Neighbors and supporters trade views on Bunce Road multimodal path as petition drive tops 1,100 signatures

Several Bunce Road residents and other Lakewood residents used the City Council public comment period on June 16 to press opposing and supporting views about a proposed multimodal (shared‑use) path for Bunce Road.

Opponents said the city’s outreach and analysis were incomplete and that the project was being forced on a neighborhood that had not been adequately consulted. Shannon Mortland, who lives at 2125 Bunce Road and leads an opposition petition, told council her group had gathered more than 1,100 signatures and that many petition signers were owners of rental properties on Bunce who had been directly informed. “There seems to be some confusion and allegations on where those signatures came from. Those signatures came largely from residents on Bunce and people who own rental properties on Bunce,” Mortland said.

Residents raised specific process issues: they said the May 7, 2024 meeting was the only neighborhood meeting, that alternatives (including a no‑path option) were not adequately explained, and that a planning commission vote took place before the public comment period closed. "When we raised concerns through letters, petitions, calls, public speaking ... there was silence," Mortland said.

Safety and enforcement concerns were common. Opponents said a 10‑foot path adjacent to driveways could create conflicts and asked how the city would enforce rules to separate bike traffic from pedestrians and cars. Dave Mortland, another Bunce Road resident, asked whether policing resources would be expanded to enforce a path, and raised fairness concerns about who benefits from the project.

Supporters said a separated path would reduce on‑street conflicts and be safer for both cyclists and drivers. Lakewood resident Nick Zingale urged council to consider the common‑sense safety benefit of keeping bikes and cars separated: “When we build this path and bikes are off the street and everyone has their own space, we’re going to see fewer close calls, fewer collisions, and a calmer environment for everyone, including drivers,” he said.

Other speakers flagged design tradeoffs: Kim McDonald, 1460 Bunce Road, said some proposed pedestrian improvements (shorter crosswalks and push‑button crossings) could be beneficial but argued the multimodal path proposal mixes pedestrians and cyclists in ways that could create new conflicts; she asked the city to consider a “bike boulevard” or other alternatives that slow car traffic and separate modes.

What council said: Council members acknowledged residents’ strong views and said they would continue listening. Several council members said they had met residents and asked for additional study and clarity on enforcement, parking, traffic impacts and design alternatives. No ordinance or final approval of the Bunce Road striping or path was taken at the June 16 meeting.

Context: Planning commission materials and the city’s outreach noted other streets and alternatives were considered; opponents said the administrative materials did not present a clear accounting of which options had been dismissed and why. Council members asked planning staff to supply more information on usage, safety projections and how different designs would change square footage and road geometry.

Next steps: Residents said they are continuing petition gathering and outreach; several people at the meeting offered to meet with council members and planning staff to pursue alternative solutions. Council did not announce a date for further action on Bunce Road but indicated additional briefings from staff and more data would be needed before any final decision.