Singletrack Sidewalks (STS)

I strongly oppose this. What makes the concrete path so nice is the beautiful green way dotted with trees. It is always quiet and peaceful. Adding a dirt path will congest this view and break up the greenway.

One of the proposed segments:
“From Apex Parking lot, North towards Heritage Dells Park. There is an existing social trail on the east side of the Kinney Run bike path that follows the rock outcropping and is used by many local residents and kids.”
This entire area was fenced off until about a year ago, when the city removed the fence for whatever reason. The people proposing this have no idea what this area is! This was an Indian camp, and possible burial area for their people. There were at least 2 major research studies done on the area within the last year. You really think it’s ok to run a designated dirt path over this ?
I love (sarcasm) the term “social path”, what the hell is a social path ? You mean a path where people didn’t stay on the designated path ? I thought for mountain bikes, automotive 4 wheeling, and hiking, one of the golden rules is to stay on the path ? So since so many people can’t follow the rules lets reward them with a designated path ? At the welcome center of apex, about ¼ mile up along concrete path there are numerous “social paths” that open space had to put large rocks in to keep people on the DESIGNATED PATH, not even a mile from the main trailhead! Come on! Upon request I will gladly email video and stills of responsible mt bikers riding on top of retaining wall, going off path up hill, then jumping off retaining wall onto bike path.
Apex and green mountain are great places for beginner riders. The new Argos trail, and Pick n Sledge in particular are great for kids and new riders. Why wouldn’t you try starting the sport there? Because of an old problem that persists. A buddy hauls a truck load of his/her friends to the entrance at the top of look out mountain. Then they downhill as fast as possible, run you over coming down. This project will be no different with the behavior. There is more than plenty of beginner trails, the mt bike community needs to come together to make it safe for beginners. Not make more trails because of bad behavior.

The area in the eagle crest area should be left alone. There are so many trails within 5 miles of this section there is no reason for a path. Let’s see, several on Lookout Mountain, several on North table Mountain, several on South Table Mountain, Green Mountain, Mathews, Apex, North Dinosaur Park, Mt Galbraith and more. The concrete bikeway connects them all. We need to preserve these small pockets of wild space as buffer zones for the environment.

I never have understood in Golden, why we spend so much money on paths and bridges but don’t make them safe to use. For example a great use of the money would be to put in signage like Arvada and Morrison at crosswalks reminding people it’s a state law to STOP when people are crossing, rather than building even more trails. Fix existing problems, not create new ones.
I love (sarcasm again) the pictures of the kiddos on their bikes, its all for the kids. Folks be careful here, not too long ago we legalized marijuana, and huge dollars were promised for the “kids”. Years later after billons in taxes have been collected we are closing schools, having 4 day school weeks and teachers are striking. Once this gets built, there is no going back, and it’s not for the kids.

I have a soil report from the time my house was built. It states that Eagle Ridge subdivisions are located in the area that has a very erodible underlying formations. Stripping existing vegetation and creating a dirt path to be used by people on bikes will create a severe degradation and erosion. Even without continuous aggressive use, the exposed rock formations are naturally eroding. I, as daily user of the Kinney Run trail, see the washed out debris on the trail all the time. Adding activity this proposal will bring will create a significant erosion and mud that will be flowing onto the existing trail.
Existing Kinney Run trail currently serves all users, on foot and on bikes, very well without unnecessary negative impact on the surrounding area. This proposal is "want" for select activity and not a "need" for the community. And as such it shouldn't be moving forward.

We are opposed to this proposal. It seems like this has turned into a popularity contest with the side getting the most input winning. (I hope the City Council doesn't feel this way.). We should not overlook the real issues here, preserving our ever decreasing open space, protecting the wildlife and the environmental impact. These affect us all. Think of the long term consequences.
Let's not give in to a special interest group, most of whom don't even live in this area.
Sam

Sounds like an AMAZING idea! I would love to be able to bike and jog on dirt rather than the hugely wide paved trail. I've used single track sidewalks in Eagle and thought they were so much fun. Would love to see these in Golden!

The idea that a narrow dirt path will cause environmental damage beyond what's already been caused by our neighborhood being built in the first place and the paved Kinney Run trail seems quite silly. Our homes and the paved trail are unnatural and have taken so much habitat away from animals in the area. No one seems to have a problem with having their home right near green space, and that's a far bigger intrusion on the 'naturalness' of the area than a narrow dirt trail.

Bring on the STS!

I strongly oppose this project. This trail will attract mature mountain bikers that, by their own words on Nextdoor, eagerly anticipate the "glorious ride" along this trail. It is already placed on the event map by GGU. This beautiful peaceful open space will be ruined for a five minute thrill for a specific group f people. Mountain biking does not belong in the residential areas and on a very limited preciouses open space we have.
Since no consideration was given to parking for the users of the proposed facility, bicyclists that currently seek parking at Apex trailhead that is frequently full will start parking on our neighborhood residential street to access this trail and ride to Apex.

I strongly OPPOSE this project.
This is not an effective proposal for “Trails for Young Riders”
The GuidingGolden.Com summary material states: 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, although the trails would not be exclusively limited to beginner riders.
The Golden Informer stated: “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
It is inconsistent to state that a trail is being built for “young riders” and then acknowledge that it will be used by All Riders.
People with young riders stay away from places like Apex in large part because they know that mixing children on bikes with adults on bikes is an unsafe combination. GGU members have said they don’t take their kids to Apex for this very reason.
This design simply provides that same unsafe combination! – Adult Riders to/from Apex will use this trail! In spite of GGU statements that they “don’t expect mature riders will be attracted to this” – I have had several conversations with supporters of this project that conclude with the simple statement (paraphrased here)– If I have a choice of concrete or dirt – I will ride the dirt.
This seems so clear. If we are to accept that PARM went through a process that determined a “need” for additional “youth friendly” trails – why were no other options considered or proposed??? Golden Bike Park (GBP) is a great example of how easy it is to separate young riders from adult riders yet maintain family engagement – why not consider an option of expanding GBP? GBP has an 88% rating or 3 or higher on a scale of 5 in a “Needs are Being Met” survey so it must be doing something right.
Or, why not look at the option of a self-contained “young rider” park? The Safety issues are made simple, the environmental and “other use” impact is reduced dramatically (you can put a half mile of track loops with features in a much, much smaller area than the current proposal), parental guidance and interaction with their kids becomes easier and on and on.
Is the answer to this that GGU volunteers are only really interested in applying their energies to trails that are accessible to “all”? Did PARM even consider this option – if not, why not?
In addition – it is also too much of a stretch to state that the current trail layout is, in its entirety, “youth friendly”. In their current revised design, GGU states that “…. in all instances strive to keep the trail at no more than a 5-6% grade, meeting the goals to have a “green” level trail that would be accessible and fun for beginners on up”
Note first the word “strive” and that this omits “youth friendly” and resorts to “green level trail” - those are very different skill levels. Aside from the issues of mixed skill levels discussed above, a “green trail” with a 5-6% grade is not a place you put a young rider and expect them to be successful (or safe).
A conclusion to be drawn from all this is that the “youth friendly” emphasis in the promotional material is not supported by the actual intent or design.

I am vehemently opposed to the STS project. Why are we even considering the request of a small vocal special interest group that wants to add a dirt trail adjacent to the scenic Kinney Run path? Has anyone considered the unintended consequences? You know that bikers will be cutting across the grass to access or exit this trail wherever they want. What’s this going to do the grass? This area gets watered and has numerous sprinkler leaks that make the ground soft and highly susceptible to damage in many places. And who’s going to ride these sections when the watering turns the trail into mud? Is Giddyup going to pay for redesigning and repositioning the sprinkler heads? I’m not interested in seeing the current nicely maintained grass areas torn apart by indiscriminate bike traffic.

The claims by Golden Giddyup seem to suggest this is all funded and maintained without taxpayer money. How will this be handled contractually with the City of Golden? Does the burden for ongoing maintenance and liability then become a burden on the tax payer when Giddyup goes insolvent or can't provide volunteers?

Currently this project is being sold as a training area for kids learning to mountain bike. Why is the Heritage Dells area uniquely suited for this purposes? The grade from Kimball down to 6th Ave hardly seems like it’s flat enough for children. Is this project really just for kids or is this just a ‘smoke and mirrors’ attempt to connect the Apex trail with downtown Golden for the benefit of adult bikers? If you build it there’s no telling what kind of bike traffic this will draw. People have already commented here that they commute from outside Golden to use the trails here. Are we really naïve enough to believe this is just a low-use kids path? If this is really what it is intended to be then it should be designated and posted for limited use. Sure, kids should have a place to ride but why does it need to be a eye-sore cut through nice grassed areas and natural vegetation in this neighborhood? If you want a flatter area for beginners why not go out on Rooney Rd and put something along there where there’s no housing and nobody cares. There are already other trails there and parking. Wouldn’t it make sense to consolidate this “beginners trail”(if that’s really what it is) in an area outside the nice Heritage Dell neighborhood? It seems like a no-brainer to go out on Rooney Rd for this but it doesn’t appear that this STS project has been well considered.

Time to stop catering to mountain bikers and special interest groups. There is nothing in this for the community as a whole other than an aesthetic eye sore.

I am in favor of this. Additional trails would be great for kids and adults alike. Given that there is already a paved trail, I doubt a dirt trail will impact wildlife. To those worried about interactions between pedestrians and bikers, this already exists. It seems prudent to have more mountain bikers move from the paved trail to the dirt one.

I strongly oppose this project: I do not believe that this is beneficial to the community in any way. It would destroy a natural habitat for wildlife and would also cause issues for the quiet community and neighborhood. The area where they are planning to make this happen is beautiful and should not be disturbed. There are already plenty of biking trails nearby and there is no need for another.

I oppose this ridiculously misguided project. The proponents make this sound like a simple little project that won't cost the city much money, won't impact the existing natural areas, wildlife, plants, etc, will stay 18" and be used only by very responsible, respectful beginner and kid riders, who will always obey signs, etc. and that this group of basically 3 people have the skills, financial and other resources, experience, and capacity, not only to develop this but maintain it in perpetuity. Come on folks, how stupid and gullible do you think we are? The "updated" proposal states that these are "multi-use trails with alternate lines for simple, beginner features made of rock and wood". What definition of "multi -use" means only bikers? And who is to say who is a beginner or not? And what is the definition of a kid - 18 and under, 14 and under, 6 and under? Who decides? And what if I'm a runner or a dog walker or a birder and want to use the trail? Will I be kicked off and by whom? Will I be ticketed? And what are "alternate lines" and these additional features of "rock and wood" and how will they be constructed so as not to disturb the environment and its inhabitants?
The proponents tout the Eagle trails as an example but if you investigate what's reported about those trails, they are used by all riders, including experienced racers. At least one segment is designed for its "entertainment value" and is described as a "pump track". Take a look on line at some of the pictures of the trails and the riders. And that's only the beginning. If you want to know what this likely to become, take a hike at Apex park, or try to. As a hiker you will risking your safety from the aggressive bikers. Even Ben Davis on the Giddyup site talks about trails used by bikers not being safe for others, including inexperienced bikers.
Is the City really going to give this open space and natural area over to these folks- who ever they are - and let them do their thing with no guidance, supervision, engineering, city oversight, etc? Jeffco doesn't do that. The City already has experience with "volunteer" promises with the Golden Mountain Bike Park that we all pay for now. Why are we being asked to support doing that again?
Finally, what exactly are we all supposed to be opining about? This proposal keeps changing and there are so many, many unknowns and unsupported opinions about how it really will work.
Bottom line is that this is a major project that will have serious impacts on the existing open space, will duplicate an existing multi use trail for no reason, will end up costing the city (all of us) lots and is not only ill advised but terribly misguided.

We are opposed to this proposal. It seems like this is a popularity contest with whichever side gets the most input wins? (I hope the City Council doesn't think this way.) Let's not lose sight of the big picture here. The most important issue is protecting our ever decreasing open space, the effect it will have on the wildlife and the environmental consequences. Let's not give in to a special interest group that is thinking only of themselves, most of whom don't even live in this neighborhood.
sam

I STRONGLY Oppose:

I have read the comments on this site and nextdoor.com. There are many valid points regarding this proposal. If people choose to put in something that only some will take advantage of, then to me, it’s merely a “want” versus a “need.”

Personally, I feel that the neighborhoods, that this directly affects, should be the ones whose concerns should be listened to. I’ve lived here for over 30 years and the wildlife has significantly disappeared due to encroachment of housing and more people occupying the wildlife's habitat.

Most of us who moved up here did so because of the wildlife, quiet neighborhoods, and the feeling of a relaxed atmosphere. We should be more concerned about the maintenance of the things already in place and not create more.

After reading some of the prior board meeting minutes, City Council appears to be dismissive about what we the people want and think about their improvement projects. Looks like the pet project of their vision of improvement has been in the works since 2011 and now we just hear about it? I would like to think that for once they’ll listen to its citizens rather than trying to appease a few.

I oppose this project. More traffic in this beautiful area is just going to cause more problems. In July of 2018 people camping on the hillside right across from my house. I woke up at 1 in the morning to see a huge fire that could have engulfed the whole neighborhood and the adjacent neighborhood. Luckily there were First Responders who put out the fire and arrested the people who are camping there. I could never find anything in the press or online that talked about what happened. I do have pictures of the hillside burning.

if trails are built I am sure that the kids riding it will not stay on the trail. They will go off the traii and jump rocks and cause extensive damage to the area. This is just the nature of kids who are 10 to 14 years old from my personal experience has a mother and a grandmother.. I've seen kids many time throwing rocks off the cliffs. The more traffic we have in the area that more damage that will be done.

Please preserve this area for generations to come.

Marilyn

I totally SUPPORT singletrack sidewalks proposal. Neighborhoods need something like this. Why not give it a try? I live in the neighborhood (over a decade now) in question and have personally witnessed kiddos taking picks and shovels and trying to build pump tracks of their own in open space area behind our house. My heart goes out to them as they want something like this but I also did not want them to get hurt building it on their own. In these case the town was notified so maybe you could look up the times this has happened in your neighborhood.
I do believe there is a need. I only hope people can work together and agree to give it a go. From my understanding ERO Resources has done an inital review.
Since I can see the open space where kiddos were building there own pump track and were told to stop by the town (and it looked nice) since then the vegetation was re-grown and no one is the wiser. So why not give it a try?

I really hope all segments get approved.

I strongly oppose this proposal on several fronts. Firstly, we are blessed in this area to have a wide variety of wildlife and plants, construction of this will forever alter that with the added noise and ground disturbances to support the STS - let alone the extra erosion that will be created as the bikers expand the trail beyond it's planned boundary (see the damage on the Apex trails). Secondly, additional traffic is this area will have a negative impact to the local wildlife that are in the area and force them to relocate somewhere else (and parking for all the new riders is not really addressed).

Thirdly, there are already plenty of areas for bikers to practice their sport, from Apex (which is effectively unusable for casual hikers now) to Bear Creek to all the trails in between. And what about the trails that are around Golden High School that the mountain bike team there uses for practice? This is definitely an area where new riders could practice and train in - it works for the High School and already exists.

Finally, I know that the group proposes to fund the building of the trails, but that is the smallest part of the overall impact; the city will still be liable to upkeep in perpetuity and liable for any accidents that may occur - both additional, unneeded burdens that I do not want to cover as a tax payer.

All in all, I think this is a poorly planned, short-sighted proposal that only serves the interests on one specific group of residents at the expense of many other groups of residents - not good government for the people!

I Oppose the project: After looking at the project map of where the trails are going to be I see this as invasive to our neighborhood and will upset the wildlife that lives here. I am thinking of the amount and type of traffic this is going to bring to this area and I see no upside. Apex, Matthews Winters Park, and Bear Creak along with other established locations for mountain biking should be enough.

I Oppose:
Real Costs to City are not Estimated - We are asked to Approve a Proposal that includes no realistic assessment of costs of construction and maintenance.

The Proposal and associated promotional material states in various places that GoldenGiddyUp (GGU)will bear the “cost”.
The Golden Informer article on STS says “at no cost to the City” – GuidingGolden.com is slightly different stating, “This pilot would be constructed by the Golden Giddyup Trail Team in partnership with neighborhood organizations and the City of Golden Parks staff.”
The City Staff Report prepared for the City Council Study session in October speaks directly to this issue, with a different assessment noting that the cost “will eventually be absorbed by the City”. This was reiterated in the recorded council Study session and members concurred.
The Proposal as it stands is completely void of any detail or estimate of the hard costs of either building or maintaining the trail system. While it is clear and should be accepted that GGU intends to provide volunteer labor to support this total effort – how can that commitment be determined to be realistic if there are no cost estimates provided and no clear understanding of how much GGU is willing to provide. GGU does not have unlimited volunteer resources and does not have a balance sheet to point to that will support any hard costs.
Clearly, in addition to labor, there will be material and equipment costs incurred to build and maintain the trails, and the current lawn sprinkler systems must be re-configured. Given the expanse of the proposed trail system (stretching over nearly 3 miles) some level of regular safety and security monitoring will be required. Who will bear these costs?
As a significant portion of the proposed trails run across lawn space maintained (and watered) by the City, how is the future maintenance of the STS vs the lawn space on both sides going to be determined – who will be responsible for what.
If the STS is successful in attracting new family traffic to those areas, the existing lawns space will suffer more wear and tear– who absorbs the cost of upkeep – or are we supposed to approve a condition of benign neglect.
The City cannot simply assign responsibility to GGU to build and maintain these trails and walk away. The City will need to provide design standards, project management for the construction, and management and staff resources to ensure that continuing maintenance is done as required. Jeffco uses GGU and other volunteer resources in this same manner and maintains full responsibility. Obviously the volunteer element reduces overall cost to the City, but it will not be “free”.
And, what happens if the promised volunteer effort turns out to be insufficient? In ordinary City contracting practices a performance bond is used to provide financial backing behind commitments such as these. There is no mention of this approach so are we to assume that this is “best efforts” on behalf of GGU?
All these costs can be estimated and then explained to Golden Citizens and the Council before– not after the fact.

I Oppose - there is no analysis of impact on surrounding neighborhoods - parking congestion and increased vehicle traffic are a real concern.

The Proposal states that it is designed to provide “young rider friendly” single track bike paths. Those riders will need to be delivered to the proposed trails by parents. If those parents are from outside the “neighborhood” they will drive. (If the system does not serve families outside the immediate neighborhood, then it is of “local neighborhood only” benefit and does not begin to qualify for City consideration.)
Where will those parents park? There are no new parking facilities being proposed to service this new trail system. So the streets and neighborhoods near the trail access points are the obvious choice. Anyone familiar with these neighborhoods understands that parking is already an issue and accommodating any additional demand for space will result in very real conflicts.
It has been suggested that some families will “ride up from Golden” with their children. It is highly unlikely that this concept applies to the children of the size that are pictured on the promotional literature (Strider level). It has been further suggested that the Apex Trailhead Parking area can be used. Aside from the fact that Apex is at the extreme geographical end of the proposed trail system, anyone that uses Apex understands the current level of parking congestion. And anyone who understands human nature will understand that parking “closer to” is an unfortunate but dominant behavior.
I am sure that the City has access to resources that can provide a professional modeling estimate of the potential parking impact – if they are given data on the projected user volume (currently not provided).
It makes no sense to proceed until that potential impact is understood – "we don't think" or “trust me” or “in my opinion” does not work here!!!
Further to the above, most of the neighborhoods that will be effected by increased traffic and parking are not currently frequently served by police patrol – that will need to change with an influx of traffic.

I Strongly Oppose
This Proposal is outside the PARM Master Plan and contains no Data to Support a "Need" - It should not have made it to this stage absent a lot more serious analytical review.
The Parks and Recreation Master Plan includes use of data analytics (survey sourced and others) that are used to support the conclusions made about allocation of resources. STS projects are not included in that Master Plan and there is no new data offered here to suggest a new priority "need" has been established.

The Proposal states that it is designed to meet “needs” for “young rider friendly/beginner” single track bike paths. Such paths already exist at Golden Bike Park, at Bear Creek, at South Table Mountain and other locations near Golden, so this proposal must in some fashion be founded on the idea that there is an “unmet” need of riders that are not currently being served. In fact the PARM Master plan includes survey data that shows Golden Bike Park has an 88% "meets needs" rating of 3 or better on a scale of 5.

In any decision process that involves dedication of material City resources, in this case financial and Open Space, and disruption of current use by others, a “need” must have some foundation other than opinion. There is no projected user data presented with the proposal, nor can any be found to be supplied to PARM or the Council over the history of this consideration that even speaks to the number of young/beginner riders that is expected to be served...is it 300 rider hours per year, 3000 rider hours per year?
Clearly this information is important to have:
Without this information, how can the real hard dollar costs be determined? I know that GGU has stated that they will absorb some of the costs – but the City and any clear eyed reviewer of the scope of this proposal know that contribution is limited and not supported by a GGU balance sheet.

Without projected user information, how can the City make intelligent assessments of the impact on local street parking needs?

And finally, without this information, how can a decision be made that balances the value of meeting this need against the cost of doing so – hard costs and social cost of the disruption to current use that comes with this new use. If the data shows the annual cost of an hour by a young rider is $5.00, that is far different than if it is $50.

I am very upset that this is even proposed at all, and I am very much against it for the following reasons:

There is already an existing trail. It is not a necessity that another be added just so it can be made out of dirt. There is also The Golden Bike Park, and this is more than appropriate for young mountain bike rides without making more trails through our neighborhoods and open space.

Who determined and decided that the appropriate place for their “fun”, can ONLY be achieved by creating special trails at the expense of others? Special interest group, Golden Giddyup of course! The “History” of this, talked about on the Golden Giddyup website, started back in 2011. Meaning, that they have been planning and discussing this among themselves and with Golden officials for 7 years without letting those that live in the affected, surrounding neighborhoods, know anything about it. Then when the residents that disagree, finally found out about it, they are left with a very short window of time in comparison to Golden Giddyup’s 7 years, in order to make their voices heard. How is it that this proposal got this far without serious examination and discussion with us of alternatives that would not infringe on our neighborhoods and open space? Probably because they had already made up their mind that this is where they want their trail. And why was it being considered at all without taxpayer knowledge, since 2011 when it was first talked about? City of Golden and Parks and Rec seem to have been in on the planning of this with Golden Giddyup for a very long time. This is their “history”!
And the question on the Golden Giddyup website about “Who will pay”? It’s a nice concept to want to believe in all volunteers and sponsors. This might certainly be the case at first. But if this pilot becomes permenant, then after many passing years, Golden taxpayers will inevitably be picking up at least part, if not all of the tab to maintain this. Maintainence to keep erosion at bay will always an issue on dirt trails, especially with the extreme weather and storms that occur in this area.

Environmental concerns are also nothing to make light of, as Golden Giddyup has done. People take sustainability very seriously in our community. The STS will no doubt have an affect on the terrain, vegetation and wildlife that live and breed in the open space area. The animals cross the creek constantly and are seen all of the time on both sides of the existing Kinney Run trail; with calving areas that the deer and elk use every year, that are very close to Kinney Run. Cow elk utilize specific habitat and topographic features in the terrain; for calving areas. The same areas are used each year except when disturbed by increasing pressure from various forms of human related activities. The reasoning that there is already one trail and homes built in this area and that it’s ok to intrude further upon the open space, falls very short of sound logic!

We were not informed in a timely manner about the chicanes, the roundabouts or about this proposed STS, and now many are also just finding out that the Golden City Council mayor is in favor of changing the voting age to 16 in Golden. If this passes in November, children will then be able to vote for officials who support the STS and many of their other “plans” that will affect our lives, without any consideration of personal adult taxpayer responsibilities.