Singletrack Sidewalks (STS)

Anything that gets kids/families/adults out on a bike is good for everyone involved.

Thank you to the City of Golden and the Parks, Recreation, and Museum Board for hosting the community meeting last night at Shelton. I appreciate the presentations, which reflect the proposal and the opposition to the pilot. However, I believe there is a clear difference of presentation style. The Golden Giddyup presented information of what they want the project to be and the avenue they will take to accomplish the Single Track Sidewalks. The opposition presented what appears to be scare tactics that are more emotion based than what would actually occur. Unfortunately for the Giddyup, they are held to a more rigorous set of standards as they will be held accountable should this pilot be approved. The opposition, at this time, can present and speak openly, without fact, purely to have this pilot rejected. The Parks, Recreation, and Museum Board has a difficult task in front of them because they need to now weigh what is a true fact based argument. I encourage the City of Golden and the Parks, Recreation, and Museum Board to look at the proposal and counter arguments and make a decision that reflects the vision of our community.

After attending the meeting and hearing the arguments against, as well as reading some follow-up arguments against on this board, I’d like to address a couple arguments against this proposal that are simply illogical. First, the presentation against the proposal claimed that this trail would add traffic to the neighborhood, wherein cars would be parking on the neighborhood streets. There is absolutely zero incentive for people using the trail, who don’t already live in the neighborhood, to park on the neighborhood streets. The parking lot at Apex Park more than accommodates traffic coming from Apex, and is far easier to access than the streets adjacent to the paved path than the neighborhood. Also, these proposed trails are not designed in any way to be a destination ride for people to travel to the area by car to ride. It is truly a community-oriented concept. The dirt trails would be used by people who have already been using the paved path. Second, the concept that bikes would not be able to control speed on these trails is also illogical. The combination of the low grade and the curvature referenced in the Giddyup presentation specifically addresses any speed concerns. The design of the existing paved path actually encourages speed. I hope, as the city continues to review this proposal, they take into consideration the fact that much of what they heard from the opposition last night was a set of misguided opinions communicated as facts.

This is a fantastic idea. I'd vote 100% yes for that from my whole family. Sorry I can't make the meeting just trying to add my support for it.

I do very much oppose this!
Of course it seems like minimal impact to the environment at first glance, but there are many plants and animals that will absolutely be affected by this additional trail, and not just when it’s first goes in, but from years and years of it being used by hundreds! Bikers just don’t want to acknowledge the reality and long range scope of the impact and harm this will do! If “fun” is the main message and it’s more important than nature and more important than respecting your neighbors that have lived here for years, then that’s a sad message to teach kids!

Also, I think it's a great idea to try a different place like someone else suggested earlier, but I don’t think the biker group would consider that because their ultimate “vision” is to have a connection to Apex.
If they say it’s not, than they should prove it by discussing an alternative location!

My family loves nature too and loves to be outside for our mental health just as much, if not more than kids do! But we can do that using the existing trail. Why can’t others? When I was a kid, I rode my bike everywhere!! I did not tell adults that I couldn’t have fun outside unless I had my own dirt trail! Parents having their kids speaking tonight was very manipulative and I think it made people upset who saw through it and walked out!

Golden giddy up keeps saying STS is critical for beginners to learn how to Mt bike, then how has so many Mt bikers, that visit Apex and surrounding areas every day learn to ride?

After attending the Saturday meeting and demonstration I have eased my opposition a little. I would be willing to compromise and be happy if the Bachman space had a trail system or circuit built in it. It would be close to Apex visitor center, but isolated from Apex trails and concrete path.

I’m opposed to this proposal! The meeting tonight justified the fact that this so called pilot program is a want rather than a need. The process is so flawed and bias; which was evident when you had all the children speak. We all know what children want. The fact that parents whose children attend Mitchell Elementary; who don’t live anywhere near our neighborhoods; feel that they have a stake in this is ridiculous! Not once did the subject of the damage to a natural wildlife corridor was even addressed by Golden Giddyup is appalling.

None of our concerns are being addressed in anyway shape or form. Golden Giddyup wants what it wants when they want it.

Singletrack Sidewalks sound great! My kids are getting into biking and this is a nice way to learn to ride on the dirt. Since it is adjacent to an existing path, the impact on the surrounding environment seems minimal. Increasing outdoor recreation is a good thing for our community!

I was also at the meeting tonight. Using kids the way the pro mtn. bikers did tonight was disgraceful. This is a lot more of an issue than about kids wanting to have “fun”.
Of course they are going to say what their parents tell them! Of course they are going to want anything that involves fun for them! Responsibly teaches respect for wildlife and the environment and about acknowledging other people needs and wants not just theirs!
People along Kinney Run have spent their life working hard and long hours to live and finally settle here to have the serenity of this open space nearby. We have forsaken our “fun” for years by working hard and long hours to earn the right to buy property here, to be near the wildlife and open space without more trails besides the one we all ALREADY share as a community,! One trail is enough without the further destruction to the environment by building more trails! Kids should learn to enjoy nature and being outside, while respecting the rights and needs of others who might differ in opinion! No one is stopping kids form having “fun” outside using the existing trail already provided!

The discussions held at the Shelton meeting tonight exemplified two major things: first there are many people that do not understand the term of 'community' and second the opposition to this proposal is misleading the community by stating 'jumps' and 'races' will occur on these trails.
First point is that a community is NOT the immediate house next to a community area. No matter if you live next to the Kinney Run trail or 20 houses away, the impact on the community is the same and the community at large should decide on the proposal, not the immediate neighbors. Some of the comments tonight stated that 'they don't want more people in the area'. The Kinney Trail is a community trail. Just because you live next to it, does not mean you get to decide which residents get to enjoy the community's trail. Your property ends where it does, outside of that the COMMUNITY will decide how to use the land. Additionally, the greater Denver area is and will be expanding into the foreseeable future. If you don't want 'more people' in the community, you should move to a less populated area.
The next point is that no where in the proposal was details of 'ripping out trees' and 'putting in jumps'. This is misleading information that has been pushed by the 'Friends of Kinney' and is undermining the judgement of the community, however it was clear tonight that this group is creating many false facts about the proposal. As for the concerns of speed control, the current bike path situation provides no speed checks as it is a straight path no matter the gradient. The natural surface path can be designed to limit speed as necessary; this would also reduce user conflict by providing a separation of bikers and non bikers. To state that 'the Giddyup wants this trail for their race' is ridiculous. Flat trails such as shown in the proposal are not trails that are raced or that advanced riders would be attracted to. These type of trails would be used for beginner/kids that are learning the sport. This smooth gradient also means the risk of erosion is very minimal. Erosion issues at other Jefferson County parks are due to steeper gradients and trail designs that were not sustainable. The work that the Giddyup has done shows they understand how to manage and maintain erosion in much steeper areas than where this proposed trail would be located. The environmental concerns are exaggerated as an initial assessment was already performed with no 'major' issues found. The next steps of the process will examine the environmental concerns in further detail and the city can determine which areas are off limits for this proposal. The Giddyup even mentioned in their proposal that 'any work that negatively impacts a sensitive area will be redesigned to avoid this area or will not be built in the area of concern.' Please don't falsify the facts of the proposal to push your agenda of 'less people on MY trail'.
This proposal satisfies a much needed area in the Golden community, beginner/kid mountain bike trails. The statements tonight of 'go ride at Argos trail, Green Mountain, Matthew Winters' clearly show that people do not understand the scope of this proposal as 'beginner/kid' level trails. The areas listed above are not ride-able to a beginner/kid. The introduction to the sport requires a much smoother gradient where people can learn; these types of trails are currently very rare in Golden.
One major point that was expressed tonight that needs to be reiterated is that this proposal makes young kids excited to get outdoors and experience nature; something that both sides of the argument hold sacred. Getting more people outside to experience nature results in more people understanding the responsibility we have to maintain our trails and act respectively for the access that is provided. It is the community's responsibility to provide and care for the access that we have. The Giddyup has exemplified the care aspect for the Golden community and I believe would provide the same care for this proposal as they have for the Jefferson County parks they help maintain.
I strongly support this proposal.

One more question that has not been answered. There are excellent single track dirt trails at the JeffCo Youth Services property, almost adjacent to Golden High School. I have raced cyclocross there many times and it would be excellent for kids to learn how to ride dirt. It could be developed into a Golden version of Valmont. Why couldn't this facility be utilized for kids on dirt programs? The trails already exist, would not be adjacent to any neighborhoods, would not have any of the concerns expressed by the community, and would be very convenient for the high school MTB team. Sounds like an amazing compromise to me!

I was at the meeting tonight at Shelton, and I can NOT believe the selfishness of the parents. Teaching your child to mountain bike and be "connected to the community" is more important than preserving our small corridor for wildlife...? Really people? It is NOT POSSIBLE to blaze a new trail without encroaching more on their habitat. Not to mention the increased traffic and noise to scare them from the area. We regularly see deer, elk, bobcats, and even coyotes in this corridor. They were disturbed here a decade ago for the paved trail and don't need us disturbing them again. Funny how they breezed over their environmental impact study without a SINGLE detail. Is that available somewhere for the public to see? Can we have a second company evaluate that GiddyUp doesn't choose?
Also, having the kids speak tonight, was a joke. Of course they want the trails! They aren't old enough to grasp the impact on the environment. This is an adult's discussion and tonight, some of our time was wasted. I really hope the city listens to the overwhelming opposition and realizes, this project is not worth it.

I am not a mountain biker but I believe that anything that gets kids outside and away from ipads and smart phones is a benefit to an entire community, not just to those people with kids. I will take it one step further and even say that helping to promote a healthy outdoor sport for children will provide huge mental health benefits for them and it's time we all start figuring out how to keep our children's minds healthy so they stop killing each other and themselves. It may sound like I'm reaching but if we don't start considering these things, then who will?

I was at the Shelton meeting tonight and was disheartened by what I heard. Both sides need work on their arguments. But I have to say that I cannot understand the "why" of this project. Golden Giddyup is proposing that this is supposed to be a place for kids to learn about mountain biking. I agree that is a good end. But - why does it have to be here? There are plenty of other places to ride dirt. If we need a new locations, why not at Golden High School? Its flat terrain would be perfect for beginners and easy location is advantageous for both the middle school and high school teams. Marketing this as a "kids friendly" dirt train just is not palatable without some sort of age and speed restrictions. No way are experienced mountain bikers going back to Golden from Apex riding on the pavement and not cross cutting the turns meant to slow down traffic. Occam's razor - Golden Giddyup wants more dirt for their September race and wants to take my backyard to do it. It is a shame they had to parade their kids around tonight.

Please do not allow e-bikes on natural trails!!!!!!!!! They should be able to used paved paths but not on dirt trails! They are mechanized and need to stay on motorized trails. I have done a ton of research, have ridden several e-bikes, and have an educated opinion regarding this! Please no e-bikes on mtn bike trails! They are great for commuters!

Children will learn to ride their mountain bikes in dirt w/o unnecessarily scarring a lovely, fully functional piece of Golden pride. I couldn’t believe my eyes when I read the proposal, it had to be a joke. This proposal is misguided, deceptive and will prove to be detrimental to our natural systems if allowed. We Heritage Dells residents who regularly use the trail find the so called ‘conflict’ argument completely fabricated and unfounded.
Lastly, misappropriating our taxes for unnecessary and wasteful pet projects that will benefit a very small number of people could be viewed as a dereliction of public duty.
Do the right thing. Abandon this proposal and leave Kinney Trail as it was originally designed.

I'm a homeowner on Chelan Street, and I'm unable to attend the meeting at Sheldon Elementary this evening. I am supportive of this initiative, on the condition that it lives up to the promise of being funded by Golden Giddyup and not the city or any public funding source. I don't think it meets the sniff test of 'public benefit,' so if it is privately financed & maintained, I am OK.

I am not a mountain biker nor am I enamored of sharing space with mountain bikers on any trail. Rather, my support is in the hopes that mountain bikers would use the single track and NOT use the paved Kinney Run path. I think the proposed adjacent path would reduce potentially un-safe encounters between mountain bikers and runners/walkers/kids/pets. The paved Kinney Run trail is ALREADY used by mountain bikers. The benefits of giving mountain bikers their own adjacent trail and separating that activity from others outweigh my concerns.

Whatever the stated intention of the trail, I highly doubt the primary users would be kids learning how to mountain bike. I think it would be used primarily by adults who'd see it as a connector trail for mountain bikers to/from Apex and downtown Golden. Which is OK with me, but I think should be acknowledged. The possibility of additional bike traffic, cars parked in the area, and increased numbers of adult users raise valid concerns from my neighbors/residents that should not be dismissed. This is a neighborhood, not a state park, and it's reasonable for us all to want it to feel that that way.

On the flip side, I think the fears about erosion and wildlife disturbance are a bit hyperbolic - this residential neighborhood has been altered much more significantly by putting houses here than putting a 1 mile dirt trail through it would be.

I strongly oppose the STS project. It is a poor use of resources for our city. It will create unnecessary erosion and water drainage issues, and destroy habitat along Kinney Run. It will become an eye-sore as the trail widens and bikers maneuver on and off muddy areas of the STS onto Kinney. There are plenty of existing single track trails suitable to teach young kids mountain biking all around us including Argos trail, Green Mountain, Matthew Winters, and other nearby open spaces. I question the motive behind this proposal that will only detract from the value Kinney Run brings to the neighborhoods it connects.

I think this is a wonderful idea and strongly support this proposal. Providing kids with a safe alternative to riding their bikes in the street or dodging joggers/walkers on the current paved path is a great solution.

I strongly support this concept. Not only does it benefit the growing interest in kids getting on bikes locally (biggest sport at Golden High School is the mtn bike team), but it also has the ability to move traffic off the paved path, which has a lot of blind curves, and limited space for faster traffic to pass slower-moving traffic. I'm a runner, dog walker and a mtn biker, and would use the singletrack sidewalk for all those activities. Yes, this is advertised as something geared toward young mtn bikers, but there is no restriction against anyone using it. For those sounding the alarm of environmental impact, I'm confused why they are perfectly okay with keeping a paved path, streetlights, brick walls, playgrounds, fences, basketball courts, and mowed grass near the proposed location of these trails. If the environment truly is the concern, then we really should remove those items that are far more intrusive and damaging on the environment than any damage a singletrack dirt trail could possibly do.