Even though Mesa County voters rejected a proposal by the City of Grand Junction and Mesa County Commissioners in the November 5, 2024 election to build a new interchange on I-70 at 29 Road by a margin of 56.44% to 43.36%, the City and County are insisting on proceeding with the project anyway. The proposal asked voters to approve the City and County taking on $80 million in debt to fund the project, with a monster-sized payback cost of $173,438,202, including interest. A clear majority of voters rejected the proposal.
Despite this, a resident of the 29 Road corridor recently received a letter asking them to sign a permission form to allow unspecified “project team members” to access their private property to “collect accurate design information” to facilitate development of the 29 Road Interchange.
The homeowner said the letter “clearly states that they are still in phase 2 planning [for the] interchange which the voters decided they did not want. I understand 29 Road needs many improvements up to G Rd. and Independence Academy widening, which will cause great inconvenience” to people living in the area of 29 and F Roads, “but we are still 100% against any interchange being built.”
The resident wants to make sure Mesa County voters know that even though County voters decisively rejected the 29 Road Interchange proposal in 2024, our local elected officials are proceeding with the project anyway.
The homeowner added, with dismay, “It’s alive and well, and our county does not care what we want.”
Let’s not forget the sunken cost the city and county have already put into the big loop connecting US 50 with I-70 via 29 Rd. The airport will continue to expand and 29 Road will be a connector from airport tenants to I-70, Once there’s an attractive financing package available, the project will happen..
Those of us who live near 29 Road know how much it’s needed. 29 Road north of Patterson is in desperate need of repairs, but the city won’t fix it without the interchange. People will die unless something is done.
The way it was to be funded is why the voters rejected it.
When voters rejected Ballot Issue 1A, they voted down a specific $80 million debt-financing and bonding proposal to build the project, not the legal right of the local governments to conduct ongoing administrative planning or engineering.
Why Planning Can Continue LegallyFunding Distinction: The ballot failure stopped the proposed county-backed debt, but it did not outlaw or de-authorize study, preliminary design, or coordination.Federal and State Grants: Current design phases are largely supported by separate federal allocations (such as congressionally directed spending) and localized matching funds rather than the rejected bond.
There’s no money for the Orchard Mesa pool and the museum has to go but there’s money for something that Business wants. Not too surprising.
We need to recall all of these guys. They do not represent us.
Yes That is my response.
The voters rejected how it was to be paid for. That was the question on the ballot – not if the exchange was approved or not.
The common excuse is the children walking to school on 29 Rd…. this kids are driven by their parents from ALL OVER THE VALLEY.
The exchange will greatly reduce traffic on Patterson from 31 to 28 Rds. 27.5 Rd will not be used as a thoroughfare from Patterson to Horizon & I70.
The 29 Rd light at Patterson needs some new safety measures. Matter of fact all of Patterson does! Anything to get traffic off of it will be appreciated.
I have been hoping for 30 years that the exchange would finally be accomplished just in time for my retirement! I’ve heard talk about it for 45 years! It’s long enough to wait.
“The exchange will greatly reduce traffic on Patterson from 31 to 28 Rds.”
The City’s own data, which they presented at the public meetings and had on their website as a traffic volume change map, show that a 29 Road/I-70 interchange would increase traffic on Patterson Road between 31 Road and 29 Road. This makes sense since traffic that now goes towards I-70B would instead flow west towards the 29 Road corridor.
So don’t expect this project to be a miracle cure for Patterson Road. Even the City says it would make parts of Patterson Road worse.