Warning message

The installed version of the browser you are using is outdated and no longer supported by Konveio. Please upgrade your browser to the latest release.

Together Jeffco | Transportation and Mobility Plan

Review the Together Jeffco TMP!

Below is the public draft of the Together Jeffco Transportation and Mobility Plan (the “TMP”).

The TMP represents a work in progress to guide Jefferson County’s transportation future. While the content reflects extensive research, community input, and technical analysis, we understand that further refinement may be needed before final adoption. We welcome and encourage community members to review this draft and share their feedback to help ensure the final plan reflects the needs and priorities of all who live, work, and travel in Jeffco.

How to Review and Provide Feedback: As indicated on the green bar at the top of the document, you can click anywhere on the document to comment. You do not need to register/sign in to provide comments. However, you will be asked to provide your name and email the first time you comment (if you return at another time, you will have to add your name and address again).

The Together Jeffco | 2045 Comprehensive Plan is also available for public review and is available at this link: Together Jeffco | 2045 Comprehensive Plan, Public Draft

For more information, visit Together Jeffco | County Plans and Regulation Update.

Click anywhere in the document to add a comment. Select a bubble to view comments.

Comments

Add comment

Gina Amato Jul 17 2025 at 2:23PM on page 4

Suggested Revision

The chart in figure 4-5 must be all inclusive of the entire County. The metro area roads and highways are in the worst shape they have ever been in. Charts can be screwed….and this one sure is.
Why not take care of what we have before spending tax dollars on projects that are only going to make roads and highways worse

Gina Amato Jul 17 2025 at 2:18PM on page 4

Question

The current pavement conditions on Jeffco and State roads and highways is deteriorating and dangerous to drivers. Another problem is unnecessary car repairs due to potholes, ruts and uneven pavement.

What plans does Jeffco have to revitalize our roads and clean up trash?

Roberta Tucker Jul 17 2025 at 10:56AM on page 70

Question

The intersection of Yale and Indiana is already heavy traffic with very few people obeying the stop signs. Due to the straight away of Yale we also have many cars exceeding the speed limit and using it as a raceway. How can these items be addressed?

Lisa Jul 17 2025 at 6:07AM on page 184

Comment

The kings valley interchange and improvements between Richmond hill and Schaffer’s crossing are long over due and one of the most dangerous sections of hwy in the state. Please prioritize these desperately needed improvements before even more lives are lost on this hwy.

Chuck Newby Jul 16 2025 at 8:35PM on page 11

Suggested Revision

You have transportation improvement project goal almost completely backwards, priorities should be as follows:
1) Safety - always the highest priority
2) Funding - without funding, nothing gets done
3) Connectivity - build into the system by design
4 Collaboration - build into the system by design
5) Sustainability - fundamental
6) Equity - necessary
7) Asset Management - necessary

Chuck Newby Jul 16 2025 at 8:21PM on page 11

Suggested Revision

You have the transportation improvement goal prioritization almost completely backwards. Instead, these priorities—from highest to lowest—should be as follows:
1) Safety - this must always be the highest priority
2) Funding - without funding, you can do nothing
3) Connectivity - foundational to the system
4 Collaboration/Partnerships - foundational to the system
5) Sustainability - foundational to the system
6) Equity - a common sense requirement
7) Asset Management - a common sense requirement

Chuck Newby Jul 16 2025 at 3:32PM on page 11

Suggested Revision

Again, these statements RE "Stewardship" and "Resiliency" are political statements that, based the lived experience of the citizens who live and work in Jefferson County, is far from the truth.
In actual practice, the senior planners at the Planning & Zoning Division (P&Z) typically ignore the facts that citizens bring to them in the form of real on-the-ground truth.
Another example is the 188 DU, three-story apartment-like proposed development, at the time, called Conifer Center which was to be located on 47 acres behind the Safeway at Conifer Town Center.
When the community brought P&Z solid research showing that the developer did not have legal water rights to build out the project and that, even if he eventually got those rights there was no way that the Conifer Metropolitan District (Conifer MD) could treat the resulting wastewater without making an already bad groundwater situation there very much worse, how did the County Attorney's Office (CAO) answer local citizens' facts-on-the-ground? The CAO said something like, "The developer has a will-serve letter from Conifer MD..." so the developer has met the requirement. What did the leadership at P&Z do? They let the developer get away with not have legal water and turned a blind eye to the facts-on-the-ground at Conifer MD!
How is that "Stewardship"?! How is that "Resiliency"?!
I again suggest that you rewrite these sections to remove the BS...

Chuck Newby Jul 16 2025 at 2:58PM on page 10

Suggested Revision

During all my years dealing with Jefferson County RE land-use issues, the statement, "The County will focus on developing responsibly..." is absolutely news to me!
I have found the contrary to be the case with respect to the way the Planning & Zoning Division, the Planning Commission, and the Board of County Commissioners actually approaches new development proposals; i.e., land-use decisions within the county.
For example, our three County Commissioners allowed our illustrious leaders at Planning & Zoning to put the residents along the Shadow Mountain Drive corridor through more than 3 1/2 years of literal "hell-on-earth" before finally voting the proposed development down—in the process—the Commissioners forced those hard-working, taxpaying citizens to devote untold 1000s of hours to fighting two irresponsible, know-nothing developers who were out to destroy the community of Conifer, Colorado in order extract a profit from that 300+ acre Colorado Land Board open space parcel!
I suggest that your rewrite this statement to remove the BS...

Benjamin Traquair Jul 16 2025 at 2:56PM on page 151

Comment

These changes are needed between Wadsworth and Lamar. The stretch between Wadsworth and Pierce is the most dangerous stretch in this area, despite its connection between homes, grocery stores and an elementary schools. A road diet is desperately needed. We do not need two travel lanes in either direction and on/offramp lanes. Especially when there are no safe crossing between pierce and the King Soopers entrance on Chatfield.

Benjamin Traquair Jul 16 2025 at 2:53PM on page 146

Question

Standard intersection upgrades should not include slip lanes. We do not need more slip lanes on these streets.

Benjamin Traquair Jul 16 2025 at 2:45PM on page 81

Question

Pierce should have protected bike lanes. The oversized and redundant travel lanes encourage users to exceed 50mph on this street, despite the presence of schools and businesses.

Benjamin Traquair Jul 16 2025 at 2:41PM on page 79

Comment

We should be tracking unprotected bike lanes separately from protected bike lanes. And we should only be installing unprotected bike lanes on roads where the average measured speed is under 30mph

Benjamin Traquair Jul 16 2025 at 2:32PM on page 75

Comment

It’s important to bring the community into the process. But the public are not planners, engineers or experts. Decisions about whether or not to safety infrastructure cannot be left up to public opinion. Safety critical infrastructure like protected bike lanes, separated sidewalks, road diets and safe crossing should be installed based on merit, not popularity

Jill Jul 12 2025 at 5:30PM on page 8

Question

How does this plan tie in with any planning RTD is doing?

in reply to Trint's comment

Jill Jul 12 2025 at 5:29PM on page 11

Comment

The Denver Metro has terrible air quality, even without the impact of forest fires. It's not "virtue signaling" to utilize alternative energy sources.

Heather Gutherless Jul 11 2025 at 10:12AM on page 70

Suggested Revision

Main Street Extension should be shown.

Heather Gutherless Jul 11 2025 at 10:11AM on page 141

Suggested Revision

This does not appear to be shown on the MTP Map, it seems like it should be shown. I left another comment there.

in reply to Hana Shiro's comment

Elizabeth Bigham Jul 10 2025 at 1:59PM on page 184

Two lanes in each direction

Elizabeth Bigham Jul 10 2025 at 1:58PM on page 184

Remove per conversation with christina

Ryanne O Jul 8 2025 at 7:30PM on page 21

Aren’t these essentially the same? No whereas needed?

Ryanne O Jul 8 2025 at 7:27PM on page 15

Question

What is the context for this statement? Drove alone to work? Daily? Most often?

Ryanne O Jul 8 2025 at 7:25PM on page 13

Question

Why limit top speeds in vulnerable user definition? It’s not uncommon for motorcycles to be considered vulnerable users and fast e-bikes are essentially the same. While faster e-bikes/scooters/wheels bring their own challenges, they are undoubtedly still highly vulnerable when on the roadway with vehicles (where they should be).

Ryanne O Jul 8 2025 at 7:17PM on page 9

Comment

Calling it an “Update” is confusing given the pitch above about this being a fully reimagined TMP is confusing.

Ryanne O Jul 8 2025 at 7:16PM on page 8

Suggested Revision

Reformatting some of this information about other relevant plans, including similar TMPs that cover incorporated JeffCo, into a list or table that is easily identifiable would be helpful

Ryanne O Jul 8 2025 at 7:14PM on page 8

Suggested Revision

Since this will remain a digital document adding links to these other plans would be helpful

Ryanne O Jul 8 2025 at 7:11PM on page 6

Suggested Revision

Updates (s is missing)

Ryanne O Jul 8 2025 at 7:10PM on page 7

Suggested Revision

Explaining what the document is (and is not) before making the pitch for why it needs to be updated would be helpful context

in reply to William's comment

Bruce Jul 8 2025 at 1:33PM on page 82

Suggested Revision

I strongly agree that Lookout Mountain Rd is too congested with a mix of traffic and bicycles now. However, LMR is also a primary residential access road for hundreds of families that use it to get home, to school, and to work. So, it certainly can't be made into a one-way road full time! that would be completely infeasible for the many residential neighborhoods that it serves. Instead, I have suggested that there be one designated "bike day" on weekends. Probably, Sunday is the best idea but possibly Saturday depending on use. Sundays would be for bicycles and pedestrians only, and all other days would be exclusively for vehicle traffic. This is a much more practical and feasible solution than either direction of one way road, which can't happen.

Mary Jul 7 2025 at 12:04PM on page 59

Suggested Revision

This is just one of RTD’s paratransit programs. There is also Access on Demand. You should include mention of both programs here and link to RTD’s paratransit page.

Mary Jul 7 2025 at 12:00PM on page 33

Question

Where can this white paper be found?

in reply to Trint's comment

Hana Shiro Jul 5 2025 at 9:03PM on page 10

I'd argue that having houses be affordable for people is --at least an indirect -- a result of better transportation, particularly when it is not in cars. As mentioned in other parts of the document, the cost of transportation is prohibitive for some, and so by making the cost of both lower, it creates a better situation for everyone.
Furthermore, if people can't afford houses in Jeffco, then the jobs will get filled by commuters from farther out, thus increasing traffic and/or load on the transportation networks.
(I'm not a part of the planning people, just someone who wants to see a brighter future for everyone)

Hana Shiro Jul 5 2025 at 4:58PM on page 147

Suggested Revision

There is no mention of the intersection between US 6 and Indiana St. (with the on/off ramps). As someone who lives nearby, there are always accidents there, and crossing it as a pedestrian or cyclist is quite dangerous. There should be speed bumps, expanded visibility turning right to Indiana from the offramp, and the road should be narrowed to make it easier to cross and incentivize people to not speed as much.

Hana Shiro Jul 5 2025 at 4:52PM on page 184

Question

Does this mean four lanes in each direction or two lanes in each direction? Either way, that corridor is difficult enough to cross as a biker/pedestrian already, and widening it will only worsen the problem.

Hana Shiro Jul 5 2025 at 4:29PM on page 95

Comment

This would be amazing for Jeffco to have stops for Mountain Passenger Rail. Considering how many people live/visit Jeffco to access the mountains, having access to the Winter Park Express is a great way to increase accessibility to those types of recreation.

Hana Shiro Jul 5 2025 at 4:27PM on page 93

Comment

That would be absolutely amazing, please do this.

Hana Shiro Jul 5 2025 at 4:23PM on page 88

Question

Are there any plans for level crossings? Where the sidewalk is contiguous when crossing a road/street, meaning that there is a bump that cars go over. In terms of drivers yielding to pedestrians/bikers, physics works better than signs.

Hana Shiro Jul 5 2025 at 4:20PM on page 87

Comment

For a road that has cars moving above 30 MPH, it is significantly less comfortable to walk on a directly attached sidewalk. Fast-moving cars being mere feet away from someone feels less safe, and the air and noise pollution also deters use of sidewalks that are too close to those types of roads.

Hana Shiro Jul 5 2025 at 12:44PM on page 55

Question

What is Jeffco doing to make public transit more efficient? For example, I routinely see busses getting stuck in traffic, which is a ridiculous scene considering a bus carrying dozens of people gets suck behind a couple cars with (most likely) just one or two people inside. Are there any plans to implement Transit Signal Priority for the major corridors? For instance, Colfax, Kipling, or Wadsworth.

Hana Shiro Jul 5 2025 at 12:39PM on page 49

Question

What kinds of guidance are there for signage regarding bike lanes? There are many times where I have been riding in a bike lane, then it ends abruptly and dumps the rider into traffic, sometimes at quite high speeds.

Hana Shiro Jul 5 2025 at 12:35PM on page 33

With the present cost of car ownership, it is quite prohibitive to some. In Jeffco, I'd argue, one mostly needs a car to participate in society, essentially having a "paywall" to mobility.

Hana Shiro Jul 5 2025 at 12:29PM on page 15

Comment

This is a great thing to acknowledge, and I'm glad that this is something Jeffco is aware of. So much of the infrastructure caters to drivers at the expense of everyone else. I hope that this continues to be a guiding principle in Jeffco's planning.

Hana Shiro Jul 5 2025 at 12:26PM on page 10

Comment

Inclusion should defiantly include mobility, as many people have disabilities that makes it harder to get around; many can't drive.

Trint Jul 3 2025 at 9:47AM on page 11

Suggested Revision

"adopting alternative energy sources" - Completely irrelevant to the task at hand. THIS is why JeffCo is falling apart. Focus on the TASK AT HAND and STOP VIRTUE SIGNALING.

Trint Jul 3 2025 at 9:46AM on page 10

Suggested Revision

"housing affordability" - Completely irrelevant to the task at hand. What does this have to do with transportation?? THIS is why JeffCo is falling apart. Focus on the TASK AT HAND and STOP VIRTUE SIGNALING.

Trint Jul 3 2025 at 9:44AM on page 10

Suggested Revision

"tackle climate change" - Completely irrelevant to the task at hand. THIS is why JeffCo is falling apart. Focus on the TASK AT HAND and STOP VIRTUE SIGNALING.

Kendra Hood Jul 1 2025 at 11:23AM on page 59

Comment

Hi,
We would like to see the Access-a-Ride become available to our residents in Evergreen, Conifer and the other surrounding mountain communities. We would like more transportation options available to go into Denver and Jeffco. etc. This is a big gap in transportation services especially for our disabled residents. Some of the mentioned options don't serve Evergreen and Conifer especially our low-income residents.

Thank you

Kendra Hood Jul 1 2025 at 11:07AM on page 2

Question

Hi,
Could you elaborate how you would incorporate the bike lane on Shadow Mtn. in Conifer please?

Thank you

Christina Lane Jun 30 2025 at 12:55PM on page 131

Suggested Revision

Add sidewalk gap on Holman from W Archer Place to 246 Holman Way. Missed in sidewalk gap analysis. Prioritize.

William Jun 27 2025 at 3:27PM on page 82

Suggested Revision

Lookout Mountain Road (LMR) should be a downhill one-way road for vehicles. The upbound lane should be shared by non-motorized user groups such as bicycles, walkers, runners, parents with strollers, and even wheelchairs (like 19th St.).

Bicycles would descend with cars as they presently do on 19th St. and LMR. All non-motorized users could enjoy a safe journey up and down without fear of being hit, honked at, or struck by empty beer cans. Speed and noise from vehicles would be substantially reduced since there would be few opportunities to race. Vehicles driving the speed limit would determine the speed of descent.

Vehicles wanting to travel up LMR would need a turnaround opportunity somewhere downhill of where it becomes one-way down. It seems that could be easily accomplished at the new Chimney Gulch turnaround.

I understand there is some momentum for the opposite polarity, with vehicles driving on a one-way road uphill. As an avid cyclist, I prefer a downhill one-way that would connect seamlessly to the existing 19th St. bike path.

Several folks living on Lookout Mountain were apprehensive about nighttime closures of LMR since it could potentially affect their escape route in the event of an emergency (i.e., fire). The Sherrif, Fire Department, and Open Space argue convincingly that this narrow mountain road with many very tight hair-pin turns is not a safe escape route since it could so easily close in the event of a jackknife or such, thus stranding countless vehicles in harms’ way; which in turn blocks first responders. I can only image the fuss Lookout Mountain residents would make if LMR was to become a one-way road going up the mountain. If you elect to push a one-way configuration (and I hope you do), you’ll have a greater chance of success if the one-way direction is down for vehicles.

View all