Singletrack Sidewalks (STS)

STRONGLY SUPPORT this plan. Well thought out, very useful and needed, NOT a destination for non-Goldenites, not a disturbance to wildlife, will alleviate cyclist / walker conflicts on existing paved trail, claims about overuse and degradation are wildly overblown, resource is progressive and inclusive, I could go on...

We purchased our house in 2016 in Lakota Hills because we love all the kids on our street, the proximity to trails, and the network of bike paths. Our three kids (8, 5, and 3) use the Kinney Run trail to ride their bikes to school and daycare (further down in Golden). The segments proposed by the STS would enhance our experience with little impact on the natural environment. I've ridden similar trails in Bentonville, AR and the single track sidewalk is a fun alternative to the pavement. Plus, it moves the mountain bikers off the paved area. The STS is accessible from our neighborhood and would be something that our kids would ride often, and I mean A LOT!!!!! We all know that Apex is much too difficult for young children! I'm astonished by the amount of opposition from people since this area is already wedged between two neighborhoods with green and manicured lawns and 1/4 mile from a busy highway! It makes me sad that there are people in this neighborhood that are opposed to getting kids outdoors and enjoying the natural beauty of our environment. It makes me question what their real motives are? We live in an era where kids spend more time indoors than ever before, so I say let's find as many opportunities to make walking, running, biking to and from school, pool, town, or stores more fun!!!

I am a resident of Beverly Heights and I STRONGLY OPPOSE the STS proposal for numerous reasons.
1. This proposed path would be redundant and inane. There is already a hard surface path to meet the needs of bikers.
2. There would be a negative environmental impact. Wildlife movement would be disturbed even more than it already is. Also, as the dirt path becomes rutted or when it is muddy it is probable to suppose riders will move to the side which would increase the path size.
3. If the city allows this path it would set a precedence for building more paths in other open spaces.
4. Golden Giddyup states their sponsors include Yeti Cycles, REI and others. Are these others bike shops? If just Yeti Cycles and REI promote this proposed trail, there will be an influx of non-resident adult intense dirt path riders. Residents of Golden should not, repeat should not pay for outdoor activities of non-residents. Furthermore, the probable increase in adult riders will reduce the use by young inexperienced dirt path riders(a targeted group in the proposal).
5. If Golden Giddyup can cannot raise enough money to partner financially with the city, the city would then have to cover the entire cost. How can the city ensure this will not happen.
6. Who will pay for continued maintenance?
7. There was not enough/advance information/notice provided to Golden Residents about this proposal and city meetings dealing with the proposal.

I encourage the City Council to not allow this proposal through. It is the job of all elected and advisory representatives to represent all of the residents, not just a select few.

VBA Monday- August 27, 2018

This proposal favors the "few" at a cost to the "many". The financial burden on the city, the reduction of natural open space and the impact on neighborhood lifestyle are all "costs" imposed on citizens. The "benefits" of those costs go to the "few" net new users of the designed space.

I am a resident of Beverly Heights and I STRONGLY OPPOSE the Singletrack Sidewalk for numerous reasons.
1. There is already an existing paved bike path. It is redundant and basically inane to put it a natural path next to an existing hard surface one.
2. This path appears to meet the needs only of Golden Giddyup pushing the proposal.
3. Golden Giddyup state they are ready to partner financially in funding this path with the city. Their sponsors include Yeti Cycles, REI-COOP of Denver and others.Who are the others? Bike Shops around the metropolitan Denver area? If just these two cited sponsors alone promote and advertise the path, the result will be an immense increased use by riders outside of the community. City tax money should NOT be spent on outdoor activities of non-residents. If Golden Giddyup cannot pay enough for the project, who will have to pick up the cost, the city. That would mean all residents would have to pay for this path even if they do not want it or use it. There are other ways the city can spend its money.
4. This path with bring more adult riders from outside Golden, This probable increase in adult intense dirt path riders does not promote use of path by young inexperienced riders.
5. WHO WILL PAY FOR CONTINUED MAINTENANCE? As the dirt path becomes rutted or when it is muddy, riders will most likely move further out to the side increasing the path size. (This is what happens on hiking and 4x4 trails.) This would cause more destruction to the land.
6. The increased human use in open space will disrupt the wildlife even more than now.
7. There will be a precedent set for future groups to request dirt paths created at other sites.
8. it seemsThe city council DID NOT try to inform the public in a timely manner. The Golden Informer did not provide enough information. What neighborhood organizations support this project?

I encourage all elected and advisory representatives to carefully read and consider my comments and all comments on this page.

I Oppose
PRMAB has a published process for considering Special Interest Group Proposals that Requires the Proposal address how it aligns with PRMAB Master Plan Objectives -
In fact the Master Plan Objectives lists “Open Space/Natural Areas” as receiving the highest ranking of “Importance to Golden Households” (more than 95% rating above 3 on a scale of 5)– This Proposal reduces Open Space/Natural Areas.
The Master Plan does not include more trails as an identified “need”
The Proposal includes no estimate of costs to be incurred by the City – while the Proponents have stated they will provide all the construction and maintenance labor – this cannot simply be assumed to be true without a detailed determination of what those costs will be.
There was no consideration of alternate routes or methods of addressing the stated objective - “This project would build STS next to existing paved bike paths to provide a place for young and beginner riders to experience the joys of mountain biking There are in fact many other ways to achieve this objective without the costs and disruption to natural open space included in this option.
PRMAB has not addressed specifically the many concerns raised in the 2017 City Of Golden Staff report on the STS Proposal
The direction provided by Council at the October Study session was to develop a “small pilot” with and metrics to determine success or failure. This proposal is neither a “small pilot” nor does it have “metrics” from which to determine objectively its success or failure.
Public input is a requirement of the PRMAB process- in this case, the public and effected neighborhoods have been excluded from any substantive input until far too late in the process.
Let's back up and follow a process that is designed to lead to solid decision making.

Redundancy and Poor Location Choice from Available Options
These proposed dirt path segments, with a single exception, are already served by a well-designed and well maintained multi-use path. As a result, they are redundant for most user service and do nothing to address “connectivity” objectives included in the City and PARM plans.

The stated purpose “This project would build single-track sidewalks - natural surface trails - next to existing paved bike paths to provide a place for young and beginner riders to experience mountain biking,” could be achieved by building dirt paths along many existing bike paved multi-use pathways in Golden. Johnson Road and Heritage Road or near the concrete path on 44th and Golden Bike Park are easy optional locations to visualize.
Importantly any other possible location does not put young riders in the same path as experienced riders traveling to/from Apex. This would make improve dramatically safety considerations for both populations.
Of equal importance – the proposed routes invade open space that is in a natural state and a home to a rich variety of wildlife. Most citizens consider open space a priority. In fact the PARM Master Plan has Open Space/Natural Areas at the absolute top of its “Importance of Golden Facilities to Household” Survey Ranking with a greater than 90% positive ranking of 4 or 5 on a scale of 5. Why was this important element ignored in this selected routing? Instead we have a proposal that removes OpenSpace/Natural Areas from Citizen use. I must assume that GGU would be willing to provide volunteer labor for other site locations>
It appears that PARM did not consider other options available to serve the stated young/beginner rider need. Those would include alternate STS routes that don’t present the problems noted above, possible expansion of Golden Bike Park, and even development of a new Bike Park dedicated to young riders in an alternate location.
The Citizens of Golden have the right to expect that their representatives, elected and advisory will evaluate proposals like this in a comprehensive manner – looking carefully to consider least negative impact options that meet the determined objectives. We understand this has in fact been done in other cases, why not this one?

I STRONGLY OPPOSE this project. We live right off Eagle Ridge Drive and close to the proposed trail. My family is concerned how this single track will directly affect us and the wildlife that are frequently seen in the area the trail is proposed. I recently visited the Golden Bike Park and was saddened to see how much the terrain was destroyed around the park by bikers venturing off the path. I suspect most bikers will stay on the path but there will be some who will venture off in search of better jumps and terrain. I want to protect our natural terrain. IN addition, we don't need to attract more mountain bikers from Apex. I feel that it has become mainly a trail for mountain bikers and with my young kids, I don't feel safe with all the biking traffic. Kinney Trail is usable now hiking, running, biking, and I don't want this trail overrun by mountain bikers. City council, please do not approve this.

It has come to my attention that the local mountain bike retailer community has been informed via a publication to post comments here. It is not fair or ethical to post or accept public comments for a city or neighborhood in which you do not live. The voices of the people in these neighborhoods should not be diluted (or adversely affected) by those that do not live here.

If you are are a resident of Golden, or are in one of the affected communities PLEASE state so in your comment. This site does not validate where you are from, and should probably do so in the future.

as stated in my earlier comment. I AM OPPOSED to this plan in its entirety

I am a Colorado Native, grew up in Arvada, and have lived in Golden (Stonebridge) since 2001. my house backs to section 5 and I am strongly OPPOSED to this plan. The proposal as presented by Giddyup Golden is intended to be a 'sales pitch' showing only the positives. After researching this further, it is very clear to me that there is absolutely no value add to putting trails next to one that already exists.

For those of you that are considering a comment I suggest you look at all of the facts, especially the city's staff report from October 2017.

It appears early responders to this site are for it, and that makes sense, because the news of this was not adequately communicated to the affected neighborhoods. In fact, it could be argued that Giddyup Golden purposely did NOT want the larger community to know about this beforehand and is attempting to 'sneak it through' the process. Thanks to the Friends of Kinney Run group, I was made aware, looked at all sides objectively and after a thorough evaluation, DO NOT want this pilot in our neighborhood.

Those that are 'for' this proposal seem to have little regard to the neighbors that directly back to these proposed areas, affected wildlife, and the history of the area. All of these need serious and through consideration before any change is permitted.

Further, what is the long term commitment of Giddyup Golden? There does not appear to be any contractual commitment for building or maintaining these trails, and the leader of this group has admitted that they have not taken on a project of this scale before. under the proposed arrangement, they can walk away any time and leave a huge mess for the city and the neighboring residents.

Promises and handshakes are not good enough. This is a major project.

TO THE CITY OF GOLDEN: DO NOT APPROVE THIS!!!!!!

The proposed STS are being promoted by a very small special interest group, made up of 3 men .. all of whom are hardcore mountain bikers. They pretend that the proposed trails will be used by children and beginner mountain bikers when in reality the trails will be used by experienced and aggressive mountain bikers who want to make a loop from Apex to Lookout and back. It will ultimately cost the city of Golden our tax dollars to build, to supervise, and to maintain. We already have an 8 foot wide sidewalk that accommodates all .. bikers, walkers, strollers and our beloved wildlife. The STS proposal has not been studied properly .. the City is failing us .. and Golden residents should have been engaged from the very beginning and we were not. This should not be approved. I am a very concerned resident who lives in the Stonebridge neighborhood of Golden, Colorado.

I have lived in Golden for 16 years and am a resident of Stonebridge.I am STRONGLY opposed the STS project for the following reasons:

1. Giddyup Golden stated on Saturday 8/25, that these proposed trails will be maintained as multi-use. Current multi-use trails are in place at Apex and on Golden City property and are maintain for year -round use. An additional multi-use trail is not needed 16-24 feet next to the current multi-use trail
2. Giddyup Golden stated Saturday 8/25, that children of the Giddyup Golden members will be able to experience nature by using the proposed trails. Nature is experienced on the current trail system- Apex and City of Golden.
3. Giddyup Golden stated Saturday, 8/25, that the elk do not belong here and are habituated, sick, and eating garbage in neighborhoods. This is not true. Colorado Division of Wildlife has reported that the Evergreen and Clear Creek elk herds (herds that are in Golden) are healthy, thriving and are free of chronic wasting disease. Elk do not eat human garbage.
4. Giddyup Golden stated on Saturday 8/25, that the grass areas in segment 2 will be replaced with trail and that the current sprinkler system will be "the city's staffing problem". They also stated that the propose plan is to bury the large decorative boulders next to the trail in section 2 and to leave 1 foot of exposed rock to create hills for riders.
5. Giddyup Golden stated on Saturday 8/25, that the proposed plan is to place 4 foot posts and signs along the proposed trails.They also stated that they will be installing logs and other features.
6. Giddyup Golden stated on Saturday 8/25, that there is no defined plan for maintenence of these trails and that they are trying to "make deals" with coaches at Golden High school to commit to an Adopt- a -trail
program.
7. Giddyup Golden stated, on Saturday 8/25 that they refuse to talk publicly about the Bachmann property deal and its significance to this project.
8. Giddyup Golden stated on Saturday 8/25, that they had their friends and members of Giddyup Golden, not an impartial 3rd party, perform the environmental impact study, required by the city.
9. Giddyup Golden leaders and members are from Chicago and other cities. This group has minimal membership of Golden residents who have lived in Golden for longer that 1-5 years.
After meeting with this group, it is my observation that they do not understand the natural history of this neighborhood and the significant negative impacts this proposal will have.

I Still STRONGLY Oppose: The group who supports this proposal are pretty much only concerned about their “wants”. Your showing minimal concern for the environment, the impact on the remaining wildlife, and no consideration for the neighbors in the neighborhoods that are directly affected by this intrusion. Did you ever consider that perhaps you wouldn't want mountain bike paths running right by your home?

Part of this area is sacred Indian land and burial grounds. Has anyone researched that aspect? I seriously doubt it. Growth is inevitable and this area already has enough encroachment of houses and loss of wildlife. We don’t need to add an unnecessary dirt trail so some can have another playground.

To: Golden City Council: Instead of trying to promote Golden with your projects for improvement, how about some serious maintaining of what is already in place. Your lack of good communication with the citizens of Golden is astounding. You created your misguided vision in 2011 and you don’t inform citizens until a few weeks ago? Is that how the City Council thinks they gain voter approval and confidence from the taxpayers who help fund these projects for Golden?

I have lost faith in how this city council operates for its citizens in Golden. I have been to several meetings and always leave feeling like you can express your concerns and suggestions, but you already have your agenda established. You wanna make it appear that you want input, but in reality, it goes in one ear and out the other. The meeting at Shelton about the band-aids you plan on putting on Heritage Road is a perfect example. There were many good suggestions and comments from nearby residents and NONE of them were really listened to or considered for the improvements on the poor engineering of Heritage Road. Start listening to your citizens for once.

Removed by moderator.

I have no opposition to STS, I think it's a great idea. However, my comment would be it would be nice to have actual side walks & usuable sidewalks on Washington Street near highway 93 & Ford, again on the north end prior to adding STS. Those of us with kids, strollers & dogs just want to be able to safely walk our kids to school and without sidewalks we cannot. So again STS sound awesome, but how are these a higher priority than adding a sidewalk in the east side of Washington or the West side of Washington between Iowa & 93?

Strongly oppose this project. Golden has many other priorities that should be addressed first with a limited budget for the next few years.

I, an Eagleridge resident, feel that I must begin by affirming that I, and my family, are long time, avid and committed mountain and road bikers and have volunteered for trail work in the many places we have lived, including Golden. We also support encouraging children – and everyone – to actively play outside. But, none of that is what this is or should be all about.

The City of Golden has numerous processes whereby residents can plan the future of our City and determine our needs and priorities for the use and expenditure of our City’s assets and resources both financial and natural. These include the Capital Improvements Plan (CIP), the Master Plans, the Neighborhoods Plans, etc. These result from extensive public engagement processes. Our City government, including the advisory boards are supposed to use these well considered needs and priorities to determine how our assets are used. The Parks, Recreation & Museums Advisory Board (Board) has also developed a Special Interest Request Process for evaluating requests from special interest groups, like Giddyup’s project. This process requires the Board to ensure that to move forward all projects must meet the needs and priorities determined by the Golden community, including addressing: “who would benefit, how many would benefit, how much would it cost, what resources are required, maintenance required, lifespan of project”.

I couldn’t find in any of this required guidance any priorities or needs for creating dirt trails that intrude into preserved open space and natural areas where city recreational trails already exist and serve diverse users well. What I did find was an expressed appreciation of need to maintain our preserved open spaces and existing trails and to create connectivity throughout the City, that is, new trails in areas of the City that do not currently have trails and want them. I also did not find any evidence that the Board addressed and fulfilled the requirements of its own process for evaluating Special Interest Requests or that the Council complied with any of the required guidance for agreeing to move this project forward. In fact, the City and the Board seem to have ignored the report of the City staff that did some of the required review and determined numerous serious concerns about the project.

It is clear that Giddyup is composed of passionate, presumably well-meaning mountain bikers who want more mountain bike trails. It is equally clear that this project will result in the use and exploitation of Golden’s limited but important financial and natural assets and resources to meet the wants of this special interest group and not the needs and priorities or serve the larger community of Golden residents, which have been repeatedly expressed as maintaining our existing open spaces and trails and increasing connectivity where it doesn’t exist and is wanted.

Those who oppose this project, including the Friends of Kinney Run, have done the research and analysis that should have been done by the Council and the Board in determining the issues, concerns and failings of this project that should have prevented it from moving forward beyond the initial review stage, let alone to this stage of already using City resources, causing the level of angst and concern in our community. These legitimate, substantive and well-reasoned concerns and issues have been expressed repeatedly on this website and other communications to the City in the past month, which is as long we, the community, have been aware of this project. We are now being put in the position of engaging in a completely ambiguous, undefined “public input” process including promotions and often misleading project descriptions mostly designed by Giddyup in concert with the Board that has already approved the project moving forward. How this process will be evaluated and how any further decisions will be made are kept a mystery to the community. This whole process feels very much like a charade of pretending to “engage with the public” In any meaningful way. The surrounding neighborhoods and community at large are not being appropriately and well served by our City government, which can and should immediately stop this project and instead use our limited City resources to serve the real needs and priorities of all of us, not the wants of this special interest group.

We have lived in our home located at the entrance of the Stone Bridge development for some 15 years. We are opposed to consideration of this plan for the following reasons.
1. We do not want to see added pressure of additional mountain bike riders through our community. With the recent changes and development of the Apex area and the upgrades completed during reconstruction we feel these areas are more than adequate for adult bike riders. Mathew Winters park and several other areas are already available. We do not believe that this suggested trail will be used for children and would possibly add to an unsafe riding trail for youth riders.
2.We find the existing concrete path from the Trip ranch down to the 6th Ave tunnel already provides bike traffic with riders that travel at high speed rates with some displaying inconsiderate riding behavior.
3.We have no interest in developing increased pressure of riders and parking needs from areas east of Golden (Denver included)
4.Golden City is already pressured with the burden of overseeing construction, maintenance, monitoring and ongoing costs for other areas within the town of Golden.
5.The terrain in these areas are riddled with wildlife and we feel this project will have a negative impact on the undisturbed habitat.
6.WE ARE OPPOSED TO THIS PLAN IN ANY FORM!!!

I strongly oppose this. This is the first time that I've weighed in on a local issue. On many levels this is a bad proposal. My main concern as the father of three children under ten in the affected neighborhood is the difference between the proposed use of the trail and the actual use. There is no way this is designed for the children in the community. It is designed to allow adults to "bomb" down the trail from Apex to Golden on a "better" trail than the cement trail that exists. I cannot imagine taking my children on the proposed trail given the risk of snakes. Once created, this trail will lead to erosion and further parallel trails that further disrupt our natural community. Let the people who are proposing this ride on the cement trail and not contribute to the destruction of our environment.

I think it is a matter of balancing the extrinsic values of recreation for mountain bikers with the intrinsic values of open space with its plants and wildlife. In the case of Kinney Run, the Precautionary Principle should be applied and no more disturbance allowed.