Goldfield Community Input Report
El Paso County, Colorado
June 2026
A. SurveyMonkey Timeframe: November 2025 – February 2026 | Total Respondents: 613
B. Website comments: goldfieldcorridorplan.com | Total Respondents: 100
C. In-person Open House Summary, December 2, 2025 | Approximately 40 attendees
D. Virtual Open House Summary, December 3, 2025 | Approximately 30 participants
Community Engagement Outreach
Outreach tools used to inform the public about the Goldfield Corridor Concept Plan and Survey included:
• Goldfield Corridor Plan website launched, November 2025. More than 2750 unique site visitors through March 18, 2026
• Goldfield Corridor Plan SurveyMonkey, November 2025 – February 2026
• Postcard mailing to 9400 properties in zip codes surrounding Goldfield Corridor
• Public in-person open house, December 2, 2025, approximately 40 attendees
• Public virtual open house, December 3, 2025, approximately 30 participants
• Six enewsletters distributed to more than 400 on the database; redistributed by several stakeholders to their constituents
• Three separate social media notices posted by several project stakeholders to their social media pages
• Several news media reports appeared promoting the study and the survey
Executive Summary
Public input on the Goldfield Corridor Concept Plan was received through four primary outreach tools/events: SurveyMonkey, Website Survey, an in-person Open House and a virtual Open House. The goal was to understand community thoughts, concerns, and questions about a proposal to convert Goldfield Drive to a trail system for the purpose of addressing safety issues and to improve connectivity. While there are currently no plans to convert the road, the Fountain Mutual Metro District (sponsor of the study), along with numerous project stakeholders and property owners in the area, began a discussion about potential ways to address the recurring issues in the area including dumping and crime as well as a lack of a loop around Big Johnson Reservoir, and limited trails and trail system connectivity.
Goldfield Corridor Concept Plan SurveyMonkey:
Gathered input from 613 residents of the southeast El Paso County area regarding a proposal to convert Goldfield Drive into a recreational trail. The survey was conducted via SurveyMonkey from November 2025 through February 2026, with 611–613 responses across most questions. It’s important to note that because the SurveyMonkey was self-selected, it is neither random nor statistically representative. Because many respondents indicated that they reside near Goldfield Drive, the results may reflect the views of nearby residents; however, they should not be considered statistically representative.
Survey results indicated a consistent majority opposed to converting Goldfield Drive to a trail primarily coming from residents located near the corridor. Across multiple questions framing the issue from different angles, roughly 62–66% of respondents opposed the conversion. Approximately 67.1% of respondents indicated they reside in the 80911-zip code/Goldfield Corridor area. Common concerns cited by respondents included potential traffic impacts on adjacent roads, loss of vehicular access through the corridor, emergency response considerations, and the role of Goldfield Drive as a commuter route.
Approximately 29–34% of respondents support the conversion, citing desires for improved trail connectivity, reduced illegal dumping, enhanced open space access, and long-term recreational value for the region.
Key Insight
62% of respondents opposed converting Goldfield Drive to a trail (Q8), and 66% would not support the change even knowing it would improve open space access (Q14).
The average importance score for keeping vehicular traffic on Goldfield Drive was 68.6 out of 100 (Q7), compared to 35.9 for removing it (Q6).
SurveyMonkey Respondent Profile – Geographic Distribution
The survey reached 611 respondents across multiple zip codes. The vast majority represent the immediately affected neighborhoods:
| Zip Code | Area | Responses | Percentage |
|---|---|---|---|
| 80911 | Primary area (Goldfield corridor) | 410 | 67.1% |
| 80817 | Fountain / Security-Widefield | 63 | 10.3% |
| 80925 | East Colorado Springs | 63 | 10.3% |
| 80916 | Southeast Colorado Springs | 4 | 0.7% |
| Other | Various El Paso County zip codes | 71 | 11.6% |
Other zip codes represented in the 'Other' category include 80906, 80904, 80909, 80905, 80903, 80918, 80920, and others, indicating broader community interest beyond the immediate area.
Goldfield Corridor Concept Plan Website (GoldfieldCorridorPlan.com): Was open for comments from November 2025 through February 2026. The website comments reflected a broader mix of residents, trails advocates, birders, Fountain Valley School Community, and public interested in the concept plan.
Unlike the survey where 62–66% opposed conversion, the website comments show a more evenly divided community, with a slight lean toward opposition when mixed/conditional responses are excluded. From the website comments, approximately
The higher proportion of mixed/conditional responses in the website channel is notable. Many website commenters support the concept but have specific conditions — primarily around maintaining parking/drive-up access near the reservoir, ensuring accessibility for elderly and disabled users, and improving connecting infrastructure on Fontaine Boulevard. Many conditional supporters expressed interest in design modifications related to parking access, accessibility, and connecting infrastructure.
Goldfield Corridor Open Houses:
In-person, December 2, 2025
Virtual, December 3, 2025
A majority of the approximately 40 attendees at the in-person Open House indicated that they live or own property in the area adjacent to Goldfield Drive.
A majority of the attendees indicated they did not support transitioning the road to a trail primarily because they like driving the road through the existing open space. Several attendees expressed concern that removing the road would shift dumping to other areas, and that converting the road to a trail would make the open space less accessible. Other concerns expressed were that the plan would increase traffic issues at other points where traffic problems already occur and that it would be more costly to convert the road to a trail than to rebuild/repair the bridge.
While many the voices who commented during the formal meeting opposed the plan, there were many conversations after the formal meeting with attendees who indicated they were reluctant to speak publicly during the meeting but believed a trail could provide a long-term recreational benefit to the community.
Meeting participants at the virtual Open House primarily raised questions as opposed to voicing comments of opposition or support for the concept plan. Questions were primarily about bridge repairs, water supply security, and the potential for dog waste issues. The group discussed connecting the trail to existing paths and the need for restrooms, which were not currently part of the plan.
SURVEYMONKEY RESULTS
1. Respondent Profile
Geographic Distribution (Q1)
The survey reached 611 respondents across multiple zip codes. The vast majority represent the immediately affected neighborhoods:
| Zip Code | Area | Responses | Percentage |
|---|---|---|---|
| 80911 | Primary area (Goldfield corridor) | 410 | 67.1% |
| 80817 | Fountain / Security-Widefield | 63 | 10.3% |
| 80925 | East Colorado Springs | 63 | 10.3% |
| 80916 | Southeast Colorado Springs | 4 | 0.7% |
| Other | Various El Paso County zip codes | 71 | 11.6% |
Other zip codes represented in the 'Other' category include 80906, 80904, 80909, 80905, 80903, 80918, 80920, and others, indicating broader community interest beyond the immediate area.
2. Current Use Patterns
Open Space Visitation (Q2)
Respondents were asked how often they visit the Bluestem Prairie Open Space. Results show a split community, with 77% visiting at least occasionally but a notable 23% who never visit:
Notably, 38.5% of respondents visit at least weekly (combining daily and once-a-week visitors), indicating strong existing engagement with the open space for those who do use it.
Reasons for Visiting the Open Space (Q3)
Respondents could select all applicable reasons. The most common reported use was driving through the corridor, which exceeded all other reported uses
Frequency of Driving Goldfield Drive (Q4)
Over half of all respondents identified using Goldfield Drive as a vehicle cut-through as their primary relationship with the corridor — more than double the next most common use (nature walks at 28%). More than half of respondents identified the corridor as a vehicle route, making it the most frequently selected use.
Approximately 68% of respondents reported driving Goldfield Drive at least once per week, including 47% who reported daily use. Only 6% never drive the road.
3. Attitudes Toward Trail Conversion
Concern About Non-Motorized Access (Q5)
Respondents rated their concern about the lack of non-motorized access and trail connections on a 0–100 scale:
| Metric | Value |
|---|---|
| Mean Score | 29.84 / 100 |
| Median Score | 7 / 100 |
| Standard Deviation | 36.73 |
| Minimum | 0 |
| Maximum | 100 |
The very low median of 7 (compared to mean of 29.84) indicates that most respondents are minimally concerned about the lack of non-motorized access. Responses varied widely, as reflected by the standard deviation of 36.73. A substantial group scored 0 while another group scored 100, with relatively few in the middle. This distribution reflects a wide range of opinions among respondents and appears in several survey questions.
Importance of Removing Vehicular Traffic (Q6)
Respondents rated the importance of removing vehicle traffic from Goldfield to create open space access and trail connectivity (0–100 scale):
| Metric | Value |
|---|---|
| Mean Score | 35.90 / 100 |
| Median Score | 9 / 100 |
| Standard Deviation | 42.08 |
| Minimum | 0 |
| Maximum | 100 |
Like Q5, the median score (9) is substantially lower than the mean score (35.9), indicating that responses were concentrated at opposite ends of the scale. The extremely high standard deviation (42.08) reflects the divided nature of community opinion.
Importance of Keeping Vehicular Traffic (Q7)
By contrast, respondents rated the importance of continuing to enable vehicular traffic along Goldfield Drive significantly higher:
| Metric | Value |
|---|---|
| Mean Score | 68.61 / 100 |
| Median Score | 99 / 100 |
| Standard Deviation | 40.56 |
| Minimum | 0 |
| Maximum | 100 |
Support for Conversion (Q8)
When asked directly whether converting Goldfield Drive to a trail would be a good idea:
Support with Trade-off Awareness (Q14)
Even when the question was framed explicitly acknowledging the driving inconvenience but highlighting open space benefits, opposition remained strong:
4. Reasons For and Against Conversion
Reasons Supporting Conversion (Q9)
Among supporters (and those who answered the question generally), top reasons for conversion were:
Among supporters, the desire for regional trail connectivity and reducing illegal dumping are the two leading motivations. The ability to walk the full loop around Big Johnson Reservoir is also a compelling draw for many.
Reasons Opposing Conversion (Q10)
Among opponents, the leading concerns were (respondents chose up to two):
The top opposition reason was the potential loss of a scenic drive and opportunities for wildlife viewing (43%). Many respondents indicated that they value the open space and prefer to access it by vehicle.
5. Projected Impact of Conversion
Would Residents Visit More? (Q11)
If Goldfield were converted to a trail, would respondents visit the area more for recreation?
Nearly two-thirds (62.3%) said they would not or would not really visit more often for recreation with 29.7% saying yes. These results indicate that respondents differed in their views regarding the potential benefits of conversion. A road used daily by ~47% of respondents would be converted to a trail that only ~30% would use more frequently.
How would conversion impact respondents' ability to commute by vehicle?
Commute Impact (Q12)
Alternate Routes (Q13)
If Goldfield were converted, respondents were asked which alternate route they would take:
Grinnell Street would absorb the plurality of diverted traffic (41%). The high 'not sure' response (23%) may reflect uncertainty or reluctance to accept the premise. A significant concern expressed in open-ended comments is that Fontaine Boulevard and Grinnell are already heavily congested and cannot easily absorb additional traffic.
6. Key Themes from Open-Ended Responses
The survey included open-ended questions (Q14 comments and Q15) that generated rich qualitative feedback. Analysis of these responses reveals the following recurring themes:
Theme 1: Road Serves as Recreation — Not Just Transport
“I love to drive that route to see the animals, smell the grasses, and feel like I’m home in Wyoming. I can’t go hike due to disability, so if it was closed, I’d miss out on all the things I can still experience by driving.”
Several respondents stated that they rely on vehicle access because of age, mobility limitations, or other accessibility concerns.
Theme 2: Safety and Emergency Access Concerns
“My primary concern is the response time of emergency services and an alternate route for evacuation if needed.”
Emergency response time was a consistent and recurring concern. Multiple respondents mentioned that Goldfield Drive provides an important alternate route in emergency scenarios, and that adjacent roads are inadequate substitutes. One respondent referenced a reported child fatality associated with a rattlesnake bite in the area and emergency vehicle access.
Theme 3: Concerns About Traffic Diversion to Adjacent Roads
“Fontaine would become a two-lane freeway along with Grinnell even more so. What are these other regional trails?’”
A thread of concern runs through the comments about the capacity of Fontaine Boulevard and Grinnell Street to absorb diverted traffic. Several respondents asked if a traffic study was conducted, and one commenter specifically challenged the methodology. Several respondents referenced ongoing population growth as a factor contributing to these concerns.
Theme 4: Rattlesnakes and Physical Safety
Several respondents cited the presence of rattlesnake nests along the corridor as a specific safety concern for trail users, particularly families with children. This was raised both in opposition to the trail concept and as a management challenge.
Theme 5: Support for Alternative Approaches
“I don’t believe that closing Goldfield would open access to the open space... building a parking lot at the north trailhead would actually create more access to the open space. And building a connector trail along Fontaine from Goldfield to Fountain Mesa Road would create more access to other trails. Both of those can be accomplished without closing Goldfield.”
Some respondents expressed support for trail improvements while preferring alternatives that would not require closing the road. Common suggestions included: building additional parking and trailhead amenities, adding a parallel trail alongside the road, installing cameras to deter illegal dumping, and building trail connectors using existing open spaces without removing the road.
Theme 6: Growth and Infrastructure Concerns
Several respondents raised the region's rapid growth as a reason to preserve — rather than remove — road capacity. Concerns were expressed that the area's expanding residential development will increase traffic pressure and expressed concern about removing roadway capacity as the area continues to grow. Some suggested that infrastructure investment should focus on roads rather than trails given current transportation challenges.
WEBSITE COMMENTS RESULTS
In addition to the SurveyMonkey survey, the project website received 100 written comments from November 2025 through February 2026. These comments provide valuable qualitative depth and, notably, show a somewhat different sentiment distribution than the survey — reflecting the self-selected nature of each channel.
Overall Sentiment Distribution
Unlike the SurveyMonkey where 62–66% opposed conversion, the website comments show a more evenly divided community, with a slight lean toward opposition when mixed/conditional responses are excluded:
| Sentiment Category | Count | Percentage | Description |
|---|---|---|---|
| Oppose / Keep Road Open | 34 | 34% | Clearly opposed to closing Goldfield Drive |
| Support / Convert to Trail | 30 | 30% | Clearly in favor of trail conversion |
| Mixed / Conditional Support | 26 | 26% | Support with conditions, or nuanced both/and positions |
| Questions / Logistical | 10 | 10% | Primarily asking questions, no clear position |
Notable contrast: While the SurveyMonkey survey showed 62% opposition, the website comments show a more divided response (~34% oppose, ~30% support, ~26% mixed). Differences may reflect the audiences reached through each engagement method. The survey was distributed broadly to local residents while the website attracted commenters who actively sought out the project page, including a higher proportion of trail advocates, birders, and conservation supporters
Key Themes from Website Comments
Theme 1: The Birding Community — A Distinct Stakeholder Group
“I don’t believe that closing Goldfield would open access to the open space... building a parking lot at the north trailhead would actually create more access to the open space. And building a connector trail along Fontaine from Goldfield to Fountain Mesa Road would create more access to other trails. Both of those can be accomplished without closing Goldfield.”
A recurring and distinctive voice in the website comments — largely absent from the survey — is that of birdwatchers and wildlife observers. Multiple commenters specifically mentioned the dirt parking lot near Big Johnson Reservoir as a frequently used access point for viewing shorebirds, waterfowl, and other wildlife throughout the year. Several indicated that elderly or mobility-impaired individuals rely on drive-up access to deploy spotting scopes. Several commenters expressed support for the trail concept in principal but expressed concerns regarding the loss of vehicle access to the reservoir parking area. Several requested that road access be maintained at minimum from Fontaine to the parking lot, even if the southern section near the bridge is closed.
Theme 2: Illegal Dumping — Both a Reason to Convert and a Reason to Be Skeptical
“I agree on a trail as this area always has dumping of trash, mattresses, etc. Also speeding through this area is a big concern. I support a trail for this area!”
“I understand that you have a grant to repair the bridges. So why are we waiting for it to fall apart. The dumping is disgusting. But the scenic drive over Goldfield Rd is so beautiful... Please don’t close this road.’”
Illegal dumping mattresses, trash bags, and large items was a commonly mentioned topic among both supporters and opponents. Supporters cite it as a primary reason for conversion — removing vehicle access will eliminate the access that enables dumping. Opponents counter that dumping could be addressed through cameras, law enforcement, and better waste management infrastructure without closing the road. One commenter referenced EPA resources on illegal dumping prevention and noted that inadequate waste management infrastructure may be a root cause.
Theme 3: Accessibility and Equity Concerns
“I object to the closure of Goldfield Drive and any impact to the removal of public parking that currently exist at the Bluestem Prairie Open Space around Big Johnson. To close it would limit public access to people who don’t have the privilege to live close by or have the privilege to pay expensive tuition to the private school.”
Several commenters raised concerns about equity and accessibility. Several commenters stated that vehicle access is the only practical means of experiencing the open space for residents with mobility limitations, disabilities, or those who live farther from the corridor. The suggestion that closing the road primarily benefits Fountain Valley School (a private institution whose campus abuts the corridor) was raised by multiple commenters who questioned whether public resources should be redirected to benefit a private school's surroundings. One commenter asked who would financially benefit from the restriction.
Theme 4: Appreciation for the Scenic Drive as a Community Asset
“I use this road daily. And although it makes my trip easier... it would make a phenomenal nature trail. ”
Like the survey's open-ended responses, many website commenters described Goldfield Drive as a valued community amenity — a rare 'country road feel' in an urbanizing area, a scenic route for viewing deer, antelope, eagles, and polo ponies at Fountain Valley School. Some described it as one of the few remaining open country drives accessible to local residents. Several of these comments came from daily drivers who acknowledged the road's traffic-relief function while emphasizing its scenic and emotional value.
Theme 5: Traffic Infrastructure Already Inadequate — Growth Makes Closure Worse
“Fountain needs to be WIDENED before they close Goldfield or even think about it. There are BIGGER problems.”
Several commenters stated that Fontaine Boulevard and Grinnell Street already experience significant traffic congestion and are already operating near or beyond capacity. With continued residential development in the area — including the connection of Bradley Road — the loss of Goldfield Drive they said would arrive at the wrong moment for the transportation network. Several commenters called for road widening and intersection improvements (particularly at Fontaine and Goldfield) as prerequisites to any road closure. Two commenters independently suggested a roundabout at the Fontaine/Goldfield intersection as a safety improvement that could also facilitate trail connectivity.
Theme 6: Conservation and Ecological Value
“The prairie ecosystem is underserved and undervalued but this plan is a great step in the right direction. Not just for people but for wildlife as well with diminishing prairie on the east side of Colorado Springs/Fountain/Widefield.”
Several supporters, including conservation advocates, birders, and trail users — emphasized the ecological value of the corridor as a reason to convert. These commenters pointed to the diminishing prairie habitat in the region due to development pressure, the importance of wildlife movement corridors for pronghorn and other species, and the long-term value of protecting the space before it is surrounded by more residential growth. Comment #21 specifically requested that if a trail is built, it be designed as a 'true, nature-focused corridor' with wildlife movement and native prairie ecosystems as the primary management priority, and that pets be prohibited.
Theme 7: Concerns About Crime, Homelessness, and After-Hours Activity
“Crime and illegal activity have plagued the road and surrounding area for decades. Closing the road would also mitigate the threat of fire to the neighborhoods.”
“Crime you will make a safe place for homeless and drug users... making this a walking park ONLY you’re limiting the use to old guys like me, a 75 year old.”
Several commenters raised public safety concerns, though they cut in opposing directions. Supporters of conversion cited existing crime and suspicious activity at the reservoir parking lots as a reason to remove vehicle access. Opponents worried that a trail with limited visibility would create new opportunities for homeless encampments and after-hours criminal activity and expressed concern that law enforcement presence in the Widefield area is already insufficient.
Website vs. Survey: A Comparison
The survey and website comments reflect different perspectives among participants.
| Dimension | SurveyMonkey (n=613) | Website Comments (n=100) |
|---|---|---|
| Audience | Local residents (67% from 80911) | Broader mix inc. trail advocates, birders, FVS community |
| Opposition level | 62-66% opposed | ~34% clearly opposed |
| Support level | 29-34% supportive | ~30% clearly supportive |
| Mixed/conditional | ~8% unsure | ~26% mixed/conditional |
| Top opposition concern | Traffic impacts on adjacent roads | Loss of scenic drive; accessibility for disabled/elderly |
| Top support reason | Trail connectivity / reduce dumping | Ecological value; dumping; safety |
| Unique to this channel | Daily commuter majority perspective | Birding community; FVS community; conservation advocates |
The website comments included a higher proportion of mixed or conditional responses than the survey. Many website commenters support the concept but have specific conditions — primarily around maintaining parking/drive-up access near the reservoir, ensuring accessibility for elderly and disabled users, and improving connecting infrastructure on Fontaine Boulevard. Many conditional supporters indicated that maintaining reservoir access, addressing accessibility concerns, and improving connections on Fontaine Boulevard would be important considerations.
Synthesis and Takeaways
Summary of Survey Results
Among survey respondents, 62% indicated that converting Goldfield Drive to a trail would not be a good idea at this time, and 66% did not support the concept when presented with the stated trade-offs. This finding is consistent across every quantitative question in the survey:
62% said converting Goldfield Drive to a trail would not be a good idea (Q8)
66% would not support the change even with awareness of the open space benefits (Q14)
Median importance of keeping vehicular traffic: 99/100 (Q7)
Median importance of removing vehicular traffic: 9/100 (Q6)
52% said conversion would greatly inconvenience their vehicle commute (Q12)
62% said they would not or not really visit the area more for recreation if converted (Q11)
Common Reasons Cited by Supporters
The roughly one-third of survey respondents (and ~30% of website commenters) who support conversion are motivated primarily by:
Desire for regional trail connectivity and open space access before the land is developed
Reducing illegal dumping of trash, mattresses, and large items along the road
Creating a safe, traffic-free loop trail around Big Johnson Reservoir
Ecological value — protecting diminishing prairie habitat from further fragmentation
Improving safety at the Fontaine/Goldfield intersection and along the narrow road
Long-term recreational value for a growing community underserved by nearby trail options
Birding and Wildlife Observation Comments
The website comments revealed a distinct stakeholder group largely absent from the survey analysis: birdwatchers who regularly use the dirt parking lot at Big Johnson Reservoir. This group spans support and opposition — many support the trail concept in principle — but share a common, specific concern: loss of drive-up vehicle access to the reservoir viewpoint. They feel their needs (carrying heavy spotting scopes, mobility limitations, frequent visits throughout the year) are not served by a trail-only design. Commenters who identified as birders expressed interest in maintaining vehicle access to the reservoir parking area regardless of their position on a trail conversion.
IN-PERSON OPEN HOUSE SUMMARY
An in-person Open House took place December 2, 2025, at the Widefield Parks and Recreation Center, 755 Aspen Dr, Colorado Springs, CO 80911. Approximately 40 people from the community attended. Most indicated they live in the area adjacent to Goldfield Drive, and a majority expressed opposition to converting the road to a trail.
The meeting introduced the Goldfield Corridor Plan and outlined the roles of the project team, who gave a presentation about a proposal to convert Goldfield Drive into a trail system to address safety issues and improve connectivity. The team discussed various aspects of the proposal including traffic impacts, maintenance responsibilities, and environmental considerations, while stakeholders raised questions about infrastructure and potential challenges.
Below is a summary of the verbal comments received at the open houses and some of the reasons people indicated they are not in favor of the concept plan.
Dumping: People who dump their trash along Goldfield Drive will find another place to do it if Goldfield Drive is closed, including in the backyards of the surrounding community.
Accessibility: Changing the road to a trail will make the open space less accessible for the public and less accessible to be able to see the wildlife if one is not a hiker. “Right now, we can see the wildlife from our vehicles when driving the road.”
Traffic impacts: Comments indicated a concern that the concept will increase traffic at points where there is already a traffic problem. More cars will have to take a route that will make a bad traffic problem worse.
Costs: Opinions expressed were that the cost to repair the bridge is not a good enough reason to remove the road. The cost for trail improvements, trailheads, parking areas, etc. will be more than repairing the bridge. “Repairing the bridge is a better solution than closing the road.”
Preferred Route: Local community members indicated they like driving the road as they get to see wildlife, and it is overall more pleasant than the other busy roads in the area.
A few comments were voiced in favor of the concept plan, citing how this trail would be a long-term, recreational benefit for the community. Several community members suggested making a safe crossing on Fontaine to connect the Crews Gulch Trail to the proposed Goldfield Trail.
The public was encouraged to provide feedback through an online survey to inform future planning processes, with cost estimates and timelines for decision-making discussed by county officials.
Thirteen meeting attendees completed a hard copy of the Survey during the Open House. Those responses and comments are included in the Survey Results Analysis.
VIRTUAL OPEN HOUSE SUMMARY
A virtual Open House took place Dec 3, 2025, with approximately 30 people in attendance. During the virtual open house, primarily questions were asked with fewer comments provided.
The Open House began with a technical check to ensure all participants could hear and a review of the meeting guidelines, emphasizing respect and participation. The project team was introduced and their roles explained.
The project team explained that one purpose of the concept plan was to explore whether converting Goldfield Drive into a trail could help address safety concerns, reduce illegal dumping, and improve connectivity. The project team presented the concept plan, highlighting the potential benefits of creating a loop around Big Johnson Reservoir and enhancing open space. An overview of the study’s process included initial meetings with property owners and other stakeholders, and public outreach efforts like surveys and open houses. The traffic impact study conducted by SM Rocha is ongoing to assess the effects of closing Goldfield Drive to vehicles.
Discussions during the virtual Open House included traffic impacts, maintenance responsibilities, and environmental considerations. Meeting participants raised questions about bridge repairs, water supply security, and the potential for dog waste issues. The group discussed connecting the trail to existing paths and the need for restrooms, which were not currently part of the plan. El Paso County officials explained the cost estimates for bridge repairs and the timeline for decision-making. The public was encouraged to provide feedback through an online survey, with the goal of informing future planning processes.
Appendix: Survey Question Summary
| Q# | Question | Total | Key Result |
|---|---|---|---|
| Q1 | Zip code of residence | 611 | 67% from 80911 (local area) |
| Q2 | How often visit Bluestem Open Space? | 608 | 23% never; 22% daily |
| Q3 | Why visit open space? | 597 | 52% vehicle cut-through (top response) |
| Q4 | How often drive Goldfield Drive? | 612 | 47% daily; 94% ever |
| Q5 | Concern about lack of non-motorized access (0-100) | 562 | Mean: 29.8; Median: 7 |
| Q6 | Importance of removing vehicle traffic (0-100) | 530 | Mean: 35.9; Median: 9 |
| Q7 | Importance of keeping vehicle traffic (0-100) | 581 | Mean: 68.6; Median: 99 |
| Q8 | Good idea to convert to trail? | 612 | 62% No; 30% Yes; 8% Not sure |
| Q9 | Top reasons supporting conversion | 545 | Trail connectivity (30%); Reduce dumping (22%) |
| Q10 | Top reasons opposing conversion | 527 | Loss of scenic drive (43%); Traffic (30%) |
| Q11 | Would visit more if trail? | 610 | 47% No; 15% Not really; 30% Yes |
| Q12 | Commute impact if converted? | 609 | 52% Greatly; 20% Moderately; 28% Minimally |
| Q13 | Alternate route if converted? | 603 | 41% Grinnell St; 21% Fontaine Blvd |
| Q14 | Support change given trade-off? | 597 | 66% No; 34% Yes |
| Q15 | Other comments | 249 | See qualitative themes section |