Patterson Road Access Control Plan

The City has been conducting an Access Control Plan (ACP) study of the Patterson Road corridor between I-70 Business Loop on the West and Lodgepole Street on the East. The Study began in early 2020 and a draft ACP was available to the public to review in January 2021. The January draft ACP was reviewed by the City Planning Commission on March 23, 2021 in a public hearing. After hearing public testimony for the need for more public engagement on the Plan, Planning Commission tabled their decision and asked the Planning Team to go back to the community for more input.


The Planning Team, made up of City staff and the City’s consultant, Stolfus and Associates, met with business owners and residents and received additional input including how access are being used today and expected to be used in the future. New input received has been invaluable in shaping the latest draft of the ACP to be a Plan that benefits the entire community.


Looking into the long-term needs of properties along Patterson Road and meeting the goals of the Plan to provide the best access possible to homes and businesses as traffic grows to higher levels of congestion is very important. In addition, the desire to not have to add additional lanes of traffic to Patterson Road (7 lanes) is paramount. Proposed changes to the January draft ACP have been made to the maps and tables that will be included in the final April 2021 draft Plan document.


Thank you for engaging with us in this important long-range plan that seeks to protect an important east-west transportation corridor in our community.


Schedule

May 19 – City Council discussion/public comments/ possible direction

June 8 – Planning Commission

June 16 – City Council 1st Reading

July 7 – City Council 2nd Reading, Public Hearing


Please visit the City's website for more information on how to participate in upcoming meetings. 

Videos

Staff Presentation

Files

Project Area ( 2.14 MB )
Access Points Table ( 0.27 MB )
Response to Public Comments ( 0.21 MB )
Alternative Streets Maps ( 1.83 MB )
Project Goals ( 0.34 MB )
Access Management Principles ( 0.19 MB )
Access Management Review ( 0.36 MB )
Hwy 6 and 50 to Market Street ( 0.78 MB )
Market Street to 24 1/2 Road ( 0.78 MB )
24 1/2 Road to 25 Road ( 0.83 MB )
25 Road to 25 1/2 Road ( 0.86 MB )
25 1/2 Road to Meander Drive ( 0.83 MB )
Meander Drive to Mira Vista Road ( 0.86 MB )
Mira Vista Road to Northern Way ( 0.85 MB )
Northern Way to 15th Street ( 0.84 MB )
15th Street to Beechwood Street ( 0.83 MB )
Beechwood Street to Rio Grande Drive ( 0.9 MB )
Rio Grande Drive to Legends Way ( 0.81 MB )
Legends Way to 29 Road ( 0.89 MB )
29 Road to 29 1/2 Road ( 0.94 MB )
29 1/2 Road to 30 Road ( 0.93 MB )
30 Road to Grand Valley Drive ( 0.98 MB )
Grand Valley Drive to Lodgepole Street ( 1.06 MB )
Mailing List Boundary ( 1.62 MB )
Benefits of Adoption ( 0.33 MB )
Implementation ( 0.34 MB )
FAQ ( 0.18 MB )
Preguntas más frecuentes ( 0.14 MB )

Comments & Feedback

Comments
 
This case is closed, online commenting is no longer available.
I live on Patterson between 1st and 7th, on of the last owner-occupied homes left between mall and 27Road. I have lived there for almost 25 years. Yes, the traffic is increasing, but this plan is not the solution. Connecting 29 Road to the Interstate and finishing that project and developing G Road will make a bigger difference. I really wish the city would look forward! Look at all the growth on the north side, then look at how those people will be able to travel the valley east and west. That is why Patterson is so busy. Options are limited. Develop G Road now while you can and get the 29 Road access to I-70 done. After that, reevaluate Patterson. Now I would like to address the plan itself in my area. Putting a median in Patterson is exactly the opposite thing to do! In the afternoon when the eastbound traffic is stopped, both lanes can be stopped and full. Has anyone given reasonable thought to the ambulances getting to the hospital and fire trucks from the Pomona station?? They can and do use the center lane all the time!! Keping the center lane open is exactly how people get on and off Patterson!! It is how I have done it safely for 25 years!! I would ask every council member to come visit and observe what I see out my front window! This is a real invitation! Come look into our backyards on the north side. Then tell me the plan for our area is realistic. Come observe the people walking or riding a bike until they get to Mira Vista and they have to try to cross Patterson because there isn't a sidewalk on the south side. (Someone will be sadly hit and seriously hurt soon.) And notice the bottleneck that is a reality, not just a blip on an aerial view! I'd echo another suggestion that the speed limit needs to be reduced and monitored between 1st and 7th. Instead of messing with Patterson, develop G Road NOW while you can and get the 29 Road access to I-70 done. After that, reevaluate the needs on Patterson.
May 17, 2021, 5:05 PM
Ms. Terry Porter
The Patterson Road Access Control Plan misses the mark. The “right hand turn only”, creates a hardship for those who live in communities along F Road (Patterson) by not allowing them to access their homes or their work by forcing them to find alternative routes through sub-divisions, to gain access to F Road (Patterson) as they commute. The changes will cause traffic into the neighborhoods that are not designed to handle major traffic, I strongly ask you to support our community and find a better alternative. You have to allow our residents who live North and South of F Road the ability to access their homes without asking them to find alternatives that don’t exist. As an example, with the controlled right-hand turn onto Patterson Road, you will be forcing people to travel school zones which should have limited traffic for the safety of children. Have you considered the extra traffic on 30 Road and how it will impact Fruitvale Elementary among other schools in the area. What about the emergency services that need to be able to access roads for the protection and security of the people of Grand Junction. Personally, this will force my neighbors and I to travel through the school zone to gain access to town and work, This is not convenient for anyone. My family has lived and owned our property since 1973. We have seen numerous changes to Patterson Road in the last 48 years. Going from a two-lane road with farms and open space to subdivisions, businesses increasing the traffic on one of the main roads that connect the East and West side of the Grand Valley. With this plan we will lose the right to access to our property that has always been granted to us and the freedom to travel to the West. I strongly oppose this plan. Not a benefit to the citizens of the communities North and South of F Road (Patterson). What the planning team needs to be focus on is completing: • The 29 Road access to I-70, leaving it unfinished is not a benefit to anyone. • An additional artery that travels East to West that can take addition commuters. Planning team you need to do better, this proposal is not it.
May 17, 2021, 4:57 PM
Moschetti Family
The City should try traffic enforcement first. Patterson road is a raceway with cars exceeding the speed limit by 10 to 15 MPH. You very seldom see an officer writing a ticket. Asking an outside firm to find a fix for Patterson and you will get exactly what the staff tells them they want. This whole plan makes no sense and is a waste of money. Go ahead and hook up Hawthorne and you will solve most of the accident at 28 and Patterson without limiting left turns.
May 17, 2021, 12:48 PM
Larry William Clever
We, Jack, and Karen Perrin, live in the Mantey Heights area – Jack since 1967 and Karen since 1982. We have an incredibly special neighborhood – one of the oldest “subdivisions” in the Grand Junction area (I would say “City”, but we were not in the G.J. City limits until the late 1980’s I believe). We have seen F Road go from a two- lane road to 5 lanes and the traffic increase to the point that Patterson Road is now one of the most travelled roads in Grand Junction. According to the latest flyer from the City, one of the major access management points made is that the City wants to “decrease travel times and provides smoother traffic flow” (along Patterson Road) – i.e., make it possible for a traveler to get from Clifton to the Mall in the shortest amount of time. This is NOT WHAT A ROAD THAT SERVES RESIDENTIAL PROPERTIES should be about! Our specific concerns are: • Speed limits need to be reduced to NO MORE THAN 35 mph. We realize that this is not specifically addressed in the Patterson Road Access Control Plan, but by reducing the speeds – and enforcing the speed limits – the safety of residents entering and leaving Patterson Road will be enhanced – and safety must be a major goal of any access plan. • The four roads that access Patterson from our neighborhood need to remain as is!! o With the upcoming changes that are planned for 28 Road, there will be no reason to shut down or limit the access to any of the Mantey Heights access roads. Mantey Heights Drive itself is the most used (and widest) road in the neighborhood. It definitely needs full movement access. o If we are allowed only one road that allows left-hand turns out of the neighborhood, it will cause traffic to back-up and will make people attempt turns that are unsafe. The ACP will in fact, create a safety hazard that is not present right now. • We are not in favor of the proposed plan to extend Camino Del Rey to Rio Grand Drive. We were promised by the City of Grand Junction when they developed the Ridge Heights Subdivision that they would not develop that specific road and create a thoroughfare from our neighborhood to Ridge Heights. Apparently promises do not mean a thing to the City! Yes, it would allow us a round-about way to make a left-hand turn to Patterson (after driving through Ridge Height Subdivision, making a left turn onto 28 ¼ Rd – then to Patterson) – but it means creating more traffic for Ridge Heights – a residential neighborhood!! It also means that east bound Patterson Road traffic will exit through our neighborhood when traffic backs-up – going through our residential area – then Ridge Heights -so that they can get to 28 ¼ Rd. more quickly! o The Mantey Heights roads are narrow roads (pretty much single-lane) with no sidewalks – if you have enjoyed driving our streets on Christmas Eve to enjoy the luminaria display you know what I mean. The residents, many who are older and/or disabled – also children on bikes and people with dogs enjoy walking the neighborhood – which means they are in the streets. By increasing outside traffic to people who are in a hurry, the City is creating a situation that will be endangering our lives and the lives of the rest of our neighbors. Bottom line: decrease speeds on Patterson Road and then leave our neighborhood roads as they are!
May 16, 2021, 2:36 PM
Karen E Perrin
The following comments are submitted by Red Bud, LLC and Village Fair Association, Inc. seeking to have the City change the April 2021 Draft of the Patterson Access Control Plan, (herein the “April 2021 ACP”) to provide for ¾ movement access for west bound Patterson traffic into the Village Fair Shopping Center at access point #116, (herein “AP #116”). The Village Fair Shopping Center, (herein “VFSC”) is located on the southwest corner of Patterson Road and 12th Street. The VFSC consists of 17 commercial businesses located on a land area of just over 5.5 acres. For over 20 years, Red Bud, LLC has owned the two retail buildings within the VFSC, which are located at 2695 Patterson Road, and which contain 14 commercial retail units occupied by small locally owned businesses. The VFSC also contains a restaurant building located at 2691 Patterson Road, which is currently a Which Wich sandwich shop; a building located at 2699 Patterson Road, which most recently was occupied as a bank; and, a restaurant building located at 2531 N. 12th Street, which is currently the Breckenridge Ale House. Village Fair Association, Inc. is the Commercial Owner’s Association charged with managing the driveways, parking lots, and other common areas of the VFSC. In the April 2021 ACP the two access points which serve the VFSC from Patterson Road are AP #116 and AP #117. Both AP #116 and AP #117 are currently full movement access points, specifically allowing west bound Patterson Road traffic to access the VFSC, but the 2021 ACP proposes that all west bound Patterson traffic be denied direct access to the VFSC. The economic viability of the VFSC, and the 17 small locally owned businesses located therein, depends upon west bound Patterson Road traffic being able to easily and directly access the VFSC by a 3/4 movement driveway at AP #116. AP #116 currently accommodates customer access and truck deliveries to the VFSC, and is currently a full movement driveway. It is planned as a conditional right-in / right-out driveway, to be restricted as a full movement driveway when safety or operational issues occur or a public project is funded to reconstruct the signalized intersection at 12th Street and Patterson Road, and “once on-site truck circulation can be accommodated at another access.” AP #116 should be maintained as an unconditional ¾ movement access point rather than being planned as a conditional right-in / right-out driveway, for the following reasons: 1. WEST BOUND PATTERSON ROAD TRAFFIC CAN SAFELY CROSS EAST BOUND PATTERSON ROAD AT AP #116 BECAUSE OF THE UNIQUE LACK OF FEEDER TRAFFIC ONTO EAST BOUND PATTERSON BETWEEN 7TH STREET AND 12TH STREET. Traffic from west bound Patterson Road turning across the two east bound lanes of Patterson Road does not now, and will not in the future, pose any traffic safety concerns. The south side of Patterson Road between 7th Street and 12th Street has only six access points contributing limited traffic to east bound Patterson over this ½ mile stretch. The lack of traffic turning onto east bound Patterson Road in this area is because the Grand Valley Irrigation Canal parallels the south side of Patterson Road for a considerable distance, so there are only a few access points to feed vehicle traffic on to east bound Patterson Road. Because of the lack of access points onto the south side of Patterson Road, the signal at 7th Street allows for consistent wide breaks in the traffic on east bound Patterson, which easily and safely accommodate vehicles turning from west bound Patterson across east bound Patterson. 2. AP #116 WHICH SERVES THE VFSC, AND IS CURRENTLY PLANNED AS A CONDITIONAL RIGHT-IN / RIGHT-OUT ACCESS POINT, IS LOCATED 85 FEET FURTHER FROM THE 12TH STREET INTERSECTION THAN AP #123 WHICH SERVES THE CITY MARKET PROPERTY AND WHICH IS PLANNED AS A ¾ MOVEMENT ACCESS POINT FOR WEST BOUND PATTERSON ROAD TRAFFIC. Fundamental fairness would dictate that if AP #123 can safely remain a ¾ movement access point to the City Market property for west bound Patterson traffic, then AP #116 can also remain a ¾ movement access point serving the VFSC. AP #116 is located 377 feet west of the west right-of-way line for 12th Street, while AP #123, the ¾ movement access point serving the City Market property, is only 292 feet east of the east right-of-way line for 12th Street. AP #116 is 85 feet further from the 12th Street intersection than AP #123. While City Staff has argued that the traffic que for AP #116 will back traffic toward the 12th Street intersection, while the que for AP #123 backs traffic away from 12th Street, we have pointed out that VFSC only needs a two car que in order to accommodate AP #116 as a ¾ movement access point. AP #116 currently works fine as a full movement driveway, as does AP #117. AP #117 currently has a two car que and is approximately 110 feet closer to the 12th Street than AP #116. It presents no operational or safely issues. Since the April 2021 ACP now provides for a ¾ movement access point at AP #114 serving the property just west of the VFSC, the same center lane should accommodate both the ¾ movement access at AP #116 and a continuous and longer que for AP #114, without creating any risk of traffic backup onto the west bound travel lanes of Patterson. Allowing ¾ traffic movement at AP #116 would support 17 local businesses on 5.5 acres, without causing the start of the ¾ movement que to be located any closer to the 12th Street intersection than the current ¾ movement driveway (AP #123) which serves the City Market property. We would request that you change the April 2021 ACP to provide that AP #116 be a non-conditional ¾ movement access point serving the VFSC. Ronald W. Gibbs, President Village Fair Association, Inc. Ronald W. Gibbs, Manager Red Bud, LLC
May 16, 2021, 11:56 AM
Ronald W Gibbs
I live in the Cody Subdivision and I never have a hard time crossing Patterson. I do have to wait for traffic to clear in each direction but very doable. If I had to do right in, right out it would take me way out of my way to where I need to go causing more congestion in those areas and using much more gas. Maybe in areas with more traffic this may work but out past 29 road I don't see that as needed. Why don't you want to widen the road, that makes much more sense to me. The only accidents I have seen while traveling Patterson is at lights anyway, not as people are coming on or getting off Patterson at other streets. What are the accident rates on the side streets? What are the accidents at lights? The only accident I had on Patterson was stopped at a light and being rear ended. Are any of the planning committee that has suggested this living close to Patterson? I'm very concerned what this will do and I think it's as bad of an idea as backwards parking on 7th street was a few years ago. Only to cost more in the future to correct.
May 14, 2021, 8:50 AM
Verna Bunn
First, thank you to Trent Prall and others who made time to meet with the MIra Vista neighborhood twice, hear our concerns and make some changes in response to our input! I persist in believing it is a BAD idea to create access 74 onto Patterson Rd where it is a funnel between 26 Rd and Mira Vista. The goal should be to divert traffic AWAY from this area, not bring more in. Any changes should involve traffic flow NE on the proposed extension of Horizon Court to send traffic North or South on 7th St. Some flow might still come back S on 7th to Patterson, then right on Patterson into the 'funnel'. Many would head to F 1/2 or G to go to neighborhoods Northwest and West of Horizon ct. Others who would have proceeded out #74 would likely have headed S on 26 Rd. These parties could still head south, only on 7th street to other areas and avoid the 'funnel'. It is lacking the foresight expected of a long range access plan to do anything that increases traffic on the narrowed stretch from 26 Rd. to Mira Vista. Closing the Left turn possibility from St. Mary's access 93 sooner rather than later would also help divert traffic from the "funnel". Thank you for your work o this plan and for accepting public input. Finally, considering a roundabout at Wellington & 7th Street, with pedestrian bridge access to the St. Mary's parking structure would greatly assist in traffic flow through the area, including Patterson and 7th street.
May 11, 2021, 6:34 PM
Cherlyn Crawford
The prospective the city planners have planned for Patterson under the title "Patterson Access Control" is in actuality, not access. Mr. Schram states it well when he said, that if the lights are set correctly, left turns onto and from Patterson are easily accessible as it is. The left turn light on 7th south bound is a super issue. It needs to be set appropriately for the traffic demands. Another point made is that the argument for safety on turns seems to be mostly at the traffic lights. So, limiting the access to streets with r/i and r/o is not giving us 'safer streets' All the points Mr. Klesner stated were very true and I agree with them all. Talking to my neighbors they not only don't know about this new project you are proposing, they don't know why. Most agree that all is good now, why mess up a good thing? Also, the idea that you don't want to put in 7 lanes when it's obvious that at some time that is the route you will go anyways, why do all this? Is this busy work? This plan is not going to expedite traffic flow, on the contrary, it will cause people to spend more time in their cars and on the roads. I am opposed to this plan and would like the planners to look at other areas of our streets that need more attention: 29 Road I-70 access for instance.
May 6, 2021, 10:10 AM
Linda A Lynch
I too, am against the plan to limit access on Patterson. Here are the reasons - 1) I know the city feels like they have communicated well about the proposed plans, but I do not feel like this is true. Every (I don't say this lightly) person that I talked with about the proposed plan, that lives off of Patterson did not know about it. I know communication is hard but, in my opinion, people are not informed. 1a) It is hard to keep up with the proposal. Time is a limited commodity. With public hearings changing and moving, We have given up trying to carve out time to attend. 2)I feel the addition of many more right-hand turn lanes would be valuable. This would help slower drivers stay in the right lane and allow better traffic flow. I realize this does not address the left hand accidents but does address the traffic flow. 3) I read "the desire to not have to add additional lanes of traffic to Patterson Road (7 lanes) is paramount." Why is this a bad idea? Is it solely because of land limitations and cost? Starting 7 lanes on Patterson now seems like a logical step that we will eventually head to anyway. So why spend the money on this proposal and then spend more money later in future years? 4) I daily turn left onto and off of Patterson. The limited access will cause frustration by drivers and I would say more accidents. A frustrated driver is a poor driver. 5) Most of all, I am concerned simply about access. To cause drivers to go through neighborhoods, for instance, Spring Valley Circle, will bring down property values and cause problems between residents and businesses. (If I am traveling West on Patterson, and want to turn into Northeast Christian Church, The natural thing would be to go through Spring Valley Circle and come down 271/2, then turning right into the church). I am sure this scenario is repeated many times in the 7 miles of proposed limited access. An alternative route would be to take North Ave or Orchard Ave. Both already being congested roadways. I have not seen, as part of the study, the consequences of the extra strain on these roadways. In summary, This proposed plan causes extra travel time, confusion by drivers on how to get into business and residents, daily frustration and is only a temporary solution to the problem. Thank you for allowing this avenue of comments to be used.
May 3, 2021, 11:51 AM
Myron Klesner
I live in Belhaven Subdivision. RinRout. I work Left. So I will have to go through the neighboring subdivision, lot of children in order to get to work. Or, go way out of my way. Also closing access to the Unity Church at 29 & Patterson. So now those people will have to turn into my subdivision and go into their church, then out through my subdivision, into the neighboring subdivision to leave. This is stupid. You say there is an access road at the east end of Cascade. Not. Dead end. If you could go through there, you end up in the church's lot. Closed access. Also, fire dept located at the top of the hill Patterson & 28 3/4 rd. Say there is a fire on Mantey Heights Dr. Oh can't turn left into there, RinRout. Someone's place is on fire and the fire dept has to go a different route. Adds 5- 10 min more burning time. All the dept is a block away! Seriously people. Think about this. Most accidents that I have seen, and I have lived here in this area for 13 years ( Belhaven), in GJ 51 years, happen at the lights!! People running the light because the timer is set for like 3 cars to turn on. Or someone just stupid enough to run the light and the others not paying attention. I have never seen an accident in front of my subdivision, Indian Creek subdivision or the Legends. Top of the hill by the fire dept, yes. Light at 29 & Patterson. Yes. Obviously, you don't any of you wanting this, live in our areas. Why spend our money on something so stupid as this. Barb Malone
May 2, 2021, 2:25 PM
Barbara Malone
In the area of 29 1/2 Road to 30 Road along Patterson. The proposed changes to the access, on the north side specifically, are not in the best interest of those of us living in that area. I realize that most of us in the area are not inside the city of Grand Junction, and quite frequently it seems like we are forgotten. In the area of the Oxbow, Trading Post, Little Trio, Single Tree, Aspenwood Meadows, Brookside and Brookwood Subdivisions, there are over 500 homes currently in the area designated to become RIRO only access, and that is without the soon to be subdivision where we were promised Burke Park. The proposal for future medians would force all 500+ homes, some 1000+ vehicles, heading home on East bound Patterson, to make the left turn (north) at 30 Road. Broken Spoke Road alone has over 60 homes, many with multiple vehicles. Without access to 29 1/2 Road, the subdivisions in that area are not equipped to handle the influx of daily vehicle traffic. And while we are not (yet) inside of the city limits of Grand Junction, this organization may not be aware, but there are no sidewalks, few street lights, and a limited of stop signs within those subdivisions. For the proposed changes to make functional sense for the area, at a bare minimum F 1/2 Road would need to be connected to 29 1/2 Road. There appears to be new developments in the area of Brett Dr, so additional access at 29 1/2 Road and G Road should be added as well. We would also like to see the City push to connect 29 Road to I-70 to help ease congestion through the middle part of town during peak hours. But ultimately there needs to be a better plan in place for how the City will grow over these proposed 20 years. There are really only 4 main roads that travel west to east; Patterson Road, North Ave, Pitkin/Ute, and Riverside Parkway. Those are all congested during peak times, and without expanding or adding additional thoroughfares the left turn access on Patterson will not be the issue facing the City traffic controllers. It continues to be frustrating for the City of Grand Junction to make decisions for our area without consulting the people that live in this area. We are nearly completely surrounded by City properties, and yet we have no say in how or when changes are made
May 1, 2021, 9:42 PM
Rachel Crites
My name is Steve Schram and I currently live at 2720 N 8th Ct. I do have a few issues with your plan as it affects my ingress/egress from N 8th Ct. As long as you do not mess with the light timing on 12th st. there are always gaps allowing for LiLo access from/to N 8th Ct. If you only allow for a RiRo ingress/egress I will be forced to make a rather long detour north on 7th to Horizon, east to the 12th St round about and then south on 12th street to the Patterson-12th st signal light. All just to make a left hand turn onto Patterson to head east. That is too much of an inconvenience if there are presently traffic breaks in the Patterson traffic flow to allow for a left hand turn out of and into N 8th Ct. Let me make the decision if I want to wait for a break. As for the light on 7th St., there are issues. There are times when I have to make a left-hand turn from Patterson onto 7th to go south. I can find enough of a traffic break to move across 2 lanes and into the third turn lane. That also tells you that there is enough of a break in traffic to make a left hand turn out of N 8th Ct. The problem at the 7th st and Patterson turn signal is that there are times the light sequence only gives enough time for a few cars to turn south on 7th. Traffic then backs up down Patterson east of the turn signal until the next left hand signal to turn south on 7th, which can have a longer time. You never know how much time you will get in the turn lane to turn south onto 7th St., it can be aggravatingly short, or long enough to clear the turn lane. You just never know which one you are going to get. I see the congestion on Patterson and know that something needs to be done. Yet your plan does not address the growing congestion on Patterson. It does not direct traffic off of Patterson, instead it directs traffic onto Patterson. Unless you plan on upping the speed limit to 60 mph or putting in 6 lanes, the number of vehicles moving down Patterson per lane, per minute will develop the same congestion. A better solution would be to widen Orchard, improve signalling and direct a portion of the traffic off of Patterson onto Orchard. As an aside, if you want to solve some traffic problems, take the intersection between 1st st,, hiway 6 and 50 and Broadway and put in a round about. What a mess.
April 29, 2021, 11:12 AM
Steve Schram
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.

Your Question has been submitted.