Singletrack Sidewalks (STS)

Our family has been in Stonebridge since 2004 and we are opposed to this redundant proposal to add an STS that only serves this special interest group. The fact that this proposed trail is being marketed as a trail mainly for kids, in my opinion, is ruse. Saying that this information has been available on the City websites via minutes etc, for months is assuming that we all check meeting minutes and agendas on a daily basis, which is a very unrealistic expectation and frankly a sneaky way to say your did your job to notify the people in Stonebridge and neighboring communities.

I am very much for change but not when its at the expense of damaging a precious resource such as limited open space. The mission statement posted on the Parks and Rec website states, "The mission of the Parks and Recreation Department is to promote and provide safe and comprehensive community facilities, programs and services to enrich the quality of life for all residents and visitors". So, I ask, how does this enrich the quality of life by adding a redundant trail, and in the process destroying our open space and wildlife habitat?

The existing trail accommodates walkers, hikers, bikers for adults and kids. Why not focus on areas that do not have existing trails?

Posted on the City of Golden Website:

Why is open space land important?
To provide opportunities for nature-oriented outdoor recreation. (we have this with our existing trail)
To protect large areas containing natural resource values of community-wide significance including wetlands, wildlife habitats, and scenic areas.
To safeguard land for its contribution to quality of life and the value of the homes of nearby residents.
To limit urban noise, congestion, and encroachment.

Just received a postcard from the City of Golden re Singletrack Sidewalks ("STS"). It's really irritating. The cute tyke riding his bike isn't even on an STS which are dirt surface paths directly adjacent to a paved sidewalk. Secondly, the Golden Giddyup logo is as prominently displayed as is the official City Guiding Golden logo. Golden Giddyup isn't even incorporated as I can determine. It's just a group of people. Very misleading and irritating!

What about a STS section in north Golden from the end of the sidewalk by the North Table West Parking Lot and extending through the flat part of the open space land to connect with the concrete trail that dead ends in the west-middle portion of the Table Rock subdivision? This would enable connections for families and kids north of Golden without adding congestion to the existing NTM trails. Also, it would be a new section of trail and away from potential conflicts with currently proposed concrete path trail options on the north and south sides of Golden.

I am writing on behalf of my family to express our support of the single-track sidewalk proposal. My wife and I have a 15 month old daughter, and we would love for more opportunities to get outside in a way their whole family can enjoy. The single-track sidewalks proposal would be a great family friendly resource, and projects like this are the reason we choose to live in Golden.

There are some seriously thoughtful people in this town. The pro and con discussion is thorough. It seems that section 1 is the least controversial and perhaps a roll out in a more measured fashion is appropriate to see if the goals (which need to be clearer and not duplicitous) are met on the first segment before the complete build-out. While generally in favor, I think that runners would benefit too and I would not want to see biker only trails in the city. I hope this idea is tested so we can really get the STS trails we need inside Fossil Trace during the winter for skiing and fat bikes. That would be a much better use of that amenity that the citizens paid for through bonds, but get little use out of.

Hi,
I am very much in favor of this fun idea. With the loss of some of the best single track riding around at the top of STM, I think adding some trails in this area is a great idea. As a pilot project, I see it as a great way to get more people outside doing fun things in Golden. Good luck and I hope you all make it to construction! Cheers, Jacob

Reading between the lines of the Park, Recreation, and Museum Advisory Board minutes, it is pretty clear that proponents of this proposal have had at least one and maybe more field trips to the area with advisory board members. It seems appropriate to me that the neighbors and Golden residents at large should have the same opportunity.

As a homeowner in the Stonebridge neighborhood, a frequent user of the full length of the kinney run paved trail as a walker/runner/cyclist, as well as a mountain biker I have serious concerns about Section 2 & 3. I feel as though the proposed alignment will possibly start at 18 inches wide, but as has been seen on many popular front range trails, will gradually expand to a much greater width. Seeing as these sections already have narrow portions between the existing fence line and paved trail I have a feeling the trail through these sections would expand to fill the entire grassy area between the two. As a result, I am supportive of the other segments where the trail can be more integrated with the natural tall grasses, etc. but am opposed to sections 2 & 3.

I think the single track sidewalks are a great idea.

A maintained path is ecologically better than a "social trail". Which do or will occur.

Also, I have great confidence that Golden will design it right and if not then Golden will correct it (I think 're-do's' when needed is one of Golden's strengths).

Lastly, we need to continue to grow our community and encourage local activities in the community.

Thank kyou and I hope the project proceeds.

I use 5 and 6 sections all the time walking my dogs as I know many of you do. My dogs do not just stay on the sidewalk. They must smell every blade of grass and visit every bush. That being said, I would be constantly pulling them off of the dirt bike trail when someone would come by. Sorry, the plan doesn't work for me.

My wife and I have lived in Heritage Dells for over 11 years and are very much opposed to the STS plan. We frequently walk the Kinney Run trail, and enjoy the quiet and peaceful nature of the trail as well as the frequent wildlife sightings the trail affords. It is clear that the plan if implemented would create increased traffic which would negatively impact the Kinney Run experience. The plan would also have a significant negative impact on wildlife, plant life and erosion, environmental aspects usually extremely protected in Golden, in at least a couple proposed segments. I also am leery of who exactly would maintain the trail, as in my experience unless it is someone's explicit job to do something it will not reliably happen. Finally, although the above are all sound reasons to reject the plan, my biggest opposition is the blatant dishonesty in the plan by the authors of the proposal. Are we really to believe that this trail is purely for kids to enjoy mountain biking? Give me a break. The real endgame here is to organize a mountain bike race which incorporates the new trail and Apex Park. If the trail is built you're not going to see young kids learning how to ride, you will encounter experienced mountain bikers, too many of whom can't seem to even figure out the one way biker trails on odd days at Apex. I could probably at least respect the plan if the authors were at least honest in their intentions, but as it is they are hoping to take advantage of the naivety and indifference of the citizens of Golden to slip the plan through. We are emphatically opposed to the plan and hope our fellow citizens will ignore the transparent marketing pitch and choose instead to protect our natural environment.

In favor of STS trail segment 1. Disapprove of segments 2-6.

I am fully against this proposal. There are numerous misstatements on this website. I am a daily user of the Kinney Run trail and have big interest in what is happening in that area. Here are my observations:

1. I researched the existing best practices and designs for the natural trail systems. Every publication I read, including Town of Breckenridge and National Parks Services, talks extensively about consideration that needs to be given to the appropriateness of the location, surrounding communities, environment, sustainability, and maintenance. Reading the article in Golden Informer and the information on the website I do not see much thought given to any of these things.
2. The statements that there will be no cost to the City is very misleading at best since the City Parks and Recs staff is already involved. Giddyup is not a legal entity that the City can enter into a legal contract for construction, maintenance and performance bond. Relying on volunteers is not a sustainable strategy. At the end, all of us will be paying for something that is beneficial only to one special use group.
3. Building a trail parallel to the existing well-functioning trail system is widely considered a waste of resources. It will be serving the same population sector with no value added. As a daily user of the entire length of Kinney Run trail I can state that it’s successfully used by people of all ages either on foot or on bikes.
4. The proposed trail will be not directly adjacent to the existing trail but will be going through some very sensitive environmental areas that are the last remnants of the major wildlife corridor. There is very little of it left as it is. Disrupting it further will waste a precious resource we, citizens of Golden and people who live nearby, treasure so much.
5. The article and the website are sugarcoating this proposal as something for the benefit to the children. Even without digging deeper for the objectives, it is obvious that this proposal is doing nothing for the children but is helping experienced adult mountain bikers to create a racing loop Lions Park-Chimney Gulch-Apex Park-Lions Park. Mountain biking is a great sport and I have a lot of respect and admiration for it’s participants. However, introducing it into relatively dense residential neighborhoods is not appropriate. It’s like introducing a dirt motorbiking activity into urban environment.
6. I also see safety as big issue with a proposal. Details for drainage, erosion, cross-slope, prevention of cross-cutting, safety of the public on the trail below the proposed one are not considered. JefCo has a lot of experience with all these issues and knows the drain on the county resources they present. And that is in addition to the volunteer labor they solicit and employ every year.
7. Additionally, I do not see that this proposal went through the careful planning process that all projects within Golden City limits do.

I have lived in Golden since 1997 and love this community. Preservation of natural resources and consideration given to the people that live and enjoy this city is what always set this city apart. I sincerely hope that it’s still the case and continues to be in a future.

I fully support this proposal to expand outdoor recreation opportunities in Golden. I’m a Golden homeowner of 9 years, father of two, and avid trail user – runner, biker, and hiker. Access to the outdoors is one of the top reasons we love Golden.

My kids are now in that gap age group where they’ve outgrown the playground, enjoy biking, and want to independently explore outside – traditional park facilities don’t offer much of anything for their age group. Accessible, beginner trails close to home would provide an outlet for older kids to get outside, get exercise, and have unstructured fun. Yes, there are other places to do this, but given our beautiful landscape and outdoor-oriented culture, it’s a shame to load up the car and drive to take kids biking.

I’ve seen first-hand the Singletrack Sidewalks in Eagle. They integrate seamlessly into the paved trails, parks, schools, and neighborhoods and are just part of the town’s recreation infrastructure. The only consequence seems to be the groups of kids riding around independently with smiles on their faces. Many other communities are doing this too, and it’s becoming standard practice for park and trail development. .... and it sells houses – this is the type of thing that families are looking for.

In terms of wildlife habitat impacts – the new impact of a narrow trail adjacent to a paved bike path would be minimal, since the corridor is already disturbed and used by humans. All of the proposed segments are above the paved path and away from the Kinney Run riparian corridor, which is where most of the habitat value lies.

A properly designed and built trail would minimize erosion and maintenance requirements, and would be primarily appealing to the intended users – beginner bikers, kids, runners, walkers, etc. Sure, advanced bikers passing through would check it out as a matter of curiosity, but it would not be their destination.

I do believe strongly that the proposed trails should be carefully designed and sited to minimize erosion, blend in to the terrain, and appeal to the intended users. This is entirely possible. Luckily, it’s been successfully done before and we have models follow.

Fully support this idea throughout the city. Those wide concrete sidewalks are great for many reasons, but they are terrible for runners and bikers.

I am in support of the STS project. I think the STS project would be a great enhancement to Golden’s bike paths. I’m an avid cyclist and father who loves biking with my kids, but I’ve been disappointed that there are no beginner dirt trails in biking distance for my kids to ride.
I also like the proposed trails which provide alternatives for connecting to Colfax.
I have lived on Somerset Drive above the Kinney Run bike path for over a decade, and I use the path regularly for connecting to Lookout Mountain, commuting to downtown Golden, walking my dog, and running. I see an advantage with STS in that it would provide alternatives for all trail users; being multi-use trails, as indicated in the proposal, this is a project not solely for the benefit of mountain bikers - it’s for everyone.
Another benefit of STS would be to give a “presence “ to the open space along the Kinney Run path. Last summer homes along Somerset Dr were threatened when a wild fire was started by someone sheltering off of the path. I believe the existence of a maintained trail would help prevent another similar incident.

Last, the STS project provides an opportunity for volunteering and community involvement. I have been a JCOS trail, and I would be happy to help with construction and maintenance of the STS trails.
Thank you,
David Koepke

I fully support this proposal. What a great low-cost, low-impact way to leverage existing City property for the betterment of our community! This will help to reduce high-speed conflicts on the existing concrete multi-use path and opens up additional options for kids and Golden's many other trail users.

Our family lives on Somerset Dr. right above the proposed single track bike trail. We believe this would be an amazing opportunity to allow young and beginning mountain bikers to experience this sport. Our family loves the idea that people would be willing to volunteer their hard work, effort and time into creating something that could inspire people to try something new or at the very least enjoy the outdoors of our beautiful community.

We currently would not describe ourselves as mountain bikers but a trail like this might encourage our children to spend more time outdoors and taking on the challenges of learning a new skill/sport.

Thank you so much for working so hard to make this possible.

Sincerely,
The Todd family

I am a long time mountain biker, long time mountain bike advocate, and JCOS trail volunteer who has ridden Apex since 1990, and I'm opposed to this plan as it's currently written. I'm not opposed to the idea where it's appropriate and doesn't negatively impact the land it's planned for. However, many of the segment designs are not appropriate for the existing landscapes which they're proposed--in particular, segments 4 and 5. The hillsides within these segments contain areas that have delicate plant and soil make ups, and are refuges for various types of wildlife during many parts of the year. We would be poor stewards of the land to carve trails through many of these areas.

I've lived on Kinney Trial for 13 years, and have not had any trouble getting my kids to want to ride their bikes on the existing concrete paths. I'm also confused by of the motivation of the folks putting this plan forward. The proponents say the main goal is for kids to ride them, but then they contradict this goal by implying that by adding these trails it will cut down on trail user conflict. I don't know of any kids who create trail conflict. I'm actually not aware of any trail conflict that's happened on Kinney in the 13 years I've lived there. Are they implying that trail conflict is being caused by mountain bikers? How would creating paths for youths improve this trail conflict by keeping the adults causing the conflict on the concrete path? Or are the paths really for adults too? The proponents of this plan need to be honest about their intentions. Jefferson County Open Space's own studies show the only effective way to decrease conflict on the trails is by educating the users as to proper trail etiquette, not by rewarding the offending user group with more trails. But again, in 13 years living on the trail, I've never witnessed any conflict. We all just need to get along and show respect for one-another.

I'm opposed and think it's a horrible idea that will lead to more conflict. This trail will likely have an occasional kid on a strider bike but will mainly be used by adult bikers riding fast on the dirt. It will inevitably lead to conflict when a rider at high speed encounters a kid on a strider or runner.

For those who live in Eagle Ridge, with this trail you are inviting the entire metro area and also tourists into your backyard. This trail will be heavily used because it's an easy trail. This unintended consequence will not be good for local kids playing in the area.

There are already trails in the area where a child can learn how to ride on the trail. Green Mountain, North Table Mountain and even the start of Apex Trail are existing trails with beginner sections where kids can learn to ride. There is also a great pump track for kids at the Golden Bike Park in north Golden which has great access to a nearly flat Fairmount trail which is perfect for young kids. The Fairmount trail is generally flat, it's wide enough for the parent to be next to the child, there is good visibility so other riders can see them ahead, and it's right by North Table Mountain when they are ready for more difficult terrain. Load the kids in the car and head over there to check it out.

This path is unnecessary and will ruin the beauty of the existing trail, it infringes on 3 neighborhoods who use the paved trail for walking, running, dog walking, etc., it will disrupt local wildlife, and it won't be used for it's intended use (kids on striders).

A dirt trail along the existing path will be an eye sore...muddy in the winter and wet seasons, weeds, etc and it will require maintenance. This is not being good stewards of the land or existing trails. If you want a place for kids to learn to ride, add more beginner trail sections to our existing mountain biking parks. We are mountain bikers and our boys learned to mountain bike on the existing Apex Trail, if a child wants to ride they will ride...you don't need this trail.