29 Road just north of Patterson, as it currently looks. Residents along 29 Road could find themselves living on a busy route to and from I-70 if Ballot Issue 1A passes. If it passes, the measure would approve the City and County taking on $80 million in debt, with a repayment cost of least $173,438,202, to fund the design and construction of a new I-70 interchange at 29 Road.
Concerned citizens of Mesa County announced September 23 that they have formed a local group called “No on 29 Road Debt” to educate the public about the financial, transportation safety and road design problems with the 29 Road Interchange proposal and oppose the upcoming ballot issue, which will be Issue 1A on the ballot. Grand Junction City Councilor Dennis Simpson is an organizer of the group. Simpson is a Certified Public Accountant (CPA). John Traylor is a spokesperson for the group.
Measure 1A as it appears on the November ballot. Note the full repayment cost for the measure is estimated at $173,438.202. The federal government has so far not pledged any funds to help with the project.
No on 29 Road Debt is a non-partisan community organization dedicated to promoting transparency, safety, and financially responsible transportation plans in Mesa County. The group’s mission is to empower citizens with the knowledge they need this November to make a decision on this proposal. As the ballot issue approaches, No on 29 Road Debt will provide clear, factual information to help voters make an informed decision.
Key Concerns
Costs are growing and will likely exceed the $173 million+ noted in the ballot issue, the group says. The project so far has no guarantee of state or federal financial support, and concerns raised by the Colorado Department of Transportation (CDOT) will add to its already high price tag. 100% of the costs will fall on local taxpayers.
By taking on this amount of debt service, both the City and the County will damage their ability to undertake other infrastructure projects, like road maintenance, a police annex, fire stations, workforce housing, the Orchard Mesa pool replacement, and other community priorities.
Road Safety
The project is expected to increase accidents and road fatalities. As a result, CDOT will not fund the project unless significant design changes are made. The current design actually increases traffic delays and will make 29 Road south of Patterson one of the most congested roads in the County without additional highway spending.
The project does little to address noise, pollution, driveway access or safety concerns for residents, motorists, bicyclists and pedestrians around the 29 Road/Patterson intersection and southward.
Helping voters get all the facts
“We believe that the community has not gotten the full story about the 29 Road Project,” said John Traylor, spokesperson for No on 29 Road Debt. “The City’s own transportation documents paint a very different picture than proponents want you to see. Our goal is to ensure every voter understands the serious problems with this project, and hopefully join us in opposing the ballot issue.”
The group will host a series of public forums, distribute informational materials, and engage with local media to spread awareness. Community members are encouraged to attend these events and participate in the discussion. No on 29 Road Debt will also have speakers available to talk to interested groups. Contact John Traylor at 518-669-4039 for information to book speakers.
For more information about No on 29 Road Debt, updates and upcoming events, visit the No on 29 Road Interchange page Facebook or contact the group at no29road@gmail.com. The group also has a mailing address: No on 29 Rd. Interchange, P.O. Box 854, Grand Junction CO 81502
This is Dennis Simpson. One small correction–I am a RETIRED CPA and no longer own a license to practice.
This is a straight grift touted as an infrastructure plan, and debt service of over 100% the cost of the project is completely insane. Further, how it even got on the ballot without exactly the kind of outreach campaign this opposing local group is proposing just goes to show you how easy it is for business interests saddle communities which huge expenses without facing any scrutiny so long as the right politicians palms are greased.
Also notice the complete lack of contributing funds from state/federal agencies, which give you all the indicators of that….as anything even remotely beneficial the a community would qualify for such funds. This further indicates questionable accounting, inflated costs and padded estimates; all things which otherwise be scrutinized/exposed under a rigorous accounting review of the project if such monies were guaranteed. And let’s be honest, when was the last time Crony Davis was on the right side of any issue? As you can pretty much assume he’s getting kickbacks, contributions, or some backroom bribe…as these these corrupt County Commissioner crusaders clearly don’t work for free nor serve the people of GJ with any sense of fiscal austerity whatsoever.
I spoke to John Traylor at some length. We both laughed, because of where we are from, about complaints about traffic.
He also told me that the property owners around the Horizon Drive interchange were assessed for the building of that project.
His group will be talking at the main library on October 10 in the evening. They will have yard signs to distribute.
Let’s see. Dennis Simpson and Jason Nguyen on the same side of an issue. Quite a powerful coalition. Sort of like Bernie Sanders and Dick Cheney.
IMO, this proposal is just plain dumb. If CDOT doesn’t think it’s worth investing a penny, then it will end up an expensive orphan like the Riverside Parkway, which was pitched as an ideal bypass for traffic going to Delta. Note how CDOT is now bulldozing Ute and Pitkin on a parallel bypass.
Say NO! on 29 road project. I live near 29 and G, the area where the traffic would have to leave I70. There is no way this wouldn’t destroy the homes and lives in this area. A private school would be put in jeopardy, it is busy enough twice a day with parents picking and dropping their children. Do every thing you can to stop this plan.
Grand Junction will be responsible for half of the costs, though that is not in the ballot issue.
They planned this in the 1950’s and think nothing has changed since then. Old thinking.
And we see from the Orchard Mesa pool debacle just how much the county’s agreement to pay the other half of the costs is worth…
While I’m not familiar with the project (so thanks for sharing), I’m also cautious about relying on just one side of the story when it comes to public projects. I tend to trust that City engineers design roads with our best interests in mind and that they are competent in handling the complexities of traffic management while planning for future growth. The volume of poorly informed opinions from local citizens who reject any change outright—often based on falsehoods or social media “information”—regarding the 4th and 5th Street pilot projects makes me immediately suspicious of the opposition to the interchange.
What is the City’s reasoning for the 29 Road/I-70 interchange?
If you’re cautious about relying on just one source, then by all means, do some research. There are many articles to read.
The project is the last leg of a transportation redesign that was initiated 50 years ago. As with everything else, there are pros and cons and lots of claims that are largely opinions.
I, for one, am glad to see some push back on the project since so many prominent people seem to love it.
But then, I’m naturally a contrarian.
The thing I always ask is ‘cui bono’ ?
Anne had a nice article a while back that answers that question nicely.
What a hilarious statement…since you endlessly peddle info on here from sources like Fox News, OANN, and Newmax that only air completely unverified/dubious claims that even basic research proves false. Contrarian? More like Dishonest Disinformation Broker. But go, you clown, show us those damning facts about how Cats & Dogs are disappearing due to Biden Migrant Crime…
Are you up to date taking your blood pressure medicine?
You might want to ask your nurse.
I’ll just note that one can be supportive of what the city is doing around 4th and 5th, and still oppose what is proposed at 29 road. It’s the scale of costs that make the 29 road project a much riskier investment. The transportation benefits aren’t really there/significant enough to justify the costs, and supporters are pivoting to it being more about economic development.
Ultimately, it’s a question of, is this the highest and best use of $80M plus interest? Could that amount of money be better used to address traffic issues in a more target way? Could that much money also be used to stimulate economic development in a more efficient way? I think so.