Comments on: Harmon’s ‘porkway’ comment uncalled for

By: Willis_Leon_Johnson

Willis_Leon_Johnson — Thu, 21 Aug 2008 17:33:10 +0000

Well borgie, why are we paying these people top dollar?

The city wanted it at ‘their’ price, the contractors said it couldn’t be done at that price.

The city said’ uh huh, we is brilyunt and we kan doit.

Now, we have it ‘completed’ except for a whole bunch of minor changes necessary, including a coherent signage plan, and it is ….

Where is it on the cost issue?

Is it under budget? At budget?

Or a whole lot closer to what the contractors said it would be?

How long will it be before there are ‘utility’ cuts and patches made to the traffic lanes?

By: John B.

John B. — Wed, 20 Aug 2008 23:30:39 +0000

WLJ, you asked the questions so you must have the answers. Nobody said it was the perfect bypass. The signage seems to be inadequate for those not familiar with the area. What’s the big deal? The Parkway is meant to bypass downtown for people coming from the norh and south. This is a problem? Is it the best route? Probably not but the alternative may have cost much more and ruin neighborhoods by separating them. Better methods of entering and leaving? Maybe, but the people who designed it looked at all options and the cost of them and what you see is what you get. Stplghts? Once again, stoplight free interchanges cost much more. Once again, Oh Great Sage, tell us how it should have been—for the same money, or even less.

By: Willis_Leon_Johnson

Willis_Leon_Johnson — Wed, 20 Aug 2008 21:28:13 +0000

So, you old boys think the bestest and brightest just designed the perfect bypass for grand junction?

So, why the questions on signage?

Why does the porkway lead people to what is basically a place to escape from instead of a place to be?

Is the route really the ‘best’ route that could have been chosen?

Are there alternates to the methods of entry and exit that would have improved the flow of traffic instead of hindering the flow?

Is this really the ONLY ‘beltway’ in the world with traffic lights to STOP traffic instead of keeping it moving?

By: FutureQuest

FutureQuest — Wed, 20 Aug 2008 17:29:23 +0000

John B.
I was using this forum as a way of testing my personal observations about the need for better signs on the Riverside Parkway prior to perhaps writing a polite letter about them to the City. I appreciate your respectful comments (there is a lot of vitriol at this site) and opinions. As a matter of clarification, I was not thinking of those big, overhead interstate signs – I was thinking of very simple, side-of-the-road signs, but ones that would better identify where the exit was taking you and also erected well before the exit to notify drivers so they could smoothly get into the proper lanes. Unless something new arises, I’m going to drop this subject for now. Thanks for the responses.

By: John B.

John B. — Wed, 20 Aug 2008 14:43:42 +0000

FutureQuest, I think they are an important issue. Whether the big, overhead Interstate signs are the way to go, I don’t know. They also are costly. The city is now asking that there be a permanent de-Brucing, but only as it relates to the revenue and spending caps. It’s badly needed. We are already de-Bruced in that way,but only to help pay off the Parkway, hopefully early. The Public Safety $.25 sales tax increase could end as soon as the Parkway bonds are paid.That will only happen if the public also votes for the permanent de-Bruce, still allowing for votes on tax increases and indebtedness. Even if this happens , the city will have almost 350 million dollars worth of public works projects backed up at the time the Parkway is paid off. That’s a long way off signs needed now but you can see that the public’s demand for improvements in our infrastructure far outweigh their desire to pay for them. I have occasions to meet with Jim Shanks, the Parkway manager and, at the insistent urging from my wife, I had planned to give my observations–and now yours– about signs to him. After all, the city is awash with money accoring to some commenters. Should be no problem at all!

By: FutureQuest

FutureQuest — Wed, 20 Aug 2008 13:17:34 +0000

John B.
Thanks. I agree with your comments. In addition to the neighborhood and existing roadway issues, to say nothing of the financial considerations, Grand Junction also has to contend with that pesky river and those railroad tracks in a project of this nature. Personally, I think the city did a good job with the Parkway considering all those constraints. It seems to me, though, that better road signs identifying where the exits lead to, as well as posting those signs well in advance of the actual exits, would be helpful. I’m thinking of signs similar to what the Interstates usually have. Do you think better signs would help, or perhaps they aren’t really that important of an issue?

By: GJBubba

GJBubba — Wed, 20 Aug 2008 13:04:44 +0000

DaBookie - You’re entirely correct in your assessment of Willis on the subject of the parkway (and most other things).

His statement that, “And yes johnnie, I could design a much more efficient system” is meaningless as we all know he’s a stallion when it comes to talk, but a gelding when it comes to action.

By: John B.

John B. — Wed, 20 Aug 2008 12:33:32 +0000

FutureQuest, those were my first impressions,too. The Parkway is far from perfect but the options for trying to do what it is meant to do were few. The core of the city is built up so that any real high volume highway would entail buying up huge amounts of property with the possibility of some condemnations and neighborhoods would likely be destroyed. I grew up in the L.A. area nd I know what the freeways did to long standing neighborhoods. I think the Parkway should have started back near I 70 and there been a bigger effort to divert truck traffic headed down US 50 to the Parkway but, as always, the money available didn’t allow it. We’re always going to be in a battle to accomplish the infrastructure needs we have to get the necessary money to do it in the best way for the long term. Sort of pennywise and pound foolish.

By: FutureQuest

FutureQuest — Wed, 20 Aug 2008 04:28:09 +0000

John B.
In my estimation, the Riverside Parkway will do what it was intended to do: route significant traffic away from the 1st and Grand intersection. My suggestion is with regard to the road signs. I don’t think they are that clear as to where the exits lead to, nor do they provide enough advance notice prior to the exits themselves. I say that as a long-time resident who is very familiar with Grand Junction. I did notice a certain amount of traffic moving abruptly across two lanes to make an exit. Some of this will be taken care of when residents become used to the Parkway, but out-of-towners and residents who don’t drive there that frequently might have problems. Do you agree or disagree? Any other thoughts on the issue of signs?

By: rm

rm — Wed, 20 Aug 2008 03:16:24 +0000

Willis,

If you are coming from Delta, Montrose, Crawford, Hotchkiss, Somerset, Delta, Paonia, Olathe, or Pea Green, you turn off highway 50 at 29 road jog north to D road and viola you are on the brand new Riverside parkway. From which point you can conveniently access downtown, the Lowes/Sams Club area, or the mall. And by the way 29 road has very light traffic. You may have a point about the 29 road highway 50 intersection going east, going west I don’t see a problem.

Sincerely, Retarded Monkey