The Montgomery County Council delayed voting on new rules that would increase the number of speed bumps on county roads Tuesday.
Council members said they wanted to hold a public forum this fall to give the public a chance to discuss all of the tools the county uses to control speeding including speed cameras and speed bumps. “We need to think more about how these [tools] are integrated together,” said Council Vice President Phil Andrews, D-Gaithersburg/Rockville, who added that speeding on the county’s residential streets and near schools “has been, and continues to be, a major issue.” County Executive Ike Leggett proposed slight changes to county rules would allow speed bumps to be placed on streets with less traffic and with the approval of fewer neighbors than is currently required. Had Leggett’s proposed changes been in place in the last 10 years, the county would have 46 more speed bumps than it currently has, according to county data. The county first started installing speed bumps in the mid-90s. By 1998, they were so prevalent in the county that residents tried to ban them. Though unsuccessful, that effort led to the county tightening the rules on where speed bumps could be placed, how many affected residents had to vote in favor of the bumps, and on how large the bumps could be. Since those changes, there’s been little complaint from the public about speed bumps in the county, according to county council staff. County council staff characterize Leggett’s efforts as “fine-tuning” the current rules. Currently, speed bumps are allowed only on roads that carry 100 vehicles per hour. Leggett’s proposal would use a sliding scale that considered both traffic and speed. And Leggett’s proposal would give less weight to the votes of residents who live on side streets near proposed speed bumps than they currently have. Council members indicated they supported Leggett’s proposed changes, but voted 8-1 to postpone approving them. Andrews said the council voted to delay because it may want to incorporate ideas they hear at the planned public forum into Leggett’s proposal. But the lone dissenter, Councilman Marc Elrich, D-at large, said there was no good reason for a delay. “There’s a lot of good stuff in here that’s going to get lost,” Elrich said. “If you want to have a broader discussion about other tools, than have a discussion about other tools. That’s not a reason not to implement the improvements to the current system.”
