[{"_1":2,"_100":-5,"_101":-5},"loaderData",{"_3":4,"_26":27},"root",{"_5":6,"_17":10,"_18":19,"_20":21,"_22":10,"_23":-5,"_24":-5,"_25":10},"user",{"_7":8,"_9":10,"_11":10,"_12":-5,"_13":-5,"_14":15,"_16":-5},"roles",[],"isAuthenticated",false,"isPremium","planName","subscriptionStatus","featureFlags",{},"insightsBudget","isDevelopmentHost","userPreferences",{},"recaptchaSiteKey","6LcvOJcUAAAAAHsB-gPGfGktcRlKpH7OTIU_dMTD","isImpersonating","impersonation","affiliateStatus","isFreedomPortal","routes/v2/article/layout",{"_28":29,"_30":31},"notFound",true,"relatedArticles",[32,76,88],{"_33":34,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":40,"_41":42,"_43":44,"_45":46,"_47":48,"_49":50,"_51":52,"_53":54,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":60,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":66,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":72,"_73":74,"_75":74},"mediaId",6361103,"mediaKeyId","2171156-792c268128dea1bffbe83ae0634133fe","parentId",2171156,"title","Maryland bill would loosen zoning and parking rules to spur transit‑oriented development","audioSeconds",3747,"startMs",274000,"endMs",4021000,"viewUrl","/Search/View?dp=1&key=2171156-792c268128dea1bffbe83ae0634133fe&start=274&end=4021","thumbnailUrl","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/2171156-792c268128dea1bffbe83ae0634133fe/thumbnail_274000.jpg","articleUrl","/articles/6361103/Maryland/Maryland-bill-would-loosen-zoning-and-parking-rules-to-spur-transitoriented-development","mediaUrl","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6361103-6bbd47c9a8db73bd67fc69ca104a163a/orig.mp4?Expires=1771185361&Signature=eFLYcP~XDMt5rBF3yAWmXOseSgFAYzRqej3GN6uN84fdYoJZDEHViP~MlftqXcNvaESsiENAZ5NMFyXN4TGHynJMbn12W7zLmVfZId-CTmgYnqf0YZ~7tCLB03UQclgZU0mm3-JB8SHmIHuDv9VM1hPAmPkJB-HPsCp7mQjAv~aPsxMMl72uusKwbGUoll-78n2TkJm37L82oaFH-EjlZrxiq1uWelSqGPKIZDd1J6xP28LkhbcA5m9MtSAIreXOEXOoa6z6pulwPR~77dPYwyjssVqRNK1iNmeRGdD92UybGeEjvvbxZ6bb6CvNdhFj~1~Ou0myq7G-zqwiIDsYmw__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","author","Maryland General Assembly - Environment and Transportation","date","2025-01-30T00:00:00Z","article","Maryland Department of Transportation officials told the House Environment and Transportation Committee on Jan. 30 that House Bill 80 would remove local parking minimums near rail stations, allow mixed‑use development by right within a half‑mile of rail stations and exempt certain state‑owned transit parcels from local zoning if the department prepares a master development plan.

The bill’s backers say the changes would make state transit investments easier to leverage for new housing and economic development while critics and county officials warned the measure, as written, could override local land‑use controls and public‑facility limits.

“The opportunity that transit oriented development presents the state and its residents is immense,” Joe McAndrew, assistant secretary for project development and delivery at the Maryland Department of Transportation, told the committee. McAndrew said development around MDOT‑owned land in the Baltimore core service area and along the Penn Line corridor could yield more than 6,000 housing units and about $1.6 billion in state and local tax revenue; WMATA development near Maryland Metrorail stations could yield nearly 18,000 housing units and roughly $2.8 billion in additional tax revenue, he said.

Why it matters: supporters say HB 80 leverages existing transit investments to create housing, increase ridership, reduce climate emissions from driving and produce tax revenue. The bill would: remove minimum off‑street parking requirements near rail stations so parking supply is market‑driven; establish mixed‑use zoning by right in a 0.5‑mile radius around rail stations; allow pooling of special taxing districts for corridor‑level financing; expand the 2023 transit‑oriented development capital grant and loan fund to support early planning; and clarify that MDOT joint developments follow BPW approval and are exempt from ordinary state procurement rules for purchasing but subject to development solicitations and state MWBE and executive‑order requirements.

Supporters from transit agencies and planning groups said the state already benefits from TOD and that the proposed changes would remove obstacles. “This bill seeks to remedy those issues and, if passed, has the potential to yield significant economic benefits for the Baltimore region and the state,” Jennifer Veil of the Greater Baltimore Committee said. Cheryl Court of the Coalition for Smarter Growth said TOD reduces household transportation costs and unlocks underused state parcels.

Committee members pressed MDOT and witnesses on details. Delegates asked whether the bill would apply statewide, whether parking reductions would leave riders unable to reach transit for errands, and whether counties with limited transit service would be forced to eliminate parking. McAndrew said the bill would not ban parking but would remove minimum requirements; he and other MDOT witnesses said parking would likely continue to be built where markets demanded it and that some projects—public or private—may still build garages to serve riders.

Members raised other concerns: Delegate Naraki said the language that “a legislative body may not take any action to preclude mixed use development” is overly broad, noting a station in his district sits near a site that contains hazardous materials and that counties may need to restrict certain uses. Delegate Keighton asked whether prior work on House Bill 538 (the governor’s bill last year) would be undone; MDOT said this bill targets zoning and would not change local adequate public facilities ordinances but acknowledged the draft needs clarifying language. Delegates also pressed MDOT on procurement exemptions and whether prevailing wage or project labor agreements could still apply; MDOT representatives said the administration expects existing goals (including MWBE goals) and the Governor’s executive orders to remain applicable and that BPW approval still would occur for joint developments.

Local governments’ associations said they support TOD goals but want clear limits and local flexibility. The Maryland Municipal League and Maryland Association of Counties said they were “support with amendments,” citing examples where parking minimums had enabled viable affordable housing projects and urging guardrails to avoid unintended consequences. Several county delegates asked MDOT for follow‑up language clarifying the boundaries between state‑owned parcels and local zoning authority and to write explicit safeguards for safety, height limits and environmental review.

Witnesses from Metro and advocacy groups pushed back against fears that the bill would eliminate local oversight of public‑sector projects. Liz Price of WMATA said many Maryland jurisdictions already use TOD zoning and that projects reviewed under local rules deliver affordable units in Montgomery and Prince George’s counties; she said the bill expands financial tools and aligns policy to accelerate station‑area redevelopment.

What’s next: committee members signaled further subcommittee negotiation and possible amendments to narrow the bill’s zoning preemption language and to spell out labor, MWBE and public‑project protections.

Ending: HB 80 drew broad interest from transit and planning advocates, rail agencies and local officials. Supporters argued the bill would help convert surface parking and other underused state land into housing and mixed‑use centers; opponents urged clearer limits to protect local land‑use authority, public‑facility requirements and safety constraints. The committee requested follow‑up information and pledged additional drafting before a final vote.","mediaType","Video","parentTitle","ENT Committee Session, 1/30/2025 #1","oneSentenceSummary","Maryland Department of Transportation officials told the House Environment and Transportation Committee on Jan. 30 that House Bill 80 would remove parking minimums within a half‑mile of rail stations, allow mixed‑use development by right near rail, and exempt certain state‑owned transit parcels from local zoning if the department develops a master plan.","taxTitle","Environment and Transportation Committee, HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, Committees, Legislative, Maryland","taxId",15060,"location","Maryland","headline","","shortSummary",{"_33":77,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":78,"_41":79,"_43":80,"_45":81,"_47":82,"_49":83,"_51":84,"_53":85,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":86,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":87,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":72,"_73":74,"_75":74},6361093,"House bill would let cyclists roll through stop signs after yielding; advocates cite safety data",762,5713000,6475000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=2171156-792c268128dea1bffbe83ae0634133fe&start=5713&end=6475","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/2171156-792c268128dea1bffbe83ae0634133fe/thumbnail_5713000.jpg","/articles/6361093/Maryland/House-bill-would-let-cyclists-roll-through-stop-signs-after-yielding-advocates-cite-safety-data","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6361093-b204a0e6ed0c126f1818e98cad2aaca0/orig.mp4?Expires=1771185361&Signature=QDjEI53dUENbF0AfBmGBEjxTPG2AbXx96UV~K8F3wJlpElWPVNsvtHZ~05GhgH7SE3Mst4uMO5YwywfnxffSDCQeqs55ow1OE0QhZdS45dVMNkxXOh1D3e1hkeLtkhEAI9YeBKggTehsM~APK3iMp3cbi670cnsVZza2xaKVDRLCNJpA8dJWSVKJT5hyAxh0HzVc~Kl9ZUK6PUn6d8E9vI1YGdkYQlUqF2YyYWzOkOD0BInzGKakyY-66BktyejmL2H3RyiFYwh9QxnKA9cuZaNpAOQXzOo9g33V1IkZKRyR-QIMjgpy133vZ1ssxHeIcOTNddJ1~K9ymYmKhOn8VA__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","Delegate Regina Boyce told the Environment and Transportation Committee that House Bill 7 would authorize cyclists approaching a stop sign to slow, yield and proceed without a full stop when safe.

Supporters said the change — sometimes called \"stop as yield\" or the \"Idaho stop\" — reduces intersection exposure for bicyclists, helps avoid rear‑end collisions and gets cyclists through intersections more quickly, improving safety and traffic flow.

Evidence and testimony: Seth Grimes of the Washington Area Bicyclist Association cited a December 2024 National Highway Traffic Safety Administration analysis showing stop‑as‑yield laws were associated with reduced crash rates at certain intersection types. Riders and advocates from Bike Moore, Bicycle Advocates for Annapolis and Bike Maryland described practical benefits: stopping at low‑speed intersections can make cyclists wobbly and less visible, increasing their risk.

Opponents and concerns: the committee received letters of opposition from some groups concerned about applicability on highways or multi‑lane roadways; the bill’s sponsor stressed the text applies to roads two lanes or less and included statutory exemptions for emergency situations and directions of police officers. Advocates noted similar laws are in force in several states, including Delaware, Oregon and Washington, and Montgomery County and other jurisdictions in the DMV have already adopted TOD‑friendly zoning or related policies that make cycling safer in station areas.

What’s next: HB 7 was the subject of a favorable hearing with broad cycling‑community support; the committee did not take final action in the hearing record. Backers urged the panel to advance the bill citing national safety data and examples from other states.

Ending: If enacted, the change would align Maryland with other jurisdictions that allow cyclists to clear intersections more quickly after yielding, with the bill’s text preserving exemptions for safety and allowing law enforcement discretion.","House Bill 7 would permit bicyclists to slow and proceed through stop signs without a full stoppage if they yield to other traffic, aligning Maryland with several other states and citing studies showing reduced intersection crashes.",{"_33":89,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":90,"_41":91,"_43":92,"_45":93,"_47":94,"_49":95,"_51":96,"_53":97,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":98,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":99,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":72,"_73":74,"_75":74},6361098,"Maryland delegate seeks to bar maglev rail from eminent‑domain powers; project backers, unions clash",2368,2622000,4990000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=2171156-792c268128dea1bffbe83ae0634133fe&start=2622&end=4990","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/2171156-792c268128dea1bffbe83ae0634133fe/thumbnail_2622000.jpg","/articles/6361098/Maryland/Maryland-delegate-seeks-to-bar-maglev-rail-from-eminentdomain-powers-project-backers-unions-clash","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6361098-43dcc482792eea06abee79016dd1594b/orig.mp4?Expires=1771185361&Signature=L2hCz7M4f29zYYw4eRMJxDh5DG-6H-vDwSF2NnKmfVGNPFAXLwB0nmWGWH~sT3o3jYRgTQcksNlFV4qeYdD2UfNrN3G6rYM9JpkE0hDK67RazRq91juCmG9~KCHen53glUc1wb68I5QwpCDcbhM8rjDD5rPc9~THM2z-sW1cvmecXAluIZUfMiwH3VFtBFCYMLfvjqmdGcK9WFFrjOKO9O90FLqArpkkZ0KlB9d8PT2hVy5zopcK4pDNwmgRpZndCVx0KA3jsuGqMLYNiH4jwSc2dOxrIyoFGXW5-Psi001u1OKqZD-QT5Z5XOZNoDEKwshoO3h8Xw32bIbp4vjlQg__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","Delegate Ann Healy told the House Environment and Transportation Committee on Jan. 30 that House Bill 48 would prevent any company operating a magnetic‑levitation (maglev) propulsion system from exercising railroad condemnation authority, including eminent domain powers historically granted to railroads.

Healy said the change is intended to protect homeowners along potential alignments and to draw a bright legal line between 19th‑century railroad powers and modern maglev technology. Supporters of the maglev project, unions and industry groups argued the bill would derail a major economic and infrastructure opportunity for Maryland.

\"The bill specifies that the general authority given to a railroad company does not apply to a company that's powered by a magnetic levitation propulsion system,\" Healy said. She recounted the long history of maglev proposals along the Baltimore‑Washington corridor and said residents remain wary of potential tunneling, property impacts and the use of eminent domain.

Opponents said the measure would single out one technology and one franchisee, undermining a Public Service Commission review process that granted a franchise to Baltimore Washington Rapid Rail (BWRR) in 2015. \"The commission found that the construction and operation of the Maglev between Baltimore and Washington DC will result in substantial economic and social benefits to the state,\" Ian Rainey, senior vice president of BWRR, told the committee, quoting the PSC finding.

Labor groups were sharply divided. The Baltimore‑DC Building Trades Council urged an unfavorable report, saying HB 48 jeopardizes construction and long‑term jobs. Ray Baker, the building trades’ Maryland director, said the project would generate work for local union members. Several building‑trades and transportation industry witnesses described potential for thousands of construction and maintenance jobs and cited pledges of MBE/WBE contracting opportunities from BWRR. Opponents of the project, including SMART union representatives, said maglev is unnecessary and risky.

The committee heard competing testimony from community advocates: Darren and other community witnesses said the project could bring jobs and billions in private investment; residents and local groups testified about property‑value risks, tunnel impacts and long legal fights over takings in other contexts.

Legal and procedural context: BWRR acquired the franchise through a public process administered by the Maryland Public Service Commission. The PSC’s 2015 order concluded the project would be consistent with environmental policy and provide regional benefits; supporters said the existing administrative review provides public hearings and safeguards. HB 48 would change state law for technologies using magnetic levitation and would remove access to condemnation authority for those operators.

What’s next: The bill drew a broad and at times heated record of opposition and support. Committee members did not act on final passage during the hearing; testimony indicates the issue will require further analysis of franchise law, eminent‑domain practice and local property protections.

Ending: The hearing revealed a deep split between those who view the maglev as a high‑tech investment with jobs and climate benefits and those who view the proposal as a special‑purpose private franchise that should not be allowed to seize private land. The committee asked questions about route impacts, stops, and how the project would affect communities along potential alignments.","Delegate Ann Healey introduced legislation to clarify that magnetic‑levitation rail companies may not use railroad condemnation authority, prompting sharp testimony both for and against the measure during a lengthy committee hearing.","actionData","errors"]

Article not found

Maryland bill would loosen zoning and parking rules to spur transit‑oriented development

House bill would let cyclists roll through stop signs after yielding; advocates cite safety data

Maryland delegate seeks to bar maglev rail from eminent‑domain powers; project backers, unions clash