Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Active Transportation Bunce Road topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Bunce Road multimodal path sparks heated neighborhood debate; council refers public-input resolution to committee
Summary
Residents on Bunce Road and other community members sharply debated a planned multimodal (10-foot shared-use) path tied to Bunce Road rehabilitation. Many Bunce residents asked the council to pause or re-evaluate the design, citing tree loss, safety at driveways and winter maintenance, while advocates said the path improves year-round
A proposed 10-foot shared-use (multimodal) path on Bunce Road surfaced as a contentious topic during public comment and council discussion on Sept. 15, with residents and advocates urging council to expand formal public input before the project proceeds.
Many Bunce Road residents told council the path was added late in the design process and that most affected homeowners learned of the specific 10-foot path concept only after major design choices were set. Speakers raised consistent concerns: mature trees would be removed, on-street parking would be affected, the path creates numerous driveway crossings and conflict points, winter maintenance and liability remain unclear, and some residents said the path "leads nowhere" because cross-jurisdiction connections (to Cleveland, for example) are not secured.
Opponents submitted a petition with over 1,400 signatures and asked council to pause the project and work the alternatives in committee. They argued national guidance discourages shared-use paths in dense residential areas where pedestrians and e-bikes/scooters may conflict.
Supporters and active-transportation advocates urged council to preserve momentum for walking and biking, stressing that dedicated multimodal paths provide safer, year-round routes (they noted paths in regional Metroparks are plowed in winter) and better access for seniors and mobility-device users. Some speakers suggested alternatives such as removing parking from one side of the street and installing a protected bike lane rather than a wide shared path.
Councilman Vogt and others said the city should consider enhanced facilitation and additional public engagement rather than repurposing an existing technical process; he described the resolution introduced by Councilman Bullock as a potential mechanism to supplement, not replace, planning-commission review and to create a forum for negotiated alternatives (for example, one-sided parking removal with a protected lane). Council voted to refer the communication and companion resolution to the public works and sustainability committee for detailed review.
Ending: Council referred enhanced public-input language and the Bunce Road concerns to the public works and sustainability committee; the committee will consider the resolution and the project sequence, and staff were asked to clarify process, snow-clearing and maintenance plans and any cross-jurisdiction connections.
