offense, the officer gives the person a certification form that contains the order of suspension and the temporary license. But a temporary license does not contain a photo of the licensee, and since a person is prohibited under the Maryland Vehicle Law from having a license and identification card simultaneously, personal identification under these circumstances can be difficult. Senate Bill 70/House Bill 929 (both passed) address the problem by authorizing the MVA to issue a photo identification card to a person whose driver's license has been confiscated.
Evidence of Alcohol and Drug Concentration
House Bill 676 (passed) clarifies that copies of reports detailing the results of a breath or blood test to determine alcohol concentration, signed by the technician or analyst who performed the test, are admissible without the presence or testimony of the technician or analyst who performed the test in any criminal trial in which a violation of any type of alcohol restriction is at issue provided that the evidence is not obtained in violation of procedural requirements under Title 10, Subtitle 3 of the Courts and Judicial Proceedings Article.
Under § 10-309 of the Courts and Judicial Proceedings Article, evidence of a test or analysis obtained in violation of specified procedural requirements is not admissible in a prosecution for driving while intoxicated or intoxicated per se, under the influence of alcohol, or under the influence of a drug or combination of drugs, a combination of one or more drugs and alcohol, or a controlled dangerous substance. The Court of Appeals has held that § 10-309 also applies to prosecutions for violations of Article 27, §§ 388 (manslaughter by automobile, vehicle, vessel, etc.) and 388A (manslaughter by motor vehicle or vessel while intoxicated) of the Code. State v. Loscomb, 291 Md. 424 (1981). House Bill 676 codifies the Loscomb decision for prosecutions under Article 27, §§ 388 and 388A of the Code and, consistent with the Loscomb decision, specifies that evidence of a test or analysis obtained contrary to required procedures is not admissible in a prosecution for violating an alcohol restriction (§ 16-113 of the Transportation Article), operating a vessel while intoxicated or under the influence of alcohol, drugs, or a controlled dangerous substance (§ 8-738 of the Natural Resources Article), or causing life threatening injury by motor vehicle or vessel while intoxicated or under the influence of alcohol, drugs, or a controlled dangerous substance (Article 27, § 388B).
Intoxicated Per Se
Efforts to reduce the alcohol level constituting intoxication per se failed to pass again this year. Senate Bill 568 (failed) would have lowered the intoxicated per se level from 0.10 to 0.08 while also reducing the alcohol concentration that is prima facie evidence of an individual driving under the influence of alcohol from a level between 0.07 and 0.10 to between 0.07 and 0.08 at the time of testing.
Miscellaneous Criminal Penalties and Driving Restrictions - "Superdrunk"
Senate Bill 524/House Bill 1138 (both failed) would have made numerous changes to various criminal and administrative penalty provisions applicable to alcohol-related driving offenses, including providing enhanced penalties for a person who is convicted of or pleads nolo contendere to driving with an alcohol concentration of more than 0.16 at the time of testing.
The bills would have required a court to order a person who tested at more than 0.16 not to drive, or attempt to drive, with any alcohol level if the person is convicted, adjudicated delinquent, pleads nolo contendere, or receives probation before judgment for causing the death of or a life threatening injury to another person as a result of negligent driving while intoxicated or intoxicated per se. The bills would have required the MVA to impose an alcohol restriction, prohibiting driving with any alcohol level, on a driver found to have had an alcohol concentration of more than 0.16 at the time of the offense.
Refusal to Submit to Test for Alcohol, Drugs, or Controlled Dangerous Substances
Without a test result in a drunk or drugged driving case, it is more difficult to obtain a guilty plea or verdict for the more serious offenses of driving while intoxicated or driving under the influence of a controlled dangerous substance. House Bill 994 (failed) would have repealed the current statutory provision that no inference or presumption concerning either guilt or innocence arises because of a defendant's refusal to submit to a blood or breath test in a prosecution of certain drug-related or alcohol-related driving offenses. The bill would have retained the statutory provision that the refusal to submit to such tests is admissible as evidence at trial. Thus, under House Bill 994, evidence of a refusal to submit to such a test would have become admissible as relevant to the guilt or innocence of the defendant.
Motor Vehicle License Plates
Chesapeake Bay Commemorative License Plate Program
In 1990, the General Assembly authorized the MVA to issue a special commemorative license plate for any geographical, historical, natural resource, or environmental commemoration of statewide significance. The MVA has since issued the popular Chesapeake Bay plate, benefitting the Chesapeake Bay Trust. The Chesapeake Bay plate appears on more than 600,000 vehicles. For each $20 purchase of a Chesapeake Bay plate, $12 goes to the trust while $8 is retained by the MVA to cover production and administration costs. Since its inception, the Chesapeake Bay plate has raised approximately $7.9 million for the trust. The trust, in turn, awards grants to various civic and community groups, environmental organizations, schools, and public agencies. Under the original 1990 legislation, a single commemorative plate could only be issued for two consecutive years. However, the General Assembly has since reauthorized issuance of the Chesapeake Bay plate every other year. Because of the Chesapeake Bay plates' continuing popularity, Senate Bill 19/House Bill 169 (both passed) extend the termination date of the Chesapeake Bay commemorative license plate until July 1, 2002.
Special Registration Plates Honoring State Agriculture
Senate Bill 281/House Bill 486 (both passed) establish a special vehicle registration plate to honor Maryland Agriculture and to benefit the Maryland Agricultural Education Foundation. Unlike the Chesapeake Bay plate program in which the purchaser of the plate makes a one-time donation, the agricultural plate program provides that a contribution will be made to the foundation when the plate is first purchased and each time the plates are renewed. Because it is anticipated that the agricultural plate will have a higher appeal in rural communities, the agricultural plate is not anticipated to affect sales of the Chesapeake Bay plate, which are higher in the metropolitan regions of the State. The provisions authorizing the special agricultural plate terminate June 30, 2006.
Registration and Titling
Excise Tax Exemptions
House Bill 557 (passed) exempts a niece or nephew of a transferor of a vehicle from paying an excise tax on the vehicle if the transferor is at least 65 years old at the time of the transfer and no money or other consideration is involved in the transfer. This adds to a list of inter-family transfers exempt from the excise tax under the Maryland Vehicle Law, including transfers to a spouse, child, grandchild, parent, grandparent, or in-law of the transferor.
New Residents
The Maryland Vehicle Law requires new Maryland residents to register their vehicles in Maryland within 30 days of establishing residency. Senate Bill 32 (passed) extends this period to 60 days. The period during which a new resident is entitled to a credit against the Maryland excise tax for taxes paid by new residents to their former state of residence also is extended to 60 days. The 60-day registration period is consistent with that required by several states in the region, including Delaware, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, and Virginia.
Registration Plates - Continued Use
In general, if the title or ownership in a vehicle is transferred from one individual to another, new registration plates must be obtained for a bi-annual fee of $70. However, the registration plates can be transferred if the title or ownership in a vehicle is transferred from the joint names of a husband and wife to the individual name of either spouse, or from the individual name of either spouse to their joint names.
Senate Bill 34 (passed) expands the list of title or ownership transfers for which registration plates may be transferred to include: (1) transfers between the joint names of parent and child to either individual's name; (2) transfers between an individual and the joint names of the individual and the individual's parent or child; and (3) transfers between the name of an individual and the name of the individual's parent or child. A transferee will still pay a fee for the new registration, but will not be required to pay the $70 fee for new registration plates.
Rules of the Road
Aggressive Driving
Aggressive driving and reckless driving continue to receive a fair amount of attention in the media and in the General Assembly. Numerous bills were considered that attempted to address the threats to safety posed by drivers exhibiting such behavior. Most of these measures, however, were unsuccessful.
Reckless Driving - Penalties: A person is guilty of reckless driving if the person drives a motor vehicle in wanton or willful disregard for the safety of persons or property or in a manner that indicates such wanton or willful disregard. Senate Bill 836 (passed) increases the maximum fine for a conviction for reckless driving and the number of points a driver is assessed following a reckless driving conviction. Under the bill, a conviction will result in a six point assessment by the MVA rather than four points. The maximum fine for reckless driving is increased from $500 to $1,000.
Aggressive Driving Offense: Senate Bill 217 (failed) would have created a new offense known as "aggressive driving", based on the combination of exceeding the speed limit and violating two or more other specified moving violations at the same time or during a single and continuous period of driving. The underlying offenses were passing on right, following too closely, overtaking and passing vehicles, failure to yield right-of-way, or failure to stop at red light. A conviction under the bill would have resulted in a fine not exceeding $500 or imprisonment not exceeding two months, or both. Following a conviction, the MVA would have assessed five points on the person's driving record.
Wireless Phones
Again this session, the use of wireless phones by individuals while driving continued to generate considerable discussion. House Bill 43 (failed) would have prohibited a driver of a motor vehicle in motion from using a telephone held by the driver. A violation would have been a misdemeanor, subject to a fine not exceeding $500.
Student Transportation
According to the Maryland State Department of Education, the most serious problem associated with student transportation is drivers failing to stop for school buses that have stopped on a roadway to pick up or drop off children. Under the Maryland Vehicle Law, a driver of a vehicle is required to stop at least 20 feet from a school bus that is stopped on a roadway with its alternatively flashing lights activated. A survey conducted by the Department of Education shows that, during the 1996-97 school year, school bus drivers reported over 250 violations of this requirement. During the 1997-98 school year there were two fatalities and 14 injuries involving children at bus stops.
A person who fails to stop for a school bus as required by law is subject to a fine of up to $500. The fine for this offense under the prepayment fine schedule is set at $270. A person violating this provision is also subject to an assessment of points by the MVA following a conviction. House Bill 104 (passed) increases the number of points that are assessed from two points to three points.
House Bill 104 also establishes a five-year grant program designed to assist law enforcement in addressing the problem of drivers failing to stop for school buses. The Department of State Police will administer the program and award grants to law enforcement agencies. The grants will be awarded from the School Bus Safety Enforcement Fund, which will be funded from uninsured motorist penalties collected by the MVA. The amount of money to be transferred to the fund is $600,000 each year through fiscal 2005. A law enforcement agency that receives a grant must use the money to stop drivers from illegally passing school buses and comply with reporting requirements established by the Secretary of State Police for purposes of evaluating the program. On or before March 1, 2002, and by March 1 of each year thereafter, the Secretary of State Police must report to the Governor and the General Assembly on the grants awarded, the status of the fund, and the effect of this program in reducing the problem of drivers failing to stop for school buses. The grant program will terminate on June 30, 2005.