Singletrack Sidewalks (STS)

I strongly OPPOSE this proposal for many of the reasons mentioned by others, particularly the use of the City of Golden resources, i.e. our taxpayer dollars, the impact and potential safety issues to user’s of the existing bike path and the impact to the wildlife. In addition, I dread the impact to me personally. I paid a premium to buy a house with open space in my “backyard”. I respect the proponents desire for additional trails in Golden; but not at the expense of my expensive and cherished view, and peace and quiet.

I do not support this proposal. I think there are some misconceptions.
1. The single track sidewalks will not be next to the paved trail. Especially in the case of section 5, the trail will be above the paved trail on the side of the ridge. That will cause erosion and be an eye sore.
2. This is not an appropriate section for beginners and kids. It is steep in places and there is no way to slow rider's speed coming down without cutting even more into the hillside. How are kids going to deal with older riders coming fast down the hill while they are trying to go up, especially on a trail that is 24 inches wide? If there is a dirt trail, people and people with dogs will walk there also. A 24 inch wide trail will not work for 2-way traffic and the trails will grow, causing more erosion.
3. This encourages biking between Apex and Golden instead of driving? Get real. Is this just for the neighborhood or for a greater area? Do we really expect that young kids and beginner mountain bikers are going to ride up the hill from Golden to Apex?
I'm an avid mountain biker and often have to ride paved roads and trails to get to dirt. I have never thought that was a big deal. I don't understand why people think every bit of their experience has to be on dirt.
Lastly, I am pretty offended by the way the people in the neighborhood opposing this are being viewed by supporters. We are not a bunch of curmudgeons opposed to dust and noise. I have heard very few people complain in that way. This curmudgeon just spend 4 days mountain biking in Santa Fe. We go all over to mountain bike and road bike. We do not think cutting dirt paths through this neighhood is necessary, considering that we already have connecting paths. There are plenty of beginner dirt paths already available in this area. Lots more to say but stopping here.

I oppose this proposal for a multitude of reasons and think that the the parks and rec board, as well as city council members, should take a serious look at the negative impact of this proposal and how it will affect the open space, residents and habitat. This narrow corridor already has enough traffic, and many of the people who live here simply do not want it. It is redundant, not needed, will cost the people and the city of Golden money and resources that could be better used elsewhere. The GGU group and parks and rec have not been forthcoming with these plans until the 11th hour with their proposal and now have throttled back regarding their proposed use of these trails, but ultimately they are self serving and really don't care about how our neighborhood will be affected.....it seems like a very self serving endeavor. Please let me continue to have peace and quiet in my backyard, as I paid a premium to build a house on a lot that backs up to open space and would rather listen to birds singing than mountain bikers screaming down a trail behind my home. No please.

No.

Now I am totally opposed! I already commented, I thought that would be enough.

Apparently it was not enough, today GoldenGiddyUp solicitors TAPED GoldenGiddyUp notices/literature/propaganda regarding the proposed dirt surface bicycle paths to our front door. Who gave them permission to TAPE their literature/propaganda to our door???? I didn't, my wife said she didn't, I am positive my neighbors didn't. Just how NEEDY for other people's money are you? You ARE requesting other people's money be expended towards your project, whether they agree or not. Suggestion: visit https://www.gofundme.com/ instead of trying to lay the construction and maintenance costs of these dirt trails on citizens/taxpayers who don't want the trails and those who won't or can't use the dirt trails.

So far, the comments against the project are far more convincing than the comments for it. It is a 'want' project, not a 'needed' project. Pay for your wants out of your own pockets, reading the minutes of meetings, it appears the city of Golden is already strapped for funds for various "projects".

And I suggest STRONGLY that all people considering this proposal, for or against, read the minutes of this particular meeting https://www.guidinggolden.com/1855/documents/2267 and pay attention to the solicitors comments about the dirt trails and their seemingly dismissive language towards residents who may oppose their project. My interpretation is that this pet project already has the approval of the 'guiding golden' group and the city council.

Keep your notices and tape off our home, we do not support and want no part of being forced to fund your limited value pet project.

Very much support this idea. For anyone concerned about the Golden Giddyup's ability to maintain it, with sustainability in mind, I encourage you to take a hike or ride on N Table Mtn, Chimney Gulch, or at Apex Park. They regularly work with Jeffco Open Space to maintain the trails, and do a fantastic job.

As a resident of the Eagle Ridge subdivision, I want to express my opposition to the addition of a parallel mountain bike track to the existing paved pedestrian trail through Kinney Run. While I support dedicated mountain bike paths in general, to have an STS so close to an established pedestrian trail, frequented by those with baby strollers and the less nimble aged, concerns me. I am skeptical that such a trail, with the likely increase of use, will contain bikers when given a reason to divert to the existing trail, whether it is oncoming bike traffic or merely unpleasant biking conditions of excessive dust or mud. Simply put, bikes and pedestrians do not mix well, with the pedestrian the one most inconvenienced or at danger. Practically, I think it a mistake to try to accommodate everyone all the time. In this case, we add a bike trail at the detriment of natural landscape and pedestrian safety.

I live in the Stonebridge area and fully support this initiative. I have two kids, 3 and 6, and would love to have trails that are closer by to get them out on them more often. I do not see this will affect wildlife in the area since it stays close enough to the current path, and for the most part the wildlife tends to hang out on the West side of that path. I grew up in the Ken Carly area, and they have a similar system in place, and it's what makes that area so great. I see others on here have concerns that bikers and pedestrians do not mix. This seems like a perfect solution to that problem.

I think this is a horrible idea and will disrupt nature in the area. We live in the neighborhood and see deer, elk, wolves and more from our window. There is ALREADY a paved path for bike passage through the area. Had this single track been constructed when the paved path was made, maybe it would be ok, but disrupting the area again will cause too much environmental impact. It is NOT worth it. There are PLENTY other places for young or new riders to learn. It is also inevitable that experienced riders will ride these on their way to Apex, damage the trails and put small children at risk.

This is straight from the official City of Golden website:

Why is open space land important?
To provide opportunities for nature-oriented outdoor recreation.
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.

So I guess the parks and rec board and city council members do not consider these open space assets as important since the STS proposal would adversely affect wildlife, scenic areas, quality of life and the value of homes of nearby residents, noise, etc.

The proposed sts trails and kinney run trail have multiple points where they would intersect causing debris to spill onto the kinney run trail and significant erosion...are GGU volunteers going to come out with a broom and sweep every day to keep the kinney run trail clean for other users? I don't think so. I also think the trails will increase the spread of noxious weeds, which are already a problem in these areas.

There is no NEED for a redundant trail system, including the cost and maintenance, all for the WANT of a special interest group. This is not fair to the residents who oppose the idea.

First, the Segment 1 (Zeta to Heritage Road) should not even be considered. When the city purchased this as open space, there was a meeting to discuss trails through this property and the city agreed with the citizens to leave the area primitive. This would help to protect the occasional wildlife from encroachment by the public during their migration periods.
Second, the city needs to look close at the fiscal aspects of allowing something to be built by an organization that we all know will be tuned over to the city at some point and they will expect us the tax payers to foot the bill for maintenance and upkeep. As well as any expansion in the future. As a very long time resident and tax payer in Golden, I do not want my tax dollars paying for another trail.
Thirdly, I worked very hard for Golden and with Golden to see that we have trail standards and that our trail system tie to the regional trails established by other communities. We don't need more scaring of the landscape than we already have accomplished.
Fourth, Dirt trails cutting through our open space will only lead to additional off the trail segments created by those that don't care about the beauty of our neighborhoods. We already have inconsiderate bikers and hikers that don't respect our community. I for one don't want to see any more by inviting them to just go wherever they please, which dirt trails will do.

We have a good trail system throughout Golden and we pay plenty for Parks and Rec to maintain them. We don't need any additional trials and especially trails that will invite more off trail cycling or hiking.

When you first hear about this proposed trail it sounds like a feasible idea but when you really look at the maps and the numerous places where the 2 trails will intersect, as well as the street crossing at Kimball, it will be dangerous for those using both Kinney Run trail and the STS trail. It will bring additional riders to the area and thus increase bike traffic and increase the potential for collisions and incidents between the two. We already have at least one and perhaps 2 mountain bikers who are endangering pedestrians and other bikers in the area as reported on the NextDoor site.
It will also have a negative and dangerous impact on the large number of wildlife that inhabit the areas shown on the map, especially in segments 1, 4, 5 and 6.
The cost to the city of overseeing and maintaining these trails will be significant when our tax dollars in Golden should be spent on more worthwhile and needed projects. This is a bad idea Golden.

After further reading, I cannot lend any support to the proposed limited value project, not even if privately funded, which it would not be. The project will not benefit the majority. Looking ahead, if the city council rams this down the citizens throats, would upkeep and repair be privately funded also? How far into the future? Forever, or would the already overtaxed citizens of Golden end up seeing the cost of path upkeep summarily dumped on them after a year or two due to possible neglect or abandonment by the private parties involved in pushing this proposed project? Are the private parties willing to establish a fund that guarantees the promised upkeep would be funded far into the future at absolutely no cost to the taxpayers, a fund large enough to pay for any unforeseen environmental or other damages or problems that might arise as a result of building the paths/trails and also to pay for enough insurance to cover any awards that might come about as the result of a lawsuit? Or would that be dumped on the taxpaying citizens? When it comes to the distinct possibility of requisitioning other people's(taxpayers) money for this or any other project, no matter how far distant in the future, to cover an unforeseen "need" that could be avoided by establishing and setting in place the proper guidelines and taking the necessary steps in the present, the answers are required prior to undertaking or allowing any project that may end up burdening citizens with unexpected costs the citizens are being told they will not incur. If this proposal is passed, what ironclad guarantees are the city and the GiddyUp group willing to put in place, would those guarantees be forever unbreakable and honored? I do not want to see one cent of taxpayer money expended towards this proposed project, not now, not ever. Ooops, too late, the city already spent our money sending out the notices, the GiddyUp group should bear the costs of the mailings, the city should be repaid.

Privately funded???? NO. From the updated dirt bike path proposal:

"Financial Support: The Golden Giddyup is prepared to partner with the City of Golden financially in funding the construction of these trails and trail features. It is important to note that this commitment is made possible by the 500 annual Giddyup participants, REI-Coop of Denver, Yeti Cycles, and additional Golden Giddyup sponsors. Timeline : The Golden Giddyup Trail Team is prepared to dedicate resources to this endeavor as soon as approval is granted by the City of Golden."

The citizens of Golden need to fully consider every question and every objection that has been raised, every possible outcome, before they leap to support this proposed limited value project.

Something worth noting, these proposed dirt paths/trails are not sidewalks and should not be promoted as sidewalks, that is misleading.

I read that GoldenGiddyUp is a group of three individuals with connections, is that correct? On their website they suggest using children to help construct the paths, that amounts to child labor, isn't that a no-no nowadays, child labor laws, etc.

A more worthy endeavor to be undertaken, that will not happen, is enlarging the traffic circles - roundabouts on Heritage Rd to the size of the roundabout/traffic circle at South Golden Rd and Moss St.for safety and improving traffic flow. A band-aid is due to be applied instead. Redesigning and rebuilding the traffic circles - roundabouts may not have anything to do with the bicycle paths proposal, but the impact would be beneficial to far more residents. If you want to lessen/restrict traffic, address the massive morning and late afternoon traffic to and from Shelton Elementary school on days school is in session. The main traffic artery(Kimbal Ave. and Crawford St) from Heritage Rd to Shelton Elementary was narrowed several years ago, it sucks, especially when cars are parked on both sides of those streets, and that is putting it mildly.

I attended several past meetings regarding projects public and private, it is pointless to waste my time when the city council very likely has its decision already made and may just be going through the motions of pretending to listen. It takes an uproar to make them pay attention to the wishes of the citizens, like occurred when developers wanted to build 60+ large houses in the pasture on the east side of Heritage Rd. Those houses didn't get built, but now there are eight ugly monstrosities/duplexes perched on the upper end of the pasture.Sometimes, growth, like narrow streets, sucks.

Just like other great outdoor communities (Eagle, Park City, etc) this is an idea that makes sense. Teach youngsters how to navigate singletrack, and how to protect it (don't ride wet trail). There is not a lot of flat-ish trail available in the front range and I think it's great to create this as an option for the kids who can't climb yet. The little singletrack in Vanover park seems to always have a handful of kids out riding and is so great to see. Also, if you've ever been to Van Bibber, or on Clear Creek trail, you will see the soft track beside it. Please understand this is a benefit to runners as well! Soft surfaces spare knees!!! Yay Golden! (Also, do people even remember when Dog Parks weren't "a thing"? And now you can't find a community it's without one. Hopefully this will be the case with STS!!!)

Will there probably be a handful of adults treating it poorly? Yes. Sadly we can't eradicates jerks from our population. But we don't keep schoolbuses and soccer carpools from driving down the street in order to prevent that guy that cut you off and almost caused an accident from having access to roads.

Every thing about this makes so much sense!! Should have been done long ago, thanks for making it happen. We will be hoping it expands to the north of golden as well.

I live in Heritage Dells and support this proposal. Many of the issues that the opposition raises are unfounded. My kids will enjoy these paths, and they will allow them to have some fun on their bikes without having to get in the car.

I have been an avid road and mountain cyclist for more than 30 years. I ride through the subject area many times a month and would love another option to access Apex and other trails around Golden. We also have a student at Shelton Elem and live very close to the school. I would love to have a nearby place to teach my youngster how to ride a mountain bike in a safe place close to home. I believe these trails will be a valuable resource for the whole community. I can't see how these trails would negatively impact anybody or the environment. Our family fully supports this project.

Yes please! And can we expand this even further?

I think this is a good idea and I support it. As a mom of two young boys, we often drive to the Golden or Valmont bike park to access dirt trails doable for kids. To have options by our house would be great for us and good for the community.

I strongly support this proposal and would like to see more alternative trails that parallel paved sidewalks made available throughout our community. It's great for our children and will make the already existing paved sidewalks less crowded and more pedestrian friendly.