Brandon Leuallen, The Business Times

The 29 Road interchange project was passed by both the County Commissioners, with a 3-0 vote, and the Grand Junction City Council, with a 4-3 vote. However, despite its approval, voters will have the final say on whether the project moves forward.

The Business Times spoke with City Councilman Scott Beilfuss and County Commissioner Cody Davis to get perspectives on both sides of the issue.

Beilfuss expressed concerns about the potential impact on small businesses along heavily used traffic routes. “These businesses rely on traffic as their main source of attracting clientele,” Beilfuss said. “They don’t have money for TV or radio ads.” He also pointed out that the city has invested over $25 million into 24 Road and questioned why drivers would be encouraged to use 29 Road instead. “We want people to go to 24 Road, spend money, and stay at hotels,” he added. Beilfuss also noted that Horizon Drive is struggling and worried that the 29 Road interchange would cause drivers to bypass Grand Junction’s main shopping and lodging areas.

Davis, on the other hand, emphasized that the 29 Road interchange is primarily a transportation project designed to help residents travel more efficiently. “If you look at our traffic modeling, this alternative takes vehicles off local streets and puts them onto major thoroughfares,” Davis said. “That makes local streets safer while reducing overall congestion.” He noted that travelers moving from the east to the west end of the valley would use 29 Road and the interstate, rather than relying on Patterson Road.

Regarding the possibility of the area north of the interstate at 29 Road becoming a business district, Beilfuss pointed out that there are currently no utilities in place. “Who bears the cost of providing infrastructure? The City of Grand Junction,” Beilfuss said. He argued that in places like the Front Range, developers typically cover these expenses. He expressed concerns that the area would attract businesses that don’t pay living wages, such as gas stations, restaurants, hotels, and dispensaries.

Davis countered that while he agrees the area is ideal for commercial and industrial development, developers would be responsible for extending infrastructure. “That happens all the time,” Davis said. “Once the hurdle of access is overcome—which the 29 Road interchange would solve for over 3,000 acres of undeveloped land—developers will invest and create jobs in the community.”

On the question of bike access, Beilfuss said he wasn’t sure if a bike path is necessary, as it would lead into the desert. “They seem set on an option with bike lanes on both sides,” he said.

Davis indicated that a compromise approach, which minimizes the amount of property acquisition required, would likely be accepted by both sides. “The best option is too expensive in terms of property acquisition,” Davis said.

Two additional entities affected by the interchange are Independence Academy and the soon-to-be-built Recreation Center. “Concern for the academy is what initially got me involved,” Beilfuss said. “The safety issues the interchange raises are significant.” He added that traffic from the recreation center would further complicate matters.

Davis responded that ongoing discussions aim to address the academy’s concerns, and that traffic issues around the recreation center would be alleviated by fully developing F 1/2 Road to connect to 29 Road. “Without the interchange, traffic will be a nightmare around the rec center,” he said.

As for budget concerns, Beilfuss noted that the city doesn’t currently have the funds for the interchange. “We’re already paying for Dos Rios because the supposed developer isn’t making the payments,” he said. He also highlighted the need for additional funds for the rec center, as cannabis tax revenue is underperforming. 

“We have a housing crisis. There must be a better way to address this issue,” Beilfuss added. He suggested utilizing the I-70 business loop more effectively and using apps to guide drivers to the best routes. “I’m hopeful that public transportation and autonomous driving will reduce traffic. That’s my goal.”

Davis expressed confidence in securing federal funds for the project, noting that similar projects in Colorado have received substantial federal funding. “Even if we don’t get the same percentages, I’m confident we’ll get plenty of funding,” Davis said. “The best-case scenario would be getting half of the costs covered by grants and reducing overall expenses with the 40 percent contingency plan.”