Comments re: KC Public Works on the TIPS

Comments given on May 8, 2024 at the Kingston Community Advisory Council

Reviewing the draft report on the North Sound to Olympics Trail Study (NSTO), two things stand out:

  • Public Comments, Appendix A
  • And overall project cost, Appendix F

Reading the public comments in Appendix A confirms that there is overwhelming community opposition to going through North Kitsap Heritage Park, even from people who ride bicycles.

It is worth reading through all the comments. It’s very informative, and I encourage all to do so; it gives a real sense of the many community opinions. The majority of community does not support going through North Kitsap Heritage Park;  comments point out why it does not make sense. The financial costs of implementing a paved trail in this location would be massive. The engineering, grading, and construction required to build and maintain an accessible trail over hilly terrain, waterways, and wetlands would degrade and destroy what is precious in the park.

The estimated costs are poorly represented on the Excel spreadsheet; there is no total, and costs are minimized in the chart—each cost listed is in the Millions.

89.4 million dollars for the project, for approximately 8 miles of trail.  Is this feasible?

And does it actually address the goals of the County’s non-motorized plan? 

Large numbers of the community do not support this project; it is a huge expenditure to serve a small group of users.

The study was flawed from the beginning: it started from a bias toward the trail going THROUGH the park, downgraded commuting and school pathways that met non-motorized plan connectivity goals, and minimized the profound environmental damage of putting a graded, paved path through a sensitive environment over steep topography. Requirements from the RCO grant that funded the acquisition of NKHP have been ignored. Public comment has been shut down at meetings and diverted primarily to the NSTO portal to minimize public discussion. It has been an unfortunate process and wasted the money that could have been used to find a more sensible, community supported pathway that provided true community connection according to the goals of the non-motorized plan.

Please, taxpayers do not want to pay for this costly trail that destroys a park that we love and is an environmentally significant treasure.


Beth Nichols, Indianola