Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Traffic Calming Speed Humps topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Montgomery County committee backs revised rules to make speed humps easier to request
Summary
The Transportation and Environment Committee discussed draft Executive Regulation 5-24, which would relax speed-and-volume thresholds and lower petition requirements for community-requested speed humps; the committee extended the regulation to Jan. 31 for technical fixes and to return it to full council.
Chair Glass opened the Transportation and Environment Committee meeting on Sept. 30 and introduced Executive Regulation 5-24, a proposed update to Montgomery County’s rules that would make it easier for communities to request the installation of speed humps on eligible county roadways.
The draft regulation would remove a 100-vehicles-per-hour observation requirement and change the operating-speed threshold from 7–9 miles per hour over the posted limit to any measured speed above the posted limit, and it would reduce the resident petition signature threshold from 80% to 70%. "These updated regulations will grant the Montgomery County Department of Transportation the authority to install speed humps," Chair Glass said, adding the changes aim to "make people feel safe" walking, biking and driving in their neighborhoods.
Council staff summarized the current process under Executive Regulation 118a: MCDOT conducts a speed-and-volume study, produces a speed-hump location plan if thresholds are met, and then the community pursues a petition and vote to approve installation. Mr. Kenny (Council staff) told the committee the proposed Regulation 5-24 "does not fundamentally change this process" but relaxes parameters to allow more communities to move forward.
Mbo Wolland, deputy director and chief operating officer at the Montgomery County Department of Transportation (MCDOT), described the regulation’s history and the department’s rationale. Wolland said the original thresholds were intended as resource "guardrails" but that aligning the program with current safety philosophies, including Vision Zero principles, supports relaxing criteria. "We do think there should be some relaxation," Wolland said. He and DOT staff emphasized the department will monitor demand and return to adjust the regulation if necessary.
Several committee members pressed DOT on likely demand and budget implications. Chair Glass asked whether looser thresholds would increase demand and what budget adjustments the council should prepare for; DOT staff said they were "skeptical" about a large surge but acknowledged the change could shift projects from other traffic-calming measures to speed-hump construction and recommended monitoring and possible budgetary responses.
Vice President Stewart asked DOT to walk through the steps a resident takes to request a speed hump. Michael Paylor, chief of MCDOT’s Division of Traffic Engineering and Operations, outlined the sequence: an investigation and speed/volume study, a location plan, outreach and petitioning of affected residents or tenant/HOA groups, and an informational meeting before installation. Paylor confirmed tenant associations in apartment buildings could serve as initiating community groups and said DOT will refine the regulation’s language to make that explicit.
DOT also clarified a drafting error related to petition quorum language. Wolland said DOT had unintentionally added a requirement that a 50% quorum of residences with frontage be reached; he said the department will remove the quorum wording and instead apply the 70% requirement to those who actually vote, plus require documentation of outreach attempts so nonresponses are not automatically counted as 'no' votes.
Council staff noted the executive transmittal included a fiscal impact statement that does not expect a direct increase in expenditures from the regulation itself, but staff warned the county may need to allocate a larger share of the neighborhood traffic-calming capital improvement program (CIP) to fulfill community requests if approvals rise.
After discussion, the committee agreed to extend Executive Regulation 5-24 until Jan. 31 to allow DOT to make the technical revisions discussed and to forward the revised regulation to the full council for review. Chair Glass said the committee would include a note to the county executive about likely budget considerations as the council prepares its next budget.
The committee took no roll-call vote in the transcript; Chair Glass asked for objections to the extension and none were raised, so the committee adjourned.
