Elevate Erie Comprehensive Plan & Transportation Mobility Plan

Share Elevate Erie Comprehensive Plan & Transportation Mobility Plan on Facebook Share Elevate Erie Comprehensive Plan & Transportation Mobility Plan on Twitter Share Elevate Erie Comprehensive Plan & Transportation Mobility Plan on Linkedin Email Elevate Erie Comprehensive Plan & Transportation Mobility Plan link
hot air balloon with mountains as the design on the balloon

Project Overview: Elevate Erie is an update to the Comprehensive Plan and the Transportation Mobility Plan (TMP).

The updated and integrated plans will provide a foundation for Erie to continue to thrive, while elevating the Town’s quality of life into the future. Elevate Erie will provide longer term guidance for the community around growth, land use, multimodal transportation, housing, design and community character, parks and open spaces, tourism and recreation, sustainability and resilience, and economic development, among other topics.

Erie’s current Comprehensive Plan was adopted in 2005 and updated in 2015. The Transportation Plan was last updated in 2018. Since the last updates, the Town has continued to change, not only as the result of growth and development, but also due to changing priorities and evolving values of the community. To ensure our plan represents an accurate, comprehensive, and inclusive vision for the Town’s future, Elevate Erie will focus on key topics such as:

  • Mobility and enhanced transportation options
  • Sustainability and resilience
  • Affordable housing
  • Diversity, equity, and inclusion
  • Other topics identified by the community

Scenarios Brief Explanation


Project Overview: Elevate Erie is an update to the Comprehensive Plan and the Transportation Mobility Plan (TMP).

The updated and integrated plans will provide a foundation for Erie to continue to thrive, while elevating the Town’s quality of life into the future. Elevate Erie will provide longer term guidance for the community around growth, land use, multimodal transportation, housing, design and community character, parks and open spaces, tourism and recreation, sustainability and resilience, and economic development, among other topics.

Erie’s current Comprehensive Plan was adopted in 2005 and updated in 2015. The Transportation Plan was last updated in 2018. Since the last updates, the Town has continued to change, not only as the result of growth and development, but also due to changing priorities and evolving values of the community. To ensure our plan represents an accurate, comprehensive, and inclusive vision for the Town’s future, Elevate Erie will focus on key topics such as:

  • Mobility and enhanced transportation options
  • Sustainability and resilience
  • Affordable housing
  • Diversity, equity, and inclusion
  • Other topics identified by the community

Scenarios Brief Explanation


Ask Questions

What questions do you have about the Comprehensive Plan & Transportation Mobility Plan update process? Share them here and a member of staff will answer them as soon as possible. 

loader image
Didn't receive confirmation?
Seems like you are already registered, please provide the password. Forgot your password? Create a new one now.
  • Share The egress at 9 Mile and Private Drive I’d difficult to navigate with unprotected yellow left turn arrows and this is before King Sooper opens and additional 300+ units at corner of 111th is permitted, AND the rerouting of Rt 7 by CDOT. How are all these inputs coordinated in planning to prevent peak hour gridlock that already occurs. on Facebook Share The egress at 9 Mile and Private Drive I’d difficult to navigate with unprotected yellow left turn arrows and this is before King Sooper opens and additional 300+ units at corner of 111th is permitted, AND the rerouting of Rt 7 by CDOT. How are all these inputs coordinated in planning to prevent peak hour gridlock that already occurs. on Twitter Share The egress at 9 Mile and Private Drive I’d difficult to navigate with unprotected yellow left turn arrows and this is before King Sooper opens and additional 300+ units at corner of 111th is permitted, AND the rerouting of Rt 7 by CDOT. How are all these inputs coordinated in planning to prevent peak hour gridlock that already occurs. on Linkedin Email The egress at 9 Mile and Private Drive I’d difficult to navigate with unprotected yellow left turn arrows and this is before King Sooper opens and additional 300+ units at corner of 111th is permitted, AND the rerouting of Rt 7 by CDOT. How are all these inputs coordinated in planning to prevent peak hour gridlock that already occurs. link

    The egress at 9 Mile and Private Drive I’d difficult to navigate with unprotected yellow left turn arrows and this is before King Sooper opens and additional 300+ units at corner of 111th is permitted, AND the rerouting of Rt 7 by CDOT. How are all these inputs coordinated in planning to prevent peak hour gridlock that already occurs.

    Mer5260 asked about 2 months ago

    The signals on Arapahoe from US 287 to 111th street will be undergoing a signal improvement analysis which will include potentially new signals at one or more locations and improve signal timing at the four signals. In addition, Arapahoe Road will be expanded to four lanes from 111th to Beasley Drive.

  • Share Thanks for responding to my previous question. A little background: When making a decision, studies show 78% percent of the average person's decision is made based on past emotional experiences with the subject. So when it comes to prioritizing transportation, a group of people who spend most of their commute-time driving, and see walking (when it is possible) as a fun thing to do a couple times a week, are likely to have stored up far more emotional experiences related to situations where they felt unsafe or uncomfortable while driving, rather than problems they encountered during their very limited time walking or biking. A natural result of this is that when it comes time to prioritize between infrastructure for automobiles and pedestrians, that 78% of emotional experience factor is going to bias them toward the automobile infrastructure. This would all be good and fine if our emotional memories actually reflected the threat matrix in our built environment, but we have to consider that driving is not a core need: it is a demand derived from the nature of our built environment. If it is easy to find a house to live in with a great bike or walk route to work, people will bike and walk in greater numbers. Conversely, if you bend over backwards to make driving easy, and deprioritize walking and biking in every decision, you will induce more driving. And when you get down to it, the vast majority of safety problems for all road users comes down to the number of error-prone humans who are induced by our built environment to commute using high-speed dangerous machinery. The lower the number, the safer we all are. So, I gather from the response to my previous question that there are an insignificant number of Town employees who have the perspective required to make modal prioritization decisions completely objectively. This conclusion is supported by notes from the TAC that suggest staff feels they have not made progress on goals related to alternative modes of transportation. So my next question is: What guidelines has the Town created to ensure mode-priority decisions reflect the true impact on quality of life, that takes into account induced demand and the fact that everyone's quality of life declines as the number of automobile trips increases? on Facebook Share Thanks for responding to my previous question. A little background: When making a decision, studies show 78% percent of the average person's decision is made based on past emotional experiences with the subject. So when it comes to prioritizing transportation, a group of people who spend most of their commute-time driving, and see walking (when it is possible) as a fun thing to do a couple times a week, are likely to have stored up far more emotional experiences related to situations where they felt unsafe or uncomfortable while driving, rather than problems they encountered during their very limited time walking or biking. A natural result of this is that when it comes time to prioritize between infrastructure for automobiles and pedestrians, that 78% of emotional experience factor is going to bias them toward the automobile infrastructure. This would all be good and fine if our emotional memories actually reflected the threat matrix in our built environment, but we have to consider that driving is not a core need: it is a demand derived from the nature of our built environment. If it is easy to find a house to live in with a great bike or walk route to work, people will bike and walk in greater numbers. Conversely, if you bend over backwards to make driving easy, and deprioritize walking and biking in every decision, you will induce more driving. And when you get down to it, the vast majority of safety problems for all road users comes down to the number of error-prone humans who are induced by our built environment to commute using high-speed dangerous machinery. The lower the number, the safer we all are. So, I gather from the response to my previous question that there are an insignificant number of Town employees who have the perspective required to make modal prioritization decisions completely objectively. This conclusion is supported by notes from the TAC that suggest staff feels they have not made progress on goals related to alternative modes of transportation. So my next question is: What guidelines has the Town created to ensure mode-priority decisions reflect the true impact on quality of life, that takes into account induced demand and the fact that everyone's quality of life declines as the number of automobile trips increases? on Twitter Share Thanks for responding to my previous question. A little background: When making a decision, studies show 78% percent of the average person's decision is made based on past emotional experiences with the subject. So when it comes to prioritizing transportation, a group of people who spend most of their commute-time driving, and see walking (when it is possible) as a fun thing to do a couple times a week, are likely to have stored up far more emotional experiences related to situations where they felt unsafe or uncomfortable while driving, rather than problems they encountered during their very limited time walking or biking. A natural result of this is that when it comes time to prioritize between infrastructure for automobiles and pedestrians, that 78% of emotional experience factor is going to bias them toward the automobile infrastructure. This would all be good and fine if our emotional memories actually reflected the threat matrix in our built environment, but we have to consider that driving is not a core need: it is a demand derived from the nature of our built environment. If it is easy to find a house to live in with a great bike or walk route to work, people will bike and walk in greater numbers. Conversely, if you bend over backwards to make driving easy, and deprioritize walking and biking in every decision, you will induce more driving. And when you get down to it, the vast majority of safety problems for all road users comes down to the number of error-prone humans who are induced by our built environment to commute using high-speed dangerous machinery. The lower the number, the safer we all are. So, I gather from the response to my previous question that there are an insignificant number of Town employees who have the perspective required to make modal prioritization decisions completely objectively. This conclusion is supported by notes from the TAC that suggest staff feels they have not made progress on goals related to alternative modes of transportation. So my next question is: What guidelines has the Town created to ensure mode-priority decisions reflect the true impact on quality of life, that takes into account induced demand and the fact that everyone's quality of life declines as the number of automobile trips increases? on Linkedin Email Thanks for responding to my previous question. A little background: When making a decision, studies show 78% percent of the average person's decision is made based on past emotional experiences with the subject. So when it comes to prioritizing transportation, a group of people who spend most of their commute-time driving, and see walking (when it is possible) as a fun thing to do a couple times a week, are likely to have stored up far more emotional experiences related to situations where they felt unsafe or uncomfortable while driving, rather than problems they encountered during their very limited time walking or biking. A natural result of this is that when it comes time to prioritize between infrastructure for automobiles and pedestrians, that 78% of emotional experience factor is going to bias them toward the automobile infrastructure. This would all be good and fine if our emotional memories actually reflected the threat matrix in our built environment, but we have to consider that driving is not a core need: it is a demand derived from the nature of our built environment. If it is easy to find a house to live in with a great bike or walk route to work, people will bike and walk in greater numbers. Conversely, if you bend over backwards to make driving easy, and deprioritize walking and biking in every decision, you will induce more driving. And when you get down to it, the vast majority of safety problems for all road users comes down to the number of error-prone humans who are induced by our built environment to commute using high-speed dangerous machinery. The lower the number, the safer we all are. So, I gather from the response to my previous question that there are an insignificant number of Town employees who have the perspective required to make modal prioritization decisions completely objectively. This conclusion is supported by notes from the TAC that suggest staff feels they have not made progress on goals related to alternative modes of transportation. So my next question is: What guidelines has the Town created to ensure mode-priority decisions reflect the true impact on quality of life, that takes into account induced demand and the fact that everyone's quality of life declines as the number of automobile trips increases? link

    Thanks for responding to my previous question. A little background: When making a decision, studies show 78% percent of the average person's decision is made based on past emotional experiences with the subject. So when it comes to prioritizing transportation, a group of people who spend most of their commute-time driving, and see walking (when it is possible) as a fun thing to do a couple times a week, are likely to have stored up far more emotional experiences related to situations where they felt unsafe or uncomfortable while driving, rather than problems they encountered during their very limited time walking or biking. A natural result of this is that when it comes time to prioritize between infrastructure for automobiles and pedestrians, that 78% of emotional experience factor is going to bias them toward the automobile infrastructure. This would all be good and fine if our emotional memories actually reflected the threat matrix in our built environment, but we have to consider that driving is not a core need: it is a demand derived from the nature of our built environment. If it is easy to find a house to live in with a great bike or walk route to work, people will bike and walk in greater numbers. Conversely, if you bend over backwards to make driving easy, and deprioritize walking and biking in every decision, you will induce more driving. And when you get down to it, the vast majority of safety problems for all road users comes down to the number of error-prone humans who are induced by our built environment to commute using high-speed dangerous machinery. The lower the number, the safer we all are. So, I gather from the response to my previous question that there are an insignificant number of Town employees who have the perspective required to make modal prioritization decisions completely objectively. This conclusion is supported by notes from the TAC that suggest staff feels they have not made progress on goals related to alternative modes of transportation. So my next question is: What guidelines has the Town created to ensure mode-priority decisions reflect the true impact on quality of life, that takes into account induced demand and the fact that everyone's quality of life declines as the number of automobile trips increases?

    mlogan asked 5 months ago

    We appreciate all input from our residents and we will add this comment to our discussion topics as we continue our visioning for the future of Erie.

  • Share What percentage of Town Staff that are making decisions about priorities have significant (primary means for more than 90 days) recent (within the last 5 yeas) experience as a pedestrian, bicycle, or transit commuter in Erie? on Facebook Share What percentage of Town Staff that are making decisions about priorities have significant (primary means for more than 90 days) recent (within the last 5 yeas) experience as a pedestrian, bicycle, or transit commuter in Erie? on Twitter Share What percentage of Town Staff that are making decisions about priorities have significant (primary means for more than 90 days) recent (within the last 5 yeas) experience as a pedestrian, bicycle, or transit commuter in Erie? on Linkedin Email What percentage of Town Staff that are making decisions about priorities have significant (primary means for more than 90 days) recent (within the last 5 yeas) experience as a pedestrian, bicycle, or transit commuter in Erie? link

    What percentage of Town Staff that are making decisions about priorities have significant (primary means for more than 90 days) recent (within the last 5 yeas) experience as a pedestrian, bicycle, or transit commuter in Erie?

    mlogan asked 6 months ago

    Thank you for the question. We do not track individual commuting data from our employees because it is a privacy issue with not wanting to divulge home locations and addresses of our employees – even internally this information is not widely shared. So while our Human Resources Department does indeed have records of personal data, that is not used outside of the HR Team. 

    What we can say is that nearly 100% of Town staff spends some amount of time each week walking in the Town of Erie. They are regularly traveling between facility locations, visiting restaurants and businesses, or walking along trails and in parks by foot. A few of our staff members travel throughout the Town as part of their job on bike or e-bike and there is research happening to possibly create an e-bike fleet for staff as well. 

  • Share Is anything going to happen at the corner of CLR and Jay? on Facebook Share Is anything going to happen at the corner of CLR and Jay? on Twitter Share Is anything going to happen at the corner of CLR and Jay? on Linkedin Email Is anything going to happen at the corner of CLR and Jay? link

    Is anything going to happen at the corner of CLR and Jay?

    Vickie asked over 1 year ago

    The properties in this area are within the Erie Planning Area and most have been annexed to the Town; there are a few properties on the southwest corner that are still unincorporated. There are a variety of land uses identified in the current comprehensive plan for this area and we would anticipate additional development at some point in the future. There has been recent interest in residential development on properties north of Jay/Cheesman, but there are not current applications under review. 

Page last updated: 29 May 2024, 08:04 PM