Your Questions Answered

Your Questions Answered:

NOTE: The City will attempt to answer all questions within 2 business days of submission.

General Questions

NOTE: THE FOLLOWING QUESTIONS HAVE BEEN SUBMITTED AND ANSWERED OVER AN EXTENSIVE PROCESS THAT DATES BACK TO EARLY 2011. THE MOST RECENT QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS ARE ON TOP, AND EACH QUESTION IS DATED TO INDICATE WHEN THE ANSWER WAS POSTED. SOME OF THE OLDER QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS MAY NOT REFLECT THE LATEST DEVELOPMENTS BUT ARE INCLUDED TO PROVIDE A RECORD OF THE PROCESS THAT HAS LED TO THIS POINT IN THE NEGOTIATIONS. 12/13/11

NOTE: THE FOLLOWING QUESTIONS HAVE BEEN SUBMITTED AND ANSWERED OVER AN EXTENSIVE PROCESS THAT DATES BACK TO EARLY 2011. THE MOST RECENT QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS ARE ON TOP, AND EACH QUESTION IS DATED TO INDICATE WHEN THE ANSWER WAS POSTED. SOME OF THE OLDER QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS MAY NOT REFLECT THE LATEST DEVELOPMENTS BUT ARE INCLUDED TO PROVIDE A RECORD OF THE PROCESS THAT HAS LED TO THIS POINT IN THE NEGOTIATIONS.

Q: Why is Council making a decision so soon? 12/12/11

A: We wish we had more time before voting on the proposed agreement. However, we have been caught between two critical facts. The first is that, as Council unanimously decided in February 2011, we would only reach an agreement if we believe it truly protects Golden. After months of intensive negotiations, we have finally reached an agreement that we believe meets the very high bar set by City Council after an extensive community input process. Second, we are working against the clock on the transfer of Rocky Flats land. We understand that the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service will transfer the right-of-way by the end of the year. If there is no agreement by then, we'll need to file a lawsuit to stop the transfer, and that puts our future in the hands of a judge. We’d rather control our future ourselves. In addition, Thursday is the last day before a lot of people start traveling for the Holidays. It's not perfect, but we chose the day when more residents could participate. Finally, the agreement implements the direction Council unanimously approved in February after extensive public analysis and debate. Before approving that direction, Council considered comments from three hours of public testimony, from an earlier series of four community meetings attended by a total of 420 people, and submitted through GetTheFactsGolden.org. The comments from the community meetings and GetTheFactsGolden.org will be provided to the Council members as part of their packets for Thursday’s meeting.

Q: Is it true that the Agreement would require Golden to consider new managed lanes on 6 and 93? 12/14/11

A: The agreement would require Golden to work with the other parties to study and explore a wide range of alternative means for funding mitigation projects in Golden, including tolled managed lanes (new, not existing lanes), federal grants, regional transportation authorities, public highway authorities and other approaches. Golden would be required to work in good faith with the other parties to consider the viability of these approaches, considering the potential revenue, technical feasibility, traffic effects, and community effects. The Agreement does not require Golden to agree to any of these mechanisms, but to explore them with an open mind regarding potential benefits and costs, recognizing that the City has an interest in sources of funding to pay for transportation mitigation to improve safety, traffic, pedestrian/bike access and our environment. In light of the challenges in finding transportation funding today, Golden should take a hard look at all ways of paying for needed traffic mitigation while protecting our community.

Q: What are Managed Lanes? 12/14/11

A: Managed lanes are roadway lanes that are designated for special use, as opposed to general purpose lanes. Examples of managed lanes include high-occupancy vehicle (HOV) lanes (like those on Santa Fe Drive in Denver), high-occupancy toll (HOT) lanes (like those on U.S. 36), or exclusive or special use lanes (such as bus lanes). Under appropriate circumstances, managed lanes can address congestion, enhance transit, raise revenue and cap the growth of total lanes. The determination of whether and how managed lanes make sense in a particular setting requires careful and thorough study.

Q: Does the agreement include language prohibiting non-compete agreements as included in the February City Council agreement? 12/12/11

A: The agreement provides that none of the parties shall take any steps to reduce capacity or maintenance on SH 93, SH 128 and SH 72.

Q: Under the agreement, could there be a toll road through Golden? 12/12/11

A: Under current state law, there can be no tolling in Golden without Golden’s consent. This agreement doesn’t change that. The agreement leaves open the possibility of managed lanes in or north of Golden, but it does not promote or support doing so. A decision to allow tolling anywhere on Highway 93 would require that the Golden City Council at the time agree to it, which is true with or without the agreement.

Q: How will this agreement affect the Mountain Ridge Development? It appears the Beltway will be moved closer to our neighborhood when it is realigned. 12/12/11

A: The agreement would facilitate construction of parts of the City's longtime plan to improve U.S. 6 & SH 93 in a manner that protects the community. The relocation of SH 93 to the west occurs north of Washington Avenue and is not closer to Mountain Ridge. It includes a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) with CDOT that protects future access at Washington Avenue. The agreement also provides $7 million for noise mitigation along the SH 93 corridor.

Q: The city has consistently said that the Jefferson Parkway is a bad idea that won’t improve the region’s transportation system and will encourage sprawl. Do you still believe that’s true and, if so, why wouldn’t you continue to oppose it? 12/12/11

A: Yes, we are still concerned about whether the Jefferson Parkway will spur sprawl north of Golden. Much of that development is already occurring with projects along the SH 93 and Indiana Street corridors. Construction is occurring on the east side of the Candelas development. Because Golden doesn’t have the ability to stop this development with or without the Jefferson Parkway, we believe the best way to protect Golden from the effects of sprawl is to make the improvements we need on SH 93 and U.S. 6 and the agreement is the best way to do that right now. The agreement will also help foster the transfer of the Section 16 parcel along SH 93 into the Rocky Flats Refuge and make sure that land to the north is not developed. If the agreement is approved, Golden can then work with other regional partners to promote other strategic open space purchases or planning decisions to reduce sprawl and protect the mountain backdrop. This is going to be easier without the divisive issue of the beltway dominating decisions.

Q: What about plutonium along the Jefferson Parkway route? 12/12/11

A: Yes, there are low levels of plutonium in the soil surrounding the Refuge. However, the City has little to no practical ability to address those issues. The agencies that do (the Colorado Department of Health and the Environment, EPA, U.S. Department of Energy and U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service) have determined that the risk is low enough that they will not stop construction of the Parkway. The local jurisdictions most involved and at risk – Arvada, Westminster, Broomfield and Jefferson County – have not sought and are not going to seek to stop the Parkway due to this issue. Nonetheless, the proposed agreement contains provisions to use best practices to minimize dust from any construction. At the same time, Golden and its residents face real safety risks in Golden that the agreement would address. Golden residents face much larger risks of death and injury from traffic accidents at intersections on U.S. 6 and SH 93 than dust at the Refuge. The agreement will make the corridor safer for pedestrians, cyclists and people in cars. Improvements on the 6/93 corridor will reduce emissions from idling cars at intersections near schools and homes. The realignment of SH 93 will move the road and vehicles farther from many homes. These are really important to health and safety in Golden and are not going to be achieved without cooperation with the Colorado Department of Transportation and Jefferson County.

Q: Is Highway 93N going to be moved to the west after passing Washington Street? 2/24/11

A: In the Muller plan 93 is shifted to the west north of Washington returning to the old alignment just north of the city.

Q: Why is this webpage allowed to be one sided? Everything said supports Golden rejecting the beltway. Why is that allowed on a website that is supposed to give equal opinion on both sides of the arguement? 2/23/11

A: This web site was built to provide facts and factual answers to questions and to give people all of the information we have so that they can form their own opinions based on fact and not opinion. On the particular issue before City Council at this time there is no disagreement that Golden's goal is to prevent a 6 lane, high speed highway through our town. Our discussion as a community is how best to achieve that end.

Q: Why did the City of Golden go back on their word, that they gave to the state when the state moved SH93 off of Washington St., to not do any developement west of the re-aligned SH93? 2/23/11

A: We are not sure where you got the impression that Golden agreed to not do development west of 93. The city had lobbied for the 93 bypass for many years, but the notion of the beltway kept CDOT and Jefferson County from getting serious about moving the 93 traffic off of North Washington. After the failed county-wide vote in 1989, Golden again pushed for the bypass but did not get support until we posted a weight limit on N. Washington which would force gravel, asphalt and garbage trucks to go east of North Table Mountain. When the funding then became available for the by-pass, the owner of the land needed for the by-pass, required the annexation, zoning and subdivision of their property, including all their property west of the re-aligned 93. So the city did not agree to no development, in fact that development was approved as a part of the deal that accomplished the re-alignment.

Q: Are you looking to extend Mesa (on the east side of 93 across from Golden Gate Canyon Rd.) towards Ford St.? 2/14/11

A: Mesa Drive is shown as connecting to Ford Street on the city street master plan, but no decision to actually make that connection has been made. If the connection is considered in the future it would have its own public discussion, input and decision process.

Q: Besides Golden and the Jeffco commissioners, who are the parties to the proposed Intergovernmental Agreement (IGA)? 2/10/11

A: We also expect the Jefferson Parkway Public Highway Authority (JPPHA), Arvada and the Colorado Department of Transportation (CDOT) to be parties, but the final list will depend on negotiations. We think that CDOT is a must though.

Q: Why is it necessary to move the highway westward at the intersection of 93 and Pine Ridge Rd versus expanding the existing highway? 2/8/11

A: This decision was made based on our efforts to identify highway mitigation plans for every neighborhood in Golden. This relocation is the best way to mitigate current and future traffic impacts for the hundreds of homes in Mesa Meadows and North Golden Edge neighborhoods.

Q: Looking at the drawing for the CDOT preferred plan for the Beltway, which was published in 2008, both the KB Home subdivision of Canyon View, and the subdivision North Forty, do not appear in the drawings. North Forty is just north of the intersection of Golden Gate Canyon, and Canyon View extends from Golden Gate Canyon Road to just north of Washington. Both of these neighborhoods, located within Golden city limits, will be hugely impacted by the any of the options presented. Many of these homes were built prior to 2008, so they should have been in the drawings. The drawings seem very misleading--it gives the impression that homes will not be impacted near those intersections. Is there anyway to make CDOT give an accurate representation of the homes in that area? 2/8/11

A: The drawings that show the CDOT plan on the web page were actually completed in 1998 which is why those homes are not in the photo. The pictures were completed by the city to illustrate how damaging the "Big Road" would be. CDOT started their Environmental Impact Study (EIS) process in 2003 and in 2006 they completed traffic analysis. The traffic drawing that represents the recommended alternative was plotted in April of 2006 and also does not show those homes. It is actually stunning how close we were in predicting what CDOT would support back in 1998 when we had the pictures done. We will have the 2006 drawing at the open houses and will have added the KB and Richmond developments.

Q: I keep hearing 5 or 6 miles north is where the big parkway or toll road would end, but where is this point? Is there a cross road you can tell us? What is the chance the underpass for 19th and Hwy 6 would be funded/built if we agree to the compromise? 2/8/11

A: Their proposed connecting point to Highway 93 is just north of the entrance to the Pioneer Sand Company driveway. Funding for the 6 & 19 bridge is the key consideration facing City Council. That interchange would cost $20-25 million, which we think would likely find funding in 3 to 5 years, if all the local governments are supportive but no guarantee. These things often get funded because they are ready to bid and build, and a different project that is funded is not ready. Instead of losing the funding it is quickly moved to a project like this that is ready to go.

Q: If we drop our opposition to the beltway through Arvada, does that mean we are dropping our opposition to the beltway as a 6 lane road coming through Golden in the future? 2/8/11

A: Golden most certainly will never drop opposition to the beltway through Golden. The most important part of the potential agreement would require commitment from Jefferson County and CDOT that the road in Golden is 45 mph and only 4 lanes. Anything more than that will be strongly opposed.

Q: I continue to be curious on how Golden thinks it can stop the inevitable from happening as the pathway of traffic from US 6 and I-70 will follow this natural corridor regardless of how much opposition Golden throws in front of it. How can I help to support Option 2 as a local business leader and long time resident? 2/8/11

A: Golden has always been acutely aware that it has limited power to stop the highway altogether. That is why we adopted 1041 powers, and developed the Muller Plan and acquired the right of way to the west when the Kilgore property annexed. If you feel option 2 is important you should let the City Council know through e-mail, public comment or through comment cards provided at the neighborhood meetings.

Q: Did anyone ever warn the folks that bought homes to the north and west of the Hwy 93/US 6 intersection that it has been obvious for as long as people lived in the area that this is the natural and most logical route for a traditional beltway through the area? 2/8/11

A: The original plans for the Mt. Ridge development showed a 150 strip for SH 93, and an additional 150 feet that was labeled as reserve for future 470 right of way. That reserve was eventually purchased by the city when CDOT's option ran out. The plat notation was probably the only written notice for homeowners in that location. For the Richmond Homes development to the north and west, purchasers were given notice in their contracts that advised them the road might be moved close to their homes.

Q: What is Golden going to do to influence CDOT, Jeffco, and Arvada, who have conspired with Golden to use this stretch of road (Hwy 93 from Hwy 72 to the Rocky Flats west entrance) as a pawn in their silly Parkway games for decades. 2/8/11

A: First Golden has no control over that section of Colorado State Highway 93. Golden has requested, through the regional funding process, state funding for safety improvements in this section. Golden has also, at its expense, had preliminary engineering completed to determine cost and feasibility of those safety improvements. So Golden totally agrees with you, and for years has been frustrated that necessary, appropriate and important improvements to this highway are being held hostage to this unneeded beltway dream.

Q: How will routes 93 and 6, that run thru Golden, be modified to handle the increased traffic volumes (auto and commercial) that will result south of the 93-tollroad intersection? 2/3/11

A: The planned Jefferson Parkway will add little traffic to 6 and 93 according to traffic modeling. The increase in 2035 over the no build on 93 is 600 additional vehicles a day and the traffic on US 6 actually decrease in 2035 by 2,700 vehicles. This is because the toll road carries very little traffic, and the Jefferson Parkway plan makes highway 72, Indiana and 128 less efficient, trying to force traffic on to the toll road. When the results from the modeling are examined we find that traffic actually goes east on I-70 and uses roads like Kipling and Wadsworth.

Q: What will be done to limit development and protect the vistas of the front range (Flat Irons) west of 93 between Golden and Boulder? 2/3/11

A: Some of this is currently open space, some is Denver Water and part of it is developable, Keller Farms, currently the Asphalt Paving quarry. This is all property out of Golden. Jefferson County has already approved a development plan for Keller Farms, but there is likely 25 to 50 more years of gravel mining first.

Q: In the interests if full disclosure, the public should be told who is behind the new beltway highway. Can you tell us who is supporting the beltway - trucking industry, commercial developers, etc. ? 2/3/11

A: Golden is not involved with the proposal so we can only speculate. We believe that the backers of the beltway include Jefferson County, Arvada, the Candelas development, the Northwest Parkway and their lease operator Brisa Auto Strada, the City and County of Broomfield, CDOT and the Jefferson Economic Council. Remember this is just our guess.

Q: Will a portion of Indiana Blvd. be tolled as a result of this? 2/3/11

A: Indiana will not be tolled, the Jefferson Parkway will parallel it north of SH 72. Jefferson County and Arvada plan to "calm" Indiana which means reduce capacity in hopes of getting more folks to drive the toll road.

Q: The proposed intersection at 6th and 19 St. does not separate pedestrians and traffic and whittles down the traffic flow to 1 lane going west. How is this a good idea? Why isn't a pedestrian bridge (like the others in Golden) the most cost effective method of traffic flow and safety? 2/1/11

A: If the intersection is grade separated, multiple lanes on 19th Street are not needed, and in fact the delay would be much less than the current condition. The design would substantially separate the pedestrians through a park setting from traffic on 19th. If we just had an interchange and a pedestrian bridge unless the pedestrian bridge was moved to the very far to the north you would still need to cross the ramps to and from the north. The through traffic on 19th and the traffic turning east on to US 6 would not cross pedestrian pathways.

Q: Is RTD in on planning? Current rail system from Fed Center to Jeffco offices is for one rail. There are already too many cost overruns on this project. 2/1/11

A: RTD is not in the planning. There is no rail associated with the project. The picture at 19th shows it only to note that the planning of the road would not preclude it, and we would not do things that make it more expensive in the future.

Q: The drawing of planned improvements at 19th street show a possible light rail system extension along Hwy. 93. This is the first I've seen of this, and it's not included in any other drawings that I saw, nor have I noted any substantive discussion about it. 2/1/11

A: The transit was shown simply as a possibility in the future, and to note that the corridor should at least be able to accommodate it in the future if deemed appropriate. There is no proposal nor has there been to do a transit line.

Q: Why does Boulder care about Section 16? 2/1/11

A: Boulder and Boulder County see a lot of value in protecting Section 16 for three reasons. One is that doing so would remove 640 acres on the boundary of the Rocky Flats National Wildlife Refuge from development. This is land that otherwise is probably likely to be developed. Another is that it would help prevent wrap-around development up the west side of the Refuge (between the Refuge and Highway 93) . . . protecting Section 16 would make it more difficult to develop this other property. Finally, many believe that Section 16 contains the most important wildlife connection between the Refuge and all the open space on the west side of Highway 93. Boulder and Boulder County, like Golden, are all very concerned about development in northern Jefferson County, and are looking for ways to reduce the amount of that development and its impacts to our respective communities.

Q: Why is there no comment page on this website? If you say you want feedback, why not make it available right here? 1/28/11

A: The intent of this website is to provide the very best information we have available, so that citizens can form their own opinions. We really don't want to sway people one way or another. We simply want to state the facts and then get honest feedback so that our City Council can make an informed decision. That is why we are keeping this website free from comment; to keep it focused on the basics. We invite and encourage the public to come to any of our series of open houses we have scheduled for the next two weeks. And if there is a comment you want to share, we invite you to send it directly to our City Council at CityCouncil@cityofgolden.net.

Q: What will the intersection of 93 and Washington look like? It appears that the commercial buildings just north (the Seven 11 area) are gone. Could you elaborate. 1/28/11

A: It is accurate to state that in the complete Muller Plan, the commercial buildings at the northeast corner of SH 93 and Washington Avenue may be removed as part of the realignment of existing SH 93 as a community arterial. This potential was discussed with the land owner at the time the plan was developed and the City offered to purchase the land. Since the timing was uncertain, the developer was not willing to sell, but was more than willing to consider a future purchase. If we upgrade that section and move 93 to the west, there is not an immediate need to acquire the property. Based upon current information, the acquisition of the property and removal of the buildings would not happen until further in the future when the intersection was upgraded from a signal to an interchange.

Q: (Note: this is similar to another question, but rephrased and answered with a little more detail) Under a deal, would Boulder and Golden work together to ensure that Highway 93 doesn’t have any tolled sections? 1/26/11

A: Golden has consistently opposed tolling 93 and we’re not aware of any plans to toll 93. The proposed Jefferson Parkway toll road ends where it connects to 93, about five miles north of Golden. State law prohibits putting tolls on existing state highways unless the impacted jurisdictions agree. We believe that Golden could make a strong argument that it should be considered an impacted community on issues regarding 93.

Q: Lets assume Golden does strike a deal with Jeffco and makes the improvements noted. The march of progress may dictate that the parkway eventually be completed at some point in the future. Does the city have enough control over zoning around the CO93/US6 roadway to discourage the type of development that would split the city? 1/25/11

A: The City does have very good zoning control. Currently all land along the corridor is zoned and could only be changed by City Council action. Additionally Golden actually owns much of the land immediately adjacent to the highway including the land where 93 will be relocated to the west, north of Golden Gate Canyon. We own the entire west side of 93 from just north of Washington south to Highway 58 and the land adjacent to US 6 by Fossil Trace. The Colorado School of Mines owns the survey field on the other side of 6th avenue but again the City of Golden controls the zoning.

Q: What is the source of funds for implementing the $100M+ Muller Plan, and what is the timing for receipt of those funds? 1/25/11

A: The agreement would give Golden the funds needed to complete design of the US 6 and 19th Street interchange. It would also include money to design the 4 lane relocation of SH 93. It would not include funds to build all of Muller, currently estimated at $170 million. We were never going to get that all done in one project. The design funds will come from Jefferson County. Construction funding would then be solicited through the Denver Regional Council of Governments and the Colorado Department of Transportation (CDOT) funding process for individual projects. The interchange is estimated at $23 million and the relocation of SH 93 at $20 million. Given that there is usually $200 million to $300 million available it will take a few years to find funding. Additionally Congressman Ed Perlmutter has committed to make these projects his highest priority for funding.

Q: Where is the open space north of Golden that would be protected? Do you mean Section 16 at SH 72 and SH 93 or some other area? 1/25/11

A: The section 16 open space is just north of SH 72 and SH 93 on the east side of 93. It can be seen under the Jefferson Parkway tab, click on the map to enlarge and the section 16 parcel is labeled in red.

Q: If the Parkway is built, will I still have the option to use Hwy 93 off of Pine Ridge Rd. or will I be required to use the Parkway and pay a toll? 1/25/11

A: There is no plan to toll 93, and Golden has always opposed that. The proposed toll road ends where it connects to 93, about 5 miles north of Golden. However, state law does not preclude the state from tolling existing state lanes and they could add tolls now or in the future even if this agreement states that 93 should remain a free road.

Q: Once the parkway is in place and the Muller/Golden plan has been completed, is the extended plan to have the light rail extend around Golden and up to Boulder? Also, what is to stop CDOT or the highway transit authority from enforcing eminent domain on the corridor and eventually turning it into six lanes? 1/24/11

A: There is no current plan to extend the light rail to Boulder, but all planning and design in Muller will be done to allow it in the future. There is no guarantee that CDOT could not use eminent domain in the future to widen the highway. Golden has been proactive in the corridor by purchasing much of the property adjacent to the corridor, and developing recreation activities on that land. This gives the property what is called 4F protection and it becomes a burden on CDOT to prove that there is not an alternative to taking the property. Again this is not a guarantee but does make it harder for them.

Q: Why are we having this conversation about a potential agreement now? 1/24/11

A: There are two ways of looking at this question – from the vantage of Jefferson Parkway backers and from the perspective of Golden. From the perspective of the Jefferson Parkway proponents, there’s a sense of momentum. Proponents over the past year have jumped over some of the hurdles that stood in the way of the project. The Denver Regional Council of Governments (DRCOG) placed the Jefferson Parkway on its regional plan and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service may soon convey an important right of way to the toll road. Jefferson Parkway proponents are now reaching out to potential investors that would fund the privately operated toll road. The issue is coming to a head and that means that Golden has significant leverage at this time to negotiate the best possible agreement to further our community’s interests. If the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service hands over the right of way to the Jefferson Parkway Public Highway Authority, Golden would have a limited window of time to file a lawsuit to block the toll road. Once that window closes, Golden’s leverage diminishes. For these reasons, Golden believes that this is the right time for the City Council – informed by feedback from the community -- to decide whether or not an agreement makes sense.

Q: What source and amount of money have the Jeffco commissioners blocked from going to make improvements to 6 and 93 in Golden? 1/24/11

A: Jefferson County inquired with Golden about potentially joining them in a TIGER (federal stimulus) grant application in late summer of 2009. They were considering applying for improvements to the Highway 58/U.S. 6/Highway 93 intersection and widening Highway 93 to four lanes north of Highway 58. While these two projects are both part of Golden's Muller Plan, rebuilding the intersection at U.S. 6 and 19th Street is a higher priority, and we told Jefferson County that we wouldn't support their proposal. We indicated, instead, that we would welcome their support for the U.S. 6/19th Street rebuild to improve safety, improve pedestrian- and bicycle friendliness, reduce congestion, and reduce air pollution. Although Colorado School of Mines and Congressman Ed Perlmutter both formally supported our grant proposal, Jefferson County was unwilling to do so. We are unaware of any community receiving TIGER grant funding without the support of all the local jurisdictions. Outside of grant funding, there are only two other main mechanisms for securing federal transportation funding. Earmarks are one of those options. Although Congress is expected to either reinstate the earmark system or replace it with something comparable (but perhaps with a different name), our Congressional delegation is extremely unlikely to support any sort of funding for Golden projects if Jefferson County objects to them. The other main funding option - the primary option - is through the Denver Regional Council of Governments (DRCOG) funding process. Funding through this process is based on a points system, and Golden has lost points in its effort to secure funding for Highway 93 safety improvements because we didn't have political or financial support from Jefferson County. Many communities secure project funding despite not having the highest-scoring projects, but securing funding in this way is extremely difficult if the local county objects. In other words, while it is theoretically possible for Golden to secure funding to implement the Golden Plan for transportation improvements without Jefferson County's support, it is very difficult and unlikely if the local jurisdictions aren't in agreement.

Q: If an agreement with JeffCo is reached and both the beltway and the Golden plans are implemented, what are the projected start and completion dates? Are plans being considered for a bicycle path from 470 to Boulder? It would be nice for two bike friendly cities to be connected by bike paths rather than dangerous roads such as Hwy 93. 1/21/11

A: Any agreement with Jefferson County must also include an agreement with the Colorado Department of Transportation (CDOT)so that the design and permitting on the grade separated interchange at 19th and the 4 lane relocation of 93 would begin immediately upon approval. Golden would run this planning process and include lots of public input just like we did with the Muller Plan. Planning would include all environmental permitting and CDOT 1601 clearance. This would take 9 months to one year. This would result in a “shovel-ready” project and then construction would begin as soon as funding is obtained. Construction of the interchange would take one year. The relocation along 93 would take around 10 months. One project that we could begin almost immediately is the instillation of a median along 6th Ave which will help keep speeds down and reduce highway noise. There is already a bike path through Golden, but any road improvements north of this project would have a bike lane as part of the project.

Q: Is it true that in return for dropping our opposition to the Jefferson Parkway, Golden will only receive 1.5 million dollars in design funds for road improvements in Golden? That's design funds, not funds for implementation. Where will implementation funds come from and how will dropping our opposition to the Jefferson Parkway help us gain funds for implementation? 1/21/11

A: The city has been part of on- and off-again discussions with Jefferson County, Boulder, Boulder County, Arvada, Broomfield, and Superior for years about finding a reasonable resolution to the dispute over the proposed beltway, as City Council has regularly reported on during City Council meetings. Late last year, Jefferson County offered some significant concessions, and the City Council presented the idea of a potential agreement to the community in order to get feedback. The potential agreement would adopt Golden's own standards to keep traffic safe, slow, and quiet through town. It would include $1.5 million in planning dollars and a funding mechanism for one or two of the Muller Plan projects and it would include support from the Colorado Department of Transportation (CDOT) for the design and help in finding the money to build. Without Jefferson County and CDOT support there would be no chance of funding.

Q: Why do the Jeffco commissioners want Golden to stop all opposition to the Jefferson Parkway toll road? 1/21/11

A: Golden believes that the motivation for the Jefferson Parkway Public Highway Authority (JPPHA) to be pushing for an agreement now is that it is ready to go to investors to support this proposed privately run toll road, and would prefer to be confident that Golden and other current Jefferson Parkway opponents would not challenge the Jefferson Parkway. (Updated 1/24/11)

Q: Why does the mayor say that the city must sue now? 1/21/11

A: The Mayor never said that. But here is what we think you are asking: Q: If Golden was going to file suit to try to stop the Jefferson Parkway, when would it do that? A: The U.S. Department of Interior is planning to convey land from the Rocky Flats National Wildlife Refuge to the Jefferson Parkway Public Highway Authority that would enable construction of the proposed Jefferson Parkway. That would provide a first opportunity to bring a lawsuit. The window during which Golden could file suit based on the Rocky Flats issues probably begins when that transfer happens and it will remain open for a period of time afterward. There are no hard and fast rules about how long that window will remain open, but after some period of months, Golden's likelihood of success will begin diminishing.

Q: Has there been any expert evaluation/assessment of the "parkways" effect on home values in Golden? We live in Beverly Heights, close to 6th Ave. Even the Muller Plan seems to place the roadway much closer than it is now. What effect will this have on home values? 1/20/11

A: We can't say specifically, as there has not been a specific study. The Muller Plan will not place the road any closer, it will limit 6th Avenue to 4 lanes and 45 mph speed. Muller might have a positive effect on your neighborhood home values as the proposed overpass for 19th Street will provide safe walking and biking into Downtown Golden and the CSM campus.

Q: My impression was the Muller Plan was intended to be part of a larger regional plan for improvements, including Indiana & Ward - with the Jefferson Parkway these improvements would be impossible. If the Jefferson Parkway went ahead, wouldn't that make our Muller Plan a lot less effective as part of the regional traffic plan? I'm assuming the NWQFS in 2000 wasn't done just for kicks...? Also, where can I read the *entire* Muller Plan? 1/20/11

A: The Muller Plan – which we’re also referring to as Golden’s Plan -- was completed to design highway improvements through Golden that were consistent with the recommendations of the Northwest Quadrant Feasibility Study(NWQFS). This study, completed in January of 2001 by CH2M HILL, recommended a large array of transportation improvements throughout Northwest Jefferson County. The Jefferson Parkway toll project was not a part of that plan, and in fact was rejected by that study as a meaningful transportation solution. Arvada and Jefferson County still believe that completing the beltway is needed and will help traffic. While we disagree with this, and feel that the proposed toll road is primarily designed to spur development, we can't make them build the NWQFS-recommended improvements in the county and Arvada. What we have done is to carefully model the traffic impacts of their plan, and look hard at the impacts and implications to Golden. The comprehensive data shows that the Jefferson Parkway would have minimal impact in Golden. Modeling shows that in 2035 on SH 93 there would only be an increase of 600 vehicles per day. On US 6 between Heritage and 19th traffic actually goes down by 2,700 vehicles a day. We believe this is because the toll road is very much out of direction for the large majority of trips and, given the added distance and cost of a toll, very few drivers will use it. You are correct that the NWQFS showed the need for improvements on Indiana and Ward. Our modeling shows there will still be a need for improvements in the eastern part of the quadrant, and that the toll road will not relieve congestion there. We see increased traffic on Wadsworth and I-70 as a result of the road. We also see more congestion in Arvada. In the end, we can only control what happens in Golden, and can't protect citizens in Jefferson County or Arvada from their governments’ choices. The entire Muller Plan can be viewed at the Golden Public Works office, but the portions that are not posted are things like cross sections and centerline profiles. There are no additional highway sections or text included in these sections that have not been posted.

Q: Regarding the Jefferson Parkway do-not-compete clause: Would Golden be restricted in any way from making transportation improvements within its city limits by such a clause? Is this type of clause really constitutional where it has been used before? 1/19/11

A: The City would not be restricted in any way from making improvements in Golden. The issue around non-compete clauses arises when Arvada or Jefferson County agree to not improve, or even degrade existing highways to try to force traffic on to a private toll road. Golden strongly objects to this in any fashion.

Q: Can you place the Muller Plan document on the website? 1/19/11

A: The Muller Plan is on the City of Golden website at: http://www.cityofgolden.net/Files/Muller_Study_lowres_2.pdf Please note that it has since been updated slightly, so the information on this web site has the most up-to-date information.

Q: I would like to know what the benefit of moving Highway 93 in the area of Pine Ridge Road would be, as stated in Golden's Plan? Also, to exit from that end of Pine Ridge, would you have to go down Catamount, to Golden Gate Canyon? Finally, if the highway would be two lanes in each direction, in order to exit from 56th street, would any improvement be made there? (I know it's not in Golden, but it is affected by this plan). 1/19/11

A: The relocation to the west north of Washington Ave. moves the highway into a light industrial area and away from the majority of the homes in the north part of Golden. This significantly reduces the number of homes that are impacted from highway noise. There are a couple of options for Pine Ridge Road that would be discussed and determined as part of the detailed design for that area. The original plan showed cul-de-sacs on Pine Ridge on either side, and connection through Catamount to Golden Gate. The other option would be an overpass of Pine Ridge and continued connection to the old 93 (which would remain as a local access frontage road). The relocation and 4 lane section that is part of the Muller Plan and this potential agreement tie back in to SH 93 prior to 56th so it is not affected.

Q: Why is the City considering an agreement with Jefferson County?

A: The City of Golden has consistently expressed a willingness to look for a reasonable resolution to this multi-decade dispute, and Golden representatives have participated in on- and off-again discussions with Jefferson County, Arvada, Broomfield, Boulder, Boulder County, and Superior for years. These discussions picked up again last year, as the Mayor reported during City Council meetings over the summer and fall. Late last year Jefferson County made some substantial concessions, and City Council brought the idea for a potential agreement with Jefferson County to the community for input, which is the community process now underway. Golden believes that the motivation for the Jefferson Parkway Public Highway Authority (JPPHA) to be pushing for an agreement now is that it is ready to go to investors to support this proposed privately run toll road, and would prefer to be confident that Golden and other current Jefferson Parkway opponents would not challenge the Jefferson Parkway. The motivation for Golden to consider an agreement is that our leverage will lessen as time goes on. The Denver Regional Council of Governments (DRCOG) already placed the Jefferson Parkway on its regional plan last year and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service is extremely likely to convey a right-of-way to the Jefferson Parkway. Once the federal government hands over the right-of-way and JPPHA begins construction, we will basically have no or little continued ability to shape this process unless we act. We’ve established some real leverage by building a plausible legal case; now we either need to convert that leverage into a good agreement (i.e., we commit to not suing in exchange for a favorable agreement for Golden) or bring litigation. Whichever path we select, our best window for shaping the outcome will end soon.

Q: If the City were to reach an agreement with Jefferson County, what would it look like?

A: An agreement, if Golden decides to pursue it, would probably involve a commitment, a plan, and funding to begin implementing our Muller Plan improvements, which would fix our current transportation problems on U.S. 6 and Highway 93 in Golden, protect us from the impacts of any future growth in traffic, and make it even more difficult for anyone to ever force a beltway through Golden. In exchange, Golden would agree not to file suit to try stopping the Jefferson Parkway. Golden must now decide if an agreement like this makes sense, and how to make sure it successfully protects Golden.

Q: How is the City approaching this issue? What is our best guess on plans to improve SH 93 in the future? What about improvements to McIntyre? Where do either of these fit into future transportation plans?

A: Highway 93 improvements have largely been held up because of the beltway fight. An agreement with Jeffco should include a plan for making appropriate improvements all the way between Golden and Boulder (per the 6/93 Corridor Plan that Golden and Boulder developed). Golden has long advocated for improvements to other arterials like McIntrye, but if Arvada and Jefferson County choose not to make those improvements there is little impact to Golden. The impacts will mostly be felt by Arvada residents as their own roads become more congested, but Golden’s focus remains first and foremost on protecting Golden residents. The City has two main options for trying to keep the beltway out of Golden: a) we can try to prevent construction of the Jefferson Parkway but probably not implement any of Golden's plan for improvements; or b) we can agree not to oppose the Jefferson Parkway in exchange for beginning to implement Golden's Plan. Each of these two options has risks and trade-offs. Our goal is to help community members understand those two options and all of their advantages and disadvantages and listen to everyone’s thoughts about where we should go from here. Through this web site and our four neighborhood meetings in late January and early February, we are sharing what we know about these options and their implications and we will will answer every question.

Q: Projecting far ahead, if we made the improvements in Golden AND the toll road was completed AND we saw more development north of Golden, what might we be looking at in terms of traffic congestion as well as air and sound pollution? Does fighting the toll road potentially mitigate this, and to what degree?

A: Golden will see some increases in traffic with or without the Jefferson Parkway. In fact, the Jefferson Parkway will contribute only a small amount to the future traffic in Golden; most will happen regardless. In either case, the City is far better off from the perspective of addressing traffic congestion with Golden's Plan in place. The most likely way that the City will get these improvements is through an agreement with Jefferson County. The City's traffic analyses assume more development in northern Jefferson County, since most of it will happen with or without the Jefferson Parkway. Fighting the Jefferson Parkway only has a positive impact on Golden if we are successful, and blocking the Jefferson Parkway has only a modestly positive impact on the traffic that will come through Golden in the coming decades. Golden's Plan acutally reduces both noise and pollution even if traffic goes up a lot, because the traffic flows through at a constant speed instead of stop-starts at the lights. That's because we restrict the roadway to four lanes and speeds of no more than 45 mph, because we lower U.S. 6 and Highway 93 at some intersections, and because of our noise mitigation. There may be other reasons to fight the Jefferson Parkway, but protecting Golden from traffic impacts isn't an especially significant one.

Q: What is the likelihood that transportation improvements in Golden (the package that's known as Golden's Plan or the Muller Plan) will occur with or without a Jefferson Parkway deal?

A: Jefferson Parkway proponents want much bigger and faster roads through Golden. We saw that clearly in the Jefferson Parkway Public Highway Authority's filings to the Denver Regional Council of Governments and in the Colorado Department of Transportation's Environmental Impact Statement. Those documents proposed six-lane, 65 m.p.h. highways through Golden. We want improvements to handle congestion and improve quality of life in Golden, which means fewer lanes and lower speeds. The problem for both of us is that we are at a stalemate: we've figured out how to prevent the beltway in Golden, and we won't be able to implement our own Golden's Plan improvements if Jefferson County chooses to block them. The nature of the potential agreement is that they get to build the Jefferson Parkway and we get the improvements that we believe will protect us with or without the Jefferson Parkway. But unless we commit not to sue, there is no incentive at all for Jeffco to agree to anything, since the entire point for the county is to make the Jefferson Parkway move forward.