I ran out of time to speak at the lady meeting and wanted to add a few more points. I know there is a push for more people to ride bikes more and drive cars less, and I’m sure that has something to do with the Bunts Rd. changes that have been debated lately. It isn’t the only reason, but I can see it because by one of them. It’s all about concern for the environment. I’d like to point out that cutting down trees is just as harmful if bot mire so, because they block out noise from all the traffic as well as filter toxins from the air caused by exhaust. . Losing the trees would cause issues with both which would be a major contradiction to any environmental concerns.
The other thing I needed to mention and suggest is if in the end wherever a bike trail might be placed, whether it ends up being Bunts or elsewhere, instead of spending money to cut down the trees, why not use that money to transplant them from the city lawns to the actual front lawns of the homes they are in front of. Where the Hijra so hot have room for a tree and n their front lawn there is likely a neighbor who could gladly accept one, maybe even add one to back yards of homes of people would like to have them. He f there are still trees left over perhaps residents on other streets would like to have one. There is also plenty of room at the various parks in Lakewood and school campuses. If most end up in the actual front yards by where they would be taken from at least there would still be shade and some blocking of traffic noise and protection from exhaust fumes, not to mention it would still leave the street beautiful, wherever that is.
I do have to agree, however, that a shared path on a residential street seems more dangerous because there will be even more traffic of people zipping by that people pulling in and out of the driveways will need to be watching for, and it just doesn’t sound as safe as the ideal concept makes it out to be.
I travel on Bunts every day, and frequently wait a long time to pull in and out of a driveway there. I don’t believe that a multi-use path is a good solution to the problem. Multi-use paths work in good weather, and when they are uninterrupted, and neither are the case year-round on Bunts. We can encourage less driving, but residents will still need to use their driveways, creating hundreds of blind-spot opportunities for collisions. Lakewood was built around streetcars, let’s bring them back!
I strongly disagree with the proposed multi-purpose path and landscaping plan.
I believe the multi-purpose path is unnecessary and will be detrimental to the character of the neighborhood. I also believe the mature trees should be preserved as much as possible, and that the voices of the residents on Bunts should be heard.
As a resident of Bunts Road, I strongly oppose the proposed shared use path on our street. The City of Lakewood’s own Active Transportation Plan (ATP, p. 65) and the ODOT Multimodal Design Guide (MDG, Chapter 5) make it clear that shared use paths are best suited for low-speed, low-volume roads or areas with substantial physical separation from traffic. Bunts Road meets neither of these conditions.
With 135 crashes in the past five years and near-constant congestion, Bunts is one of the busiest residential streets in Lakewood. Residents often struggle to safely enter or exit driveways, making split-second decisions in heavy traffic. Adding a bi-directional bike path, especially without intersection separation, creates a false sense of safety. There are over 100 intersections and driveways along this corridor—each one a potential conflict point where cyclists will be exposed every one to two seconds when riding at moderate speed.
The ATP states that “we cannot rely on driver attentiveness—we must engineer our streets to be safe” (ATP, p. 65). But this plan introduces more danger into an already high-risk environment. This path will not serve families or casual riders safely—it will put them in harm’s way. A facility like this should only be considered where traffic volumes are significantly reduced or can be meaningfully controlled.
Please follow your own planning principles and national safety guidance. Let’s invest in infrastructure that improves safety, not one that increases the risk of serious conflict.
I am a resident who drives, walks, and bikes in Lakewood. When I am biking, I’m aware that I am responsible for my own safety on the roads - and avoid roads like Bunts. I also avoid crowded multi-use paths like the one in the metroparks because they are so busy, and I don’t want to injure walkers - and I’m going di much faster than they are. Adding a multi-use path on a residential street, when there aren’t any others like it in the rest of our extremely walkable and bikeable city, seems odd. Like solving a problem that doesn’t! exist. I think the rest of the plan - the bump-outs for parking and narrowing of crossings - is great, and should move forward
This plan isnt it,It completely disregards walkers and people who leave and get to work Via RTA or plain walking there are better ways to include cyclists like making a effort to get appropriate paint other cities have solar paint that glows in the dark and taking down trees when the neighborhood you’re effect doesn’t want this project to happen focus on the plot holes and find a better way.Unless you plan to pay the rent and bills and pay for safer commute for the neighborhood and a large majority people you’re effecting desist this plan because you’ll be ruining our income and worsening our safety.This clearly wasn’t thought out with the thoughts of the residents in mind who put money in your pockets but more of the profit it might bring having cyclist around
I'm and writing to share my concern with the shared bike path on bunts road. being a long time resident on the street I feel our voice should be heard! Especially over some group of bikers that doesn't eveb live on, or Near the street! Cars fly up and down bunts, sometimes at highway speeds, so why would we want to attract more people to an already busy street ? We have a beautiful metro park, with plenty of bike paths less than ten mins from any Lakewood resident? Sure does bunts need rehabilitation? Absolutely, I won't argue that. I just think we could use our tax dollars on fixing some other things in the city rather than adding a path to the project! I mean you can see for yourselves, 80 percent of the street has the signs in opposition of the path? Shouldn't that mean something? I hope you take the time to read these, and consider stopping the path from the project! We appreciate the time and effort you taking to having city meetings and hearing the people. Just hope you make the right decision here!
I am writing to show opposition to the shared use path on Bunts Rd. Bunts Road is one of the busiest north/south corridors in the city. Adding additional activity to the already congested area is unsafe for pedestrians and anyone who lives on the west side of Bunts. Multi-use traffic invites varying speeds and transportation in one single path. I can’t imagine children walking to school in the middle of a bike lane. Crossing busy Bunts during school traffic to get to the east side with a sidewalk is not a solution either.
Please take a look at the number of Bunts Rd houses displaying signs that oppose this plan. Our neighborhood, our safety, the safety of our children should be valued. This is not a “once in a century” plan that I’ve seen other groups posting about. This does not need to be rushed. Many of the residents on Bunts have lovingly cared for their homes and properties for decades.
Please take their sincere concerns into account. Clearly they love this city and their homes. While other people think they understand daily life on Bunts, the residents that live on the street are the true experts.
I am a resident of Lakewood and wish to speak in support of the path on Bunts. The multipurpose path would provide the physical separation needed to create a safer route for commuter cyclists who have in the past steered clear of Bunts due to high traffic. It would not only benefit cyclists, but also pedestrians who choose Bunts to walk to school or for leisure, giving them a city-maintained route rather than relying on sidewalks that may or may not be clear of snow in the winter.
As a cyclist myself, one of the things that attracted me to Lakewood when I chose to move here was the importance seemingly placed on making cycling a safer and more viable mode of transportation. Be it through dedicated bike lanes, sharrows, or an abundance of bicycle racks installed at local businesses, it seemed to me that Lakewood recognized, understood, and put in the effort to step up to the challenge of making the roadways accessible for more than just cars. The path on Bunts would be another way the city shines in this area, and something else I would be proud of as a resident and cyclist in Lakewood.
I support building the multiuse path on Bunts Road. We need more transportation alternatives to cars in our city and Bunts is a main through road for which it makes sense to build a parallel path for pedestrians and cyclists away from cars. It is also important that this path not simply be a bike lane on the road but physically separated from cars. Anyone who has walked or cycled next to cars knows that it’s essentially like swimming in a pool with sharks and expecting a lane divider to protect you. The frequent news about cars hitting cyclists and pedestrians in Lakewood bear this out.
The concerns about building a path and traffic are unfounded. Traffic concerns already exist with foot and car traffic to the high school and highway, and it wasn’t until a separated path was discussed that traffic on Bunts suddenly became a concern. Adding a multiuse path on Bunts is a step towards offering multiple and viable alternatives to driving in the city and in the long-term will reduce traffic congestion.
The concern about pedestrians and bikes sharing the same path is without merit since kids already ride their bikes on the sidewalk now, the multiuse path will lessen this issue rather that contribute to it since it provides a wider right-of-way. What about cars speeding down our roads with careless drivers behind the wheel? These are the primary cause of traffic accidents and fatalities. Riding bikes also requires far more attention and alertness on the part of the operator than driving a car. If anything the path will reduce collisions, not contribute to them!
Furthermore, I strongly doubt that the concern about trees is from avid arborists who go out of their way to protect wild trees. It strikes me as a cynical attempt to make it seem that building alternatives to car-centric infrastructure is somehow bad for the environment.
Offering protected alternatives to using a car is a step towards making transportation viable, enjoyable, and safe for more people.
My name is Megan Koeth, and I’m a proud lifelong Lakewood resident and parent of two young children who attend Emerson elementary school. I'm writing to express my opposition to the proposed shared-use path for both bicycles and pedestrians on Bunts Road, scheduled to begin in 2026.
As a parent of two kids who walk to school most days, I’m deeply concerned that this project—while well-intentioned—creates serious safety risks that outweigh its potential benefits.
Bunts Road is already a busy corridor, with high traffic volumes and multiple schools, churches, and medical facilities nearby. Adding a shared path that mixes bicycles and pedestrians in the same space—especially without clear physical separation—is a recipe for conflict. I have a hard time imagining my 8-year-old safely walking alongside an adult commuter on an e-bike or road bike traveling 15–20 miles per hour. The speed differential alone is dangerous, and it puts our youngest and most vulnerable residents at unnecessary risk.
The City of Lakewood already recognizes this danger. Our current ordinance prohibits individuals over the age of 12 from riding bikes on sidewalks—specifically because it puts pedestrians at risk. So why would we now create a city-sanctioned space where exactly that kind of risky behavior is encouraged?
I urge the Council to look closely at the unintended consequences here. My children and many others use Bunts Road to get to school on foot every day. We should be doing everything we can to protect safe walking routes, not introduce high-speed bicycle traffic into them. If the goal is to promote safer biking in Lakewood, I fully support that—but it should not come at the expense of pedestrian safety, especially for our kids. Please consider pausing or reevaluating this project. Let’s ensure we’re not solving one problem by creating another. Thank you for your time, and for listening to a concerned parent who simply wants Lakewood’s streets to remain safe for its children.
I ran out of time to speak at the lady meeting and wanted to add a few more points. I know there is a push for more people to ride bikes more and drive cars less, and I’m sure that has something to do with the Bunts Rd. changes that have been debated lately. It isn’t the only reason, but I can see it because by one of them. It’s all about concern for the environment. I’d like to point out that cutting down trees is just as harmful if bot mire so, because they block out noise from all the traffic as well as filter toxins from the air caused by exhaust. . Losing the trees would cause issues with both which would be a major contradiction to any environmental concerns.
The other thing I needed to mention and suggest is if in the end wherever a bike trail might be placed, whether it ends up being Bunts or elsewhere, instead of spending money to cut down the trees, why not use that money to transplant them from the city lawns to the actual front lawns of the homes they are in front of. Where the Hijra so hot have room for a tree and n their front lawn there is likely a neighbor who could gladly accept one, maybe even add one to back yards of homes of people would like to have them. He f there are still trees left over perhaps residents on other streets would like to have one. There is also plenty of room at the various parks in Lakewood and school campuses. If most end up in the actual front yards by where they would be taken from at least there would still be shade and some blocking of traffic noise and protection from exhaust fumes, not to mention it would still leave the street beautiful, wherever that is.
I do have to agree, however, that a shared path on a residential street seems more dangerous because there will be even more traffic of people zipping by that people pulling in and out of the driveways will need to be watching for, and it just doesn’t sound as safe as the ideal concept makes it out to be.
I travel on Bunts every day, and frequently wait a long time to pull in and out of a driveway there. I don’t believe that a multi-use path is a good solution to the problem. Multi-use paths work in good weather, and when they are uninterrupted, and neither are the case year-round on Bunts. We can encourage less driving, but residents will still need to use their driveways, creating hundreds of blind-spot opportunities for collisions. Lakewood was built around streetcars, let’s bring them back!
I strongly disagree with the proposed multi-purpose path and landscaping plan.
I believe the multi-purpose path is unnecessary and will be detrimental to the character of the neighborhood. I also believe the mature trees should be preserved as much as possible, and that the voices of the residents on Bunts should be heard.
As a resident of Bunts Road, I strongly oppose the proposed shared use path on our street. The City of Lakewood’s own Active Transportation Plan (ATP, p. 65) and the ODOT Multimodal Design Guide (MDG, Chapter 5) make it clear that shared use paths are best suited for low-speed, low-volume roads or areas with substantial physical separation from traffic. Bunts Road meets neither of these conditions.
With 135 crashes in the past five years and near-constant congestion, Bunts is one of the busiest residential streets in Lakewood. Residents often struggle to safely enter or exit driveways, making split-second decisions in heavy traffic. Adding a bi-directional bike path, especially without intersection separation, creates a false sense of safety. There are over 100 intersections and driveways along this corridor—each one a potential conflict point where cyclists will be exposed every one to two seconds when riding at moderate speed.
The ATP states that “we cannot rely on driver attentiveness—we must engineer our streets to be safe” (ATP, p. 65). But this plan introduces more danger into an already high-risk environment. This path will not serve families or casual riders safely—it will put them in harm’s way. A facility like this should only be considered where traffic volumes are significantly reduced or can be meaningfully controlled.
Please follow your own planning principles and national safety guidance. Let’s invest in infrastructure that improves safety, not one that increases the risk of serious conflict.
I am a resident who drives, walks, and bikes in Lakewood. When I am biking, I’m aware that I am responsible for my own safety on the roads - and avoid roads like Bunts. I also avoid crowded multi-use paths like the one in the metroparks because they are so busy, and I don’t want to injure walkers - and I’m going di much faster than they are. Adding a multi-use path on a residential street, when there aren’t any others like it in the rest of our extremely walkable and bikeable city, seems odd. Like solving a problem that doesn’t! exist. I think the rest of the plan - the bump-outs for parking and narrowing of crossings - is great, and should move forward
This plan isnt it,It completely disregards walkers and people who leave and get to work Via RTA or plain walking there are better ways to include cyclists like making a effort to get appropriate paint other cities have solar paint that glows in the dark and taking down trees when the neighborhood you’re effect doesn’t want this project to happen focus on the plot holes and find a better way.Unless you plan to pay the rent and bills and pay for safer commute for the neighborhood and a large majority people you’re effecting desist this plan because you’ll be ruining our income and worsening our safety.This clearly wasn’t thought out with the thoughts of the residents in mind who put money in your pockets but more of the profit it might bring having cyclist around
I'm and writing to share my concern with the shared bike path on bunts road. being a long time resident on the street I feel our voice should be heard! Especially over some group of bikers that doesn't eveb live on, or Near the street! Cars fly up and down bunts, sometimes at highway speeds, so why would we want to attract more people to an already busy street ? We have a beautiful metro park, with plenty of bike paths less than ten mins from any Lakewood resident? Sure does bunts need rehabilitation? Absolutely, I won't argue that. I just think we could use our tax dollars on fixing some other things in the city rather than adding a path to the project! I mean you can see for yourselves, 80 percent of the street has the signs in opposition of the path? Shouldn't that mean something? I hope you take the time to read these, and consider stopping the path from the project! We appreciate the time and effort you taking to having city meetings and hearing the people. Just hope you make the right decision here!
I am writing to show opposition to the shared use path on Bunts Rd. Bunts Road is one of the busiest north/south corridors in the city. Adding additional activity to the already congested area is unsafe for pedestrians and anyone who lives on the west side of Bunts. Multi-use traffic invites varying speeds and transportation in one single path. I can’t imagine children walking to school in the middle of a bike lane. Crossing busy Bunts during school traffic to get to the east side with a sidewalk is not a solution either.
Please take a look at the number of Bunts Rd houses displaying signs that oppose this plan. Our neighborhood, our safety, the safety of our children should be valued. This is not a “once in a century” plan that I’ve seen other groups posting about. This does not need to be rushed. Many of the residents on Bunts have lovingly cared for their homes and properties for decades.
Please take their sincere concerns into account. Clearly they love this city and their homes. While other people think they understand daily life on Bunts, the residents that live on the street are the true experts.
I am a resident of Lakewood and wish to speak in support of the path on Bunts. The multipurpose path would provide the physical separation needed to create a safer route for commuter cyclists who have in the past steered clear of Bunts due to high traffic. It would not only benefit cyclists, but also pedestrians who choose Bunts to walk to school or for leisure, giving them a city-maintained route rather than relying on sidewalks that may or may not be clear of snow in the winter.
As a cyclist myself, one of the things that attracted me to Lakewood when I chose to move here was the importance seemingly placed on making cycling a safer and more viable mode of transportation. Be it through dedicated bike lanes, sharrows, or an abundance of bicycle racks installed at local businesses, it seemed to me that Lakewood recognized, understood, and put in the effort to step up to the challenge of making the roadways accessible for more than just cars. The path on Bunts would be another way the city shines in this area, and something else I would be proud of as a resident and cyclist in Lakewood.
I support building the multiuse path on Bunts Road. We need more transportation alternatives to cars in our city and Bunts is a main through road for which it makes sense to build a parallel path for pedestrians and cyclists away from cars. It is also important that this path not simply be a bike lane on the road but physically separated from cars. Anyone who has walked or cycled next to cars knows that it’s essentially like swimming in a pool with sharks and expecting a lane divider to protect you. The frequent news about cars hitting cyclists and pedestrians in Lakewood bear this out.
The concerns about building a path and traffic are unfounded. Traffic concerns already exist with foot and car traffic to the high school and highway, and it wasn’t until a separated path was discussed that traffic on Bunts suddenly became a concern. Adding a multiuse path on Bunts is a step towards offering multiple and viable alternatives to driving in the city and in the long-term will reduce traffic congestion.
The concern about pedestrians and bikes sharing the same path is without merit since kids already ride their bikes on the sidewalk now, the multiuse path will lessen this issue rather that contribute to it since it provides a wider right-of-way. What about cars speeding down our roads with careless drivers behind the wheel? These are the primary cause of traffic accidents and fatalities. Riding bikes also requires far more attention and alertness on the part of the operator than driving a car. If anything the path will reduce collisions, not contribute to them!
Furthermore, I strongly doubt that the concern about trees is from avid arborists who go out of their way to protect wild trees. It strikes me as a cynical attempt to make it seem that building alternatives to car-centric infrastructure is somehow bad for the environment.
Offering protected alternatives to using a car is a step towards making transportation viable, enjoyable, and safe for more people.
My name is Megan Koeth, and I’m a proud lifelong Lakewood resident and parent of two young children who attend Emerson elementary school. I'm writing to express my opposition to the proposed shared-use path for both bicycles and pedestrians on Bunts Road, scheduled to begin in 2026.
As a parent of two kids who walk to school most days, I’m deeply concerned that this project—while well-intentioned—creates serious safety risks that outweigh its potential benefits.
Bunts Road is already a busy corridor, with high traffic volumes and multiple schools, churches, and medical facilities nearby. Adding a shared path that mixes bicycles and pedestrians in the same space—especially without clear physical separation—is a recipe for conflict. I have a hard time imagining my 8-year-old safely walking alongside an adult commuter on an e-bike or road bike traveling 15–20 miles per hour. The speed differential alone is dangerous, and it puts our youngest and most vulnerable residents at unnecessary risk.
The City of Lakewood already recognizes this danger. Our current ordinance prohibits individuals over the age of 12 from riding bikes on sidewalks—specifically because it puts pedestrians at risk. So why would we now create a city-sanctioned space where exactly that kind of risky behavior is encouraged?
I urge the Council to look closely at the unintended consequences here. My children and many others use Bunts Road to get to school on foot every day. We should be doing everything we can to protect safe walking routes, not introduce high-speed bicycle traffic into them. If the goal is to promote safer biking in Lakewood, I fully support that—but it should not come at the expense of pedestrian safety, especially for our kids. Please consider pausing or reevaluating this project. Let’s ensure we’re not solving one problem by creating another. Thank you for your time, and for listening to a concerned parent who simply wants Lakewood’s streets to remain safe for its children.