Last week’s article about a plan by Red Bank to install more 4-way stops took a detour.
The discussion in the redbankgreen comments area turned to speed bumps and speed humps — apparently, there’s a difference — and their impacts on the values of nearby properties.
From a reader who identifies himself or herself as ‘Newcomer,” here’s this week’s selection as comment of the week:
I should have been clearer. What I’m advocating is technically a “speed hump,” versus a “speed bump.” The speed hump is broader, can be driven over faster (15 mph comfortably), and is designed for residential streets. The speed bump, on the other hand, is higher with a steeper rise, and is designed for parking lots – you really have to slow to about 5 mph. I wouldn’t want speed bumps on my street.
I am not sure where you are getting your data to suggest that speed humps/bumps “directly lower property values,” but I would be interested to read it if you can point me that way. I did a web search, and while I found a few bloggers making that same statement, I didn’t see any support for it. In fact, the best article I found on speed humps, from a City of Belmont (CA) study on speed humps, said the effect of speed humps on property values is not known. http://tinyurl.com/lx58jx
I also am not sure why a speed hump causes more of a distraction to someone who is texting while driving than, say, a stop sign, or a police officer parked on the street. People should not be texting while driving. I don’t understand the relevance of this point with regard to traffic calming.
Finally, I have to believe it’s cheaper to install a speed hump and annually repaint it than to hire more police officers each year to enforce traffic rules. While I certainly agree with you in principle – the traffic laws SHOULD be enforced! – as a practical matter, installing speed humps or stop signs just has to be a cheaper, round-the-clock means of calming the traffic.
If a comment strikes you as worthy of being called out here, please send redbankgreen an email.
