Publlic Involvement Appendix

FinalFinal Draft Repo – Frrtebruary – April 24,201 21011

PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT APPENDIX

Table of Contents

1. PUBLIC COMMENTS FROM ONLINE SURVEY QUESTTION NO. 21 2. PUBLIC COMMENTS FROM ONLINE SURVEY QUESTTION NO. 35 3. PUBLIC COMMENTS FROM ONLINE SURVEY QUESTTION NO. 36 4. PUBLIC COMMENTS FROM ONLINE SURVEY QUESTTION NO. 9 5. POST CARD RESPONSES FROM PRIORITY PACKETS 6. PUBLIC COMMENTS RECEIVED FROM WEBSITE 7. PUBLIC COMMENTS FROM CONNECTIONS WORKSHOPS 8. QUESTIONNAIRE RESPONSES FROM CONNECTIONS WORKSHOPS 9. CHAMBER OF COMMERCE SURVEY RESULTS 10. GRAND VALLEY TRANSIT ONBOARD SURVEY RESULTS 11. PHASE I PUBLIC OUTREACH SUMMARY REPORT 12. FINAL RESULTS OF ONLINE TRANSPORTATION USER SURVEY 13. POLLING RESULTS FROM TELEPHONE TOWN HALL 14. RESULTS FROM ONLINE SURVEY #2 15. QUESTIONNAIRE RESPONSES FROM PUBLIC OFFICIALS WORKSHOP 16. SUMMARY BROCHURE FROM PUBLIC OFFICIALS WORKSHOP 17. NOTES FROM ENVIRONMENTAL CHARRETTE / RESOURCE AGENCY COORDINATION COMMENTS FROM OPEN HOUSES PHASE III 18. COMMENTS FROM OPEN HOUSES 19. MISCELLANEOUS COMMENTS

Mesa County 2035 Regional Transportation Plan i FINAL REPORT April 2011 2035 Mesa County Regional Transportation Plan Online Resident Survey Comment Summary June 21, 2010

Question 21. Which TWO STREETS / ROADS / HIGHWAYS in the region do you think should receive TOP PRIORITY FOR IMPROVEMENTS? (Please list the street name, approximate location, and necessary improvement)

No. 1st Priority 2nd Priority East of 29 Road on the Riverside Parkway (it's a hazard to people and their 1 vehicles) Patterson/F Road 2 Patterson/F Road 3 Patterson/F Road I 70 Business loop 4 North Ave, from one end to the other First Street and Grand (many get confused with traffic merging onto first from HW 6 & 50, some make a left hand turn wrong when headed E bound 5 on Grand to 1st Street) Add more left hand turn arrows. 6 I 70 Business loop I 70 7 Highway 6&50 between Fruita and Mack Highway 6&50 between 21 and 25 Roads 8 Where Horizon Drive turns onto 7th - comlicated I70 between Cameo and Palisade 9 29 road from Orchard Mesa to I-70 more turn lanes for F road, G road, and Orchard Avenue 10 29 road from Orchard Mesa to I-70 additional inprovements on I-70 B from 1st St to Mesa Mall 11 North Ave Patterson 12 North Ave D Rd 13 North Ave Broadway 14 North Ave G Raod 15 North Ave Hwy 6 & 50 9 fruita west 16 North Ave 6-50 17 North Ave Patterson Rd 18 North Ave Main Street 19 North Ave I-70B 20 Patterson 6 & 50 west bound 21 Patterson North Avenue 22 Patterson hwy 6 & 50 23 Patterson first 24 Patterson Broadway 25 Patterson I-70 Corridor 26 Patterson Hgy 6/50 27 Patterson North Ave 28 Patterson 29 Rd to connect to Riverside Parkway 29 Patterson North Ave 30 Patterson North 31 Patterson North Ave. 32 Patterson North Ave 33 Patterson North Avenue 34 I-70 Business Loop between 1st and the Mall Patterson Road Mall to 32 Road 35 29 Road Corridor to Interstate split between North Avenue and F(Patterson) RD 36 Business Loop 32 Road 37 32 Road Orchard (all the way up and down) 38 29 Road overpass 29 Road overpass 39 29 Road overpass I70 by pass from 1st street to the mall - to congested 40 29 Road overpass North Ave to Mesa Mall. Better alternate routes improved 41 North Ave. 42 North Ave. Patterson Broadway; two lanes + center & right turn lanes + full four to five foot wide Toss up: D-Road or 1st Street - both need full resurfacing by a qualified 43 sidewalk. contractor! 44 Patterson from Mesa Mall - Eastward to at least 29road North Ave all the way to Rimrock Mall 45 Highway 6:50 by the mall....better times stoplights and turning lanes Highway 6&50 to Fruita, need more lanes 46 1st and Grand Hwy 6 and 50 / Frontage road towards Mesa Mall from GJ 47 29 Road North Avenue 48 29 Road hwy 50 orchard mesa 49 29 Road 50 29 Road I-70 Business Loop 51 29 Road F 1/2 Road 52 29 Road Completion of Belt Loop 53 29 Road Exit 26 54 29 Road D Road 55 North Avenue Hwy 6&50 56 North Avenue Hwy 6-50 East of 24 Rd 57 North Avenue Sick and filthy (6&50) 58 North Avenue Patterson Avenue 59 North Avenue First Street 60 North Avenue Patterson 61 North Avenue Orchard Avenue 62 North Avenue Highway 6 and 50 63 North Avenue Patterson 64 North Avenue Patterson 65 North Avenue Patterson 66 North Avenue Horizon Drive 67 I - &70 Business Loop North Avenue 68 I-70B US 6&50 69 I-70B G Rd 70 I-70B 29 Road 71 I-70 29 Road 72 I-70 Highway 6-50 73 I-70 US 50 74 I-70 6 & 50 75 I-70 Hwy 6&50 76 I-70 US 6 Hwy 6&50 from 1st street to the mall - 4 lanes (most with out turn lanes) do 77 not support heavy traffic and allow for safety and flow of traffic 29 Rd connection to I-70 additional access to I-70 P:\MesaCountyRCTP_MEG1001\Surveys\Resident\Survey_Data_Reports\4_18June_2010\survey_comments.xlsxQuestion21 Page - 1 2035 Mesa County Regional Transportation Plan Online Resident Survey Comment Summary June 21, 2010 Question 21. Which TWO STREETS / ROADS / HIGHWAYS in the region do you think should receive TOP PRIORITY FOR IMPROVEMENTS? (Please list the street name, approximate location, and necessary improvement)

No. 1st Priority 2nd Priority 78 north avenue in general... heavy traffic and not easy to turn Business loop congestion 79 D Road F/Patterson from 12th to 24 (Mall) 80 D Road 6&50 81 D Road B Road 82 D Road Patterson 83 D Road D Road 84 D Road North Ave 85 D 1/2 Road from 29 to 30 re-construction & widen Highway 330 Widen 86 Hwy 6&50/I-70 Business Loop need more thouroughfares from I-70 to OM 87 7th &/or 12th need bicycle lanes from downtown going north Orchard needs bike lanes from 1st Street going east 88 Crosby 89 finish the 29 road project remainder of D road 90 29 rd between orchard mesa and business 70 entire north ave 91 D RD form 29rd to 32 rd pot holes Colorado from 12-7th no winter maintnace shear Ice 92 D road between 29 rd & 32 rd is an obstacle course Grand & 1st st. intersection 93 Broadway F Road 94 Broadway SOUTH BROADWAY 95 Broadway 96 Broadway 24 Road 97 1st street - Worthless as it is connect thru to 6/50 6 to Fruita, widen 98 29 road over railroad tracks D road from 32 road to Riverside parkway 99 HWY 340 on the Redlands--bike and pedestrian facilities 7th Street--bike facilities 100 I-70 business loop 32 road to 1st street West Main/Crosby avenue, 1st street to Rimrock Dr. 101 1st Street from Grand Ave to North Ave Mulberry St from Grand Ave to W. Gunnison Ave 102 alleviate congestion on Patterson from Mall to St. Mary's a limited access connector between Whitewater and I-70 103 Frontage road to Fruita off I-70 104 K Road Hwy 6&50 105 K Road 106 North Ave. becoming too small for amount of traffic 107 D Road from 29 to 32 Road B 1/2 Road from Highway 50 to 30 Road 108 hwy 6 & 50 North Ave 109 hwy 6 & 50 29 Rd 110 hwy 6 & 50 North Avenue 111 hwy 6 & 50 North Ave 112 hwy 6 & 50 Patterson Rd. 113 hwy 6 & 50 1st and Grand 114 29 Rd. Finish from Riverside Pkwy to I-70 Hwy 6&50 from North Ave to Fruita 115 Horizon Drive F Road 116 F Road Side roads 117 Route 6 & 50 thru GJ CO 340 from 1st. Street to South Broadway 118 7th Patterson 119 1st and Grand, large roundabout 7th and North Ave., add a right turn arrow on the north side of 7th 120 First / Grand Hwy 6/50 121 29 RD connection to I-70 North Avenue! 122 12st & Horizon Drive Roundabout 1st st, Grand, Hwy 6&50/I-70B D rd from 29 to 32 is beat up from the constant traffic from 29 Rd not 123 29 Road finished to interstate being completed. 29 road - need overpass over RR, not a dogleg to 30 RD., then an on- 124 Business loop at 32 Road ramp to freeway. 125 Highway 6 and 50 126 Highway 6 and 50 Patterson danger for students crossing 12th @ college; better crosswalk marking 127 first street merging into 6&50, approaching Sams (flashing light on crosswalks) 128 U.S. 6 & 50 from mall to Walmart west U.S. 50 from 5th street bridge to Grand Ave. 129 Business 70 from interstate to Hwy 50 Patterson in mall area 130 Hwy 50 Hwy 114 131 Hwy 50 Patterson 132 1st & Grand intersection with hwy 6/50 G rd 6/50 to Horizon Dr. resurfaced 133 Highway 6 & 50 - From 1st Street to I-70 Patterson Road (F Road) From Mesa Mall to Clifton Exit 134 24 Road north of Patterson -4 lanes to the interstate F 1/2 Road connection to 24 1/2 Road from 24 Road 135 D Rd between 29 and 32 Roads 1st and Grand and North West towards the Mall 136 not sure not sure 137 Bike Lanes on all major routes Connect 29 Road to I-70 138 29 Road connection to I-70 I-70B from Eastgate to Hwy 50 Highway 6/50 between downtown & mall, eliminate frontage roads, add bike 139 lanes Grand Avenue, between 1st and 12th, add bike lanes 140 fruita to GJ hwy 6 & 50 29 Rd to get to DT GJ 141 Stop signs on Canell at Bunting (near College) North Ave 142 G Rd. B 1/2 Rd. 143 Patterson road from 32 Rd to Mall G RD from Horizon to 25 Rd 144 Highway 340 (Broadway) 145 B 1/2 Road b/t 27 & 29 Road - resurface, add shoulder Crosby Avenue - drainage, resurface, sidewalks, lighting 146 6 & 50 30 Road to Mesa Mall Patterson/F Road 147 HIGHWAY 340 SOUTH BROADWAY 148 patterson from mall to 32 road - not enough patrol highway 50 from gj to delta - not enough patrol 149 5th street bridge area 6-50 by Mall 150 G Road not wide enough One way streets need a better plan 151 G Rd 29 Rd 152 Patterson (Around Mesa Mall) North Avenue (the whole street) 153 32 Road Colorado 140 Colorado 340 old D road between 30 Rd & 27 1/2 should have been made 4 lanes with F 1/1 by Thunder Mountain elementry. No walking or biking lanes for 154 right lane turns. kids to get to school from all neighborhoods. 155 HWY 5 & 50 and Rim Rock Dr. (Sam's Club/ Wal-Mart area) P:\MesaCountyRCTP_MEG1001\Surveys\Resident\Survey_Data_Reports\4_18June_2010\survey_comments.xlsxQuestion21 Page - 2 2035 Mesa County Regional Transportation Plan Online Resident Survey Comment Summary June 21, 2010 Question 21. Which TWO STREETS / ROADS / HIGHWAYS in the region do you think should receive TOP PRIORITY FOR IMPROVEMENTS? (Please list the street name, approximate location, and necessary improvement)

No. 1st Priority 2nd Priority 6 & 50 from 1st Street to the Mall - Make two lanes merge into 6 & 50 from Most traffic problems are within the city. Mesa County outside the city 156 North Ave and get rid of lane going to Sam's isn't a problem 157 6 & 50, widening or alternate access to business from other roads 158 29 road from the interstate to orchard mesa 159 HWY 6 & 50, North Ave. to 24 Rd. Congested HWY 6& 50 approaching Grand Ave E&W bound congestion 160 Elberta, Palisade 29 Rd Overpass at I-70B 161 6&50 north and patterson 162 Reconfigure Ute/Pitkin North Avenue 163 Highway 330 North Ave 164 Fruita freeway interchange relieve congestion on the 6/50 165 29 Road Railroad overpass 29 Road I-70 connection 166 HWY 6&50 to Fruita. 4 lane from I/70 to Fruita. More interchanges on to HWY 70 167 hwy 6 &50 North Ave is not desireable to drive on because of the amount of people 168 and the difficulty trying to cross the apposing lane 6 and 50 bettwen 24 rd and Grand Ave 169 I 70 B FROM 28 ROAD TO 32 ROAD 29 ROAD FROM D ROAD TO CONNECTION WITH I-70 170 6/50 around downtown North 171 First street needs smoothing and paving 172 D road - too many pot holes- between 32 & 9th street Patterson 173 HWY 340-Broadway needs more lanes, higher speeds Riverside Parkway needs higher speeds 174 Broadway over the Redlands Patterson 29 Road from Orchard Mesa to I-70! It needs to be widened, an overpass over the RRtracks and on/off ramps there, at North Avenue, Patterson and I- 175 70. Hwy 6 & 50 from 1st Street to I-70 176 30 Road/I-70 Business Loop B 1/2 and D Road Crosby Ave. between Mesa County Detention Facility and ACS Air 177 compressor Services Crosby Ave to W. Grand Ave. and after 178 I-70 - it should be thought of as a freeway 6&50 bt/w GJ and Fruita it should be widened For East west: An alternate to North Avenue, Patterson, 6&50, I-70 Business Loop, G Roads. Most of my commutes are East West; there are 179 few major roads for East West off of the Redlands. 180 repave highway 141 between Whitewater & Gateway more capacity on highway 6 & 50 between downtown & mall 181 patterson road 7th street 182 patterson road Highway 6 & 50 183 patterson road 184 patterson road Roads around the Mall 185 I70B & 30 Rd 12th St & North Ave 186 Broadway/Hwy 340 to at least the parkway: widen, bike lane road to Monument, GJ entrance, widen, bike lane 187 29 road, finish the road over the tracks and to i70 d rd. from 29 to 32 188 Highway330 45.5 road 189 Intersection at 1st and Grand New East West Corridors from Fruita to Palisade 190 First Street from Orchard south to downtown Orchard Avenue--especially east of 12th Street 191 I 70 corridor I 70 Business loop 192 I-70B from Mesa Mall to 1st & Grand Ave. North Ave from 1st St. to 30 Rd. 193 North Avenue, all, access management 12th street, North to Horizon, Widened or made 3 lanes 194 HWY 6 & 50 north of merge with North Ave I70B at Patterson intersection & I70B as it travels south 195 the 29 road project is a must more lanes on 25 road from I70 B to Patterson 196 Broadway west of GJ- widening to four lanes 5th Street north of main to Orchard - fix potholes and uneven areas 197 Redlands Pkwy increse number of lanes Broadway and Redlands Pkwy legthen turnlanes 198 6&50 between 22 Road & North Ave 1st Street and Grand 199 Highway 340 from the Redlands North Avenue 200 Highway 6 and 50 - safety and pedestrian improvements northwest grand valley - alternative route to I-70, 6&50 201 29 Road - portions north of Patterson H Road, East & West of Airport 202 29 Road - Patterson - add bikelanes 203 Bike Lane on South Side of G Road Bike lanes on roads that lead to College and Hospital 7th street and 9th street intersection with train tracks-create underpass or Ute avenue to 5th street bridge-adjust lights so traffic does not clog 204 overpass at ninth street north bound 5th street traffic 205 F 1/4 RD 1ST ST 206 12th Patterson 207 12th 7th 208 Rt 141 from the rail road tracks to the Montrose Cty Line 209 6 & 50 NEAR RIM ROCK DR - OVERPASS 6 & 50 AT 1ST & GRAND - ? 210 Cut Spending NOW! Freeze wages NOW!

211 29th should be improved to connect between the 1-70s There needs to be a second primary access out of the Rimprock Center 25 Rd. between F Rd. and Hwy 6&50 - lots of traffic makes it hard to Hwy 6&50 from 24 Rd to downtown - can traffic signals be timed so that turn onto, even into center merge area; plus, traffic can back up at left 212 traffic can keep moving instead of stopping at each signal? turn from 25 Rd. south bound onto east bound 6&50 213 D Road between 29 and 32 road B1/2 Road between 6&50 and 32 road 214 River Road, Needs bike lane and resurfacing 215 G Road north of Junction 6 & 50 from North Ave. to Mall 216 32 Rd and I-70 loop, too congested with heavy trucks 217 Patterson, GJ, right turn lanes, bus pull outs

218 30 & business loop heading south in the afternoon is awfully congested Main Street back in parking - get rid of it. 219 Highway 141: Whitewater to Naturita 12th Street 220 12th Street hwy 340 221 Highway 6 & 50 Ottley Ave. from The Oaks Assisted Living heading West. Needs sidewalks 222 the full lenghth. Redlands Parkway entrance ramp behind Sutherlands, people enter 223 Redlands Parkway at Hwy 340, needs protected turns without looking or stopping 224 Patterson (W of 28 Rd) North Ave P:\MesaCountyRCTP_MEG1001\Surveys\Resident\Survey_Data_Reports\4_18June_2010\survey_comments.xlsxQuestion21 Page - 3 2035 Mesa County Regional Transportation Plan Online Resident Survey Comment Summary June 21, 2010 Question 21. Which TWO STREETS / ROADS / HIGHWAYS in the region do you think should receive TOP PRIORITY FOR IMPROVEMENTS? (Please list the street name, approximate location, and necessary improvement)

No. 1st Priority 2nd Priority 225 D Rd fm 29 Rd to 30 Rd due to potholes 1st & Grand needs a multi lane roundabout 226 N on 12th St turning east on Patterson rd (R turn lanes?) 227 Broadway / Colorado 340 228 6/50 business loop North Ave 229 I-70 Business Loop North Avenue 230 I-70 Business Loop 12th ST near the college 231 I-70 Business Loop 232 29 ROAD TO I70 233 intersection at 1st, Grand, and hwy (by drug store) 234 Hwy 6&50 between 1st Street & the mall F 1/2 Need to build pedestrian walkway for kids to school. (Thunder 235 Mountain) 29 rd to the interstate North Ave. Needs improved bicycle safety or alternate routes that are 236 Hwy 6 & 50 between mesa mall and grand ave. Need to divert more traffic close by. 30 Road and I-70 B Southbound get traffic through the intersection around 1st and Broadway left turn onto Broadway when going north on 1st. 237 5:00pm more quickly Need to get traffic through more quickly. 238 Horizon Drive, 7th street, light sensors stopping moving traffic North Avenue, 1st St - 12 St., congestion 239 Hwy 340/Broadway - needs shoulders, bike-ped lanes, Patterson-F Rd - needs off raod bike/ped lanes 240 29 Road over the Business Loop D Road 6 & 50 to the mall / trafic can get very backed up - frontage or side roads 241 are a little treacherous North Ave & 12th St. - no turn lanes, pedestrian walkways... 242 Patterson Rd - safety and traffic congestion at 12th St North Ave - left hand turns onto North between 1st and 20th St 243 Arlington Quincy Ln 244 Hwy 6 Clifton to Palisade D Rd - west from end of 4 lane to 32 Rd 245 the alley behind Grand Junction High School- potholes 246 I-70B at 22 RD and I-70 - confusing merges US6-SH139 intersection - bad angles 247 32 Road - OM I-70B 248 North and Business Loop 5th and 50 (Ute) 249 Hwy 6&50 @ 22 rd. Traffic control 13 Rd. @ Hwy. 6 & 50... Road work, traffic control 250 I-70 B near the Mall, traffic congestion 251 29 Road up to and in to I-70 patterson road 252 Highway 50 in Whitewater- repavement 253 70 B NEW LOOP TO THE NORTH 254 Patterson/12th college area, 7th and Patterson 255 Connect 29 Road bridge all the way to I-70 Rework Clifton 32 Rd Shopping center access 256 Install interchange at I70 & 29 road I70B G Road from 12th street to 24 rd, widening, general improvements, turning Orchard Avenue, as a major east west road it needs improvements 257 lanes, roundabouts, etc. including bike lanes and roundabouts 258 Clifton to Palisade 259 G Road 12th Street and G Road 260 G Road F 1/2 west of 25 road 261 29 Road connection to interstate D road, redirecting the heavy truck traffic 262 Hwy 6 & 50 Between 24 Road and Downtown/16th Street. 29 Road connecting I-70 & US 50 263 North avenue from 12th street east to 28 1/2 Road, widen road River Road from Riverside Parkway to 22 Road, widen road 264 Clifton, intersection of Patterson & Business Bypass Patterson-Highway 6 through old downtown Clifton 265 25 Road and Hwy 6 & 50 - wider? 7th & Patterson - wider Riverside Parkway, 9th St to D Rd, remove median and install center turn 29 Rd from Highway 50 to I70B, complete overpass and widen to 4 266 lane lanes with center turn lane 267 hywy to mall Patterson 268 hwy 6 east of I70b widen , repave, sidewalk D road west of hwy 141 widen, repave, sidewalk 269 D rd from 29 to 32 rd B 1/2 Hwy. 50 to 32 rd 270 patterson turn off lanes businees loop and 30 rd 271 Patterson at Mesa Mall Highway 50 Walmart-Mesa Mall Orchard Ave near Nisley Elementary for safety of kids walking to and from 272 school. They need a sidewalk. 273 Buisness I-70 in Clifton - better traffic flow at lights North Ave and Business 70 Interchange - better flow The issue isn't roads, it is land use. Stop permitting more destination retail Business loop from downtown to 24 Road - stop approving more big 274 on 24 road and the Business loop west of downtown to 24 road box/destination retail. 275 elberta ave. main st. / 37 6/10 276 Another on ramp to I-70 between HOrizon Dr. and Clifton Access to I-70 from 29 or 291/2 rd. 277 Patterson Road; add more lanes? I-70 to Denver, add more lanes 278 Patterson-Congestion North Ave-Congestion 279 340 needs to be wider with turn lanes 280 Riverside Parkway, all of it, increase speed limit. 29 Rd, at I-70, build an interchange! 281 I 70 B Hwy between Clifton and Palisade 282 I-70 Business Loop between 5th and Mesa Mall Fruita City streets. 283 u.s. 50 west I-70 access 284 by Mesa Mall downtown Junction 285 Main st. trolley system no cars River parkway - increase usage - a great road G rd. from 23 rd. to 27 rd. widen for traffic and pedestrian/bicycle, bury 286 power lines,bury drainage wash Highway 6 from fruita east to I-70 @ 22 rd. WIDEN!

287 Highway 340, west of Panorama Subdivision, widening, more passing lanes Highway 6 west of 22 road to Fruita, more passing lanes 288 Broadway/Highway 340, from River Road to Fruita Highway 6 & 50 from 1st and Grand to Redlands Parkway 289 REDUCE CONGESTION BETWEEN GRAND & THE MALL 0N 6 & 50 WIDEN & ADD BICYCLE LINES ON 12TH STREET 290 29 road from interstate 70 to hwy 50 32 Rd Overpass and Business loop and frontage road 291 Hwy 6 & 50 towards the mall - too congested & slow North Ave - too congested & slow 292 6and50 18 to 22.5 12th and north Rimrock Road, lights too short, traffic control, unsafe for bicycles and 293 6 and 50, better traffic control, unsafe for bicycles and pedestrians pedestrians 294 Highway 6 and 50 26 Rd to 24 Rd G Rd from Horizon Dr West to 6 and 50 295 Highway 6 & 50: GJ to Fruita 29 Road north over railroad tracks 296 6 & 50 Patterson P:\MesaCountyRCTP_MEG1001\Surveys\Resident\Survey_Data_Reports\4_18June_2010\survey_comments.xlsxQuestion21 Page - 4 2035 Mesa County Regional Transportation Plan Online Resident Survey Comment Summary June 21, 2010 Question 21. Which TWO STREETS / ROADS / HIGHWAYS in the region do you think should receive TOP PRIORITY FOR IMPROVEMENTS? (Please list the street name, approximate location, and necessary improvement)

No. 1st Priority 2nd Priority 297 HWY 6-50 near Sam's Club Patterson Rd 298 Patterson Rd hwy 6 & 50 Cut outs are needed on Patterson and North Ave for bus to get out of 299 Patterson needs a safe bike lane from Clifton to Mall traffic 300 29 1/2 Rd 301 1st street 31 3/4 Road Left turn from 6 & 50 into Rimrock shopping center--the turn signal is 302 1st and Grand--the 5-point intersection and poorly timed lights are a mess. too short, and the lights don't properly sense the need to change. 303 29 Rd - Orchard Mesa > I-70 304 Braodway - Bicycle Path 305 North Avenue- Pedestrian / Bicycle Improvement Bike Lanes on 25 Rd. North Avenue, too many accesses, flow of traffic slow because of too many Market Street just north of Patterson, problems now and expect more 306 access on and off when City Market opens 307 Busniness Loop I-70 F Road 308 D Road inbetween 29 and 32 Road Patterson 309 Patterson Rd/F Rd 1st & Grand 310 F Road should be widened Main street should be pedestrian only 311 north avenud hwy 6 and 50 from 1th to mall G road widen between Horizon Drive & I-70 bussiness Loop 4 lane in 25 between patterson & I-70 bussiness loop need light at Industrial 312 possible widen to 4 lane up to G road 313 Hwy 6/50--W side of town (stoplights from Pkg lots) North Avenue--too much traffic for road width 314 Hwy 6 & 50 from 1st St past the mall raise the speed limit on the Riverside Parkway!!!!!!!!! 315 F Road Between 25 and 24 Hwy 340 pedestrian and bike

316 S, Broadway near Two Rivers Winery to Ind. Valley entrance The area to Gold's Gym which has increase in the last couple of years 317 24 & G Rd - needs left turn lights F Road, North of Mesa Mall, remove lights, expand road or create alternate 318 route 319 Patterson Road near the hospital 320 24 Road to 25 Road on Patterson (F) Road Broadwya, Hwy 340 from Parkway to Fruita 321 340 6&50 322 G Road- need safe bicycle lanes on both sides Orchard Ave

323 highway 6&50 and grand ave. THE WHOLE INTERSECTION! 1st from north ave, south to 6&50 intersection, bike lanes and sidewalks 324 Pattersonentire length in-city speed limit at 35 I-70 entire length in-city speed limit no higher than 60 325 Complete Bridge over tracks on 29 Rd project 25 Rd Hwy 6 to Patterson - Additional S bound left turn lanes from 25 to Hwy 6. The parkway engineer neglected the effect of the skew in the intersection. It could have been addressed for little additional cost at that G Road 24 Road to 27 1/2 Road. Needs ped bicycle facitlities, sight 326 time. distance improvements over hills. 327 12th Street North and South Orchard Ave West and East 328 31 1/2 Road between E Rd and I70 B D Road/Riverside Pkway, between 29 and 30 Road 329 Patterson Road between 26 Rd & 26 1/2 Rd. Ute at 5th Stree heading South to Orchard Mesa. 330 Orchard Patterson 331 Grand Ave from Redlands D Road 332 business loop In front of rimrock walmart 333 24 Rd. and Patterson at Mall Patterson Rd. and 24.5 Road. Patterson between mall and 15th street, gets quite congested, not sure 334 what could be done 335 Hwy 6/50 from Fruita to 22 Rd. Hwy 6/50 in front on the mall North Avenue, slow traffic down around the college so its not a drag 336 Orchard Ave, slow traffic down. race NORTH AVENUE! Congested, and terrible for biking or walking esp. east 337 of 28 Road. Everywhere east of 28 Road. Bad repair, poor for biking/walking! 338 12th street- g to north- bike lanes or detached path g road- horizon to 24 road bike lanes

339 6-50 Business loop from Grand to Mall, better traffic timing, more ramping 12th street, overpasses for Mesa State students 340 12th St (from Gunnison to Patterson) 341 6 and 50 redlands parkway to north 342 6 & 50 from Sams to 24 RD G Rd 343 I-70B West of First Street F Road west of I-70B 344 Orchard Ave 12th to 28 1/2 6 & 50 by Sams Club & Lowes Patterson/F RD - bike lanes one minute they're there, one minute there 345 not... 25 RD and Hwy 50 Intersection - Traffic signal flows 346 Highway 50 from Orchard Mesa to County Line:terrible condition 1st & Grand-confusing, accident prone 347 F rd wider and bike path next to entire length 348 Seventh Horizon 349 Rimrock and 6&50; mistimed traffic light Hwy 50 South from the 5th St.Bridge to Unaweep-Unsafe median,broken 27 & 3/8 Rd near Orchard Mesa Middle School. There are no side 350 and confusing walks on either side of the street. 351 29 Road construction North Ave. 352 D Road--32 Rd. to Riverside Parkway I-70B Clifton area 353 US 6 & 50 F Road 354 Patterson Rd 1st to 7th Streets-No bike lane,narrow lanes 355 7th Avenue, from Horizon to Belford, bike lanes Patterson, 15th Street to 24 Road, bike lanes 356 bike lane on 12th or 7th bike lane on grand or F North Avenue - 1st thru 28th St.: Widen Road, limit left turns, restrict 5 Points intersection @ 1st, Grand, etc. - Fix intersection, increase 357 delivery vehicles lanes, adjust lights for better traffic flow 358 Patterson, 1st to 12th North Ave. 359 Some North/South corridor is needed Highway 6 360 1st Street from Grand Ave. to North Ave. Enlarge Horizon Drive at 12th St. Round About better bike access to river trail and monument road, at First and Grand 361 Area We need a north/south, east west cooridor/consistent lanes for bicycles

P:\MesaCountyRCTP_MEG1001\Surveys\Resident\Survey_Data_Reports\4_18June_2010\survey_comments.xlsxQuestion21 Page - 5 2035 Mesa County Regional Transportation Plan Online Resident Survey Comment Summary June 21, 2010 Question 21. Which TWO STREETS / ROADS / HIGHWAYS in the region do you think should receive TOP PRIORITY FOR IMPROVEMENTS? (Please list the street name, approximate location, and necessary improvement)

No. 1st Priority 2nd Priority 362 River Road - Shoulders like Monument Road 25 Road north of Patterson - Shoulders 363 25 ROAD BETWEEN 6/50 AND PATTERSON (3or4 LANE) G ROAD AND 1ST STREET (NEED TRAFFIC CIRCLE) 364 south camp 45 degree turn near the seasons bike lanes on 340 from safeway to colorado monument west 365 Patterson Rd from mall to 32Rd Hwy 6 & 50 at mall area Highway 141-9 mile hill and Highway to Collbran and to Vega-passing 366 North Ave. and Patterson Rd lanes and climbing lanes for trucks 367 Debeque cutoff - shoulders, bike path Patterson - dont know? Maybe HOV lanes? 368 6 & 50 frontage road. access and exits need improvement. 1st & Grand. 5 corner intersection. Redesign it! More interchanges on I-70 to allow it's use as an East/West commuter 369 US 6&50 from North Ave to 23 road extend riverside bypass corridor 370 hwy 6 and 50 between junction and fruita b 1/2 rd orchard mesa 371 29 Road - complete links from US 50 to I-70 372 Highway 6, From Palisade to Clifton, Bike Lane on North Side I-70 Business Route, From Clifton to GJ, Bike Lanes on Both Sides 373 Grd from 23rd east to 27rd 374 First Street South of North Avenue to Grand Continuing to widen Broadway for safety Monument Road (and continuing on Broadway to Grand), bike access North Avenue, between 1st and 12th, accomodate non motorized traffic - from trails to town (the new railing on Monument makes it worse, and 375 especially for crossing to campus/lincoln park the connection to town is incomplete) 376 6 & 50 by sams club (3 lanes each way frontage roads need to go away) north avenue (needs to be 3 lanes each way) 377 River Road from 24 Road to Fruita, wider, for safety 6 & 50, wider, for safety 378 D Rd, 29 to 32 Rds, overlay{EB 29 to 30 terrible} Finish to overpass on 29 Rd 379 Broadway (HWY 340), Redlands, more bike friendly 6 & 50, West side, less traffic

P:\MesaCountyRCTP_MEG1001\Surveys\Resident\Survey_Data_Reports\4_18June_2010\survey_comments.xlsxQuestion21 Page - 6 2035 Mesa County Regional Transportation Plan Online Resident Survey Comment Summary June 21, 2010

Question 35: Are there any questions you would like to have addressed in this process? Response ID No. Comments Should the wealthier population support an excellent bus system that serves the poor? (I would say 'yes'.) Do we badly need a way to by-pass F road (via a corridor 68016799 1 from Orchard Mesa to I-70)? (I would say 'yes'.) Should F road be widened (no) or should there be alternate east-west routes (yes)? Ritter increase vehicle fees but it does not appear that any of that $$ is going toward fixing the crumbling roads (i.e. I-70 Business Loop Mall to Sam's Club), pot 68024946 2 holes, etc. Where is it going. 68022466 3 Do whatever it takes to connect I-70 and Highway 50. It has been studied since 1980. It's time that it gets done. 68027347 4 I listen to the radio more than anything and would like to hear the outcome of this survey threw the radio. Why are the roadways in Mesa County designed and built specifically for motor vehicles? Can there be better planning & design for pedestrians and bicycles? Can the city and county actually paint pedestrian crossings and bicycle travel lanes on an annual to semi-annual basis? Can all traffic travel markings be re-painted more often? Is there any possible way to increase the required sidewalk widths to seven or eight feet? Could it be possible for police and sheriff officers to actually 68025789 5 patrol roads during times of higher traffic congestion, plus actually stop drivers and issue citations when necessary? When there is a long stop light, I see people refuse to wait and go through it after waiting until there are no cars-so timing of the lights at Hwy 50 / 28 1/2 road and 68046649 6 29 road. 68155947 7 Why does it take over an hour an a half to ride the bus from Palisade to Grand Junction? 68156728 8 How long before we can expect the 29 road bridge at I-70 B to be completed., and how long before the 29 road interchange with I-70 will be completed? How much more dependent on foreign oil and how much more obese does our society have to get before we become proactive in constructing widespread, 68182999 9 integrated non-motorized transportation routes? I agree that public trans. is important to our community. However, it cannot accomodate every route and every need of our varied populace. We need to do the best 68198362 10 we can with economy of expense with service to the most frequent users. We should try to pay as we grow. 68196852 11 No 69092909 12 No 69908103 13 No 71170239 14 No 71848649 15 No 73060269 16 No 73464725 17 No 68214814 18 Trash and view planes along scenic 65 Drunk and impaired drivers along Hwy 65 68279361 19 Why won't bicyclists use bike lanes? If they won't use them, why build them? I remember going to a trasnportaion open house some years ago at 2 rivers. One suggestion made then was to promote more business east of town to reduce traffic to mall.G Rd is now being used very heavily. what is going to be done there and what consequence to homeowners? More homes have been approved in the area of 7th and H which will increase traffic on 7th and 1st. I have not heard any plans to improve either of these streets to handle increased load. I do know that the trafiic people signed off on the these develpments saying they could handle the load, but I believe it is really going to be a problem when build-out of the subdivisions occurs. I live just off of 1st street so am concerned about increased ntraffic, and particularly noise. I also use Patterson almost daily from 1st to 12th 68327667 20 and to mall and everyone knows this has to be a priority. Buses running later in the evening would be great, but I would like to pose the question - What about starting earlier in the mornings? If the buses ran an hour or 68443928 21 two earlier in the morning, then I could take them to work in both directions and almost eliminate the need for my vehicle to be on the road. 68516637 22 BIKE LANES AND WALKABILITY MAKE FOR COMMUNITY 68535996 23 where is the money coming from ?

My concern is that in trying to provide transportation to any and all, we are just creating a black hole. I may be incorrect, but these transportation systems have 68528460 24 never been self-sustaining. Until there is a system that can support itself, tax revenue should be used for maintenance of existing facilities and accomodations. 68536049 25 Bikes don't use the trails that are provided. It's a waste of money. 68613463 26 At least a Mon-Fri commuter bus service between Mesa and GJ, service on weekends for shopping, theaters, etc. 68789184 27 No tho this is a good beginning to address the transportation issues. 68559406 28 Would you support a Regional Transportation Authority and the tax for such services? How do we get bike traffic safer and more easily accessible through the area? There are a ton of people with bikes in this town but many who do not ride them because of they fear their safety. You can provide the infrastructure but we also need education for those who know nothing about riding a bike around town to 68967988 29 make it safe for those who chose that mode of transportation. Drivers have to know just as much as those who ride the bikes.

Is B1/2 set to be widened eventually? Will traffic cameras ever be put into use. For example, at 30 Road and the 1-70 Business loop, it is a daily occurence to see 69053435 30 drivers run the red left arrow to turn onto the business loop. This is going to cause quite the accident some day, not to mention situations of road rage. 69101629 31 .

Absolutely. Truly innovative cities are studying ways to incorporate smart transportation for small electric cars. There is no mention of renewable, sustainable energy or innovative approaches to modernizing our city's transportation for years to come. This is Colorado where the environment is paramount to our economy and daily lives, our transportation goals should reflect that. We have loads of sunshine and solar and electric choices should be abundant. The survey merely appears to provide re-actionary solutions to problems that will grow out of hand as they have in every major U.S. cities. Why follow when we could easily lead and attract more business and tourism in the process??? Have we considered electric trolly cars for 1st, 7th, and 12th street leading to one East to West Trolley on Main? Picturesque, economically viable and highly usable. How about MART? Mesa County Regional Transporation-- an electric train system to transport workers, residents, and tourists from Palisade to the Airport to Grand Junction (the mall) to Fruita (and later to Delta and Montrose, Loma and Mack and possibly Glenwood Springs or even Moab). Electric trains were the one of the leading creaters of economic opportunity in the Dallas area. They are far more ridable, cleaner and viable than buses, though green buses could be used in addition for seniors, the disabled ect. Austin, Texas uses buses. It's traffic is a nightmarish infamous 69229977 32 mess. Study what other cities have done wrong as their populations exploded. 69677148 33 None Why do they make bike lanes on street shoulders and then don't keep them clean, especially in the county? Most of the wide shoulder bike lanes are filled with 69997336 34 debris and unrideable. How can we focus funding on alternative transportation modes and minimize widening of roads except for bike landes, sidewalks, and safety? How do we preserve 70500765 35 sufficient r-o-w for future future rapid transit lines or street cars and not allow it to be eaten-up by more and more auro travel lanes? I do not support extra taxes to fix any of our city, county or federal highway systems or problems. Here is why: There are currently BILLIONS of tax dollars being spent on fixing roads in Afghanistan and Iraq and in building schools everywhere from Africa to Japan. Yet OUR roads and OUR schools are falling apart. Teachers are getting laid off, programs are cut, roads and bridges are falling apart. You are our government. You should be putting pressure on other federal government agencies to tell them to stop sending our money to places most tax payers can't even find on a map and put that money back here in our own front yards. I am so sick of giving money to people and countries I don't give a shit about while my shock absorbers, front end alignment, tires and brakes are being chewed up by roads we can no longer afford to maintain. No...we can, indeed, afford it, if we can stop spending money in other hemispheres on things NOBODY 70940719 36 cares about...not even the recipients of our generous foolishness. 71781715 37 Are we adding bike lanes to all roads that are being updated? When you look at who is paying the most in taxes it is not the disabled, elderly or low income. It is those of us that are working! I would like to see their needs met, 72798705 38 but let's not go overboard and forget the needs of those footing the bill. 73049867 39 Why do we have so many drivers running red lights? and pulling in front of oncoming traffic? We need traffic law enforcement, especially for dangerous driving.

Mesa county has an already existing network of alternative transportation routes in the irrigation ditch leves. Address the development of these routes into trails 73052528 40 that will exponentially increase the interconnectivity of where we work, live and play. It will help address many of the issues that were queried in this survey. Can walk lights be changed to make it easier to allow our senior citizens more time to cross streets without feeling that they have to try to go faster than is sage for 73071772 41 them? 73076824 42 Get rid of stupid three lane sections and roundaouts. consider growth when developing plans to make transportation changes. consider the population that does not have personal transportation and is dependent upon 73090123 43 public transportation - increase efficiency and availability of public transoprtation. 73100809 44 n/a I think we should consider having charging stations for electric cars and motorcylcles. I think we should look at bike paths that would cover the whole county in a safe way, like Albuquerque, NM does. Albuquerque has a lot of bike paths near irrigation and run off ditches that are safe from motor vehicles but can get bicyclists 73090027 45 across town and to major areas, ie UNM, in an efficient manner. 73121569 46 the link between transportation problems and land use (especially the lack of $ available to continue to support a sprawling development pattern) How do we keep our growing city running smoothly, without expanding in urban sprawl into the beautiful recreation areas that make this such a beautiful place to live? Are there any other roadways that would be best built elevated (like the parkway) or underpasses under railways (like 30 Rd.) that can significantly improve 73147072 47 flow and travel times while still being done elegantly? Driving safety in design of road and highway intersections. Pedestrian safety in design of crossings, intersections. High priority for road design for safety. 73153684 48 Encourage safe driving.

P:\MesaCountyRCTP_MEG1001\Surveys\Resident\Survey_Data_Reports\4_18June_2010\survey_comments.xlsxQuestion35 Page - 1 2035 Mesa County Regional Transportation Plan Online Resident Survey Comment Summary June 21, 2010

Question 35: Are there any questions you would like to have addressed in this process? Response ID No. Comments

Looking at transportation without seriously looking at land use is foolish. Please examine current land use plans and current zoning. From these, please look at 73463534 49 traffic and costs of needed infrastructure. Also, please look at other build-out scenarios - how will transportation be impacted by different land use scenarios. Now we are getting drunk drivers off the road....however, now they are forced to walk or ride bikes.... This restricts their employment possibilities and where they can live. Since society has forced them into this difficult transportation, is there a possibility for bus passes? I know, if they had thought about this ahead of time 73543426 50 it wouldn't be a problem, but I doubt that anyone thinks, if I have this drink will I only be able to ride a bike from now on?

The paint stripes that are on painted on the roadways now are not like they use to be, they are able to be seen for a few weeks but after that, they are useless. The 73547998 51 quality of the paint and not using the reflective beads that used to be in it make it vary unsafe. Why did CDOT stop using the good paint and beads? Definitely focus on improving bicycle and pedestrian safety on city streets and county roads. I would ride my bike more places if that was available--for example, there is not a safe way to ride a bike to Albertson's on 12th and Orchard. Specifically, the county roads north of F are not wide enough and cause traffic hazards for 73546167 52 bikers and other vehicles. 1). Are bicycle corridors for commuters being considered (especially from Fruita to Grand Junction)? 2). Please consider bicycle and pedestrian travel as other 73556535 53 forms of transportation. 3). Is GVT considering adding GJ needs a trained traffic engineer who can work to improve the existing lights and flow patterns in a way that reduces travel time and reduces emissions caused by idling and accelerating vehicles. The timed traffic lights continue to be messed up in ways that waste fuel, increase emissions, and encourage speeding to catch the improperly timed lights. Southbound 4th and Pitkin and 5th and Pitkin are prime examples. The southbound light at 5th and Pitkin only allows the vehicles that 73576588 54 are stopped through, while all the vehicles actively turning south from Ute get caught by the light. 73801363 55 Add passing lanes on major East-West roads such as D road. 73808059 56 Would the incorporation of Clifton to Grand Junction, have an affect on the 73908912 57 Congestion on F Road north of Mesa Mall I would like to know why streets are striped one way and then when repaved, the bike lane is striped differently. I would like our community to be more bicycle and 73947915 58 pedestrian friendly. Why are there so many mistakes being made in Grand Junction's engineering. ie.. Not considering the skew when looking at turn lane conflicts at Hwy 6 and 25 Road intersection? i.e. 1st St. at I-70 failing immediatly. Sorry, that wasn't the trucks fault. The roundabout at 7th and Main completely ruined pedestrian access for the sight impaired and effectively made Rude Ave at 7th a right only proposition to the elimination of the traffic break the light used to provide. And who's 74133327 59 responsible for back in parking. Can we get undercover security to ride a different bus each trip. Do you ID riders that use foul language, are intoxicated, or cause problems. What are the planes 74290714 60 for getting garbage cans at every stop? Is there any plan to put garbage can's on the busses? 74512397 61 The inclusion of Para-transit in the planning process. 74808858 62 is light rail worth considering? should we consider encouraging alternative transportation such as lightweight gas and electric such as golf cart on road ways ARe there better means of timing traffic signalization or eliminating some to improve flow? Can lights go to flashing red/yellow during late hours? Why do we pay 74852326 63 for expensive signalization that just acts like expensive four way stop signs? Can we build more traffic circles? North-South arterials need to be developed. 32 Road works well, but 29 Road was undersized from the beginning at 3 lanes and such slow speeds. 5th street is still the best north-south arterial, but it ends in a residential subdivision at the High School. The I-70B corridor from 1st Street to Mesa Mall has reached a level of dysfunctionality that is making me not want to ever shop at businesses along this stretch of blacktop misery. The business in this area should scream for 74908109 64 improvements so they don't lose business. Reinforce the idea of compact growth with walkable, bicycle friendly communities with good internal transportation that consists of sidewalks, bike routes and paths, transit and roads. Emphasize future iproved rail transportation in the valley and from Grand Junction to Denver and Salt Lake. Consider a communter rail shuttle 75022464 65 on the Union Pacific line from Fruita to Plalisade and Grand Junction to Delta. Mesa County is living in the dark ages with respect to transportation. Large ticket items (such as the bypass) did little to improve overall traffic flow at an incredible price. Grassroots programs to improve alternative modes (cycling and pedestrian) have been disrespected and squashed by commissioners s' short-sighted perspectives (Craig Meis has nearly single-handedly negated any measures of progressive thought regarding transportation.) Maybe spending a fractional part of the massive transportation budget to encourage alternative transportation should be investigated, instead of being dismissed as unworthy of a county ruled by those 75074360 66 who drive oversized pickup trucks and SUVs. 75417934 67 Why isn't 77151073 68 clarification of highway 340 issues, state,local fused identity = inferior dangerous road which is major conduit for entire region. (redlands) 79113816 69 Does dial-a-ride make any sense? Is there a way to do this types of survey over the phone for those of us who don't have a computer and are low vision? Also, to get information from other then 79770175 70 computer? How about a telephone # & survey? Or have them mailed? Why was the bicycle lane eliminated from the overpass on the Redlands Parkway South of Patterson Road when the road was repaved? This lane used to connect 80018744 71 the 24 Road bike lane to the Riverfront trail via River Road. 81727555 72 I'm concerned that the Connections 2035 workshop isn't being held at a RTPO location. 82832992 73 Nope 83724472 74 I strongly suggest that we license bicycles so they can start helping to pay their way,They have gotten a free ride far to long! 83858113 75 Designated bicycle routes until improvements can be made. 1] How are the RAFTA and ECO buses funded for free transportation to riders, compared to GVT funding? It seems that the volume of buses running 24/7, or almost, in the high country would be an example to use here in Mesa County. 2] Has anyone suggested a couple of buses from Collbran, DeBeque, and Mack 83894489 76 into/out of, GJ, for AM and PM runs with connections for shoppers. How are multi-modal connection/transfer centers being considered? How will this plan tie into growth/development plans within the county and within the region? Will this plan result in a prioritized list of transportation projects? What entities and/or persons represent alternative transportation in the planning effort? (incl: bus, train, taxi, senior shuttles, disabled van services, bicycles, pedestrian, etc.) Are changes to land use plans, zoning ordinances, and other existing plans anticipated 86821755 77 as a result of this process? 74138871 78 Is the existing water canal system being considered as an opportunity to create a world-class foot and bike transportation network within the Grand Valley? 99294351 79 Political will for tough choices that may be considered

P:\MesaCountyRCTP_MEG1001\Surveys\Resident\Survey_Data_Reports\4_18June_2010\survey_comments.xlsxQuestion35 Page - 2 2035 Mesa County Regional Transportation Plan Online Resident Survey Comment Summary June 21, 2010

Question 36: Would you like to provide any additional comments? Response ID No. Comments Bike paths and shoulders are very important for Auto and bicycle safety between Fruita and Mack. With the increased bike and truck traffic this area is an accident 67904708 1 waiting to happen. 67928419 2 I think a commuter bus from Mesa to grand Junction would do well. I think you would get a lot of commuters and students attending Mesa State. I love the bike trails/lanes, and I think down by the college there need to be more. Safety has improved down there, but there are too many people trying to park at once, in a small area, and they're all in a hurry to get to class. That's when it gets dangerous for bikes and pedestrians. Increased awareness of using bikes and public 68025625 3 transport for college students would be great! Thanks We could increase our state revenue by alot if we would crack down on the residents that license their vehicles in other states like Montana that charges low fees but drive on our roads. What happened to the law that you had to purchase new plates within 30 days? Use that $$ to fix the roads. Bicycles are great but don't pay to 68024946 4 use the roads. If they want road rights and nice trails, etc. tax them. This is a great thing that the county is doing! I am glad they will be addressing issues related to transportation since we seem to be the junction between two major 68021740 5 cities and we have a potential to see an increase in traffic over the next 20 years. 29 Road needs highest priority. It keeps getting put aside for other projects. The south and west ends of the valley are always overlooked. It needs to be done 68022466 6 already. GJ has come a big way building new roads to orchard mesa, and the riverside parkway is a great senic route love the hugh improvements can't wait for more in the 68027347 7 future. Like bus system, longer hours, closer to work and home. This survey was a little long. It came to me at my work. I thought it would only take 5 minutes and it ended up taking much more than that. A heads up on the length 68025577 8 would have been appreciated. The canal systems in this county could be used to increase the quantity, quality and efficiency of bike/walk paths. I'm sure many people would use them and reduce the burden on our roadway corridors. We keep trying to meld all forms of transportation into one giant transpo-corridor... maybe we should think beyond that and 68024438 9 separate the modes. Many communities have taken steps to utilize these 68032213 10 I live on Orchard Mesa and work at the Community Services Building. I would take the bus to and from work daily if there was a reasonable route. GVT is not efficient enough to use for work. It would be helpful to have business routes with minimal wait time and stops. I mapped out home (Fruita) to MCDHS and it 68043328 11 would take over an hour and a half. I am from an urban area in California--we have little congestion compared to that environment. However, adding a feature for suggested bus routes that would cover my commute in a reasonable amount of time would make that an attractive choice rather than spending gas, maintenance etc for the work commute (besides I could 68046649 12 read or do handiwork). Providing for bicycles and pedestrians helps not only the bicyclists and pedestrians, but also the motor vehicle drivers. It's the safe thing to do. It's the right thing to 68052611 13 do. Bike trails should extend from Fruita to Palisade, Include more benches, toilet facilitys, grassy areas, connecting parks. Mall trafic on a bike, not real safe, Have you looked at Salt Lake County Utah's bike trail system along the Jordan River they have Water foutains, restrooms parks at almost every intersection Would like to see a 68091876 14 bike trail form here to Moab UT 68155947 15 Please use all resources to improve the bus system here for all Grand Valley residents, not just those that live in town.... 68158260 16 Highway 6 & 50 between Exit 26 and 18 Rd. needs to be 4-5 lanes instead of 2. Please look into improving bicycle safety. I would ride to work everyday but I fear for my safety. Drivers are generally rude and aggressive towards bicycles, and the roads I ride are very narrow. Road bikes cannot be ridden very far to the right on roads because of all the rocks and debris that collect there, which are a hazard to 68170395 17 the narrow tires of a road bike.

The #1 problem today is; People have begun running traffic lights mostly at left hand turn signals, and the Mesa county sheriffs, and GJ police don't seem to care. I see 2-4-6 cars go through on red left turn signals right in front of the Sheriffs & GJ police cars every day, and I've never seen anyone get pulled over for this extremely dangerous practice. We need to put cameras up to take pictures and automaticly ticket these offenders to curb this increasing problem, since the law enforcement 68156728 18 doesn't seem to care about it. People will get killed if this premissive attitude isn't checked. #2 Mesa County & Grand Junction need to install about 1000 68174963 19 I'd like for the focus of this plan to be how to move I believe we should prioritize maintenance and improvement of existing infrastructure before making large investments in new bike paths, etc. while existing roads are 68174868 20 falling apart. I am a part-time bicycle commuter. The connectivity and continuity of bike trails and bike lanes is inadequate, with safety concerns that would discourage most people, but I persevere out of sheer determination to 'do the right thing'. It is painfully obvious that the newly submerged water canal that parallels Patterson roughly between the Mall and 1st ave should have a bicycle/pedestrian path on it. It is painfully obvious that in general the canal system is a built-in infrastructure for more non-motorized transportation options but Mesa County seems unable and unwilling to take the lead in promoting the common good - how much more dependent on 68182999 21 foreign oil and how much more obese does our society have to get before we become proactive? 68196852 22 No 69908103 23 No 71848649 24 No 73060269 25 No 73464725 26 No Sunset the PID for the Mesa Community Center, and then create a similar taxing district for rural and remote transportation services to promote tourism while serving the needs of the community. Provide an intercept lot near I-70 for hikers, sightseeing tourists, picnickers, etc. to ride the bus up to its terminus at Mesa Lakes Resort, and/or a pick up point in Palisade similar to the service from Ruby Park in Aspen to the Maroon Bells wilderness area and Crater Lake hiking paths. So many international visitors on planes into GJ do not rent cars but do expect linking transportation to outdoor recreation areas while visiting the area. Make the service 68214814 27 seasonal on a trial basis. 68252584 28 Survey was not very user friendly in terms of knowing what some of the meanings to questions were. Some of the questions were confusing. Timing of traffic lights (except on 5th St) are quite irritating. One of the worst is the intersection at I-70B and 30 Road is just plain scary! After crossing I-70B on 30 Road everyone rushes to the center lane is quite hazardous. Traveling south on 7th, the intersection at North Ave is one of those that you can sit and enjoy the traffic 68252032 29 lights change without moving more that one car length. The traffic on 6&50 is still miserable from City toward Mesa Mall. 68270629 30 Traffic law enforcement needs increased to alleviate some safety issues. Tear down the old houses/buildings between 1st and 5th streets and Ute and Pitkin. Then reroute U.S. 50 near the old train depot with a parking lot nearby. Maybe turn the depot into a bus terminal. Somehow slow down the drivers especially on Patterson/F Road and North Ave. There are WAY too many wrecks and worse still rollover wrecks in this town. Maybe have the police enforce running red lights and stops at stop signs and red lights. If by no other way than to advertise on TV and in 68267217 31 paper what the laws are... 68272574 32 I think it is a little silly if people in Mesa County feel we have 68272451 33 It would be great if a reliable, affordable, safe and rapid form of transportation could be developed between Grand Junction and Denver.

68274099 34 I would like to see any/all work done related to transportation to be contracted through local companies and employers so that local people can get those jobs. 68279361 35 Finish the 29 Road project to I-70.

I fully support increased neighborhood connections of sidewalks and bike paths. We are lucky to live in the downtown area where this is more common but it should be required in all new developments, as well. Please don't just build more car-oriented streets and lanes. We need to make alternative transportation more attractive and invest in it now. More and more people will use bikes, buses, and walking in the future. Improved pedestrian crossings at major intersections to narrow the gap 68279583 36 that people have to walk is a relatively easy way to improve safety, particularly at major intersections near schools (like 12th and Gunnison). Increased population will increase loads on roads. without improvement there will be need for more enforcement of current traffic laws, which I believe to be pretty poor now. I am sick and tired of people running red lights, riding my tail, and weaving in and out of traffic. . So if transportation improvement is put on the back shelf 68327667 37 then we need more enforcement to make the roads more safe than now. 68535996 38 concetrate on what you have now , and only buy what you can afford.no debt for our kids please. 68539626 39 This region needs to activly get involved in tranportation options and alternative fuels. we would DEFINITELY ride our bikes to work on a daily basis if it were safer. A lot of the safety issues could be fixed with roads, but we also need to change the way 68561305 40 a lot of drivers view cyclists. There are many things to consider with this undertaking. Impacts from oil & gas exploration, population growth and funding at the municipal level are a few that should 68613366 41 be considered. With municipal funding coming from the General Fund, it is difficult to keep street maintenance budgets from being cut. East west bike travel needs to be improved for bicycle commuters that travel to the downtown area from the Fruitvale area. There are some bike lanes available but 68773394 42 there aren't any continuous lanes/paths from east to west for safe travel. 68789184 43 See the above.

the back street to the rimrock walmart, starting at Main and 1st, has so many potholes its dangerous for 2 lanes of traffic. They filled them, but not well. The filling 68837135 44 started chipping out almost immediately. 3 months later the road was just as dangerous and all the tax dollars spent on the awful patch job were wasted. People drive like idiots. They get angry when someone is going the speed limit, makes a complete stop, and tries to follow the laws. I would like to see the police pull them over and give tickets. Why are kids texting when it's against the law? Why are they allowed to have passengers in the car when they have had their liscense 69050969 45 less than 6 months?

P:\MesaCountyRCTP_MEG1001\Surveys\Resident\Survey_Data_Reports\4_18June_2010\survey_comments.xlsxQuestion36 Page - 1 2035 Mesa County Regional Transportation Plan Online Resident Survey Comment Summary June 21, 2010

Question 36: Would you like to provide any additional comments? Response ID No. Comments Much of the safety of bicyclists is dependant on the road surfaces, space allowed on the roadway, skill of the cyclist, and attitude of drivers. Unfortunately, this county has many drivers that have an out and out disdain for people who want to cycle. It's sad. I think this valley has many mean-spirited, angy people driving cars and 69056869 46 voting against anything that doesn't benefit them directly. 69054873 47 of the 3 people living in my household-2 of them are disabled. We would LOVE to see more bike friendly roads/trails that connect us to the city. We'd love to ride our bikes as alternative form or transportation, but do not want to 69053435 48 risk our lives to do so. I've lived in bigger cities as well as here. I think I-70 needs to be viewed as a freeway with more on and offramps to more streets. It's ridiculous that there are no off ramps bt/w 24 rd and Horizon, nor bt/w Horizon and the Clifton exit. A lot more people could get where they are going more quickly if they didn't have to go through 69092909 49 town to get there. 69101629 50 . A toxic, unsustainable, and unlivable future awaits Colorado and Grand Junction specifically if we tailor our transportation needs and economy to the oil and gas 69229977 51 industry. We need bright, innovative and industrious people to look far beyond

You could pay for alot of the improvements by ticketing all the people running red lights at 1st and Grand, and the Sam's Club intersection!! Put in a camera, snap 69278963 52 those pictures, send out those summons', and watch the $$$ roll in! :) Seriously..what can be done about this towns addiction to what I like to call, I am not in favor of expending tax dollars derived from vehicle registrations or gas tax to do any improvements for bicycles, when there is a bicycle registration developed then those funds could be used to improve bicycle access. Presently there is to much focus on Multi Modal transportation with only one source paying for 69531221 53 that.

Lumping all transportation in the County gets confusing. I think every one does a good job at transportation except the City of GJ. GJ is more interested in looks pretty than traffic safety and has done more than any other agency to congest traffic in Mesa County. Need Proof! 1st St Orchard to F Rd was only the start. 5th St 3 lanes to 2 lanes plus pretty concrete to make it harder and more expensive to go back to three lanes when needed. 7th St from Ute to Grand - what a Blunder! Extra pedestrian crossings obscured by planters and another round about that is to small. (Note: I like round abouts when done correcty. The city just has not done one right yet!) Planters on 12th St at Mesa College. So the city has pretty much screwed up every north south road between 25 Rd and 28 Rd in the core of the city. Most recently, the pretty planter from 9th St to D Rd on the Parkway. What have we got right. The Parkway, 25 Rd, 29 Rd when it's completed to I-70, Red lands Parkway and the 30 Rd underpass which is always congested but still better than when you had to wait for the trains. Hopefully, the 29 Rd overpass will help relieve some of the congestion there. What needs to be done? Four lane D Rd from 9th to Hwy 6 some place east of 33 Rd. An underpass at 9th St. Three or four lane K Rd from Fruita to 25 Rd. A new or improved corridor from Palisade to GJ. Either Hwy 6 or G Rd improvements or something else. No schools should be built with out adequate pedestrian and bicycle paths for the kids. The improvements on Orchard Av at Bookcliff Middle School are a good example. What they did was great but it needs to be completed. Sidewalks on 29 & 29.5 Rds from North Av to F Rd and on Orchard Av from 28 to 30 Rd all need to be completed. Other Schools that need help in this area would include Scenic, Palisade HS and Middle, Dos Rios, Thunder Mountain, and others that I can not remember there names. I like and use the bike trail along the river. It is a great north south route. To make it a true transportation asset, dedicated pedestrian/bike paths north and south need to be completed. In the older parts of town this would be difficult. In the outlying areas it is still possible. If you want people us the existing bike lanes that are attached to roads. They 69550075 54 have to be SWEPT much more frequently than they are now. If not cyclist will continue to ride in the car lane as they do now. 69665580 55 Keep bicyclists and pedestrians in mind when designing roads. 69677148 56 None 69677306 57 Get the trails next to canals connected to be used for recreation and transportation.

We cannot build our way out of congestion. People need to learn to share the road, carpool, walk, cycle, and be patient. Air quality is deteriorating, and we are likely 70500765 58 to become a non-attainment area, so stressing travel efficiency and multi-modal approaches will be key to being able to use our limited funds appropriately. 70572221 59 Thank you for doing this survey. Very excited about a new transportation plan. With increasing population, gas prices, and effect to the environment, improving transportation and accommodating 70871325 60 more mass transit and alternative transportation is important in the Grand Valley. If you are going to have a focus group, please ask the general brain trust there how we as Mesa County tax payers can tell Washington we really could use the money back here that we are currently forced to give them. Somehow that is something that evolved to this point of total spending insanity...why can't we as citizens who 70940719 61 PAY for this stuff turn it OFF? 71170239 62 Not at this time Failing infrastructure is probably the biggest concern. This includes local streets, sidewalks and bike paths. There also needs to be transit specifically geared towards 71315606 63 the elderly or infirmed. There are many elderly here in Palisade who do not have direct access to transit for medical purposes. 1. Please look at not only having walking and bicycle trails within neighborhoods, but also having thses trails connect between neighborhoods and to regional trails, in order to increase availability of trails for both business (e.g., getting to work) and pleasure use. 2. When asking survey questions that need contact information in the response, please use a secure connection. I would have been interested in receiving information and participating in a focus group, but do not provide my personal 71627727 64 information without a secure connection. Thank you for asking for our input! We need to make sure that what ever plan we come up with makes our communities more pedestrian friendly. Cars are important but we can not let them be the only 71781715 65 option of transportation. If we build a user friendly transportation system more people will use forms of transport other than thier cars. The entrance ramp behind Sutherlands onto Redlands Parkway is extremely dangerous. I can't tell you how many times I have had to approach with caution or slam on my brakes and swerve to avoid people merging that do not yield. My daughter will start driving in 2 years and I will not allow her to use that seciton of road unless 71986627 66 the problem is remedied. The bike paths along the river and bridge over River parkway and the railroad are a good step in the right direction towards offer an alternative transportation method (i.e. bikes). However, the trail is in very poor shape and is in dire need of at least some patching. Having lived in a city with a very effective transportation system, Ft. 72218609 67 Collins, I can say with confidence that if a suitable bike path/lane system is put in place people will use it. 72798705 68 Our community needs bike trails to get across town and to our many dirt trails. Fort Collins, CO is a great example of a wonderful trail system. Increase public transit options. Not only bus routes, but rapid transit connecting to Denver too. Finish trail projects for bicycle routes and maintain bike lanes for 73049867 69 commuters. 73058629 70 If you ever make any commercials on the radio please do not include honking horns (like the census commercial did). 73066939 71 Need for safe N/S , and E/W biking corridors through county. Ex. Downtown to Airport Business Area

I feel that Grand Junction needs to look to future needs just as much as current needs and that this may include other modes of transportation and greater funds. The 73071772 72 area is going to continue to grow and just trying to stay current will make correcting problems more difficult in the future and much more costly. Maintain roads, utilize reflective paint or makers to better identify medians - make barriers more visible. Increae bike friendly areas to encourage more use of bike 73090123 73 transportation. If more routes with limited connections to work were provided in the AM and PM (when we go to work and when we go home) maybe more people would consider 73098492 74 using the buses. I would like to take the bus from OM to the Community Services Building for work. 73100809 75 n/a 73132025 76 We need to proceed quickly with a 29 Road I-70 interchange. In the current economic situation of our valley I think public transportation is a luxury for our county coffers to be paying for. We need to be more dependent on our families and our churches instead of any kind of government programs. The more we get rid of government intervention in our lives, the better. People think it doesn't 73132068 77 cost them if it comes from a number of these answers are affected by the economy and what we see in the future which does not look good for children and grandchildren with taxes and fees 73141399 78 added every time you look at what the president and congress is doing in addition to our state officials. 73147072 79 Thank you for soliciting imput. This survey took longer than most people will give it to get done without canceling.

P:\MesaCountyRCTP_MEG1001\Surveys\Resident\Survey_Data_Reports\4_18June_2010\survey_comments.xlsxQuestion36 Page - 2 2035 Mesa County Regional Transportation Plan Online Resident Survey Comment Summary June 21, 2010

Question 36: Would you like to provide any additional comments? Response ID No. Comments

The word â ?PROVIDEâ ? is thrown about sometimes with no regard to WHO will do the providing !! Nice survey, however, â ?Times have Changedâ ? and the HOPE part is fast running out of honey moon time. You do realize that this country is about broke or is in fact broke and the fact ignored. Those in power seem hell bent to bring us to our knees or at minimum, to an economic level of mediocrity. Weâ ve been blowing and going for over 200 years. Maybe we need a rest. Tell that to the idiots who now speak in terms of trillions instead of billions. I sincerely hope the analysis of the results leads to a rational view of taxation with a keen sense of cost/ benefit. Bike and Nature trails that are used by a mere sliver of the population should receive critical evaluation. That said, a city environment deserves a more broad view of available public services. Unless, the intent of the survey analysis is to push as many folks as possible to buses, bikes and sidewalks. Don't forget for the time being, this is still the west, folks are YET to be controlled to the point where one is told or pressured or â ?NUDGEDâ ? where to live. Of course, I can't wait for the Imperial Decree instituting $8.00 gas. (I guess we could go back to a monthly trip to town in the buckboard) Will admit, transportation planners are in a no win situation. It will be tough to avoid the â ?BAD GUYâ ? label whether you plan correctly or you miss the mark. I guess just don't miss it by too far. So far, it seems the system is serving at a reasonable level with few hang-ups, even during the height of the Bubble. What are your expectations of increased Energy Development Related Traffic. Are the local and state governments, chamber, trades, real estate, etc. going to splurge on promotion of the area. Am I correct, most of the transplants to this area come from the Eastern Slope and where did they come from ? An economy in the tank may lead to a more mobile work force...just depends where the work is located. This past winter didn't do much for promoting the â ?Banana Beltâ ? label. What's the projected growth rate (hard one). Some of the questions provoke further questions. I have to believe there may be many respondents who have very little stake in the HOW MUCH $. Or as Woody said the Dough Ray Mee BOY. Remember it's ALWAYS â ?OTHER PEOPLES MONEYâ ? Perhaps planners should not only evaluate people transportation as much as taking decisions that directly reduce the need for â ?Stupidâ ? transport, ie, moving energy related produce water 100 miles + one way. How about a little coordination between regulatory groups to limit or eliminate some of this wasteful traffic. Everybody, at least I believe, should seek a job. (Iâ ll stay away from the â RIGHTâ debate.) Where are the jobs located . Where will they be located? Whereâ s the coordination of transport to the outlying job locations. If one doesn't have a job, one's transportation requirements hit a definite low. A subsidized bus ride to the nearest state un-employment office may not take you very far in 73139817 80 the direction and support of super duper transportation plan. I'm done. With a twist of audacity and a touch of pomposity, HOPE this is helpful. 73153684 81 Thank you for the survey. Some questions are hard to answer because they're so general. The more specific the better. 73175737 82 I would refrain from spending funds on special bike lanes and trails since they don't use them. The will ride in traffic with a bike lane along side of them. Quit building roundabouts. Don't build roads with less than four lanes if they are supposed to handle future congestion, otherwise you end up spending more money in the future widening a road that could have been built correctly the first time, ie, 29 Rd between F Rd and North Ave, 29 Rd from D Rd to Hwy 50 and the Riverside 73224591 83 Parkway East of 5th St. The City has and is creating a traffic disaster by approving so much destination retail on the 24 Road/West I-70 Business Loop corridor. The County is creating a 73463534 84 horrifically expensive transportation problem by approving low-density sprawl throughout the Grand Valley Our city has done a good job so far in helping traffic flow. I am concerned about the impact of the new City Market on 12th and Patterson. I do not understand how that was approved. Patterson is already very heavily used. Does the city need to make new laws to restrict more of these developments from being approved? Also, applause and yeahs to the bridge on 29 Road and . the river Road by way. Super access to other areas of town. Also, yeah on limiting heavy semi trucks on roadways such as patterson. Please continue this. I would love to see another on ramp onto I70 between HOrizon Drive and Clifton Exit. I haven't heard about it in quite awhile. I am very biased since I am one of those cars on Patterson trying to get to work in the morning. I would love an on ramp closer to my home. Thanks for 73465113 85 asking residents for their input and we will really like it if you listen to us too. I definitely would consider riding the GVT to an from work. In fact the GVT stops right in front of my work. The bus stop in my neighborhood is about 1/2 a mile from my house. However, I have never ridden the GVT because of the time it takes to get from my bus stop to my work...according to the schedule, it would take 73521330 86 approximately one hour to get from my bus stop to my work. I can drive myself to work from my house in 10-15 minutes. I have long thought that one good way to reduce issues with train traffic would be to withdraw a corridor from BLM lands to the North of town and exchange that land with the Railroad for their corridor that runs through town. The new Northern corridor could provide connectivity with the airport and if a high speed rail is ever built to connect the East and West Slopes would foster more people flying in to Grand Junction to access the ski areas. The vacated rail corridor running through town could 73521326 87 then be developed into a green corridor of parks and trails running through town. 73522451 88 CDOT is quick to fix potholes on the business loop. County is efficient with snow removal. 73531227 89 Focus more tax spending on roads and traffic, less on social issues.

Trolley service downtown...no cars. We have such a beautiful downtown for pedestrians - it would be nice to be able to get from one end to the other for those of us 73543426 90 who can't walk that far. Buses running at night - after theatre, dinner, concerts...would be wonderful. I don't like walking at night, but I would ride a bus. 73546167 91 I would support installing cameras at intersections to identify persons/vehicles that run red lights. The timing on the crosswalk signals is too short to allow safe passage across the road. The intersection of 7th and Patterson is very dangerous and I have been nearly clipped by drunken drivers over 7 times in a one year period. The side walk on 7th street is in very poor repair, from Patterson all the way to the Downtown 73548685 92 area. The bus needs to run every 30 minutes during the busy morning and afternoon hours. I would ride my bike to work in the summer if there were a safe bike lane or 73559574 93 path along Patterson Road. 73572244 94 hi 73576588 95 I'd be more interested in participating in the planning process if I trusted the County Commissioners not to discount the plan or run roughshod over the citizens. 73606669 96 More people should walk or ride their bikes for transportation. I don' think we need to spend that much money on roads or buses. 73616451 97 Please replace Black Bridge across the Gunnison River 73653988 98 coordinate train,city bus , t 73819049 99 prohibit bikes on all Mesa County Roads Quit wasting money on the river trail Biking--county roads without bike lanes seem to be perfectly safe, so why does it feel like I'm taking my life in my hands when I get off the bike path and try to ride on neighborhood streets? An easy way to increase safety might be to look at visibility problems--tall plants at intersections, too short no-parking zones near intersections, etc. Also, transitions from bike lanes/paths are poorly planned--sharp curves instead of ramps, exits leading to lots and deadend roads, etc. Public Trans--not efficient to try to cover all residents since city/county are so spread out. BE REASONABLE--you can't please everybody. I would ride the bus if it came to 73821732 100 my area, but that's an exhorbitant expense to create a bus route to serve a dozen houses. Please, please, please increase the speed limit on Riverside Parkway. 40 mph is RIDICULOUS!!!! I estimate that on average about 80% of the people in town obey the speed limits on most roads, but only about 20% obey the speed limit on Riverside Parkway. By consensus, we all agree that the 40 mph speed limit should be at least 45, and more likely 50 mph. Compare Broadway and Hwy 6&50 with their multiple side access road and 45 mph speed limits to Riverside Pky with very little side 73813617 101 road access and its silly 40 mph speed limit. THIS IS A PROBLEM THAT NEEDS TO BE FIXED!!! I happily used the Roaring Fork Transit Authority System for 25 years at least 4 days a week before moving here. It worked for me because there were express busses from ElJebel to Aspen that covered the 26 miles in 30 minutes. Going from Palisade to downtown G.J. would take me 1plus hours currently and some of my shifts start at 7:15 am and end as late as 7:00 pm so the current schedules are hard to work with, I would like to use the system and I realize that nothing is perfect but with growth I hope the system will grow and improve. I do ride my bike to work weather permitting once a week and am so grateful for the path from Corn Lake to 73808059 102 downtown. Thank you for what has been done, I also use the Riverside PKY. to get to work and love it! 73883330 103 Enhancing bicycle lanes and bike options is very important. I was an enthusiastic bus rider in an urban area, taking the bus to work about 70% of the time. I've not been able to use GVT due to inconvenient stops/schedules and cumbersome transfers. My driving commute is about 15 minutes each way; getting to and riding the bus would be over 2 hours one way. (I do not live in a remote 73890663 104 rural area.) 73908912 105 I hope there is a high response for this survey. My Son has a disability and has to take the bus to college and back. Several times we have had problems with timing. Therefore he has to get the bus 1 hour before his class starts just in case the bus is late he is notlate for his class. Also He has been dropped off at the wrong location suggested by the bus personnal. He relies on 73928440 106 accuracy of bus stops. In the city of Grand Junction, I am a pedestrian and consider walking highly dangerous, because there are few sidewalks and heavy recklass traffic in many places. Unpaved walks in business areas is dangerous because traffic rarely stops for pedestrians. One can break a leg or an ankle most of the year, walking from one business to another because there is no paving, and lots of holes in the ground (uneven pathways). In summer, one can have heatstroke trying to walk anywhere. There are no bus stops for miles near where I live near Redlands. I dislike waiting at bus stops on transfer points, because everyone smokes while they wait, and I cannot breathe. Why don't bus stops post times of buses coming there? My daughter, young granddaughter and son-in-law bike a lot. They complain constantly 73945783 107 about problems. I think the narrow minded political views here are in part due to isolation of GJ from outside. 73947915 108 I appreciate this effort and am glad I can have a voice in the process! 73953354 109 More wide pedestrian and bike paths, please! 74133327 110 Please never consider back in parking again. It's inconvenient and dangerous.

I feel it is really important for kids to be able to bike or walk to school safely. There are no bike paths along E Road or South 31 1/2 Road which are major corridors 71584150 111 for students attending Grand Mesa Middle School and Central High School. I think I mistyped 31 Road instead of 31 1/2 Road in question above. 74222688 112 The river trails are excellent. I'm all for getting them connected from Palisade to Loma. 74225034 113 I think now is the time to start acquiring property to form a beltway around Grand Junction for future use.

P:\MesaCountyRCTP_MEG1001\Surveys\Resident\Survey_Data_Reports\4_18June_2010\survey_comments.xlsxQuestion36 Page - 3 2035 Mesa County Regional Transportation Plan Online Resident Survey Comment Summary June 21, 2010

Question 36: Would you like to provide any additional comments? Response ID No. Comments

It seems the only way to improve traffic flow between 1st & 7th on Patterson Road would be to condemn personal property since road has been widened all the way out to the easements, and there is not even a sidewalk on the south side since the area is so tight, but perhaps that needs to be considered? It seems like an extreme solution, yet with the addition of the shopping complex on the SW side of 1st & Patterson, and approval for a complex on 12th & Patterson SE corner, the traffic is only 74266535 114 going to increase. Going from 5 lanes to 4 for 1/4 mile sure seems to create a bottle neck, if we are looking at what the needs will be by 2035. 74290714 115 I have TROUBLE seeing all the stops on the map. I'm not always sure were I can get on & off. Post GVT I think the frontage roads by sams club / autozone on the business loop (and that whole area) need to be worked out so taffic flows better. It is almost impossible to turn left on to the business loop from the frontage street. Maybe funnel all of the traffic to a stop light like the sportmans warehouse shopping area ( one light multiple 74302167 116 stores). 74469334 117 Make it safer for bicycle riders! 74512397 118 Invite a person from each special interest to your planning meeting; ie truckers, seniors, disabled, youth, working class, transit drivers, taxi owners, etc. 74531435 119 Please improve our bike lanes! We need more bike lanes and the existing bike lanes must be maintained. 7th and 12th Streets need bike lanes! 74714344 120 Make bycyles pay their own way for bike lane/trail improvements. Keep up the level of maint. that exists today. Public transportation would be a great place to spend money to increase the frequency at which buses run their routes. Bike lanes need to be added in more heavily used roads, and increased safety for these cyclist is a must. We live a community where the weather is conclusive to transportation in this manner... let's make use of that and encourage more people in a positive way to welcome cyclists and watch out for their safety. Fewer cars on the road proves multiple benefits for all involved 74749162 121 (health, air quality, decreased fuel consumption, decreased traffic, etc.). 74755887 122 I am totally against roundabouts. If there were ever on the ballot, then mesa county would never see another , again. JH The biggest congestion problem in GJ is the mall area. When all the shopping opportunities are in the same area, congestion ensues because everyone from the 74757947 123 region must travel there. Poor planning in our opinion. I have thought that reducing the speed limit on secondary routes such as Orchard Ave. to 20 - 25 mph and allowing ANY form of transportation such as bikes, home- made electric, golf carts, etc. would encourage drivers of cars to move to higher speed roads and make it safer for alternatives to get around town and encourage car drivers to try other methods. Have some routes low-speed alternative routes, 4 wheelers, horse and cart, (whatever), and other routes normal 40-55 mph cars and 74808858 124 trucks only. We need to update the travel capabilities for the growth of Grand Junction. We love Grand Junction and what it has to offer. We did appreciate the bigger cities 74839993 125 capability (Denver) and use of the fantastic bus services/light rail systems. There were less limitations and very accessible in different areas. 74852326 126 We can't accept congestion levels that are More education to motorists is needed so they give bicycles on the road more room. Also, motorists need to understand that bicyclists may abide by the same rules 74857223 127 as cars: they are allowed to take up a lane - this is a much safer methode than trying to ride in the gutter and cars coming dangerously close. 74908109 128 Major redevelopment is needed in Old-town Clifton and in the Coronado Plaza stretch of I-70B. Why has the gas industry been permitted to foul the air and water, wreck the roads, and leave us with the highest unemployment rate in the state? Craig, Janet, Steve, would you care to take ANY responsibility on selling out Mesa County to a short-sighted extractive industry? And now, due to a oil and gas friendly govenor (Owens) and BLM run by Dick Cheney, we find that we didn't collect enough royalties to cover the infrastructure costs incurred by the gas boom. Those who refuse to 75074360 129 acknowlege past history are doomed to repeat mistakes in the future. Way to go, county commissioners. I am an avid bicycle commuter, and from talking with others about this mode of travel I have found that the most common reason more people don't use a bicycle for transportation is because they don't feel safe. I believe we can address many problems in our county, including traffic congestion, air pollution, and obesity, if more 75237793 130 people chose to bicycle their drive. If every new and improved road included adding a bicycle lane, merging dashes, and i think that sidewalks should be considered pedestrian walkways and inappropriate for bicycle use. I would ride my bike more to work and to errands if bike lanes 75361012 131 were available. Roads in the Grand Vally are very well maintained, in some cases overly so to the point that our money is being wasted. Overlays are done on perfectly good roads 75417934 132 that do not need I would suggest: That an east-west light rail system be seriously considered. That our air quality be preserved by re-instating the vehicle inspection system for safety/environmental standards...required perhaps every two years. That to preserve our air quality and to facilitate transportation, a system of vehicle rating be 75521579 133 established (over several years), so that only vehicles with the By 2035 it probably will be advantageous to be utilizing the rail lines in the area more effectively. The use of commuter trains from Fruita, Palisade and Clifton to a central station in Grand Junction should be considered. Access to the rail line to Delta might also be considered. Negotiations with the railroad(s) for use of those routes should start in 2011 to have commuter trains by 2035,( These usually take a long time.) Purchasing the old Union Station now while it's selling for a low price 75524296 134 should be considered, this could be the central hub. It would be nice to have better access to bike paths from where I live. It is hard to get to the river trail from my area of town because I must navigate 6 and 50. It would 75530744 135 be great to somehow incorporate a bike lane along there to improve access. Thanks I won't be in GJ in August, but would like to know what the plans are 1) to facilitate biking as an alternative to driving 2) to make walking a more acceptable mode of transportation 3) to increase car and driving safety by having level streets 4) to improve the tourist industry by making it easier for non-residents to choose the correct 75700358 136 lane - by marking the lanes better.

I strongly think that it is important to have many safe bike lanes provided for bike commuters in the 2035 plan. There is great chance that we'll see a noticeable rise in fuel costs and the county should support people's ability to safely commute and ride to destinations across the valley. I think it is important to also provide safe, and clear access for riders to the riverside trail from downtown destinations. Currently, we have only one satisfactory intersection at 5th street. It would be great to have a 75746592 137 safe lane/access via Grand and 1st. Students and commuters need a safe lane or corridor to go from downtown GJ, directly to Mesa State, and north of the campus.

The new roads with shoulders are terrific (Monument Road, Riverside Parkway, etc) but they need to be swept more often otherwise cyclists will ride in the lanes. Continuity and smooth linking between shoulders, bike lanes and trails is very important to making bicycling a viable alternative. I was disappointed that the Riverside 76000287 138 Parkway does not have curb cuts linking the bike lanes and the trails. Also, there are several ways to get to 1st and Grand but no way to get across it safely. 77014884 139 Stop wasting money on the rtd buses since the only people using them is the 77151073 140 thank-you for the survey and the reponsible atempt to chart current and future transpo needs in mesa county. I hoped that with the opening of the 29 Road bridge, traffic on Unaweep Avenue would drop, but it has grown and the east end is not patrolled very often, so people 77692031 141 drive much too fast for a residential area. You should be able to bike from one end of the metro area to the other by bicycle, in a roughly straight line. Our economy in 20 years will require that. Gas prices will 79113816 142 make alternative transportation crucial and we have to plan for it now. I would like to see a city that attracts multigenerational use & see the city grow yet be really fun and user friendly. For students, tourists, visitors, workers and 79770175 143 everyone. 80018744 144 Utilize River Road as a continuation of the Riverside Bypass to get traffic West of the Mall. with the increase of traffic between fruita and grand junction and the expected growth in fruita for the future a turn lane MUST be installed in hwy 6 and 50 because the people that live along that road are already at high risk of injury or even death anytime they have to make a left hand turn into their home. With the expected 81068572 145 increase in traffic volume it is only a matter of time before the worst happens 81727555 146 There's a typo in question #23 It would nice to have a bike route from Palisade to Grand Junction without getting on any major business corridors. I would support the completion of the Riverside 82832992 147 Trail.

I think establishing corridors to create connections for non motorized traffic should be our number 1 priority. Especially to major destinations such as schools, St Mary's, MSC and recreational activities (the river, Lunch Loop trails, parks). I live in downtown and it's like you are trapped on all sides by walls of dense fast-moving traffice (and often frustrated drivers). North Avenue is the worst. Crossing 1st St near Grand is also a problem area. 12th St has some issues, and doesn't seem to be any obviuos bike route heading east. If you try to go south you have to cross Pitken, Ute, train trakes and all of it just feels like a wasteland where pedestrians don't belong. Regarding Roundabouts: I'm sick of hearing drivers complain - they work great for moving traffic efficiently, but, they are aweful for pedestrians. Drivers don't understand how to deal with them (and somethimes peds don't know what to do either). They require a lot more public space to be devoted to the intersection, and you have to walk out of your way to get around it, instead of just crossing the street. Some places, like 7th St downtown, the roundabout moves cars so efficiently 83099801 148 and evenly spaced that it's impossible to cross the street without making a car stop for you. Bikers want more trails, no problem, they pay for them: 1] $500 license plates to the State for trail maintenance/construction 2] $250 sticker from resident county for county construction/maintenance fund 3} $150 special event permit for non-resident owners 4} Turnstiles at every entrance and mile on paths for $0.25 toll for all users. I paid over $18,000 in fuel taxes last year for the privilege of running over despicable highways, and I resent a bunch of freeloading parasites accessing MY tax money to build them trails that they not only don't pay for, but expect to be maintained, ignore the road safely rules, ride on sidewalks, not paths, block whole segments of highway so THEY can ride, with NO consideration for the motoring public going to/from deliveries, work/home, etc. OH yeah, just for info, all the money they spend at motels, cafes, bike shops....DON'T PUT A DIME INTO THE ROADWAY! DON'T PAY ME FOR LATE PICK/DELV, EXTRA MEDICAL TIME FOR EMT'S. As far as I'm concerned when they EARN the respect they demand, and become responsible travelers, they they are just more road trash and deserve nothing more. 83894489 149 Just my humble opinion. 86753882 150 Hwy 6 & 50 needs to have 3 lanes each way without fontage roads between North Ave and 24 Road. Please consider developing the existing water canal system to quickly, easily and inexpensively put into use a world-class transportation network for bike and foot 74138871 151 traffic. The canal network already links together all the sections of the community.

P:\MesaCountyRCTP_MEG1001\Surveys\Resident\Survey_Data_Reports\4_18June_2010\survey_comments.xlsxQuestion36 Page - 4 2035 Mesa County Regional Transportation Plan Online Resident Survey Comment Summary June 21, 2010

Question 36: Would you like to provide any additional comments? Response ID No. Comments Good luck. You need to appeal to the contractor in the F-150 that drives everyday. Transit is the answer, now and way into the future. We can't afford to build more 99294351 152 roads, environmentally or fiscally.

P:\MesaCountyRCTP_MEG1001\Surveys\Resident\Survey_Data_Reports\4_18June_2010\survey_comments.xlsxQuestion36 Page - 5 2035 Mesa County Regional Transportation Plan Online Resident Survey Comment Summary June 21, 2010

Question 9: Trucks, or large commercial vehicles, are necessary for the delivery of goods in and between our communities, but can pose safety and congestion problems. Are there any roads on which large trucks are a safety or congestion problem that we should study in this process? Please identify the road and nature of the problem. Response ID No. Comments 67788026 1 n/a 68022466 2 n/a 73798864 3 n/a

67794055 4 For roundabout intersections it can be a huge problem. It is an issue with 24 Road coming off of 1-70 and at 12 Street. Some claim they are safer but for larger trucks they aren't.

67897051 5 It is not my opinion that trucks pose a larger safety risk than cars. Truck drivers are proffesional and are better equiped to handle most traffic conditions better than the average driver 67904708 6 The area between 21 1/2 Road and 25 road along Highway 6&50 and River Road and Riverside Parkway. 67928419 7 I70 between between cameo and Clifton. HWY 65 fom exit 49 to 330. The trucks drive fast in the tight canyon 68016799 8 Not really a problem 68026585 9 G road from Horizon Drive ( both East and West routes) North Ave. 7th and 12th streets Trucks are a problem on the new bypassparkway in that the traffic lanes were built much too narrow; trucks should not be allowed on D-Road at all until it gets resurfaced - current 68025789 10 surface will only be damaged more in future due to heavy trucks. 68025577 11 I-70 Debeque Canyon -- one of the most dangerous pieces of rural interstate in the state. 68024438 12 Daytime travel on any of our streets but mainly 6 and 50 west; 12 street; F Road and North Avenue 68021740 13 32 Road - single lane highway with large trucks Ute & Pitkin Aves 68028498 14 Wherever there is a roundabout 68037168 15 I-70 B at the 22 road interchange and at the fuel station to the south 68033436 16 US 6 betwen Fruita and Grand Junction, US 6 between Palisade and Clifton, SH 340, I 70B 68045237 17 Highway 330 & Highway 330E with the oil and gas production. 68046649 18 I-70 through Debeque canyon- the road is winding, the speeds are slower, the rocks are falling, accidents are frequent. Mostly I notice problems when I am on my bike. Commercial vehicles are less respectful of bikes throughout the county, compared to 20 years ago. It is getting progressively worse. 68052611 19 I-70, Hwy 50, 24 Road to I-70 are places I especially have problems. 68061999 20 ? 68078444 21 The new parkway really helped with local truck traffic, the ones going through town has a resonably good route now 68091876 22 Every place that a round-about was put in and the double round abouts, are those really that necessary? 68155947 23 The large semi trucks always drive too fast thru town and on routes like Highway 50 in Orchard Mesa. 68156728 24 25 road & Hwy 6/50, Pitkin & Ute. Too many big trucks on these roads. 68158260 25 Highway 6 & 50 between Exit 26 and 18 Rd. Only 2 lanes. Traffic is frequently backed up due to slow speeds. 68159939 26 hwy 50 in orchard mesa Tractor trailer rigs accessing Glade Park via the Colo. Nat'l Monument without pilot vehicles. Too many tight, blind curves for them to safely maneuver. I have been in an accident 68171060 27 on the Monument because of this issue. 68171187 28 The worthless Riverside Project and the equally dumb 29th street overpass could have been of actual value, but as usual politics won D Road from 32 road to 29 road/or up 30 road Fast moving, loud, polution as they go by subdivision, congestion - no way a bike or pedestrian can use this part of D road safely or to 68171111 29 cross D road to access the riverfront trail. 30 Road north of Patterson road, inadequate signage, trucks regularly go north on 30 road to attempt to reach interstate , then have no place to turn around at G road. Better 68174868 30 signage at 30 & F road intersection would help. 68182999 31 Patterson Road seems to be used as a de facto high speed roadway and trucks often exceed the posted speed limit between 7th and 12th street in my experience. 68183170 32 Highway 6&50. Already carries too much traffic. Should require trucks to use Riverside parkway unless local delivery. 68188831 33 North Avenue does not provide enough width and is congested enough to hinder truck traffic and present conflicts with other vehicles. 68189621 34 Just about any intersection in town, they were not made with the large semis in mind in reference to them turning. It's a scary sight. 68192780 35 I-70, excessive speeding, irresponsible driving. Rock chips in windshield 68198362 36 Unsure 68196852 37 None 68536049 38 None 69677148 39 None 73139817 40 None 73464725 41 None 73843920 42 None DeBeque cut off used for training semi trailer operators-curves are too tight and trailers frequently cut off oncoming traffic Highway 65 over the Mesa will be used to move building 68214814 43 materials and wide loads to cut time. The largest commercial vehicle should be limited to a straight truck Hwy 6-50: even with the parkway, there is still a large amount of truck traffic on this route: I suggest allowing only local deliveries on 6-50 from 24 Rd west to 30 rd. Require use of 68216547 44 the parkway as a truck route. 27 1/2 Road off D road - this is still a residential area and the city/county has initiated industrial zoning on this street. Semi trucks continually use this narrow road at a high speed. It 68219995 45 is a dire safety concern for the residents that live here. All commercial vehicles should use Indian Wash Road to the east!!!!!!!!!!!!! 68244496 46 6 & 50 68241925 47 not for me

68241179 48 30 Road, North of I-70 B. There is a vehicle carrier that parks in the turn lanes to pick up or drop off cars. It makes it difficult to be past as that area always has a lot of traffic. Truck congestion and unsafe driving by trucks (speeding, changing lanees without signal or when it is not safe) on Ute and Pitkin especially. Some trucks take side roads to places 68252032 49 like the RimRock or Borders shopping center and cause hazards to cars, bikes and pedestrians on those narrow roadways The 12th St & Horizon Drive roundabout. That roundabout is way to small. This roundabout should be rebuilt into a larger one. I recommend a continuous lane from 12th street 68254799 50 going East onto Horizon drive. It would simplify that intersection. Seems like most of the traffic heads onto Horizon drive. 68265547 51 no 69908103 52 no 71265240 53 no 73175737 54 no 73543426 55 no 73819049 56 no 74225034 57 no We have to share commute thoroughfares with semis traveling off 1-70 going south on 32 road. Stoplight at 32 Rd. and business loop is dangerous. Need a cloverleaf or overpass from viaduct past Murdochs to hook up with loop and 1-70. Currently, merging from viaduct onto business loop heading northeast to 1-70 is very dangerous. Sharing it with semis 68259982 58 makes it worse. I-70 is over burdened with large trucks that attempt to pass each other, no matter how slow or how fast they are going, and it leaves little opportunity for passenger vehicles to safely 68267168 59 share the road. Maybe a service road for semi-truck and heavy equipment traffic. 68267951 60 Nothing specific comes to mind. 68267217 61 North Ave. Very tight turns and some streets (especially 12 Ave.) have narrow lanes. 68272112 62 Main Street in Grand Junction and Fruita 68270629 63 From I-70 through mall area to Hwy 50. Speed and congestion and running red lights are common for large trucks. Intersection of Grand and 1st is a mess. 68271930 64 32 Rd/Hwy 114 East of Hwy 50. There are no turn lanes (right or left) form Hwy 50 to Springfield Rd, with a speed limit of 55 68272451 65 I-70B & 6 & 50 during work commute hours - slows traffic Pitkin and Ute. (Narrow streets, large trucks driving too fast, I-70b and 6&50 (near Walgreens in Clifton, Sam's Club/Red Robbin area, 5th St bridge area) (High traffic volume 68276481 66 anyhow, the trucks just make it worse.) 68274099 67 Most of the round-abouts in the county. Can be a tight squeeze on Ute and Pitkin. 68280600 68 roundabouts because they have to swing wide and can swing into vehicles behind them and those trying to merge into the roundabouts 68279361 69 None that I can think of. 68273535 70 Horizon and 12th St. roundabout 25 Rd. and G 24-1/2 and G Roundabouts are too small for large trucks and they run over the curbs and hold up traffic. 68272129 71 trucks pulling large mobile homes have been on F Rd at 28-3/4 during busy times. 68286903 72 Anywhere there is a roundabout. 68317520 73 Any road that does not have a should wide enough for bicycle, pedestrian and scooter traffic. Patterson Road between 7th and 1st street is too narrow to allow safe travel of large trucks. while I haven't seen any accidents I think it will definetly happen with growing poulation, impatient drivers, and lack of enforcement of speed zones. G Raod is incurring much more traffic and it too is not suited for truck travel. Numerous others I am sure but all I can think 68327667 74 of now. 68379466 75 25 Road between 6&50 and Patterson. Heavy traffic, hard to get across during peak traffic hours. 68415931 76 Highway 340 (Broadway). With no shoulder on much of this road, the safety of pedestrians and cyclists is compromised. 68443928 77 B 1/2 Road b/t 27 Road & 28 Road - narrow, no shoulder, very rough. HIGHWAY 340 IS AMORPHOUS IN ITS IDENTITY. PRACTICALLY IS A LOCAL ROAD, RESIDENTIAL BUT IN IDENTITY STATE HIGHWAY. AMBIGUOUS NATURE EQUALS 68516637 78 OVERUSE AND INATTENTION TO CONGESTION.

P:\MesaCountyRCTP_MEG1001\Surveys\Resident\Survey_Data_Reports\4_18June_2010\survey_comments.xlsxQuestion9 Page - 1 2035 Mesa County Regional Transportation Plan Online Resident Survey Comment Summary June 21, 2010 Question 9: Trucks, or large commercial vehicles, are necessary for the delivery of goods in and between our communities, but can pose safety and congestion problems. Are there any roads on which large trucks are a safety or congestion problem that we should study in this process? Please identify the road and nature of the problem. Response ID No. Comments 68535996 79 keep off of north ave. during peak traffic hours 68539626 80 G Road and H Road are not wide enough for big trucks Near down town with the configureation of one way streets is not truck friendly. 68541539 81 North Ave, to wide of truns by semi's 68549858 82 Highway 340, Riverside Parkway, River Road, Highway 6, 32 Rd, Colorado 140, 18 Rd Fruita. 68559406 83 Clifton 32 Road 68556811 84 North Ave trucks take too wide turns. It takes two lanes for them to make a turn. 68555778 85 1st Street near the City Market. 68561305 86 The road up the west side of the monument & Broadway 68568825 87 Highway 50 from the edge of town to Riverside Parkway. 5th around the bridge/overpass. Grand & 1st Street. 68616378 88 5th Street Patterson Road Hwy 6 & 50 Hwy 65 I-70 to CO 330 Oil-field service vehicles speeding Hwy 330 from Hwy 65 to Vega State Park Oil-field service vehicles speeding, Hwy very narrow with no shoulder in places. 68613463 89 Trucks turning, Road debris leads to windshield damage. 68613366 90 Independent Ave., GJ 68616480 91 7th Street Residential Historic District - vibration and exhaust impact exterior of historic homes. 68700653 92 Fruita interchange. Large trucks should not have to go through residential streets to get to the 6 and 50. 68789184 93 Cannot think of one. 68816671 94 HWY 50 near 23rd. 69003988 95 Along 370 (Broadway) 69052178 96 sometimes on D Road between 29 Road and 32 Road 69059200 97 in roundabouts - 7th street 69051327 98 1st & Grand Ave 69053435 99 Definitely North Avenue I-70 during my a.m. commute. I drive a small car and bt/w the semi-trucks and all the Halliburton/Schlumberger trucks, I nearly get run off the road several times a week. It's worse 69092909 100 during the winter because they drive too fast for winter conditions because they think they have 4 wheel drive and can zip through anything. 69094091 101 F 1/2 road between 1st and 7th.

69101629 102 Us 6&50, The I-70 frontage road, 24 road can all be problems. The 7th and Main round about, I have seen large trucks have problems...it might have been a one time thing. Highway 141 between Whitewater and Gateway - heavy truck traffic from oil & gas, and construction workers in Gateway. Highway is deteriorating rapidly from lack of paving maintenance, winter weather, and truck traffic. Traffic on Hwy 141 has increased greatly in the 10 years we have live in Unaweep Canyon (near the Divide Road intersection). CDOT 69174003 103 almost always does a good job keeping hwy clear of snow in winter. Major roads like Patterson, 1st street, 25 road and B and 1/2 road as well as all major freeways and routes to any oil related wells. These trucks do serious damage to our roads and 69229977 104 safety and to the atmosphere of our outdoorsy, art centered community. Intersection of I-70B and 32 Rd (Hwy 141 access) with large logging trucks, oil field trucks/equipment that back up the turn lanes. Also on 30 Rd north of I-70B poor location for a junk 69251736 105 yard, large Semi hauling vehicles frequently stopped in the 69278963 106 On 6&50 between 1st street and the Mall, especially the intersection/traffic signal at Sam's/ChicFilA. This area/interchange is a congestion creator! 69531221 107 Highway 6 between Clifton and Palisade During the 2000's energy boom: I-70 to Garfield County, Hwy 65, 330, Vega Rd, 45 Rd, DeBeque Cut Off, Reeder Mesa and Kannah Creek loops, D Rd, 32 Rd (aka Hwy 141), I-70 69541188 108 Business loop at 32 Rd and F Rd, River Rd, F Rd, 4 Rd and the turn from Riverside Park Way headed to Orchard Mesa. During the 2000's energy boom: I-70 to Garfield County, Vega Rd, 330, Hwy 65, DeBeque Cut Off, 45 Rd, I-70 Bus. Loop intersections at F Rd and 32 Rd, Hwy 141 (aka 32 Rd), F Rd, D Rd, Reeder Mesa and Kannah Creek Loops, new round abouts in Fruita @ I-70 (still and very confusing) 4 Rd (travel to fast), 5th St, 7th St(city botched that one), 1st and Grand Intersection, Horizin Dr round about (to small), and the turn from Riverside Parkway onto Hwy 50 going to OM (still very dangerous). That about covers it! I am sure I missed 69550075 109 on or two. 69589940 110 North Avenue 69665580 111 First Street and 7th Street-lanes are narrow to share with trucks North Avenue--same problem 69677306 112 How do they get to and from down town and Horizon Drive? 7th is no good South of North Ave. 12th street is too narrow. 69875916 113 none that I am aware of at this time 69896679 114 horizon drive at round about 20 road at D to interstate exit 32 road into Halliburton 69927762 115 trucks on our round abouts, Sam's specifically 69997336 116 I have nothing 70679032 117 I moved here from Atlanta, beleive me there is not a traffic or truck problem here. It will take decades of poor planning before any problems begin to surface. 70737419 118 12th street round-about 70759303 119 I have not noticed a problem in this area. 70853016 120 Not sure 73591560 121 Not sure 70871325 122 12th street, 7th street and their respective intersections with North Ave. Keep trucks off 12th and 7th streets. Rt 141 from Whitewater through Gateway and beyond. It is in terrible condition and getting worse by the season. No shoulders, deteriorating pavement, bumps, pot holes, crumbling edges. Once the oil rigs and gas rigs and their convoys return (and they will) the physical road will be doomed and even more dangerous than ever. Never mind the 70940719 123 drunks and speeding violators who know there are never any cops out there patrolling. I get onto the freeway at the Palisade ramp(towards town) and trucks are often accelerating to 75 MPH and passing one another, preventing me from getting onto I-70. This has 71315606 124 happened 4+ times now. The speed should remain 65 until after the Bookcliffs. 71781715 125 Seventh Street 71808705 126 from I-70 to 32 Road, especially 32 intersection

71848913 127 1st and Ute/Pitkin. Whenever I drive there, there are large trucks that make the turn hard to see, traffic is switching lanes at that point for Grand Ave/Mesa Mall, North Ave. 71848649 128 Highway 141: Whitewater to Naturita 71881697 129 I've not encountered this as a problem 71981590 130 7th Street Historical District 12th Street near college Main Street 72012243 131 North Ave 72108776 132 6th St between Colorado and Rood, sometimes large trucks park in the middle of the street to unload. Also Main St loading zones, used a lot for parking vice unloading. 72217316 133 SH141 72218609 134 Yes, DeBeque canyon, tight curves with high traffic volume and high speeds. 72278680 135 I-70 B getting on Hwy 50 72539640 136 HWY US 6 & 50 72845940 137 12th and Horizon (roundabout) 73049867 138 North Ave, backing into traffic to exit parking lots. Turning out from fuel stations near interstate, diregarding other vehicles. 73054660 139 None that I can think of 73052528 140 23, 24 and 25 roads are problems due the high amount a perosnal vehicles andn large trucks. The intersections are scary at times 73058629 141 Glenwood Canyon I-70 North Ave. They can have trouble making turns and block traffic in the process. They can also scare the bajibers out of you if you are in the left turn lane and the front of the semi is 73060269 142 inches from your vehicle as they try to make their right turn onto North from another street. 73063940 143 6 & 50 Road and Patterson 73066939 144 I-70 B is almost always congested Hwy 340. Residential street with multiple school zones. Semi traffic should NOT be allowed . All over the county dump trucks do not cover their loads and spray gravel and rocks 73069639 145 while driving. All of the area south of the Business Loop is congested and the roads should be widened to accomodate the traffic. There are also many areas that do not have sidewalks and this 73071772 146 is a hazard for anyone who is walking or waiting for a bus The more rural roads and the impacts that trucks have on those roads. The roads take a lot of wear and tear from the large truck travel, resulting in pot holes and needs of other repairs. The companies, mainly gas and oil companies, need to help to maintain those roads. Roads in need of repair will cause more accidents. The mud that is tracked onto more 73074028 147 suburban roads and the highway also creates a safety concern. 73090123 148 I've not experienced any real problems w/ large trucks. 73086507 149 Trucks should not travel along the 7th St Historic District. Large trucks should also avoid round-abouts and narrow streets in our city. 73107795 150 Patterson & North Ave 73100809 151 Don't know 73090027 152 There are a lot of trucks backing in to the Taco Bell and auto parts store and pizza place at Cannell and North ave. There is some congestion and waiting for them. North Avenue - need to make sure trucks that are using it are there because they need to access businesses there, because there is too much traffic otherwise. Thru-traffic trucks 73110913 153 should be on 70B. 73123081 154 not that I know 27 1/2 Road, a two lane road, between Patterson and Horizon carries tremendous truck traffic from the Horizon I-70 interchange into the entire Grand Valley. Desperately need an 73132025 155 Interstate interchange at 29 Road!

P:\MesaCountyRCTP_MEG1001\Surveys\Resident\Survey_Data_Reports\4_18June_2010\survey_comments.xlsxQuestion9 Page - 2 2035 Mesa County Regional Transportation Plan Online Resident Survey Comment Summary June 21, 2010 Question 9: Trucks, or large commercial vehicles, are necessary for the delivery of goods in and between our communities, but can pose safety and congestion problems. Are there any roads on which large trucks are a safety or congestion problem that we should study in this process? Please identify the road and nature of the problem. Response ID No. Comments 73141399 156 possibly Patterson during high volume traffic times, 12th street at certain times, the area on 12th around the college. 73147072 157 Big trucks are scary in roundabouts. 73149522 158 15th street between Patterson and North Avenue seems to have become a well known North 7th and 12th Streets from Ute Avenue to Patterson - too much truck traffic, especially 18 wheelers River Road - too many dump trucks, the road is too narrow with no margin 73152988 159 for error 73149893 160 D Road. This was not meant for big, heavy truck traffic. The road is rapidly deterioating due to the amount of truck traffic. Highway 6 & 50 between Mesa Mall and US 50 East (5th ST.) -- Congestion, slow starts and slow turns in area of AMTRAK station. CO-141 Between D Road and US-50 (One lane 73152149 161 per direction, limited passing areas, slow & heavy truck traffic. 73153684 162 Clifton business/I-70 by-pass has huge logging trucks that could lose their load. The by-pass has too many large trucks for a route that carries heavy auto traffic. 73239164 163 downtown palisade not the place for large trucks ie Sara Lee, 73275928 164 none that I am aware of The trucks aren't the problem, the problem is the areas that trucks have to travel, (ie. Truck dealer and maintenace facility for trucks on the frontage road between (24 and 25 rd)and 73289663 165 the truck stop in Fruita) that have the roundabouts that the trucks cannot negotiate safely. 73450090 166 trucks should travel in right lane unless deliveries dictate otherwise 73454523 167 traffic circles (G & 25 Rd) 73518527 168 Patterson Road, 12th street, 7th street, Broadway 73522451 169 Hwy between Clifton and Palisade... just too congested. Fruita off ramp west bound into North side of Fruita. Roads are too narrow. 73531227 170 1-70 Business Loop congestion is already significant. The trucks add to that congestion. 73534943 171 One of the Major problems is potholes on allot of the side streets Roads to Mesa and Collbran are heavily utilized by heavy equipment, water trucks, etc headed to vega oil field, and the roads are WAY too narrow there... I imagine other parts of 73539984 172 the county two, but those are the ones I drive on... 73546150 173 None that I'm aware of. 73549121 174 Highway 6 & 50: trucks and cars go too fast; no reason, with all the traffic lights, to allow 45mph speed limit. 73544031 175 6and 50 between fruita and grand junction every morning the trucks go too slow 73548422 176 Highway 6 & 50: GJ to Fruita Highway 340 is too narrow for the bigger delivery trucks west of Panorama Subdivision and I have seen many near misses with bicyclists and other traffic. There are also too few 73547998 177 passing lanes for getting around the slower moving traffic that these trucks are a part of. 73556535 178 I-70 B (6 & 50) between Fruita to Grand Junction. 73550387 179 7th St 12 th St roundabout 73559574 180 Trucks jack-knifing on I-70 in bad weather I have not seen many consistent problems with large trucks. Occasionally, a driver will seem to be lost and will end up on a small street, but otherwise they use 6 & 50 or I70B 73576588 181 appropriately. There badly needs to be a traffic light where the Parkway joins 6 & 50 out by I70. 73605106 182 Fifth Street through town North Ave. just sucks to ride a bike on; there are no side medians. I would like to see an east west corridor for safe bicycling. Trucks are very intimidating when you try to ride a bike 73616451 183 on north ave. 73669584 184 Riverside Parkway, Highway 6 & 50, I-70 business loop 73672337 185 Don't know. 73676481 186 I70B on west side 73686167 187 roundabout horizon and 12th st 73801363 188 I-70, 32 Road 73819975 189 North Ave & Patterson There are several truck training vehicles that go accross the East Orchard Mesa rd. not a big problem, and of course during the summer the trucks that are p/u and delivering 73808059 190 supplies and produce, some drive to fast, the Mesa county Sheriff doesn't seem to have a presense. 73821732 191 Not really--these drivers are more competent and safety-conscious than most, and trucks move at a reasonable speed. Too many large trucks on Broadway. This is why the gravel pit should not have been permitted. A section of Broadway is part of one of the best road bike rides in the state (the loop 73813617 192 through the Monument), so truck traffic should be minimiaed and the bike lanes should be improved. I don't see many trucks on the roads of Grand Junction, but I would imagine in there is a location of problem it is probably Horizon Drive because that is a main road off of the 73821365 193 interstate. 73820186 194 Hwy 340 Truck Route through Fruita 73896180 195 Patterson & North Avenue-cause traffic congestion/delays when turning onto roads 73908912 196 Trucks along F Road and 24 Road can cause back-ups and congestion 73921943 197 Roadways with elementary or middle schools situated on them 25 Road and then on to Riverside Parkway can be a problem for bikes and feeling safe is a challenge. I'm afraid for children; there was a bike land on 25 Road for a while but then 73947915 198 when was repaved, bike lane was done away with. I tried to call road maintenance, but my phone call was ignored 73953354 199 Highway 6&50 especially 1st and Grand intersection Patterson Road Trucks typically do not observe the speed limits as observed on I-70, I-70 business loop 32 Rd. and Patterson Rd. Speed limits for trucks should be lower than for passenger 74097678 200 vehicles. 74097225 201 I realize that it's about the only major north-south corridor left, but truck traffic on 7th street through downtown is sometimes a problem. 74129426 202 Patterson, North Ave 74252696 203 Patterson Road- road can become very congested and large vehicles make it difficult to see obstacles, other traffic, pedestrians, motorcycles, bicycles, etc. Patterson Road bottle neck between 1st and 7th Street. It is 4 lanes with a turning lane from Clifton to the 24 Road, but bottlenecks right where traffic is coming in and out of St. 74266535 204 Mary's Hospital on Patterson Road and the Mira Vista neighborhood. 74286607 205 Not that I can think of right now. 74290714 206 6 & 50 between the mall & Grand Ave, or 5th street. 74457316 207 24 Road from I-70 to the mall. Heavy congestion. 74455592 208 F road and North Ave are quite congested as it is, truck traffic contributes K Road is taking too much truck traffic. So is the intersection of Cherry Street and Aspen in Fruita (just off I-70) trucks should be encouraged to get on hwy6/50 at 22 Rd then go 74460841 209 west on 6/50 to keep large trucks out of this tight intersection. 74500023 210 12th Street - Narrow lanes and turning North Ave - Narrow lanes and turning 74527238 211 the by-pass helps this a lot- but still will see large trucks on patterson 74551480 212 Downtown, City area. 74639377 213 The congestion of large trucks on North Ave. which makes it a very unfriendly predestrian and cycling road. 74651214 214 G Rd H Rd west of airport 74714344 215 1st to 7th on Patterson 74755887 216 Hwy 6, east of Palisade, has too many big trucks, and no reason in the world for them to be on that stretch of road, with I 70 only a mile away. 74749162 217 25 RD - the increase of traffic of large trucks sometimes makes access to driveways between Hwy 50 and Patterson RD difficult. 74757947 218 I-70: large trucks speeding through Debeque canyon 74839993 219 6 & 50 Business Loop, near the mall area The Interstate. Trucks are a major problem in wearing the surface, consuming lane miles, and causing accidents. Radical steps should be taken to change the way we deal with 74852326 220 trucks, i.e. higher fees/taxes, limit hours of use to middle of the night, ban them from the left lane, subsidize trains, etc. Trucking companies-terminals should be based on or close to the Interstate when their everyday destinations are also accessed from the interstate. Trucks driving through town on 74880915 221 the Riverside Parkway contributes to pollution, unnecessary traffic and congestion. 74903786 222 North ave. Large trucks have a hard time in the narrow lanes of north ave D road is now a maojor arterial into Grand Junction. It needs resurfacing and we need to ask the school buses to pull into the subdividions for their stops. Truck traffic is heavy at the 32 road intersection. Patterson is having considerable slowdowns during peak times. Truck traffic through Clifton on I-70B, to 32 road is a real safety problem and a hassle. All 74908109 223 east valey traffic has to go through this traffic to get anywhere to the west in this valley. North Avenue - road is very busy with local traffic and pedestrian traffic from our schools, the large trucks have difficulty turning into and out of businesses and the clog all lanes trying to manuever. Trucks should be rerouted from this road. Grand Avenue - same as North Avenue Businesses must be required to put in wide enough entries on all public roads to 75417934 224 avoid semi-trucks from having to circle out across 2 or 3 lanes to access the business. D road is too narrow for the large amount of truck traffic it carries, the intersection at D road and Riverside parkway is poorly designed and very difficult for large trucks to negotiate, 75524296 225 truck traffic on 9th street at the railroad crossing can be a problem. There is too much traffic on 12th street as a connector between the north and south sections of the city. It makes the residential neighbor hood louder, and congests traffic along 75746592 226 Main and Ute. It would be better to build a connector route for trucks from I-70 and the northern part of the city to Hwy 50, and bypass 12th street. 75761512 227 Truck access problems: I-70B access to frontage roads; North Avenue access to businesses; downtown access to anything; and Horizon Drive round about. 75778622 228 Hwy 340 - Fruita - Truck Route River Road - This is an excellent bike route because it has very little cross traffic but the road is too narrow and the heavy trucks damage the pavement. It was a mistake by the 76000287 229 county not to put in shoulders when they rebuilt it - maybe next time. 77151073 230 highway 340 redlands 77484604 231 32 Road. Routes the Oil field trucks frequent.

P:\MesaCountyRCTP_MEG1001\Surveys\Resident\Survey_Data_Reports\4_18June_2010\survey_comments.xlsxQuestion9 Page - 3 2035 Mesa County Regional Transportation Plan Online Resident Survey Comment Summary June 21, 2010 Question 9: Trucks, or large commercial vehicles, are necessary for the delivery of goods in and between our communities, but can pose safety and congestion problems. Are there any roads on which large trucks are a safety or congestion problem that we should study in this process? Please identify the road and nature of the problem. Response ID No. Comments All highways in Mesa County that are two lanes and lack passing lanes or climbing lanes. Example--Hwy 141 and the highway to o Collbran. Also, no passing lanes on county roads and those that are curvy. You must follow a truck for miles and can't get around them. Traffic backs up and then somebody usually does something stupid like pass when they can't 77503097 232 see or try to pass five cars at once. 77692031 233 Not that I know if. Debeque cutoff. It has very heavy truck traffic and no shoulder, yet it has many residents and lots of motorcycle and road bicycle riders. There should be a separated bike trail to encourage Mesa County's recreation economy, and a large paved shoulder for road bike riders (I'm not one but they deserve the room and should be encouraged, again for our 79113816 234 economy). 79770175 235 North Avenue. It bottlenecks both in and out of town. 80018744 236 Keep equipment yards and storage of drill pipe and industrial activities concentrated near the Interstate and away from residential and commercial areas. 80689982 237 patterson 81207073 238 32 Rd - pot holes, single lane, no turn lanes US Hwy 6 & 50 - no right turn lanes 81570064 239 not that I'm aware of 82832992 240 None that I am aware of i live on 12th street so I notice the trucks that go by. They ruin the residential nature of the neighborhood. The sidewalks on 12th are narrow and close the street, so it can be scary 83099801 241 when a truck passes right next to you. North Ave in the downtown area is even worse, especially with the extra pedestrian and bike traffice for MSC. 83677422 242 Exit 26 in Grand Junction for the truck stop does not have a trun lane for the trucks and this causes problems. 83724472 243 The problem is not with the trucks it is letting the bicycles on the road with no shoulders and no place to go . The bicycles need to be limited to safer roads. 83858113 244 River road from 24 to Fruita, congested and dangeous, a lot of trucks on it 83870892 245 25 road between hwy 6 & 50 and patterson 1] G Rd & I-70B by Trade Center, and Acorn need stop lights, cars have no respect for larger equipment getting on or off or turning across the road, 2] Lights from 30 Rd & I-70B to I- 70 need to be timed so big trucks can maintain speed through them and not stop at every one, Warrior Way and Taco Bell are the worse for everyone. 3] EB on Riverside Pkwy at 25 Rd can get hairy on that short merge at the bottom of the ramp, with the right turn lane too close to enter traffic with a big truck. 4] ANY street with a 'moron-about' in the middle of 83894489 246 intersection.

Truck have to enter the city either through Clifton or 22 road exits off the Interstate because of about 20 too many roundabouts that the city decided that they needed. If the population 86753882 247 can't figure out how a 4 way stop signs or traffic signals work, I think its about time to start taking their drivers licenses away until they can figure it out. NO MORE ROUNDABOUTS!

Commercial traffic is relatively well managed in Mesa County, and currently is not a significant issue. However, in rural areas, there is a lack of adequate planning/preparation for alternative transportation modes, which causes the commercial traffic to operate in conflict with these modes. I am most familiar with Rt 330, which passes through three towns in the roughly 12 miles of the Plateau Valley, is the only access to the Plateau Valley School, and is the primary access to the Job Corp. Commercial traffic on this route includes tractor/trailer units as well as gas & oil related trucks/equipment, farm/ranching vehicles/equipment, and large recreational motor vehicles. The current roadway design does not provide for safe use of these roadways by bicycles or pedestrians, thereby contributing to increased use of motor vehicles within the Valley. The Plateau Valley area is sandwiched 86821755 248 between two major recreational park areas, yet roadways do not provide for bicycle or pedestrian traffic, and there are no existing recreational trails outside the park areas. 74138871 249 24 Road 99294351 250 I-70 is the most stressful road and needs bus, rail or an alternative transportation corridor

P:\MesaCountyRCTP_MEG1001\Surveys\Resident\Survey_Data_Reports\4_18June_2010\survey_comments.xlsxQuestion9 Page - 4 Mesa County 2035 Regional Transportation Plan Phase I Postcard Comments revised June 21, 2010

Goals

Stamped # No. Zip Code Establishment Comments Missing Goals Location Area Type Maintain existing our system transportation Efficiency Maximize Cost Minimize transportation Offer choices safe and secure Provide transportation vitality economic Support time travel Minimize the environment Protect 1 = Least Important 5 = Most Important Goal 1 81501 1479 ? ? 44334532 connections to I-70

2 81507 1404 ? ? 54433442 support working riders - late night and support for school 3 81521 1478 ? ? 54445553 transportation 4 81505 1405 ? ? 55555555 Motor Vehicles 5 1447 Grand Junction 55345535 Mesa Mall Motor Vehicles coordinate plans and activities with all aspects of community - 6 81921 1443 Grand Junction 54323434 Mesa Mall cities - schools - business community Motor Vehicles 7 81504 1444 Grand Junction 54454533 Mesa Mall Motor Vehicles 8 81526 1445 Grand Junction 25455435 light rail Mesa Mall Motor Vehicles 9 81506 1448 Grand Junction 55535433 Mesa Mall Motor Vehicles 10 81506 1446 Grand Junction 45433455 Mesa Mall 11 1418 ? ? 5533 535

12 81501 1473 ? ? 32145545public transit that is funded for the long-term and is accessible community "connections" regarding pedestrian trails

13 81506 1472 ? ? 55333423 integration of I-70 into local network

14 81624 1474 ? ? 45545535

15 1416 ? ? 44454434

16 81521 1471 ? ? 53151254

17 1417 ? ? 35455534 daily - affordable - reliable connection between Grand Junction 18 81504 1475 ? ? 35535452 and Denver 19 81624 1302 Collbran Town Hall 54335433pot holes in our highway "330" and no visible yellow line up grading to sewer and walking systems

20 81506 none 43455145multi-model is the future multi-modal

21 1391 Glade Park Post Office Lobby 54555444 twice a day to/from Glade Park would like to see public service announcements on TV with local Fruita Monument sheriff/state patrol police department demonstrating safe driving 22 81524 1347 Fruita 5554 333 High School techniques and reminders - right of way - safe driving distances - eliminate road rage 23 81501 1419 ? ? 43455145 multi-modal - retail agricultural lands we need to plan for recreation (bike trails) and increased cost of 24 81630 1273 Mesa Mesa Coffee Shop 1424 315 gasoline (more mass transit and commute bike routes)

P:\MesaCountyRCTP_MEG1001\PublicInvolvement\PriorityPackets\PostCardResponses_MesaRTP_PhaseI_21Jun10.xlsx - PostcardResponses Mesa County 2035 Regional Transportation Plan Phase I Postcard Comments revised June 21, 2010

Goals

Stamped # No. Zip Code Establishment Comments Missing Goals Location Area Type Maintain existing our system transportation Efficiency Maximize Cost Minimize transportation Offer choices safe and secure Provide transportation vitality economic Support time travel Minimize the environment Protect 1 = Least Important 5 = Most Important Goal

25 81643 1280 Mesa Mesa Coffee Shop 5 55533 Monument traffic with Mesa County traffic - reroute Glade Park 26 1004 Grand Junction City Hall 44354534we want everything at no cost, but its unreasonable traffic 27 81525 1104 Loma Loma Country Store 53344245

public transportation needs to replace some vehicular traffic - 28 81505 1013 Grand Junction City Hall 54354534 maximize convenience

I belive that providng a vareity of safe and secure transportation 29 81501 1035 Grand Junction Library 13355435 choices in iteself promotes economic vitality! 30 81524 1084 Mack Liquor Store 55522421 Loma Community Do not close M 1/4; school bus route, snow plows, fire and rescue, Clean up Loma; junk cars, trash, cut weeds, open streets and 31 81524 1100 Loma 53535353 Church work route! alleys, street signs, speed limit in Loma If bike/ped/bus/ride share are easier and more attractive… people 32 81526 1252 Palisade Town Hall 35455324 Encourage ped/bike options… don't just provide options. will choose them. Clifton Community 33 81520 1379 Clifton 55445545 Hall Time those damn east-west traffic signals for maximum efficiency, 34 81520 1251 Palisade Town Hall 15355255 Planning - traffic route driving peak. especially Bus-70. Mesa County 35 81630 1217 DeBeque 55525535My choices are based on the current economy conditions. Library Branch 36 81643 1157 Mesa Coffee Shop 55455554 Loma Community 37 81524 1092 Loma 55535441 Church Over The Edge 38 81521 1147 Fruita 24443324 Sports Area Agency on 39 81507 1057 Grand Junction Aging /Senior 33444435 Center Existing transit system is not a timely mode to get from one area U-Orchard Mesa to Palisades. Providing links to other areas in 40 81503 1198 Mesa Coffee Shop 54445555 to another. Colorado and Delta. 41 81504 none June 10th Farmers Market Being more efficent affects all aspects. I feel that it would be helpful if you could extend public transport 42 81507 none June 10th Farmers Market up in the Redlands/Ridges. We are new to the area and have been surprised that there is not a better, more comprehenaive system of walking/biking trails or lanes. People here seem eager to get out and be active, and to 43 81501 none June 10th Farmers Market Making sure the plan doesn't encourage sprawl. use alternate transportation - we know we are. Were there a convienent, connected and safe system of trails in town, we could really cut back on our motorized transportation.

P:\MesaCountyRCTP_MEG1001\PublicInvolvement\PriorityPackets\PostCardResponses_MesaRTP_PhaseI_21Jun10.xlsx - PostcardResponses Mesa County 2035 Regional Transportation Plan Phase I Postcard Comments revised June 21, 2010

No. Issues to Address #1 Issues to Address #2 Issues to Address #3 Questions

1 Future transportation infrastructure plan trails plan more connections to I-70

2 future funding sources transportation plan with area plans focus on multimodal transportation options

3 more bike lanes for recreation and commuters

4 access flexibility choice

5 provide safe a secure transportation maintain our existing trans system minimize cost

6 funding communicating with all parts of community help smaller communities

7 growth getting shopping/services closer to residents

8 alternate transportation safer bike transportation light rail would you support light rail?

9 maintenance of roads bus transit future arteries

10 shortest distance safety economics street safety

11 Hwy. 6/50 trails plan transit

12 public transit funding efficient public transit community connections

13 completion of riverside parkway/I-70 connection maintain what we have how will the work be paid for?

14 minimize costs safe and secure transportation protect the environment

15 multi modal use prioritizing of projects funding sources

16

17

18 support working citizens schedules support students schedule and activities support seniors who need to get to medical care, etc. what about spreading donated native flower seeds along our 19 maintain/improve existing transportation system outlying transportation system for seniors support economic vitality scenic byways? 20 29 Road / I-70 interchange bicycle safety stop urban sprawl how do we renew state and federal funding?

21

22

23 cyclist safety negative urban sprawl 29 Road - I-70 interchange

24 providing for mass transit commuter bike paths everywhere recreation

P:\MesaCountyRCTP_MEG1001\PublicInvolvement\PriorityPackets\PostCardResponses_MesaRTP_PhaseI_21Jun10.xlsx - PostcardResponses Mesa County 2035 Regional Transportation Plan Phase I Postcard Comments revised June 21, 2010

No. Issues to Address #1 Issues to Address #2 Issues to Address #3 Questions

25

26 get trucks off the Monument - no semis allowed give bikes lanes to travel in - Orchard Avenue coordinate traffic lights

27 provide safe and secure transportation offer transportation choices protect the environment Amtrak stop in Mack

Traffic solutions along f 1/2 and North of F 1/2. With construction of the Cinema and Kohl's on 24 Rd and the pending construction of City Market, F Road is much too difficult to maneuver to gain access to these stores. Construction of F 1/2 Road from 24 1/2 through to 24 Road would alleviate much of the congestion and reroute much of the north area traffic away from 24 Road and F 28 convience options/choices for commuters future growth patterns Road. Ideally, F 1/2 would continue from 24 Road through to 25 Road, but an interim solution would be to complete the road from where it ends north of the cinema another 1,500 feet or so to 24 1/2 Road. I have visited with the city about this section, but they have indicated that the section is 99% designed and ready for construction.

29 Expanding bus routes and scheduled hours Promoting mass transit use to a wider range of residents Explore viability of using existing rail lines as part of a plan 30 Alternate routes around the City Maintain existing road surfaces Utilize contractors for road maintenance 31 Clean up Loma Street signs 2-way stop light, caution 1-way, stop 139 Where is our sidewalk from Loma school to a highway crossing?

32 Bike/pedestrian access Land use decisions Education

33 Funding for programs Safety inspections

34 Move traffic from Patterson to I-70 Get rid of signal at 31 1/2 Road and Bus-70 Over/underpass at 31 1/2 Road and Bus-70 Reconfigure traffic at Peachtree Plaza

35 Maintain existing transportation Provide safe and secure transportation protect the environment 36 Extended hours Extend to the Mesa and Collbran areas Choices 37

38 A bike path from Fruita to Grand Junction More bike lanes

39 Convenient pick ups Using energy saving vehicles Meet schedules when possible

40 Minimize travel times timelyness - Often transit is either early or late. Coordinate with school districts/colleges Where will an implementation plan come into play? 41 Accessibility Convienent Stops Safety 42 Convience to customers Vareity of routes Environmental awareness

43 Moreoptions/convenience for walking/biking. Environmental responsibility Limit congestion

P:\MesaCountyRCTP_MEG1001\PublicInvolvement\PriorityPackets\PostCardResponses_MesaRTP_PhaseI_21Jun10.xlsx - PostcardResponses Mesa County Regional Transportation Plan Website Signup Contact List & Comments revised August 10, 2010

Date Entered No. Zip Comments

22-Apr-10 1 22-Apr-10 2 22-Apr-10 3 81501 22-Apr-10 4 81501

Long Range Plan... 1. Re-route the railroad from Palisade to Mack, North of I-70 and the Aiport, reconnect at Ruby Canyon. Add parallel light rail Palisade to Mack. 22-Apr-10 5 Retain old railroad and easements/crossings. 2. Move Bus Station and GVT hub near Airport. 3. Use old railroad for light rail which would now loop (encircle)entire valley, Use GVT to feed light rail stations, bus station, and airport.

22-Apr-10 6 22-Apr-10 7 81507 22-Apr-10 8 81505 22-Apr-10 9 81501 22-Apr-10 10 81526 22-Apr-10 11 81501 22-Apr-10 12 81505 22-Apr-10 13 22-Apr-10 14 81507 22-Apr-10 15 22-Apr-10 16 81504 22-Apr-10 17 22-Apr-10 18 22-Apr-10 19 22-Apr-10 20 81503 22-Apr-10 21 22-Apr-10 22 81504 The East Orchard Mesa hill (38 Rd.) needs improvement. It is dangerous for bike 22-Apr-10 23 riders and walkers - they need a path or wider road. 22-Apr-10 24 81507 22-Apr-10 25 81521 22-Apr-10 26 81501 22-Apr-10 27 81507

Mesa County and all cities should strive to provide paved road shoulders wide 22-Apr-10 28 enough for pedestrian, bicycle and scooter traffic on all non-neighborhood road.

22-Apr-10 29 81507

P:\MesaCountyRCTP_MEG1001\PublicInvolvement\Contacts\ContactList&Comments_fromPublicInv_MesaCoRTP_10Aug10 .xls 1 Mesa County Regional Transportation Plan Website Signup Contact List & Comments revised August 10, 2010

Date Entered No. Zip Comments

I am a walker and I find some areas of my neighborhood unfriendly to walking. Of 22-Apr-10 30 course I use DVT. Will we ever have bus scheduled times every 30 (or even 20 minutes insterad of one hour? Where will the Open Houses be held?

22-Apr-10 31 22-Apr-10 32 It would be interesting to know what percentage of the county commissioners and planning administration have actually ridden a bike or walked to work. Those who 22-Apr-10 33 purport to govern us should be "walking the walk" as well to improve air quality, evaluate accessibility and reduce congestion. Hopefully a gas-industry truck won't flatten them...... Please fill in the big chuck holes in the ally between wendy's & carvell car lot. The 22-Apr-10 34 chuck holes are so big it can damage cars. 22-Apr-10 35 Evening 6-8 22-Apr-10 36 Morning 9-11 22-Apr-10 37 81501 Morning 9-11 22-Apr-10 38 81501 Morning 9-11 22-Apr-10 39 Morning 9-11 22-Apr-10 40 Morning 9-11 22-Apr-10 41 Morning 9-11 22-Apr-10 42 Evening 6-8 22-Apr-10 43 Morning 9-11 22-Apr-10 44 81504 22-Apr-10 45 Morning 9-11 More buses connecting communities laced with bicycle and pedstrian trails. We 11-Jun-10 46 can't stay on the car-more-cars path much longer.

Thanks for your time. Please strive to use smart growth, sustainable planning principles throughout this process. The old models of car planning are antiquated and CO communities must make the shift or we will no longer thrive. Please use as much mass transit and other forms of alternative transportation during this process. 11-Jun-10 47 Rural areas can be successful with transit but people need efficient, affordable options to their cozy vehicles. Transit is the answer; not wider, improved highways for gas guzzling cars. Please call me if you would like to chat more about our Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) project here in the Roaring Fork Valley. I like your project scope. Jason White, planner, Roaring Fork Transportation Authority. 970-384-4968

11-Jun-10 48 81624

Look into opening up the paths along irrigation ditches for public access. GJ has done a great job developing trails, but the irrigation ditches represent one of the best 11-Jun-10 49 81501 untapped resources for nice pedestrian access and travel corridors throughout the city.

P:\MesaCountyRCTP_MEG1001\PublicInvolvement\Contacts\ContactList&Comments_fromPublicInv_MesaCoRTP_10Aug10 .xls 2 Mesa County Regional Transportation Plan Website Signup Contact List & Comments revised August 10, 2010

Date Entered No. Zip Comments

Please take this opportunity to make GJ the most bicycle friendly community it can be. Terrain and climate are generally conducive to cycling. With gas prices consistently rising, we need to design community infrastructure to support cycling 11-Jun-10 50 81501 and walking. We need more bike lanes, streetlights that take into account cyclists, public bike racks, etc. Please ensure that the new plan makes GJ the kind of town pedestrians want to reside and spend time in.

11-Jun-10 51 I would like to know where the funding will come from to pay for the bike paths? 11-Jun-10 52 81502-2607 11-Jun-10 53 80505 11-Jun-10 54 80506 24-Jun-10 55 81526 29-Jul-10 56 Telephone Town Hall sign up Please consider a strong emphasis on expanding bicycle access city and county- 7-Aug-10 57 wide to encourage biking as a main mode of daily transportation. I would appreciate expansion of the bicycle routes throughout the city as planning 7-Aug-10 58 progresses. Thank you! 7-Aug-10 59 16-Aug-10 60

P:\MesaCountyRCTP_MEG1001\PublicInvolvement\Contacts\ContactList&Comments_fromPublicInv_MesaCoRTP_10Aug10 .xls 3 Mesa County 2035 Regional Transportation Plan Comments from Connections Maps Revised June 28, 2010

Cost Morning / Length (based on Map No. Location Date Evening No. Road / Facility / Service Location (miles) Improvement or Comment unit costs) Jurisdiction Comments 1 Broadway Redlands Pkwy. to Monument Widen 2 to 4 lane arterial 2 US-6 / US-50 SH-340 (Fruita) to 2 miles to west New 2/3 lane collector street 3 Orchard Ave. (E 1/2 Road) US-6 to 26 Road New 2/3 lane collector street 4 Orchard Ave. (E 1/2 Road) 26 Road (1st Street) to I-70B 5.5 Roadway Safety Improvement 1 Fellowship Church, Grand Junction April 26, 2010 morning 5 29 Road / H Road Connection Horizon Drive to I-70 1.0 New 4 lane arterial 6 H Road 25 Road to 26 Road 1.0 New 2/3 lane collector 7 20 Road I-70 New Interchange 8 I-70 DeBeque New Interchange 9 Redlands Pkwy. Colorado River to Broadway Widen 2 to 4 lane arterial 10 US-6 / Front Street 36 Road to Elberta Ave. (37 3/10 Road) Roadway Safety Improvement 11 Orchard Ave. (E 1/2 Road) 29 Road to 32 Road New 2/3 lane collector street 12 SH-141 Gunnison River to 2 miles south of river Roadway Safety Improvement 13 Patterson Road (F Road) US-6 to 30 Road Widen 4 to 6 lane arterial 2 Fellowship Church, Grand Junction April 26, 2010 morning 14 26 1/2 Road (7th Street) Patterson Road to Pitkin Ave. Widen 4 to 6 lane arterial 15 Broadway Fawn Lane to Redlands Pkwy. Roadway Safety Improvement 16 River Road SH-340 (Friuta) to 21 Road Widen 4 to 6 lane arterial 17 20 Road I-70 New Interchange 18 US-6 I-70 New Interchange 19 US-6 Fruita to I-70 5.5 Widen 2 to 4 lane arterial 20 Broadway Redlands Pkwy. to Ridges Blvd. 2.0 Widen 2 to 4 lane arterial 21 24 Road H Road to F Road 2.0 Widen 2 to 4 lane arterial 22 I-70 20 Road n/a New Interchange 23 I-70 US-6 / US-50 n/a New Interchange 24 29 Road / H Road Connection Horizon Drive to I-70 1.0 New 4 lane arterial Grand Valley Regional Transportation 3 May 24, 2010 n/a Committee 25 H Road 25 Road to 26 Road 1.0 New 2/3 lane collector 26 Cortland Ave. / F 1/2 Road Connection 28 Road to 29 Road 1.0 New 2/3 lane collector 27 F 1/2 Road 29 1/2 Road to 30 Road 0.5 New 2/3 lane collector 28 F Road I-70B to 33 Road 0.8 Roadway Safety Improvement 29 37 3/10 Road I-70 to G Road 1.0 Roadway Safety Improvement 30 SH-64 / SH-330 I-70 to Collbran 13.0 Roadway Safety Improvement 31 I-70 in Fruita near 18 Road n/a Pedestrian Bridge over RR and I-70 32 Summerville Hwy. G Road to US-50 14.0 New 4 lane arterial 33 29 Road / H Road Connection Horizon Drive to I-70 1.0 New 2/3 lane collector 34 Broadway S. Broadway to Ridges Blvd. 5.0 Roadway Safety Improvement 35 Redlands Pkwy. Broadway to US-6 / F Road 2.0 Roadway Safety Improvement 4 Fellowship Church, Grand Junction April 26, 2010 evening 36 Broadway Ridges Blvd. to Grand Ave. 2.0 Roadway Safety Improvement 37 Little Park Road C 1/2 Road to 5 miles south 5.0 Roadway Safety Improvement 38 Broadway Redlands Pkwy. n/a Intersection Improvement 39 Horizon Blvd. 12th Street n/a Intersection Improvement 40 Orchard Ave. (E 1/2 Road) 1st Street to I-70B 5.0 Widen 2 to 3 lane collector 41 Broadway SH-340 to US-6 11.0 Roadway Safety Improvement 42 I-70 20 Road (Fruita) n/a Grade Separation 5 Fellowship Church, Grand Junction April 26, 2010 evening 43 17 1/4 Road Colorado River n/a Grade Separation 44 Redlands Pkwy. US-6 n/a Grade Separation 45 Redlands Road Gunnison River n/a Grade Separation 46 Perkins Drive I-70B n/a Grade Separation 47 Broadway S. Broadway to Ridges Blvd. 5.0 Widen 2 to 4 lane arterial 6 Human Services Targeted Outreach April 27, 2010 n/a 48 32 Road Railroad / I-70B n/a Bike / Pedestriam Grade Separation

P:\MesaCountyRCTP_MEG1001\PublicInvolvement\02_ConnectionsWorkshop_26Apr2010\PublicComments_ConnectionsWorkshops_MesaRTP.xlsx ‐ fromConnectionsMaps Mesa County 2035 Regional Transportation Plan Comments from Connections Maps Revised June 28, 2010

Cost Morning / Length (based on Map No. Location Date Evening No. Road / Facility / Service Location (miles) Improvement or Comment unit costs) Jurisdiction Comments 49 US-6 SH-340 to I-70 6.0 Widen 2 to 4 lane arterial 50 Redlands Pkwy. Colorado River to Broadway 1.0 Widen 2 to 4 lane arterial 51 Broadway Greenwood Drive to Ridges Blvd. 3.0 Widen 2 to 4 lane arterial 52 D Road 9th Street to 29 Road 2.0 Widen 2 to 4 lane arterial 53 29 Road D Road n/a Roundabout 54 D Road ext. 29 Road to SH-141 3.0 New 2/3 lane collector 7 Fellowship Church, Grand Junction April 26, 2010 morning 55 D Road SH-141 n/a Intersection Improvement 56 SH-141 D Road to US-50 4.0 Widen 2 to 4 lane arterial 57 I-70B SH-141 to I-70 1.5 Widen 4 to 6 lane arterial 58 F Road / US-6 I-70B to Palisade 5.0 Widen 2 to 4 lane arterial 59 I-70 I-70B n/a New Interchange (additional movements) 60 New East/West Road north of I-70 29 Road to I-70B 4.0 New 2 lane arterial 61 US-6 19 Road to 22 Road 3.5 Widen 2 to 4 lane arterial 62 H Road 23 Road to 24 Road 1.0 Widen 2 to 4 lane arterial 63 23 Road I-70 to H Road 0.5 Widen 2 to 4 lane arterial 64 24 Road I-70 to H Road 0.5 Widen 2 to 4 lane arterial 65 I-70 23 Road n/a Grade Separation 66 H Road 25 Road to 26 Road 1.0 New 2 lane arterial 67 I-70 26 1/2 Road n/a Grade Separation 68 G Road 24 Road to Horizon Drive 3.0 Widen 2 to 4 lane arterial 69 G Road 26 Road n/a Intersection Improvement 70 Horizon Drive 26 1/2 Road to 27 1/2 Road 1.3 Widen 2 to 4 lane arterial Mesa County / Grand Junction Joint 8 May 20, 2010 n/a Planning Commission Meeting 71 F Road 26 1/2 Road n/a Intersection Improvement 72 Grand Ave. 26 1/2 Road n/a Intersection Improvement 73 F 1/2 Road 28 Road to 29 Road 1.0 New 2 lane arterial 74 F 1/2 Road 29 1/2 Road to 30 Road 0.5 New 2 lane arterial 75 D Road 9th Street to 32 Road (SH-141) 5.0 Widen 2 to 4 lane arterial 76 B 1/2 Road US-50 to 31 Road 4.0 Roadway Safety Improvement 77 I-70B SH-141 n/a Grade Separation 78 Front Street SH-141 to 33 Road 1.0 Widen 2 to 4 lane arterial 79 SH-141 D Road to US-50 3.5 Widen 2 to 4 lane arterial 80 SH-141 C 1/2 Road n/a Grade Separation 81 SH-141 US-50 n/a Intersection Improvement 82 SH-340 / Broadway Ottley Ave. to Ridges Blvd. 10.0 Roadway Safety Improvement 83 US-6 I-70 n/a New Interchange 9 Steering Committee #1 (Todd) May 17, 2010 n/a 84 New East/West Arterial north of I-70 Horizon Drive / H Road to I-70 / I-70B 5.0 New 4 lane arterial 85 D Road 29 Road to SH-141 3.0 Widen 2 to 4 lane arterial 86 L Road 17 Road to 18 Road 1.0 New 2/3 lane collector 87 19 Road K Road to US-6 1.8 Widen 2 to 4 lane arterial 88 I-70 19 Road (Fruita) n/a New Interchange 89 Redlands Pkwy. Colorado River to Broadway 1.0 Widen 2 to 4 lane arterial 90 New East/West Arterial north of I-70 Horizon Drive / H Road to 29 Road Ext. 1.0 New 2 lane arterial 91 29 Road I-70 to New East/West Arterial north of I-770 0.5 New 2 lane arterial 10 Steering Committee #2 (Ken) May 17, 2010 n/a 92 F 1/2 Road 28 Road to 29 Road 1.0 New 2/3 lane collector 93 F 1/2 Road 29 1/2 Road to 30 Road 0.5 New 2/3 lane collector 94 I-70B SH-141 n/a Grade Separation 95 Front Street SH-141 to 33 Road 1.5 New 2/3 lane collector 96 DeBeque location?? n/a Grade Separation 97 18 Road US-6 n/a Grade Separation - for bike/ped only?? 98 F1/2 Road Parkway F Rd to F1/2 Rd 0.5 Widen 2 to 4 lane arterial 99 F1/2 Road Parkway US 6 to 25 Rd 2.0 New 4 lane arterial 100 I-70B (River Rd) 24 Rd to SH 340/Broadway 2.5 Widen 2 to 4 lane arterial 101 I-70B (River Rd) SH 340/Broadway to US 50/5th St 1.2 New 4 lane arterial 11 Staff Picks (Ken) June 1, 2010 n/a 102 Exit 26 n/a Interchange reconstruction (new) 103 H Road 25Rd to 26 Rd and 31 Rd 1.0 New 2 lane arterial 104 31 Road Overpass of I-70B n/a Overpass 105 19 Road US 6 to L Rd 2.8 Widen 2 to 4 lane arterial 106 12th St at Patterson n/a Intersection Improvement

P:\MesaCountyRCTP_MEG1001\PublicInvolvement\02_ConnectionsWorkshop_26Apr2010\PublicComments_ConnectionsWorkshops_MesaRTP.xlsx ‐ fromConnectionsMaps Mesa County 2035 Regional Transportation Plan Public Involvement - Responses to Exit Questionnaires for Connections Workshops ######

Q2. Thinking back on your group’s discussions about travel by auto/truck, transit, and bicycle, please identify what you see as the most important improvement:

Q1. Having now completed the exercise to build a financially-balanced transportation plan, what do you believe is the most important way in Q3. Thinking back on the discussions at your which this Plan can improve future table, where was there agreement on future Q4. Where did people disagree on future No. Zip Code Date Location Morning / Evening transportation within the County? For the Roadway System For the Transit System For the Bicycle Network priorities? priorities and why?

More alternative transportation and more bike lanes 1 81506 26-Apr Fellowship Church E More bike lanes or paths through town. Maintenance at same level. More capacity needs to be seen by participants. and pedestrian friendly streets.

I have only specific comments about problem areas 2 81506 26-Apr Fellowship Church E of current bike trails. The Big Picture is beyond me.

3 81521 26-Apr Fellowship Church M Focus on maintenance, roadways, and trails. Connectivity between major points Connectivity across the valley Most all Some thought Transit should be higher.

4 81521 26-Apr Fellowship Church M Move people in a safe and timely fashion. 1 3 2 Yes None really

Creating a structure within which decisions can be Reduce traffic on F Road, 6 & 50 or identify Set priority and funding to enhance a bike friendly Unfortunately, did not participate in discussion Unfortunately, did not participate in discussion 5 81501 26-Apr Fellowship Church M made. alternate routes. corridor to access common destinations. groups. groups.

6 81501 26-Apr Fellowship Church M x

Widely expanded bike/ped routes - trails - east of Fruita/Palisade in town bus routes with express 7 81507 26-Apr Fellowship Church M Palisade to Fruita. Canal trails open up the valley - 29 Road Connection to H. Broadway improvements/ E 1/2/Orchard corridor. Most all areas Not much disagreement service to Grand Junction extension 29 Road north/east to connect to H.

More bike capacity connecting different types of 8 81505 26-Apr Fellowship Church M Capacity Frequency Shoulders transport - we agreed a lot. Hwy. 6, Patterson, Downtown hub for bus (local transit), greyhound, taxi, transport to hospital and Use of money on roadway capacity vs. emphasis 9 81523 26-Apr Fellowship Church M East-west and north-south transit capacity. x airport, improve connectivity of bike/ped trails, more on mass transit. frequent buses. 10 51821 26-Apr Fellowship Church M Central bus station. Both Both Yes General agreement 11 81507 26-Apr Fellowship Church M Input from residents North-south across town Pull out so as not to stop traffic Connections across 1st and Grand Mostly Not a lot of disagreements Number 1 is identifying the priorities of the The focus of the group was quality of life and trail The percentage of allocation of other members had 12 81521 26-Apr Fellowship Church M Hwy. 6 and 50 to Fruita Connectivity between Palisade and Fruita community. system. transit as very low priority. Improve transit where most needed and expand Bike/ped needs major investment, less on roadway 13 81507 26-Apr Fellowship Church M roads where most needed. Take on canal 340 - US 6 between Fruita and Grand Junction Routes 5 and 9 Riverfront Trail, Canals Transit increases and to what level? capacity. companies for access for transportation. 14 81507 26-Apr Fellowship Church M Citizen based input. 3 2 1 Substantial agreement. More for bicycles, but not too much.

15 81501 26-Apr Fellowship Church M By following thru with plans. To encourage more to bike. Park and drive connecting.

We probably overloaded bicycle improvements 16 81501 26-Apr Fellowship Church M Proceed with suggestions. General improvement Improved bus service Canal trails/riverfront trails Yes, in general. since it was difficult to spend all the money. Planning, planning, planning - get involved with the 17 26-Apr Fellowship Church M We mostly agreed. public.

P:\MesaCountyRCTP_MEG1001\PublicInvolvement\02_ConnectionsWorkshop_26Apr2010\QuestionnaireResponses_Connections_MesaCoRTP_21Jun10.xlsx - Sheet1 Mesa Public ######

Q5. Based on your knowledge of the transportation system and future growth pressures, do you feel that funding for transportation in Mesa County is:

Q8. One of the main objectives of this Plan is to strengthen connections between communities Q6. If additional funding were available, where Q6a. If additional funding were available, where in Mesa County. How can transportation help Q9. What questions do you have about travel in would you choose to spend it? Check your top would you choose to spend it? Check your top Q7. If you feel additional funding is needed, how make this happen? What are your Mesa County that you would like answered No. Q5. Explain priority. priority. Q6. Comments: should that revenue be generated? recommendations? through this Plan? About Right Needs to be Increased Needs to be Decreased Don't Know / Need More Information Especially need north/south routes in Grand Why aren't new developments and subdivisions Junction, better cycling and pedestrian paths 1 x Improve the network of bicycle lanes and paths Higher gas tax; use tax on big rigs. Improved public transit. required to have sidewalks? Why are subdivisions around Mesa Mall and improvements around Mesa approved without transportation mitigation plans? State.

2

The existing problems can't even be fixed, much 3 x Improve the network of bicycle lanes and paths Increased fees and costs to developers Build better connections for drivers and bikers less an adequate number of future improvements. Improve the operation of roadways (traffic signal Congestion spots - Mesa Mall, 32 Road, Patterson 4 x Widen existing roads; maintain existing roads Sales tax, vehicle sales tax, property tax Is this really necessary? timing/progression) Road, 28 1/4 Road, Mesa Mall I am not opposed to raising taxes - not sure which Facilitating easier and safer bike routes reduces Add in better north-south connections between 5 x Improve the network of bicycle lanes and paths taxes - for major highways, I would suggest toll vehicular traffic and improves health. Highway 50 and F Road. system be considered. There are many areas in the City of Grand Junction The roads between Fruita and Palisade could be 6 Improve the network of bicycle lanes and paths where it is not safe to bike, but where it would be Increase fuel taxes used for transportation along this corridor. beautiful for bikes to relieve traffic.

7 Improve the network of bicycle lanes and paths Widen existing roads

My top priority if bike lanes that connect, but looking I don't mind paying taxes. I value what I get from 8 x Widen existing roads to future, what our table wanted was a rail system my tax dollars. from Palisade to Loma.

Bus line or rail transit (propane or natural gas 9 x Enhance transit hours or frequency of bus service. Expand the area served by transit. Greater tax on fuels. fueled) from Palisade to Fruita on existing rail line.

10 x Need to address commuter rail Maintain existing roads Have buses add shopping and laundry Fuel tax 11 x Widen existing roads 23 Road redlands To meet projected demand, we need additional Enhance transit hours or frequency of bus service; Transit connections are key to growth and 12 x Maintain existing roads Miscellaneous use tax. funding. improve sidewalks employment and quality of life. Improve the operation of roadways; enhance transit 13 x More for transit and bike/ped. Maintain existing roads hours or frequency of bus service; improve the Increase sales tax. network of bicycle lanes and paths County assessments of Oil and Gas industry; More trails and bike paths; express bus routes from 14 x Maintain existing roads increased heavy truck fees. Fruita and Palisade. Widen existing roads; improve the network of 15 x Maintain existing roads bicycle lanes and paths; improve sidewalks Enhance transit hours or frequency of bus service; 16 x Maintain existing roads Do not feel additional money required. Increased trail improvements. improve the network of bicycle lanes and paths Improve the operation of roadways; construct new 17 x Maintain existing roads Bonds roads/expand the system

P:\MesaCountyRCTP_MEG1001\PublicInvolvement\02_ConnectionsWorkshop_26Apr2010\QuestionnaireResponses_Connections_MesaCoRTP_21Jun10.xlsx - Sheet1 Mesa Public ######

Q11. Have you completed B. Promote a stronger understanding of and discussions about transportation needs the online survey at A. Learn public preferences on transportation improvements to study in this plan update. and transportation funding realities. Q10. How did you hear about this Workshop? Check all that apply. www.2035RTP.com? In your opinion, did we meet this objective? In your opinion, did we meet this objective?

No. Q10. Other (comment): Yes No Yes No Maybe Please Explain: Yes No Maybe Please Explain: General Comments Email / Mail Neighborhood Association Website Friend / Neighbor Newspaper County Staff Television Organizational Affiliation Radio

1 xxxx x

Participant had two separate pages with comments on them - gave to 2 x Everett.

3 x xx x

4 x x x Too short a time to really give intelligent study work. x It is hard work spending money.

Discussing budgets and priorities improves 5 xx x Hopefully good ideas were generated! Would like to be contacted in another session is scheduled. understanding from the broad perspective.

6 x x Did not participate in a group. I hope realistic ideas come from this exercise.

7 x x It was a good experience for me.

Great exercise! Hard to get everything we want with that money. We 8 xxx xx x all wanted better bike routes, but we put our money into road improvements (shoulders) rather than pathways.

9 Inside Mesa County class x

10 x x 11 x xx x It was interesting to be part of a group that had a much 12 x xx x Allocation is a tricky process. different focus than I did.

13 x x x Lots of good discussion and collaboration. x Good understanding of costs of improvements. Well organized and well facilitated.

14 x County newsletter x x x Strength of cooperative planning effort.

15 xx x

16 Earth Day x x x

17 x xx x

P:\MesaCountyRCTP_MEG1001\PublicInvolvement\02_ConnectionsWorkshop_26Apr2010\QuestionnaireResponses_Connections_MesaCoRTP_21Jun10.xlsx - Sheet1 Blue Band and Transportation - Zoomerang Online Survey Results Page 1 of 3

» Member login » Send my own surveys » Quick tour

Blue Band and Transportation

Survey Results

1. Overall how do you view the Chamber's efforts to encourage shopping locally...our blue band campaign?

Very Favorable 133 59%

Somewhat 74 33% favorable

Somewhat 10 4% unfavorable

Very unfavorable 21%

Other, please specify 12 5% View Responses

2. How effective will the campaign be at meeting its goal of getting more dollars spent in the local economy?

It will be very 20 9% effective

It will be somewhat 166 76% effective

It will be somewhat 21 10% ineffective

It will not make any difference in how 12 6% people spend their dollars

3. Are you a blue band participating business? (If no, skip to question5)

Yes 50 26%

No 142 74%

Total 192 100%

4. How many people have you given a discount to as a result of this program?

Less than 10 30 47%

10-30 23%

http://www.zoomerang.com/Shared/SharedResultsSurveyResultsPage.aspx?ID=L24FS6T... 07/29/2010 Blue Band and Transportation - Zoomerang Online Survey Results Page 2 of 3

Over 30 0 0%

Not sure 12 19%

Other, please specify 21 33% View Responses

5. Has the Blue Band promotion caused you as a consumer to visit a local business?

Yes 85 40%

No 128 60%

Total 213 100%

View 31 Responses

6. How can we make the blue band campaign more effective?

View 103 Responses

Mesa County is developing a Transportation Plan for the next twenty years and has asked specifically for 7. business feedback. This question and the one following are important to their efforts. How willing are you to have your tax dollars used to support the following improvements

Top number is the count of respondents selecting the option. Not willing Somewhat unwilling Neutral Somewhat Willing Very Willing Bottom % is percent of the total respondents selecting the option. Improving major 4 10 23 110 71 streets in Mesa 2% 5% 11% 50% 33% County Improving rural 7 23 73 94 22 roads around Mesa 3% 11% 33% 43% 10% County area Reducing traffic 5 16 30 108 59 congestion 2% 7% 14% 50% 27%

Reducing delays 26 39 74 42 37 caused by trains 12% 18% 34% 19% 17% Improving the 6 14 43 75 77 timing of traffic 3% 7% 20% 35% 36% signals Adding pedestrian 19 24 74 63 31 facilities 9% 11% 35% 30% 15%

Adding trails for 22 20 51 55 69 walking and biking 10% 9% 24% 25% 32%

Adding on street 26 27 58 59 47 bike lanes 12% 12% 27% 27% 22%

Adding bus service 22 26 81 50 35 in the evenings 10% 12% 38% 23% 16%

Adding bus service 30 27 80 43 33 on Sundays 14% 13% 38% 20% 15%

http://www.zoomerang.com/Shared/SharedResultsSurveyResultsPage.aspx?ID=L24FS6T... 07/29/2010 Blue Band and Transportation - Zoomerang Online Survey Results Page 3 of 3

Adding more bus routes to serve 18 28 72 61 38 more of the 8% 13% 33% 28% 18% community Improving transportation for 10 13 58 91 46 seniors and 5% 6% 27% 42% 21% persons with disabilities

How supportive would you be of paying a SMALL INCREASE IN TAXES to increase funding for transportation in 8. the Mesa County region?

Top number is the count of respondents selecting the option. Very Supportive Somewaht supportive Would consider it Not Supportive Don't Know/No opinion Bottom % is percent of the total respondents selecting the option. Roadway 37 64 69 42 6 maintenance 17% 29% 32% 19% 3%

New and Widened 38 58 65 51 5 Roads 18% 27% 30% 24% 2% Signal Timing and 42 47 63 57 6 Efficiency 20% 22% 29% 27% 3% Improvements Transit 37 37 76 63 4 Improvements 17% 17% 35% 29% 2% Bicycle and 35 37 61 72 13 Pedestrian 16% 17% 28% 33% 6% Facilities

9. Any other comments of feedback you would like to give the Chamber leadership.

View 45 Responses

Online Surveys | Sign Up For FREE | View Our Features © 2010 Copyright MarketTools Inc. All Rights Reserved. Privacy Policy | Terms Of Use | Help

http://www.zoomerang.com/Shared/SharedResultsSurveyResultsPage.aspx?ID=L24FS6T... 07/29/2010 Grand Valley Transit Onboard Survey and Count Analysis - 2010 Grand Valley Transit Onboard Survey and Count Analysis 2010

Prepared for:

Mesa County, Colorado

Prepared by:

LSC Transportation Consultants, Inc. 516 North Tejon Street Colorado Springs, CO 80903 (719) 633-2868

In association with:

LSA Associates, Inc. 132 Mountain Avenue Fort Collins, CO 80524 (970) 494-1568

LSC #104020

May 14, 2010 TABLE OF CONTENTS

Chapter Title Page

Introduction ...... 1 Survey Methodology ...... 1 Survey Findings ...... 1 Demographics ...... 1 Primary Language ...... 1 Age and Gender ...... 2 Ethnicity ...... 7 Annual Household Income ...... 9 Trip Characteristics ...... 11 Reason for Riding ...... 11 Transportation Besides Bus and Final Destination ...... 13 Temporal Analysis ...... 18 Vehicle Ownership and License Driver ...... 20 Willingness to Pay Fare and Trip Preparation ...... 25 Service Rating ...... 28 Tax Dollars to Be Spent on Improvements ...... 29 Additional Comments ...... 29 Passenger Counts ...... 30 Boarding and Alighting Maps ...... 33 Route 1 - Airport ...... 33 Route 2 - Patterson ...... 36 Route 3 - Orchard Avenue ...... 37 Route 4 - Palisade ...... 36 Route 5 - Midtown ...... 36 Route 6 - Orchard Mesa ...... 45 Route 7 - MSC/WCCC ...... 45 Route 8 - Fruita ...... 45 Route 9 - North Avenue ...... 45 Route 10 - Clifton ...... 45 Route 11 - Shopping Malls ...... 56 Systemwide ...... 56

APPENDIX A: Survey Questionnaire

APPENDIX B: Comments

-ii- LIST OF TABULATIONS

Table Title Page

1 Quality of Service ...... 28 2 Tax Dollars Going to Improvements ...... 29 3 Systemwide Boardings ...... 31 4 Top Boarding Locations ...... 32 5 Alighting Locations ...... 33

LIST OF ILLUSTRATIONS

Figure Title Page

1 Primary Language ...... 2 2 Age Cohorts ...... 4 3 Gender ...... 6 4 Ethnicity ...... 8 5 Income ...... 10 6 Most Important Reason for Riding ...... 12 7 Final Destination ...... 14 8 Transportation to the Bus Stop ...... 16 9 Distance Walking to Final Destination ...... 17 10 Frequency of Ridership ...... 19 11 Vehicle Availability ...... 21 12 Licensed and Able to Drive ...... 23 13 Vehicles in Operating Condition ...... 25 14 Reasonable Fare ...... 27 15 Route 1 Daily Boardings ...... 34 16 Route 1 Daily Alightings ...... 35 17 Route 2 Daily Boardings ...... 37 18 Route 2 Daily Alightings ...... 38 19 Route 3 Daily Boardings ...... 39 20 Route 3 Daily Alightings ...... 40 21 Route 4 Daily Boardings ...... 41 22 Route 4 Daily Alightings ...... 42 23 Route 5 Daily Boardings ...... 43 24 Route 5 Daily Alightings ...... 44 25 Route 6 Daily Boardings ...... 46 26 Route 6 Daily Alightings ...... 47 27 Route 7 Daily Boardings ...... 48 28 Route 7 Daily Alightings ...... 49 29 Route 8 Daily Boardings ...... 50 30 Route 8 Daily Alightings ...... 51

-iii- 31 Route 9 Daily Boardings ...... 52 32 Route 9 Daily Alightings ...... 53 33 Route 10 Daily Boardings ...... 54 34 Route 10 Daily Alightings ...... 55 35 Route 11 Daily Boardings ...... 57 36 Route 11 Daily Alightings ...... 58 37 Systemwide Boardings ...... 59 38 Systemwide Alightings ...... 60

-iv- GRAND VALLEY TRANSIT ONBOARD SURVEY AND COUNT ANALYSIS 2010

Introduction

This chapter provides a detailed discussion of the survey and count effort as well as an analysis of data collected through onboard surveys. Information is provided about passenger demographics, trip char‐ acteristics, and perceptions of the quality of service. This survey was conducted on March 24, 2010. The data show a comparison of onboard surveys conducted on November 6, 2008 and March 20, 2006 wherever possible to identify trends or changes in demographics, perceptions, and travel patterns.

Survey Methodology

A short survey instrument was developed in cooperation with the RTPO and is provided in Appendix A. The LSC Team contracted with a local employment agency to hire workers to complete the survey distribution and collection as well as count passengers boarding and alighting at each individual stop on all fixed routes. Surveys were conducted from approximately 1:15 p.m. until 6:45 p.m. Contracted temporary employees were trained on the appropriate method for distribution of surveys, and a review of survey questions was completed to give the workers insight on the survey questions so they would be prepared to field questions regarding the survey instrument. Workers were provided the appropriate materials—i.e., pencils, pens, clipboard, surveys, and count sheets—to complete the survey and count program.

Survey Findings

Responses from the usable questionnaires were entered into a database for analysis. A total of 234 usable surveys were returned. There was a total of 1,212 passengers counted boarding on this day, yielding a response rate of 19 percent. The survey concentrated on obtaining information on trip purpose, frequency of use, and fares.

DEMOGRAPHICS

There were a number of questions asked to determine demographic characteristics of transit riders on Grand Valley Transit. Respondents were asked to complete information on every trip which they took regarding the characteristics of the trip. The demographic information is summarized from undupli‐ cated surveys.

Primary Language

Over the course of the survey efforts, there has been very little variation in the primary language of riders on the GVT system. The vast majority of respondents (95 percent) reported that their primary language was English. Only a small percentage of people reported other languages, including Spanish, speaking both English and Spanish, and other. This is similar to the 2008 survey, when 96 percent of respondents indicated English as their first language. Figure 1 graphically shows this relationship. Grand Valley Transit Onboard Survey and Count Analysis 2010 Page 1

GRAND VALLEY TRANSIT ONBOARD SURVEY AND COUNT ANALYSIS 2010

Age and Gender

It appears that GVT may potentially be losing riders under the age of 25. During the 2006 survey, approximately 45 percent of riders were below the age of 25. More recent surveys in 2008 (40 percent) and in 2010 (33 percent) show a declining trend. Another explanation for this could be that riders in other cohorts are riding far more often, thus reducing the proportion of riders below 25 years old. While there are slightly more male riders, the proportion has stayed relatively constant over the most recent onboard surveys.

Grand Valley Transit Onboard Survey and Count Analysis 2010 Page 2

GRAND VALLEY TRANSIT ONBOARD SURVEY AND COUNT ANALYSIS 2010

The average age of respondents to the survey was 35 years old. This is slightly older than both the 2008 and 2006 surveys, when the average age was 33 and 32, respectively. The most frequently chosen answer was 20 years old (by 11 respondents). The age cohort was fairly evenly spread between 19 to 54 years of age. Those aged 19 to 24 made up 19 percent of respondents; individuals aged 25 to 34 were most prominent at 20 percent of respondents. Nineteen (19) percent of respondents were age 35 to 44 and 18 percent were age 45 to 54. In contrast, only four percent of respondents reported being age 65 or older. For both the 2006 and 2008 surveys, the age cohort with the most frequent response was for individuals age 18 or under. In both previous surveys, a small percentage (only three percent) reported being 65 or older. The age cohort in the recent survey shows a larger distribution of adults riding and fewer individuals under 18 riding. The age cohorts of respondents can be seen in Figure 2.

Grand Valley Transit Onboard Survey and Count Analysis 2010 Page 3

GRAND VALLEY TRANSIT ONBOARD SURVEY AND COUNT ANALYSIS 2010

Grand Valley Transit Onboard Survey and Count Analysis 2010 Page 4

GRAND VALLEY TRANSIT ONBOARD SURVEY AND COUNT ANALYSIS 2010

There were slightly more male respondents (55 percent) than female respondents in the 2010 survey. In both the 2008 and 2006 surveys, there was a slightly higher percentage of male respondents (52 percent and 51 percent) than female respondents. Figure 3 shows the breakdown of gender for the respondents.

Grand Valley Transit Onboard Survey and Count Analysis 2010 Page 5

GRAND VALLEY TRANSIT ONBOARD SURVEY AND COUNT ANALYSIS 2010

Grand Valley Transit Onboard Survey and Count Analysis 2010 Page 6

GRAND VALLEY TRANSIT ONBOARD SURVEY AND COUNT ANALYSIS 2010

Ethnicity

There has been no noticeable change in the ethnicity of GVT riders over the years. Ethnicity responses are shown in Figure 4. White passengers made up about 69 percent of the respondents, which is slightly fewer than both the 75 percent indicated in the 2008 survey and the 70 percent indicated in the 2006 survey. The next most frequent group was Hispanic/Latino, indicated by 14 percent of the respondents. About nine percent of respondents reported being American Indian/Alaskan Native, while African Americans and “Other” made up another two percent each. The remaining responses came from Asian (two percent). In the 2008 survey, there were fewer American Indian/Alaskan Native passengers (five percent). The 2008 survey also showed a lower percentage of Hispanic/Latino passengers—12 percent compared to 14 percent. The 2006 survey showed numbers very similar to the 2010 survey indicating that the ethnicity of passengers has not changed substantially over the past four years. In 2006, 14 percent of respondents reported being Hispanic/Latino, the same percentage as in 2010. American Indian/Alaskan Native passengers made up ten percent of passengers in 2006, only negligibly more than the nine percent indicated in the 2010 survey.

Grand Valley Transit Onboard Survey and Count Analysis 2010 Page 7

GRAND VALLEY TRANSIT ONBOARD SURVEY AND COUNT ANALYSIS 2010

Grand Valley Transit Onboard Survey and Count Analysis 2010 Page 8

GRAND VALLEY TRANSIT ONBOARD SURVEY AND COUNT ANALYSIS 2010

Annual Household Income

High gas prices in 2008 may have induced slightly higher use by choice riders. This is evidenced by house‐ holds earning greater than $35,000 appearing as a higher percentage during the 2008 survey. In 2010, there has been a return to similar gas prices as 2006, and the reported income levels of passengers reflect this.

Income plays an important role in determining the transit ridership and needs of a given community. The annual household income for respondents is represented in Figure 5. The majority of riders (67 percent) earn less than $15,000 dollars annually. This segment is further broken down to show that 27 percent earn between $7,500 and $14,999, and 40 percent earn less than $7,500 annually. Nearly 19 percent of all respondents reported being within the range of $15,000 to $34,999. Households earning over $50,000 dollars annually represent nine percent of the surveyed population. The 2008 survey showed a much smaller proportion of individuals earning less than $7,500 annually (26 percent). Correspondingly, the 2008 survey showed a higher number of individuals earning more than $15,000 annually in all the sub‐ categories. The 2006 survey results were more similar to the 2010 results, showing 66 percent of indi‐ viduals earning less than $15,000 annually. The percentage of people earning $50,000 or more in 2006 was at 13 percent, which is closer to the 2008 results for that income bracket than to the 2010 results.

Grand Valley Transit Onboard Survey and Count Analysis 2010 Page 9

GRAND VALLEY TRANSIT ONBOARD SURVEY AND COUNT ANALYSIS 2010

Grand Valley Transit Onboard Survey and Count Analysis 2010 Page 10

GRAND VALLEY TRANSIT ONBOARD SURVEY AND COUNT ANALYSIS 2010

TRIP CHARACTERISTICS

The survey was primarily aimed at asking passengers to provide information about the individual trip they were making on GVT. Passengers were asked to provide this information each time they were on the bus, regardless of whether or not they had previously completed a survey.

Reason for Riding

Although this question has been slightly altered over the years, it is still possible to make some baseline conclusions. The majority of riders use GVT because they do not have the option to drive. Very few individuals chose the response that they ride because the system is convenient or economical.

Passengers were asked the most important reason they ride the bus. As shown in Figure 6, the top reasons for riding the bus are: passengers who do not drive (37 percent) and passengers whose families do not have cars (24 percent). Eleven percent reported that the bus is an economical way to travel, and nine percent indicated that the bus is a convenient way to travel.

In 2008, the categories from which participants could choose their primary reason for not riding were slightly different than what was used in 2010, but top reasons for riding the bus were still the same: passengers who do not drive (46 percent) and passengers whose families do not have cars (18 percent). The third most common reason for riding the bus was that it was a convenient way to travel (12 percent).

In 2006, the top reasons for riding the bus are passengers who did not have a car available (42 percent) and passengers who could not drive themselves (28 percent). Thirteen percent reported that the bus was a convenient way to travel.

Grand Valley Transit Onboard Survey and Count Analysis 2010 Page 11

GRAND VALLEY TRANSIT ONBOARD SURVEY AND COUNT ANALYSIS 2010

Grand Valley Transit Onboard Survey and Count Analysis 2010 Page 12

GRAND VALLEY TRANSIT ONBOARD SURVEY AND COUNT ANALYSIS 2010

Transportation Besides Bus and Final Destination

As reported above, it appears that high gas prices have influenced the trend of this question. In 2008, approximately 41 percent of people reported they were going to work, while 17 percent reported going to school. The numbers for both of these categories is much lower for 2010 and 2006, suggesting that more choice riders were using the system during the 2008 counts and surveys.

Determining a patron’s final destination is helpful in developing service operating characteristics. Figure 7 provides the responses for this question. The most popular responses were that patrons were going to work (27 percent) or personal business (16 percent).

Grand Valley Transit Onboard Survey and Count Analysis 2010 Page 13

GRAND VALLEY TRANSIT ONBOARD SURVEY AND COUNT ANALYSIS 2010

Grand Valley Transit Onboard Survey and Count Analysis 2010 Page 14

GRAND VALLEY TRANSIT ONBOARD SURVEY AND COUNT ANALYSIS 2010

In 2008, the most popular response was that patrons were going to work (41 percent). Another 17 percent reported going to school/college. In the 2010 survey, only seven percent indicated they were going to school.

In the 2006 survey, approximately 25 percent reported they were going to work and 10 percent were going to school or college.

Individuals were also asked to report how they got to the bus stops or transfer center. The results of this question can be seen in Figure 8. Not surprisingly, a large proportion (76 percent) of users walked to the bus that they were boarding. Twelve percent transferred from another bus, and seven percent biked to the bus stop. The 2008 survey showed an even larger proportion (87 percent) of users walked to the bus that they were boarding. In 2008, only three percent of respondents indicated transferring from another bus and three percent biked. The 2006 survey had similar responses to the 2008 survey, with 88 percent walking and very few people using other means of transportation.

Grand Valley Transit Onboard Survey and Count Analysis 2010 Page 15

GRAND VALLEY TRANSIT ONBOARD SURVEY AND COUNT ANALYSIS 2010

Grand Valley Transit Onboard Survey and Count Analysis 2010 Page 16

GRAND VALLEY TRANSIT ONBOARD SURVEY AND COUNT ANALYSIS 2010

As in previous years, users of the GVT system seldom walked farther than three blocks to their destination when exiting the bus.

This year, passengers were asked to indicate how many blocks they would have to walk from the bus stop to their final destination. The previous surveys indicated that the vast majority of passengers walk from the bus stop to their final destination (85 percent in 2008 and 86 percent in 2006). Nearly one‐third (33 percent) of passengers indicated a walk of two to three blocks from the bus stop to their final destination. Thirty (30) percent had to walk less than one block to their destination. Fourteen (14) percent indicated a walk of four to five blocks, and 13 percent indicated a walk of over six blocks. Only three percent of respondents in 2010 indicated that they used another form of transportation besides walking to reach their final destination. Figure 9 shows the number of blocks participants indicated they walked to their final destination.

Grand Valley Transit Onboard Survey and Count Analysis 2010 Page 17

GRAND VALLEY TRANSIT ONBOARD SURVEY AND COUNT ANALYSIS 2010

TEMPORAL ANALYSIS

The majority of GVT passengers are very frequent riders, using the service at least four days per week—a trend which is increasing.

Passengers were asked how often they ride the bus during the typical week. Figure 10 shows that approxi‐ mately 42 percent of the passengers reported using the GVT service all six days it operates in 2010. Twenty‐ six (26) percent reported using the service five days per week. Another 26 percent use the service at least one, but four days or less per week. Only six percent of respondents indicated riding the bus less than once a week.

The 2010 survey shows that riders are more dependent on the bus more frequently than indicated in previous surveys. In 2008, 29 percent of the passengers reported using the GVT service all six days it operates. Twenty‐four (24) percent reported using the service five days per week. Forty‐five (45) percent use the service four days or less per week. In 2006, 34 percent of the passengers reported using the GVT service all six days it operates. Thirty (30) percent reported using the service five days per week. Thirty‐six (36) percent used the service four days or fewer per week.

Grand Valley Transit Onboard Survey and Count Analysis 2010 Page 18

GRAND VALLEY TRANSIT ONBOARD SURVEY AND COUNT ANALYSIS 2010

Grand Valley Transit Onboard Survey and Count Analysis 2010 Page 19

GRAND VALLEY TRANSIT ONBOARD SURVEY AND COUNT ANALYSIS 2010

VEHICLE OWNERSHIP AND LICENSED DRIVER

The number of riders that have access to a vehicle has increased slightly (from 11 percent in 2006 to 16 percent in 2010), but riders are still highly dependent on GVT service for their transportation needs.

Vehicle ownership for households and the ability to drive play key roles in the demand for public trans‐ portation. Lack of a private vehicle or the inability to drive influence people to use public transportation. This comparison provides an indication of the number of choice riders compared to those who are transit‐ dependent. This question was asked during the March 2006, November 2008, and April 2010 survey periods; therefore a comparison between surveys can be made.

The greatest portion of passengers in 2008 (84 percent) do not have a vehicle available to make their trip as shown in Figure 11. In 2008, 84 percent and in 2006, 89 percent did not have a vehicle available to make their trip. As these numbers are all almost identical, there was very little change in vehicle availability for the time period between surveys.

Grand Valley Transit Onboard Survey and Count Analysis 2010 Page 20

GRAND VALLEY TRANSIT ONBOARD SURVEY AND COUNT ANALYSIS 2010

Grand Valley Transit Onboard Survey and Count Analysis 2010 Page 21

GRAND VALLEY TRANSIT ONBOARD SURVEY AND COUNT ANALYSIS 2010

Since 2006, the number of GVT riders that have a license and the ability to drive is increasing slightly, although there has been no significant difference since the 2008 survey effort.

The survey also asked individuals to reveal if they had a driver’s license and the ability to drive. Figure 12 shows that about 62 percent of respondents in 2010 had no license or were not able to drive. This is close to the 2008 result of 63 percent of respondents with no license, but down from the 2006 survey which found that 70 percent were without a license or the ability to drive.

Performing cross‐tabulation between those who did not have access to a car and those with no driver’s license indicates that 31 percent of the survey respondents did not have a car or a driver’s license.

Grand Valley Transit Onboard Survey and Count Analysis 2010 Page 22

GRAND VALLEY TRANSIT ONBOARD SURVEY AND COUNT ANALYSIS 2010

Grand Valley Transit Onboard Survey and Count Analysis 2010 Page 23

GRAND VALLEY TRANSIT ONBOARD SURVEY AND COUNT ANALYSIS 2010

The number of respondents reporting that they have no vehicles in operating condition in their house is up seven percent since the 2008 survey.

Respondents were asked to indicate on the survey how many vehicles in operating condition their house‐ hold had. Nearly half (48 percent) of respondents indicated that their household has no working vehicles. This is up from 41 percent in 2008 indicating no working vehicle in the household. Thirty percent of respondents recorded having one vehicle, which is slightly greater than the 25 percent in 2008 reporting one vehicle in working condition. Fourteen (14) percent indicated their household as having two working vehicles, which is down from 2008 when 19 percent of respondents reported having two working vehicles. Only eight percent reported having three or more working vehicles, which is down from the 2008 results when 15 percent of individuals surveyed reported having three or more working vehicles in their house‐ hold. Figure 13 shows this relationship graphically.

Grand Valley Transit Onboard Survey and Count Analysis 2010 Page 24

GRAND VALLEY TRANSIT ONBOARD SURVEY AND COUNT ANALYSIS 2010

WILLINGNESS TO PAY FARE AND TRIP PREPARATION

Respondents show only limited support for paying an increased fare to ride GVT service.

Respondents were asked what they thought would be a reasonable fee for use of the bus. The majority (73 percent) indicated that $1.25 would be a reasonable fee, which was the lowest choice offered on the survey. Twenty‐five percent indicated that $1.50 would be a reasonable fee, and only three percent indicated $1.75 or more as a reasonable fee. The proportion of individuals willing to pay a higher fare is Grand Valley Transit Onboard Survey and Count Analysis 2010 Page 25

GRAND VALLEY TRANSIT ONBOARD SURVEY AND COUNT ANALYSIS 2010

shown in Figure 14. Note that the different surveys provided different choices for what would be con‐ sidered a reasonable fare.

In 2008, respondents were asked whether they would be willing to pay a higher fare due to the increased price of gas and the majority of respondents (64 percent) reported that they would not be willing to pay a higher fare, with the remaining 36 percent saying that they would pay an increased fare. Respondents were then asked to indicate what a reasonable fare would be. Sixty percent of respondents indicated that $1.00 was a reasonable fare. An additional 20 percent said that $1.25 was a reasonable fare. The 2006 survey also asked passengers what a reasonable one‐way fare would be. During that survey, an over‐ whelming majority (93 percent) reported that $1.00 was a reasonable fare.

Grand Valley Transit Onboard Survey and Count Analysis 2010 Page 26

GRAND VALLEY TRANSIT ONBOARD SURVEY AND COUNT ANALYSIS 2010

Grand Valley Transit Onboard Survey and Count Analysis 2010 Page 27

GRAND VALLEY TRANSIT ONBOARD SURVEY AND COUNT ANALYSIS 2010

SERVICE RATING

Passengers were asked to rate their present bus service on a scale from “Poor” to “Very Good.” The topics cover a wide range of issues, including service times, bus drivers, and the buses themselves. The maxi‐ mum score for each category would be a 4.0, meaning that everyone believes this topic is rated as very good. A score of 2.5 could be considered average. The highest rated service is the safety of bus drivers, which got a rating of 3.4. The friendliness of drivers, the appearance of drivers, the appearance of buses, and the safety at bus stops also scored high, each with ratings of 3.3. The lowest rated attributes were the buses being on time and the hours of operation, which were each rated 2.4. Table 1 shows the rating for each of the attributes on the survey during all three survey periods. Most of the ratings have remained constant or have very slight variations. One notable variation is that the appearance of buses has an improved rating in the 2010 survey compared to the previous surveys. Also notable is that the buses being on time has received a lower rating in 2010 than previously.

Table 1 Quality of Service Attribute 2006 2008 2010 Appearance of Buses 2.9 3.0 3.3 Friendliness of Drivers 3.0 3.2 3.3 Appearance of Drivers 3.2 3.2 3.3 Condition of Buses NA NA 3.0 Reliability of Service 3.1 3.0 2.8 Buses on time 2.9 2.7 2.4 Location of Bus Stops 2.8 2.8 2.9 Frequency of Service 2.7 2.7 2.7 Hours of Operation 2.3 2.2 2.4 Schedules easy to Understand 3.0 2.9 3.1 Buses go where you need to go 2.9 3.0 2.9 Driver Safety 3.2 3.3 3.4 Safety at bus stops 3.1 3.1 3.3 GVT Website 3.0 3.0 3.1

Source: LSC Onboard Surveys 2006, 2008, 2010.

Grand Valley Transit Onboard Survey and Count Analysis 2010 Page 28

GRAND VALLEY TRANSIT ONBOARD SURVEY AND COUNT ANALYSIS 2010

TAX DOLLARS TO BE SPENT ON IMPROVEMENTS

New to the 2010 survey was a question asking participants about where they thought their tax dollars should go in making transportation related improvements. Respondents were asked to indicate whether they “Strongly Disagree,” “Disagree Slightly,” “Agree Slightly,” or “Strongly Agree” to tax dollars being spent in a number of categories for improvement. The maximum score for each category would be 4.0, indicating that everyone strongly agrees that tax dollars should be spent on that improvement. A rating of 2.5 would indicate that respondents are split about whether or not tax dollars should be spent on a par‐ ticular improvement. Not surprisingly, the categories with the highest support were related to improve‐ ments in the bus system. Adding bus service in the evenings and adding bus service on weekends each received a rating of 3.7, indicating that most respondents strongly agreed or agreed with tax dollars going toward increased bus service. Adding additional bus routes to serve the community received a rating of 3.6. The category with the least support from respondents was for reducing automobile delays caused by train crossings, which received a rating of 2.7. Table 2 shows the results for each category on the survey.

Table 2 Tax Dollars Going to Improvements Improvement Rating Adding bus service in the evenings 3.7 Adding bus service on the weekends 3.7 Adding bus routes to serve more of the community 3.6 Adding pedestrian facilities along streets 3.2 Adding off‐street trails/paths for walking and/or biking 3.2 Improving major streets in Mesa County 3.1 Adding on‐street bike lanes 3.1 Improving rural roads in Mesa County 3 Reducing automobile delays caused by train crossings 2.7

ADDITIONAL COMMENTS

Passengers were asked to share any additional comments they have about the system on the survey instrument. These comments have been categorized into their primary purpose. The full comments can be read in Appendix B. There were two questions asked—the first is related to the current service, and the second is related to future service improvements.

When asked to comment on how to improve the current service, the majority of users had similar requests. The most frequent request was to increase the hours of service, and incorporate Sunday service into the schedule. Many users also indicated that they would like to have more buses on the routes, leading to an increased headway. Additional, but less frequent, comments included providing

Grand Valley Transit Onboard Survey and Count Analysis 2010 Page 29

GRAND VALLEY TRANSIT ONBOARD SURVEY AND COUNT ANALYSIS 2010

better bus and bus stop amenities, providing service to emerging areas in the region and driver conduct.

The second question asked respondents to think about what they might like the system to look like in 20 years. This question provided slightly more variation than the previous question. Many users wanted the system to have larger buses, no fares, 24‐hour service, and shorter headways. Other respondents requested a new medium for transit service (light rail, monorail, subway). Lastly, users expressed interest in seeing GVT expand their service area to more areas in the county outside of their current coverage area.

Passenger Counts

Passenger count information was recorded in concert with the execution of onboard surveys. These counts were taken on the routes scheduled between 1:15 p.m. and 6:15 p.m. This five‐hour window allowed the counts to be captured for the evening commute and return school trips. The most recent counts cover only a part of the day, so comparisons to 2008 counts will be made using percentages and scale where appropriate. The main result of the count effort is to be able to graphically show where passengers are boarding and alighting across the system.

Table 3 shows the boarding activity by route for the entire system, compared to the 2008 counts. While the total boardings are lower because of the partial counts, the percentages of system boardings remain largely unchanged. North Avenue is still the busiest route, representing 18 percent of system boardings during both counts. The Shopping Malls, MSC/WCC and Orchard Mesa routes all increased ridership by roughly two percent of systemwide boardings, while the Patterson, Palisade and Midtown routes all decreased ridership by two percent of system boardings. These percentages do not represent a great amount of change and would most likely be lessened during a full day’s worth of counts. This comparison shows that system ridership has a similar distribution as the 2008 data.

Grand Valley Transit Onboard Survey and Count Analysis 2010 Page 30

GRAND VALLEY TRANSIT ONBOARD SURVEY AND COUNT ANALYSIS 2010

Table 3 Systemwide Boardings 2010 2008 Percent of Percent of Total System Total System # Route Boardings Boardings Boardings Boardings 1 Airport 105 9% 215 9% 2 Patterson 49 4% 137 6% 3 Orchard Avenue 125 10% 233 10% 4 Palisade 81 7% 213 9% 5 Midtown 115 9% 261 11% 6 Orchard Mesa 80 7% 123 5% 7 MSC/WCCC 122 10% 196 8% 8 Fruita 63 5% 145 6% 9 North Avenue 224 18% 428 18% 10 Clifton 100 8% 208 9% 11 Shopping Malls 148 12% 232 10% Total 1,212 2,391 Source: LSC, 2008 and 2010

While boarding and alighting maps are presented later in this chapter, by route and systemwide, it is also important to examine which GVT stops generate the most activity. Table 4 and Table 5 show the boarding and alighting for the stops with the highest activity in the system. Looking at Table 4, which shows the top stops for boardings, the three transfer points represent the greatest activity, with over 100 boardings each. The other stops with high activity include shopping and employment areas such as Walmart, Grand Mesa Center, Workforce Center and Albertson’s.

Grand Valley Transit Onboard Survey and Count Analysis 2010 Page 31

GRAND VALLEY TRANSIT ONBOARD SURVEY AND COUNT ANALYSIS 2010

Table 4 Top Boarding Locations Stop Location Boarding Count Downtown Transfer Station 313 Clifton Transfer Station 208 Mesa Mall 111 24 3/4 Rd & North of WHY 6 & 50 (Grand Mesa Center) 32 North Ave & West of 29 Rd (Workforce Center) 19 North Ave & East of 28 3/4 Rd (Walmart) 18 Grand Ave & East of 5th St 15 North Ave & East of 23rd St (Teller Arms) 15 Patterson Rd & West of Cris Mar Rd 10 Grand Ave & East of 3rd St 9 North Ave & East of 8th St 9 North Ave & West of 12th St (Houston Hall) 9 Orchard Ave & East of 12th St (Albertson's) 9

Source: LSC, 2010

Table 5 shows that the top three alighting locations are once again the transfer points, albeit with the top two spots reversed in order. One of the reasons that the Clifton transfer center has more alightings than downtown is due to the evening counts, when people are disseminating outward from the city traditionally. Had the counts been done only in the morning, these numbers would most likely be reversed. Many of the primary alighting locations are also on the top boardings table. However, a few new stops are to be noted, such as Enstrom’s and Solaris Square.

Grand Valley Transit Onboard Survey and Count Analysis 2010 Page 32

GRAND VALLEY TRANSIT ONBOARD SURVEY AND COUNT ANALYSIS 2010

Table 5 Top Alighting Locations Stop Location Alighting Count Clifton Transfer Station 171 Downtown Transfer Station 129 Mesa Mall 94 North Ave & East of 28 1/2 Rd (Shelter) 23 North Ave & East of 28 3/4 Rd (Walmart) 19 7th St & South of Colorado Ave (Enstrom's) 15 North Ave & East of 23rd St (Teller Arms) 13 North Ave & East of 28 1/4 Rd (Solaris Square) 13 North Ave & West of 29 Rd (Workforce Center) 12 North Ave & East of 29 1/4 Rd 12 Hwy 6 & East of 4th St (No Sign) 12 32 Rd & South of D 1/2 Rd 10

Source: LSC, 2010

BOARDING AND ALIGHTING MAPS

Figures 15 through 38 show boarding and alighting maps for each of the GVT routes, along with the systemwide information. Scaled dots on the maps represent the relative activity at that stop along the route. The maps have callouts to describe the location of the major activity points. A short narrative precedes the maps, describing the key locations, and any relevant pattern changes from 2008.

Route 1 – Airport

Figures 15 and 16 show the boarding and alighting activity for the Airport route. The most popular boarding locations outside of the downtown transfer center include the MSC soccer field, Main Street (east of 8th Street) and Wendy’s. There are slight variations when comparing the boarding information to the 2008 counts, where more individuals boarded at the Little Bookcliff Drive and Wellington Avenue stop. The alighting pattern is fairly similar to the boarding pattern but with more activity at St. Mary’s Hospital and 12th Street (north of Elm). The 2008 survey had slightly more alighting activity on the Horizon Drive portion of the route.

Grand Valley Transit Onboard Survey and Count Analysis 2010 Page 33

GRAND VALLEY TRANSIT ONBOARD SURVEY AND COUNT ANALYSIS 2010

Grand Valley Transit Onboard Survey and Count Analysis 2010 Page 34

GRAND VALLEY TRANSIT ONBOARD SURVEY AND COUNT ANALYSIS 2010

Grand Valley Transit Onboard Survey and Count Analysis 2010 Page 35

GRAND VALLEY TRANSIT ONBOARD SURVEY AND COUNT ANALYSIS 2010

Route 2 – Patterson

As shown in Figure 17, the major boarding points along the Patterson route are the termini (Mesa Mall and Clifton Transfer Center). These two stops represent the majority of the boarding activity for the route, with some additional boardings occurring toward the center portions of the path. This informa‐ tion is consistent with the patterns that were seen in 2008 data. Figure 18 shows that alighting activity was heaviest at the Clifton Transfer Center, with additional significant activity occurring at the inter‐ sections of 30 Road and also at 25 ½ Road, along with the mall. Data from 2008 are slightly more concentrated at the end points.

Route 3 – Orchard Avenue

As shown in Figure 19, boarding activity on the Orchard Avenue route is fairly dispersed along the route. While the majority of boardings occur at the transfer points, many boardings also occur at the library, Albertson’s, and at many stops along Orchard Avenue. Alighting activity, depicted in Figure 20, also occurs at a wide range of stops for this route. In addition to the transfer points, 4th Street and Gunnison Avenue, Orchard Avenue and 29 Road, and Orchard Avenue and 29 ¼ Road also experience significant activity. Generally, 2008 data reflects a similar pattern.

Route 4 – Palisade

Boardings for the Palisade route are concentrated at the Clifton transfer station and East Valley School in Palisade, as seen in Figure 21. Data from 2008 show more boarding activity at Palisade High School, but generally has a similar pattern. Shown in Figure 22, the alighting map is very similar to the boarding map, but with more alighting activity occurring at Highway 6 and 34 Road. Once again, this map differs from the 2008 map in that there are fewer students getting off at the high school in Palisade.

Route 5 – Midtown

Figure 23 shows the boarding information gathered for the Midtown route. The major boarding point along the route is not one of the transfer centers, but Grand Avenue and 5th Street. Many of the boarding locations along the route have between six and ten boardings, represented by the royal blue dot. Data from 2008 show more individuals boarding the bus at the East Gate Shopping Center and fewer individuals boarding along Grand Avenue. As shown in Figure 24, 2010 data shows a significant number of alightings at Main Street and 7th Street, Le Master Motel and Walmart. For information collected in 2008, more individuals were getting off the bus at Solaris Square.

Grand Valley Transit Onboard Survey and Count Analysis 2010 Page 36

GRAND VALLEY TRANSIT ONBOARD SURVEY AND COUNT ANALYSIS 2010

Grand Valley Transit Onboard Survey and Count Analysis 2010 Page 37

GRAND VALLEY TRANSIT ONBOARD SURVEY AND COUNT ANALYSIS 2010

Grand Valley Transit Onboard Survey and Count Analysis 2010 Page 38

GRAND VALLEY TRANSIT ONBOARD SURVEY AND COUNT ANALYSIS 2010

Grand Valley Transit Onboard Survey and Count Analysis 2010 Page 39

GRAND VALLEY TRANSIT ONBOARD SURVEY AND COUNT ANALYSIS 2010

Grand Valley Transit Onboard Survey and Count Analysis 2010 Page 40

GRAND VALLEY TRANSIT ONBOARD SURVEY AND COUNT ANALYSIS 2010

Grand Valley Transit Onboard Survey and Count Analysis 2010 Page 41

GRAND VALLEY TRANSIT ONBOARD SURVEY AND COUNT ANALYSIS 2010

Grand Valley Transit Onboard Survey and Count Analysis 2010 Page 42

GRAND VALLEY TRANSIT ONBOARD SURVEY AND COUNT ANALYSIS 2010

Grand Valley Transit Onboard Survey and Count Analysis 2010 Page 43

GRAND VALLEY TRANSIT ONBOARD SURVEY AND COUNT ANALYSIS 2010

Grand Valley Transit Onboard Survey and Count Analysis 2010 Page 44

GRAND VALLEY TRANSIT ONBOARD SURVEY AND COUNT ANALYSIS 2010

Route 6 – Orchard Mesa

Figure 25 shows that the Orchard Mesa route experienced heavy boardings at the downtown transfer center, with tertiary boardings along Unaweep Avenue and B ½ Road. The 2008 data show more diversity in boarding locations, but also had a longer sampling time. Alightings are more spread out along the route, with Animal Services, and Linden Avenue and B ¾ Road being popular locations along with the downtown transfer center, which can be seen in Figure 26. This is in contrast to 2008 data, which show more concentrated alighting locations.

Route 7 – MSC/WCCC

Boardings for the MSC/WCCC route occur most often at Mesa Mall, WCCC, and the downtown transfer station, as seen in Figure 27. Other popular boarding locations include the Moose Lodge and Pomona Elementary School. A higher proportion of riders are boarding at WCCC than during the last passenger counts. Figure 28 shows that the alighting patterns are similar to the boarding patterns, with much of the activity occurring at the endpoints, which is similar to the 2008 data patterns.

Route 8 – Fruita

The Fruita boarding counts, shown mapped in Figure 29, show that there are very few locations that have boarding riders besides Mesa Mall. The alighting locations, graphically depicted in Figure 30, are much more varied than the boarding locations, including many stops along Highway 6. These findings are consistent with those of the 2008 data.

Route 9 – North Avenue

The North Avenue route is the busiest in the GVT system by far, with almost double the amount of boardings as any other route. Figure 31 shows that some of the primary boarding stops along the route include North Avenue at 8th Street and Teller Arms. The alighting patterns, presented in Figure 32, show that many users get off the bus at Enstrom’s, Teller Arms, the Shelter, and at North Avenue and 29 ¼ Road. There is activity at almost every stop along with route, which is in line with the previous count information.

Route 10 – Clifton

Figure 33, depicting the Clifton route, shows that very few boardings occur on the route outside of the Clifton transfer station. Alightings occur at many points along the route, which are located by the shades of red on the map presented in Figure 34. There are eight locations that show between five and ten alightings. Many of the alightings are probably due to people returning home from school or work during the evening counts. Data from 2008 show stop activity spread throughout the entire route, with almost all stops representing some activity.

Grand Valley Transit Onboard Survey and Count Analysis 2010 Page 45

GRAND VALLEY TRANSIT ONBOARD SURVEY AND COUNT ANALYSIS 2010

Grand Valley Transit Onboard Survey and Count Analysis 2010 Page 46

GRAND VALLEY TRANSIT ONBOARD SURVEY AND COUNT ANALYSIS 2010

Grand Valley Transit Onboard Survey and Count Analysis 2010 Page 47

GRAND VALLEY TRANSIT ONBOARD SURVEY AND COUNT ANALYSIS 2010

Grand Valley Transit Onboard Survey and Count Analysis 2010 Page 48

GRAND VALLEY TRANSIT ONBOARD SURVEY AND COUNT ANALYSIS 2010

Grand Valley Transit Onboard Survey and Count Analysis 2010 Page 49

GRAND VALLEY TRANSIT ONBOARD SURVEY AND COUNT ANALYSIS 2010

Grand Valley Transit Onboard Survey and Count Analysis 2010 Page 50

GRAND VALLEY TRANSIT ONBOARD SURVEY AND COUNT ANALYSIS 2010

Grand Valley Transit Onboard Survey and Count Analysis 2010 Page 51

GRAND VALLEY TRANSIT ONBOARD SURVEY AND COUNT ANALYSIS 2010

Grand Valley Transit Onboard Survey and Count Analysis 2010 Page 52

GRAND VALLEY TRANSIT ONBOARD SURVEY AND COUNT ANALYSIS 2010

Grand Valley Transit Onboard Survey and Count Analysis 2010 Page 53

GRAND VALLEY TRANSIT ONBOARD SURVEY AND COUNT ANALYSIS 2010

Grand Valley Transit Onboard Survey and Count Analysis 2010 Page 54

GRAND VALLEY TRANSIT ONBOARD SURVEY AND COUNT ANALYSIS 2010

Grand Valley Transit Onboard Survey and Count Analysis 2010 Page 55

GRAND VALLEY TRANSIT ONBOARD SURVEY AND COUNT ANALYSIS 2010

Route 11 – Shopping Malls

The Shopping Malls route has a limited amount of boarding activity outside of the transfer points and Grand Mesa Center, as evidenced by Figure 35. While there was some activity at Albertson’s and other shopping destinations along the route, the majority of boardings occurred at only three points. Alightings show a similar pattern, with the majority occurring at Mesa Mall, but less among other shopping destinations. The alighting patterns can be seen by referring to Figure 36.

Systemwide

The last two maps in the chapter show the systemwide boarding and alighting patterns, Figure 37 and Figure 38, respectively. Beyond the three transfer stations, which represent the greatest boardings, the Grand Mesa Center has the next highest number of passenger boardings. Boardings are also high along North Avenue and in the downtown area. As evidenced by the map, general boardings are spread out across the service area, with less dense concentrations in surrounding communities. The alighting map shows that many individuals are getting off their respective bus at the Shelter on North Avenue and 28 ½ Road, in addition to the transfer stations. Once again, the city of Grand Junction has the majority of the activity, with surrounding areas having fewer alightings. Both the 2010 boarding and alighting maps are similar to the maps produced in 2008.

Grand Valley Transit Onboard Survey and Count Analysis 2010 Page 56

GRAND VALLEY TRANSIT ONBOARD SURVEY AND COUNT ANALYSIS 2010

Grand Valley Transit Onboard Survey and Count Analysis 2010 Page 57

GRAND VALLEY TRANSIT ONBOARD SURVEY AND COUNT ANALYSIS 2010

Grand Valley Transit Onboard Survey and Count Analysis 2010 Page 58

GRAND VALLEY TRANSIT ONBOARD SURVEY AND COUNT ANALYSIS 2010

Grand Valley Transit Onboard Survey and Count Analysis 2010 Page 59

GRAND VALLEY TRANSIT ONBOARD SURVEY AND COUNT ANALYSIS 2010

Grand Valley Transit Onboard Survey and Count Analysis 2010 Page 60

GRAND VALLEY TRANSIT ONBOARD SURVEY AND COUNT ANALYSIS 2010

APPENDIX A: SURVEY QUESTIONNAIRE

7. I usually ride the bus __ _?___ days a w eek. (Check o nly one .) Guest of Grand Valley Transit: (n = 208) Please take a few minutes to complete this survey during your bus ride 9 1 day (2%) 9 2 days (9%) 9 3 days (10%) 9 4 days (5%) 9 9 9 today. Your answers and suggestions will help us improve your ride 5 days (26%) 6-7 days (42%) 1-3 days a month (3%) 9 Less than once a month (1%) 9 This is my first time (2%) today and understand your future needs. Thank you from the GVT Team! 8. How do you rate your present bus service? (Check answers below for each part.) (n = 214) Poor Fair Good Very Good 1. How did you get to the bus stop today? (n = 229) Appearance of buses ...... 9 ....9..... 3.3 .... 9 9 Bicycle (7%) 9 Walk (76%) 9 9 9 9 Drove myself (2%) 9 Driven by someone else (2%) Appearance of drivers ...... 3.3 .... 9 Transferred from another route (12%) Friendliness of drivers ...... 9 ....9..... 3.3 .... 9 9 Other (specify): (1%)______Condition of bus shelters ...... 9 ....9..... 3.0 .... 9 Reliability of service ...... 9 ....9..... 2.8 .... 9 2. Where are you going/what is the purpose of your trip? (n = 228) Buses on time ...... 9 ... 2.4 ..... 9 .... 9 (Check only one.) 9 9 9 9 Home (25%) 9 Work (27%) Location of bus stops ...... 2.9 .... 9 School/college (7%) 9 Visiting friend/relative (7%) Frequency of service ...... 9 ....9..... 2.7 .... 9 9 Shopping/errands (11%) 9 Recreation (3%) Hours of operation ...... 9 ... 2.4 ..... 9 .... 9 9 9 Personal business (12%) Medical appointment (6%) Schedules easy to understand .... 9 ....9..... 3.1 .... 9 (doctor/dentist/therapist) Buses go where you need to go ... 9 ....9..... 2.9 .... 9 9 9 9 3. What is the single MOST IMPORTANT reason you are riding the Driver safety ...... 3.4 .... bus today? (Check only one) (n = 228) Safety at bus stops ...... 9 ....9..... 3.3 .... 9 9 Family doesn’t have a car (54%) 9 Someone is using the car (9%) GVT bus system we bsite ...... 9 ....9..... 3.1 .... 9 9 Traffic is bad (0%) 9 Parking is a problem (0%) 9 Car trouble/car repair (6%) 9 No car insurance (3%) 9. Thinking about your answers to question 8, what would you most 9 Not licensed to drive (37%) 9 Physically unable to drive (1%) 9 Bus is economical (11%) 9 Bus is convenient (9%) like to see improved about your present bus service? 9 Other (specify): ______

4. When you get off the bus, how far will you need to walk to reach your final destination? (n = 223) 9 No walk – bus stop is at the front door or I am being picked up (10%) 9 1 block (27%) 9 2-3 blocks (33%) 9 4-5 blocks (14%) 9 6-7 blocks (4%) 9 8 or more blocks (9%) 10. What would you most like to see of the transit system in 20 years? 9 Other (specify): ______

5. Was a vehicle availab le to use on this trip instead of taking the bus? 9 Yes (16%) 9 No (84%) (n = 224)

6. Have you filled out this survey earlier today? (n = 224) 9 Yes (6%) 9 No (94%) If Yes, please stop here. If No, please continue and complete all questions. PLEASE CONTINUE ON THE OTHER SIDE º 11. To what extent do you agree that your TAX DOLLARS should be 17. Where do you live? (n = 232) spent on the following improvements? (Check answers below for 9 Clifton (29%) 9 Fruita (10%) 9 Palisade (4%) each p art.) (n = 196) 9 Orchard Mesa (10%) 9 Grand Junction (41% ) 9 Redlands (3%) Disagree Disagree Agree Agree 9 Other (specify): (3%) ______Strongly Some Some Strongly Improving major streets in the 9 9 9 18. If fares were increased, what would be a reasonable fare? (n = 178) Mesa County area ...... 3.1 .... 9 $1.25 (73%) 9 $1.50 (24%) 9 $1.75 (2%) 9 More than $1.75 (1%)

Improving rural roads in the Mesa 9 9 9 19. What is your total HO USEH OLD incom e? (Include all income for all County area ...... 3 .... mem bers of your household.) (n = 183) 9 Less than $7,500 per year (40%) 9 $35,000 - $49,999 per year Reducing automobile delays caused 9 9 9 (5%) by train crossings ...... 2.7 .... 9 $7,500 - $14,999 per year (27%) 9 $50,000 - $74,999 per year (7%) Adding sidewalks, crosswalks, and 9 9 9 9 9 $15,000 - $34,999 per year (19%) $75,000 or more per year other pedestrian facilities along streets ...... 3.2 .... (2%) 9 9 9 Adding on-street bike lanes ...... 3.1 .... 20. How many people live in your household? (n = 194) 9 1 (27%) 9 2 (27%) 9 3 (20%) 9 4 (13%) 9 5 or more (13%) Adding off-street trails/paths for 9 9 9 walking and/or biking ...... 3.2 .... 21. How many vehicles in op erating condition do es your hous ehold 9 9 9 have? (n = 196) Adding bus service in the evenings ...... 3.7 9 None (48%) 9 1 (0%) 9 2 (27%) 9 3 or more (8%) 9 9 9 Adding bus service on the weekends ...... 3.7 22. Are you a licensed driver and able to drive? (n = 197) 9 Yes (38%) 9 No (62%) Adding bus routes to serve m ore of 9 9 9 the com munity ...... 3.6 23. Would you like to be kept informed about the results of this survey? (n = 186) 9 Yes (51%) 9 No (49%) 12. What other areas would you like to see served by transit? ______If yes, please provide your contact information: ______E-mail address: ______13. What is your gender? (n = 202) 9 Female (45% ) 9 Male (55%) OR 14. What is your age in years? Average: 35 (n = 193) Mailing address

15. What is your primary language? English (95%) (n = 193) Name: ______

16. What is your ethnicity? (n = 197) Street address: ______9 American Indian/Alaska Native (9%) 9 Hispanic/Latino (14%) 9 Asian (2%) 9 Caucasian/White (69%) City/State/Zip: ______9 Black/African American (3%) 9 Other: (3%) (n = total number of responses) ______THANK YOU! GRAND VALLEY TRANSIT ONBOARD SURVEY AND COUNT ANALYSIS 2010

APPENDIX B: COMMENTS

Appendix B

ONBOARD SURVEY COMMENTS

Q.9 Thinking about your answers to question 8, what would you most like to see improved about the present bus service?

Bus (3 percent)

Respectful customers - Capacity limit - Bigger buses for every route Bigger buses. It gets crowded. More room for bikes. Longer bus hours. Need more bicycle stands on buses. Seat belts on all buses + extended hours.

Drivers (3 percent)

Bus driver to control bad language and loud music. Bus drivers treating us like people not animals. Be nice to see a smile when I step on the bus. NO SMOKING AT BUS STOPS! Courteous drivers. Buses on time. The bus needs new bus drivers cause most are (inappropriate word). The morning drivers do not leave the mall until 45 after.

Hours (51 percent)

24 hours. Sundays. 24-hour service to hospital and airport. 7 days a week and longer hours. Bus needs to run longer. Bus run more on weekends. Bus to run on Sundays; longer hours at night. Buses run later and on Sunday. Buses run until 11:00 p.m., and buses running every half hour. Buses to be on the 1/2 hour. I spend a lot of time looking for work. I could be at more places during the day. Buses to run later. Buses run later. For people who work late. In the afternoon, they are always late. Evening and weekend services; late night service until 11 p.m.

-1- Extend hours. Extend service hours. Extended bus hours until 11 p.m. Extended hours and Sundays. Few more bus stops and extend bus time hours. Hours extended and service on Sunday. Hours of operation. Hours of operation and a few stops on the opposite site of the road going to Fruita. Hours of operation during summer time. I think they should run later -- up to 9:00 p.m. Hours of operation. Hours of operation. Run later would help a lot of people with work and stuff. Hours of service. I would like service on Sunday also. It would be good if the buses ran every 1/2 hour instead of hourly. I would like to see a Sunday route and maybe the stops more lit up and cleaned at times. I would like to see Sundays on the schedule and later hours. Later bus rides to Fruita. Later buses and buses on Sundays. Later hours. Later hours and run on Sundays. Later hours. Later hours. Run on Sundays. Later service - 10:00 p.m. maybe. Later service in evenings and limited service on Sundays! Later service. Later than 7:15 p.m. Longer days; Sundays; more frequent. Longer hours. Longer hours and needs to run on Sundays. Longer hours during week. Buses running closer to being on time. Longer hours of operation. Longer hours Sundays; some drivers less rude. Longer hours, every 30 min. Longer hours, farther destinations, more stops, more buses. Longer hours, more buses on routes, less wait time for buses. Longer hours, more routes. Longer hours. Longer hours. Longer hours; more stops between Grand Junction and Fruita.

-2- Longer hours; run on Sunday. Longer hours; Sunday service. Longer schedules; later hours; more routes. More hours and two buses a route running on each 1/2 hour. More hours in the evening. Safe bike lanes. More hours of service. More hours toward nighttime and run on Sundays. More buses on some nights. More hours, more buses. On Sundays, run later, run every 30 min instead of an hour. Overnight buses. Rides on Sundays. Run 1 hour later in the day and run on Sundays. Run later at night. Run later hours. Run on Sundays. Run later. Run on Sunday and run till 9 or 10 p.m. Run on Sundays - run later. More Chevy's, no Fords. Run on Sundays and pick up every 30 minutes instead of one hour. Run on Sundays. Run on Sundays. Bus should come every half-hour at peak at least. No one wants to ride because of this. Get better service, more customers. Run on Sundays. Run til 8 p.m. Better music - Rock, of course. Headrests, more Chevy's no Fords. Run on Sundays; run later hours; run every half an hour. Service on Sundays. Service on Sundays. Sunday bus service and longer evening hours. Sunday service and not to have to wait so long at bus stops. Sunday service is needed badly. Need to have service later at night -- 10 p.m. Hourly service works but 30 minutes would be better. Shelters provide no protection from elements. Sunday service. Sunday service. Longer hours. Sundays and dial-a-ride on Monument Road. Sundays. The bus hours run later. They should run a little longer in the evening and on Sundays. Weekends. Would like to see the buses run a little later.

-3- Miscellaneous (5 percent)

Cleaner. Cleaner. Fewer people on the bus. I would like to have music. No smoking. The customers being more respectful of others. There needs to be a trash can at every bus stop. Trash cans at the stops and later hours. Very happy with the way it already is.

Schedule (27 percent)

1/2-hour runs instead of 1-hour runs. Need to expand service areas. Be on time more often. Extend service into evening hours. A more realistic schedule and better discipline. Be on time. Don't stop skip my stop. Being on time. Benches at all stops. Work at being on time. Running later. Better signage with stop times. Better listing of stops on your maps. Bus on time. Bus stop timing. Buses on time. Buses on time. Half-hour intervals. Frequency of buses. Frequency of service increased to every half-hour, and at least an hour later in the evening. Frequency of service, Hours of operation. Frequency of service, maybe 30 min. between buses. Frequency of service. Frequency of service. Half-hour buses, express buses. I'd like buses to get to their destinations on time. Improve on time accuracy. Less wait time and running later at night. Mark all stops on map. You only have prime stops marked. More buses. More buses for certain routes. More buses running later than 6:15. More buses running.

-4- More buses that run more frequently. More buses. More buses and especially on 11 & 5 & 9. More clear website and bus schedule. More frequent and timely. More frequent pick-up times every 30 minutes. Palisade bus to run from Clifton location later in the evening. Have MS and have to walk far at night because Palisade bus stops at 5:45 and I have to work until 5. By the time I transfer buses, it's too late to catch Palisade bus. Worry about safety at night. Clifton transfer needs benches and cover. More pick-up times and stop locations. More frequent stops. Additional buses on most-used routes -- at least during peak hours. Hours through 10:00 p.m. Sunday runs! More prompt. Not having to wait for other buses that are running late for transfers then that make me late. On schedule (reliable) service. On time. On time and more frequently. On time, longer time, more days, more in the evenings. On time, more buses than just one, and longer evening hours. On time. On timeness :) Time schedules for all bus stops. Timing. Would like buses to run every 30 min. instead of 1 hour. Would like it if bus wasn't always late.

Service Considerations (11 percent)

Another route on Fruita. Both ways, not just one. Bus going both ways more frequent than 1 hour. Closer stop to Canyon view. Faster bus times from point A to point B. Fruita buses go the same as Grand Junction buses. GJHS stop at North Ave. More area covered. I need to go to I Road three miles farther than bus goes. More areas! Weekends, evenings. More bus and bus go one ways and bus go the other way and run long time at night on Sundays. More routes.

-5- More routes. More routes. More frequent service. More stops ongoing to Fruita and other outskirts. Later schedule. Closer stops through town and outskirts. More stops. Stops at East Orchard Mesa. Stops or route on parkway and more stops on highway by mall. The Fruita buses go the same as Junction.

Q.10 What would you most like to see of the transit system in 20 years?

Bus (9 percent)

Back up radio if the other breaks. Bigger buses. Bigger buses. Bigger buses. Bus radio needs to work properly. On-time bus arrival. Spare buses in timely manner. Have 3 bike racks. Evenings. Have seat belts for children. Run on alternative source of fuel. They all have big buses. Video games ~ entertainment of some kind. Videogames, better music.

Drivers (<1 percent)

Less attitude and rudeness from the drivers.

Fares (4 percent)

Free bus passes for older people. Free mass transit. Free rides, 7 days a week Free rides, longer hours. Some free rides.

Hours (29 percent)

24 hour service. 24 hours a day.

-6- 24-hour service, 7 days a week. 24-hour service. 7 days a week 24 hours. 7 days a week, every half-hour. 7 days a week, longer hours. Be running 24/7. Buses on Sundays and later bus route. Buses running on Sundays. Buses running until midnight or 24/7. Evening/Sunday service. Every day. Extended bus hours until 10 or 11 p.m. Extended hours. Half hour. Later hours and Sundays. No fare increase please. Later hours. Later hours. More locations covered. Later rides. Later service. Later time on routes. Longer days such as night riding, and more bicycle racks on bus. Longer hours and running on Sunday. Maybe going to some of the new places that are being built. Longer hours. Longer hours. Services 7 days a week. Free rides. Longer times through the day plus more frequency. More hours to cover town, more buses. More reliable, open 7 days a week, more hours of operation. More time running. Less time to wait for buses. More times. Run 24/7. Run on Sundays and longer hours. Run Sundays and run later. Running 24/7 for free. Seven days a week till 10 p.m. Sundays, later hours, and cheaper passes. To operate on Sundays.

-7- Miscellaneous (16 percent)

All of the above. Hopefully I am not riding then. Hopefully I won't need it. I hope to have a driver’s license by then. I'll be 70 and won't care then. I'll be dead. Improvement. Like Denver's. More like Seattle's transit system. Music. No clue. Not so much smoking at transfer points. Same as above. Same as above. Same as above. Same as above. Same as above. Same, just upgraded. See above. Still running still. Success.

Schedule (20 percent)

1/2 hour and 24 hours. 2 buses per route as needed. At least 2 or 3 times an hour. At least a few transfer systems. Be on time. Never early. Being on time. Buses running every 15 minutes, bigger, and shelters for when it snows. Transfer tickets to be easier not to lose. Maybe a card would be better. Every half-hour instead of an hour. Expanded service areas. More runs instead of only every hour. Extend service into evening hours. Faster, on time. Frequency of service. Lot more buses, different stops, more stops, bigger buses. More buses -- not running on hour interval.

-8- More buses and longer hours. More buses and routes. More buses and stops. More buses going to more places. More buses throughout the Valley. More buses to get around faster. More benches at stops. Heat system at transfer station during winter. More buses, shorter stop. More buses. More buses. More buses. More buses; half-hour intervals; later bus times. More buses; more locations. More frequent. Screen telling if the bus is on time or not.

Miscellaneous (16 percent)

All of the above. Hopefully I am not riding then. Hopefully I won't need it. I hope to have a driver’s license by then. I'll be 70 and won't care then. I'll be dead. Improvement. Like Denver's. More like Seattle's transit system. Music. No clue. Not so much smoking at transfer points. Same as above. Same as above. Same as above. Same as above. Same as above. Same, just upgraded. See above. Still running still. Success.

-9-

Service (13 percent)

Broader, less crowded system. Entire G.V., all state parks. Expansion to a larger area. Larger and improved routes with longer hours of service. Like to see it like it is now, just a few improvements, few more stops. More bus stops to more locations. More convenient to use so more people will use. More routes and buses. More routes and stops. More routes, bigger buses. More routes, more frequent. More routes. More routes. More routes. Regional transit: Grand Junction - Delta - Montrose. Wider service areas. Wider service. More frequent buses. Sunday service.

-10- Phase I Summary Report

a n l Tr s p o r n a t a i o t g i o e n R Connecting Our Communities: P 5 l 3 a

0 n 2 2035 Regional Transportation Plan nne Co cting Our omm for the communities and rural areas of Mesa County C unities

August 3, 2010

• Project Website (www.2035RTP.com) • Stakeholder Interviews • Priority Packet and Postcard • Open Houses with Keypad Polling lsa associates, inc. • Connecting-Our-Communities Online Transportation User Survey • Onboard Transit Survey • Municipalities Dinner • Special Targeted Outreach • Connections Workshops Catalyst, Inc.

TABLE OF CONTENTS

INTRODUCTION ...... 1

PHASE I PUBLIC OUTREACH ACTIVITIES ...... 5

PUBLIC INPUT FROM PHASE I - WHAT THE PUBLIC SAID ...... 17

KEY MESSAGES ...... 25

WHAT’S NEXT IN PHASE II ...... 27

i

JULY 2010 DRAFT

Introduction

In the Spring of 2010, the Regional Transportation Committee of the Grand Valley Metropolitan Planning Organization began a process to research the needs and desires of the residents of the county and start the development of the Mesa County 2035 Regional Transportation Plan (RTP).

The 2035 Regional Transportation Plan brings together transportation, land use, and community issues in one process. The Plan will identify the future transportation needs of the region, what we can afford, and how transportation projects will be prioritized for implementation. The Plan directs transportation tax dollars into multi-modal (e.g., bike, pedestrian, transit, and roadway) transportation projects in the Mesa County region through an integrated transportation planning process!

The Plan will include a regional blueprint for transportation to, from, and within the communities in the region. Connections between cities, towns, and unincorporated areas will be addressed. The primary modes of travel addressed by the Plan include auto/roadway, transit, bicycle, and pedestrian. The Plan will also address passenger and freight travel by truck, rail and air.

The Regional Transportation Plan’s development will include a long-term analysis of funding trends and resources available to implement the plan. Additional funding options for increasing funding to match long-term needs will be reviewed. Prioritized roadway improvements with matching funding allocations will be one of the Regional Transportation Plan’s outcomes.

This effort is being led by the Mesa County Regional Transportation Planning Office, which serves as the staff for the Grand Valley Regional Transportation Committee and Metropolitan Planning Organization. For more information on the planning process, please see the website at www.2035RTP.com.

1

TRANSPORTATION PLANNING REGION

The Plan covers all of Mesa County. More specifically, the Plan addresses transportation needs throughout Mesa County and to, from, and within the communities and rural areas of the county.

Mesa County Transportation Planning Region

2

SCHEDULE

The Mesa County 2035 RTP will be developed based on the 12-month schedule shown below. When it is adopted in December of 2010, it will replace the transportation plan that was adopted in January 2008.

Schedule for Developing the RTP

3

CONTENTS OF THIS REPORT

This report summarizes the public outreach activities and messages from Phase I, Needs and Desires, of the development of the 2035 Regional Transportation Plan. Key messages that will provide direction for completing the plan were derived from a complement of activities conducted during Phase I in the Spring of 2010. Those activities, products, and events include:

• Project Website (www.2035RTP.com) • Stakeholder Interviews • Priority Packet and Postcard placement around the county • Open Houses with Keypad Polling • Connecting-Our-Communities Online Transportation User Survey • Onboard Transit Survey • Municipalities Dinner of elected officials and public administrators with Keypad Polling • Special Targeted Outreach to groups with unique transportation interests such as seniors, disabled residents, and bicycle associations • Connections Workshops

The public outreach events and activities of Phase I support the objectives of determining the Needs and Desires of the residents in the communities and rural areas of Mesa County. The Project Website, at www.2035RTP.com, provides perhaps the most access to the project for residents around the region. The Online Survey provided outreach to a wide variety of users, or customers, of the transportation system across the region. The Connections Workshops were the main events of Phase I, yielding focused discussions with the public on topics as diverse as maintenance of the transportation system, trade-offs on different roadway investments, land use, growth/development, funding, and quality of life issues. And the Priority Packets were designed to reach people at gathering spots and in the more remote areas of the region. All of the Phase I activities and outreach efforts comprise a comprehensive attempt at gaining the most participation from diverse populations across the region in an efficient manner.

Each of these events or activities is summarized in this report. Following those are a What the Public Said section, Key Messages based on input from Phase I and a discussion of What’s Next in the development of the 2035 Regional Transportation Plan.

4

Phase I Public Outreach Activities

WEBSITE

One of the foundational elements of the development of the Mesa County 2035 Regional Transportation Plan is the project website, located at www.2035RTP.com. The website serves as the primary portal for accessing information about the Plan’s development and to leave a comment or question for consideration by the study team. In addition, the Connect-our-Communities online transportation user survey is accessed through the website; and users can also request Priority Packets to be mailed to them. The website is updated regularly throughout the Plan’s development to keep the information fresh.

5

STAKEHOLDER INTERVIEWS

Although many of the requirements for developing a long range transportation plan are the same throughout the nation, each community is different and the transportation planning process is flexible enough to recognize and foster the uniqueness of different regions. Stakeholder Interviews help identify what makes a community special and the core principles that need to be preserved. The Stakeholders included vested community leaders and residents such as elected officials, business owners and managers, transportation and planning staff from the local communities, transit service providers and patrons, Chambers of Commerce, developers, School Districts, home owner and neighborhood associations, seniors, and social services providers.

Approximately 30 interviews with business and community leaders were conducted on Thursday, March 5th and Friday, March 6th. Each interview was approximately 30 minutes in length. The following is a list of agencies/organizations that were represented in the interviews:

Organization Area Agency on Aging Associated Members for Growth and Development (AMGD) CDOT Region 3 Engineer Club 20 Transportaton Committee Chair Colorado Motor Carriers Association Colorado Transportation Commissioner Fruita City Manager Fruita Town Council/GVRTC Member Grand Junction Chamber of Commerce Grand Junction City Council / GVRTC Member Grand Junction Economic Partnership Grand Junction Visitor and Convention Bureau Grand Valley Transit Drivers Grand Valley Transit Manager Mesa County Air Quality Planning Committee Chairman Mesa County Commissioner/GVRTC Member Mesa County Emergency Management / Fire Departments Mesa County School District 51 Mesa State College - Special Projects and Strategic Inititiatives Dept. Oil and Gas Interests Palisade Trustee Riverfront Commission St. Marys Hospital Urban Trails - City Committee

6

PRIORITY PACKETS

Priority Packets are introductory brochures with postcards to be completed and mailed back. Over 450 packets were placed at strategic locations across the region, including post offices, libraries, coffee shops, and grocery stores. Most of the packets were picked up by the public, and several postcards were completed and returned. The Priority Packet brochures and postcards are just one of the many ways in which the Grand Valley Regional Transportation Committee and its staff at the Regional Transportation Planning Office have attempted to reach as many residents as possible to make this plan meet the intent of the phrase “community-based plan.”

7

OPEN HOUSES WITH KEYPAD POLLING

In order to kick off the project successfully, a blitz of outreach efforts occurred early in the process. One of the key components of this early effort was a series of Open Houses held at different locations across the region. Open Houses were held in Fruita, Grand Junction, and Palisade during the third week of March 2010. Key topics of discussion included:

• the planning process, • land use and demographic (e.g., population, employment, etc.) trends affecting the long range transportation plan, • fuel costs and gas taxes and their impacts on revenue, • increases in maintenance and construction costs, • declining revenues for transportation, • quality of life and environmental issues, and • desired outcomes for the Regional Transportation Plan.

One of the more unique features of the Open Houses was the use of Keypad Polling to query the audiences. Keypad Polling is also known as Audience Response Systems, Wireless Polling, Interactive Polling Systems. These are similar to the system used by the audience on television shows such as Funniest Home Videos or American Idol. They allow for an immediate response to simple questions and serve to equalize input from each participant so that the softest voice has the same vote as the most assertive and demonstrative participants. Also, they are fun and are a great way to keep the audience’s attention.

Over 80 people from across the region participated in the Open Houses. Many provided detailed comments, which are available from the Regional Transportation Planning Office or on the project website. All comments will be considered in the development of the Regional Transportation Plan and enumerated in a Public Involvement Appendix to the Plan. The Open House presentation is available online at www.2035RTP.com.

8

CONNECT-OUR-COMMUNITIES ONLINE TRANSPORTATION USER SURVEY

One of the first activities undertaken in the development of the 2035 Regional Transportation Plan was a transportation survey of those who live, work, visit, shop, and/or play in the region. The survey provided valuable information about the opinions and desires of the region’s transportation system users.

The Connect-our-Communities Transportation Survey was widely distributed via contacts from staff, committee members, stakeholders, consultants, and others. The survey was active throughout the Spring and into the early Summer of 2010. Over 450 people completed the survey, which represents a phenomenal response! Although it is recognized that some biases may be present in a semi-random, self- selected survey, the large number of responses minimizes this issue.

Results from the survey responses are presented in the What the Public Said chapter of this report. Since the survey contained an extensive set of questions, only selected results are published in this report. A detailed summary of the survey questions and responses is available from the Regional Transportation Planning Office or from the project website at www.2035RTP.com. All comments will be considered in the development of the Regional Transportation Plan and enumerated in a Public Involvement Appendix to the Plan.

9

ONBOARD TRANSIT SURVEY

An onboard bus survey of the Grand Valley Transit System was conducted on March 24, 2010 as part of the development of the Regional Transportation Plan to obtain specific information directly from the users of the bus system. Specifically, this survey collected information about transit user demographics, trip characteristics, perceptions of the quality of service, and opinions on future long- term transportation investments.

The transit on-board survey was conducted on Wednesday, March 24, 2010. Surveys were distributed and collected from approximately 1:15 p.m. until 6:45 p.m. on all fixed routes in the Grand Valley Transit system. Data from prior surveys were used to “scale” or expand the afternoon sample to be comparable with prior full-day transit on-board surveys. Passengers were asked to complete a one- page, double-sided survey of 23 questions while on-board the bus. A total of 234 usable surveys were returned. There were a total of 1,212 passengers counted boarding on this day, yielding a response rate of 19 percent.

10

11

MUNICIPALITIES DINNER

On March 25, 2010, the elected officials and top city and county administrators from around the region participated in a regional Municipalities Dinner to discuss issues related to the development of the Regional Transportation Plan. The information presented and discussed was similar to that of the Open Houses:

• The planning process, • Land use and demographic (e.g., population, employment, etc.) trends affecting the long range transportation plan, • Fuel costs and gas taxes and their impacts on revenue, • Increases in maintenance and construction costs, • Declining revenues for transportation, • Quality of life and environmental issues, and • Desired outcomes for the Regional Transportation Plan.

In addition, Keypad Polling was utilized to obtain input from the elected officials and administrators on funding and transportation priorities. The presentation to the Municipalities Dinner is available on the project website.

12

TARGETED OUTREACH

Targeted Outreach is a catch-all phrase applied to meetings with groups with special transportation interests as part of the development of the Regional Transportation Plan. Several meetings were held in Phase II, and these Targeted Outreach meetings will continue through Phases II and III. Many of these meetings were conducted as manned project displays in which staff and/or consultants discussed transportation issues with interested people who saw the displays and other information. Questionnaires were also distributed and collected to gain additional input. Other meetings were more structured so as to focus the discussion on a particular set of themes implied by the group’s interest. For example, when meeting with disabled residents and others without access to a private automobile, transit inevitably became the primary topic of discussion.

In Phase I, the Targeted Outreach efforts included:

• Mesa Mall manned project display, • Main Street Bagels manned project display, • bicycle tour, • motorcycle tour, • Colorado Motor Carriers, • Grand Valley Transit bus drivers, • Associated Members for Growth and Development (AMGD), • Fruita Farmers Market, and • Human Services agencies.

13

14

CONNECTIONS WORKSHOPS

The main events of Phase I were the Connections Workshops. The Workshops featured a presentation about transportation in the area now and in the future and an interactive workshop for participants to plan for roadway maintenance and capacity improvements and other transportation needs - within a given budget. The exercise, called Connections, mimics the challenges and opportunities that elected officials and public agencies face in planning for the future transportation needs of the region.

Two Connections Workshops were held at the Fellowship Church in Grand Junction on April 26. The idea was to centralize the workshops so that participants from across the region could meet to discuss diverse objectives and work together to resolve conflicting ideas in developing their transportation vision for the future. In addition to these workshops, the Connections exercise was conducted with several diverse groups from across the region. A total of 14 tables of participants produced maps and comments on future transportation priorities.

Results from the Connections Workshops are presented in the What the Public Said chapter of this report. A detailed summary of the comments and workshop responses is available from the Regional Transportation Planning Office or from the project website at www.2035RTP.com. All comments will be considered in the development of the Regional Transportation Plan and enumerated in a Public Involvement Appendix to the Plan. The presentation used at the Connections Workshops is available on the website.

15

16

Public Input from Phase I - What the Public Said

This section summarizes the themes and, in some cases, details provided by the residents of the region through various media and events. Detailed public comments are available on the project website and will be included in the Public Involvement Appendix of the Regional Transportation Plan when it is completed around December 2010.

WEBSITE

A handful of comments were received through the website. Almost all focused on the desire for 1) increased bicycle and pedestrian facilities or 2) more transit service.

STAKEHOLDER INTERVIEWS

What was learned from the Stakeholder interviews shaped the Open House public meetings held in March 2010 and the Connections Workshops held in April. The Stakeholders also provided many multi-modal ideas at both the project and strategic levels. Several new contacts were identified through the Stakeholder process, which augmented the outreach efforts for the surveys and public events.

PRIORITY PACKETS

A large number of people from around the region submitted questions and comments using the postcards provided in the Priority Packets placed around the county. All of the comments and questions will be considered in the planning process. Common themes include accommodation of alternative modes, maintenance needs, funding, and project-specific recommendations. In addition to these comments, the postcards contained a list of goals for prioritization by local residents which were combined with prioritized goals from the online survey and led to the development of the Key Messages.

One of the questions on the postcard asked if any goals were missing. Two of the more popular responses include:

• Connections to I-70 and integration of I-70 with local roadway network • Support for workers who need late-night transportation

OPEN HOUSES

During the Open Houses held in March, Keypad Polling devices were used within a slideshow presentation in order to quickly and fairly query the audiences on specific questions related to setting the direction for the Regional Transportation Plan.

17

Over 95% of respondents rated today’s traffic congestion as not a problem or a minor problem; but 84% said congestion will be a major problem in 2035.

All of the respondents indicated that spending on transportation was either about right or should be increased. No one suggested that spending for transportation should decrease. Over 95% of respondents indicated they would be supportive or at least consider a small increase in taxes to fund transportation needs.

ONLINE SURVEY

Over 450 local residents completed the online transportation user survey posted on the project website during Phase I. The survey had over 30 questions so responses to selected questions are shown here. The entire set of survey questions and responses can be found on the project website. Selected responses include:

• The condition and maintenance of streets is distinctly average although ratings were slightly higher for I-70 as compared to other streets in the region.

• Major issues facing the region include: air quality, maintenance, and access to other regions via air.

• Respondents indicated that serving seniors, disabled persons, and those who cannot drive were the highest priority objectives for the transit system.

• Multi-modal concepts, access control, and trails connectivity were all rated highly in the survey.

• Over 85% of respondents rated today’s traffic congestion as not a problem or a minor problem; but 71% said congestion will be a major problem in 2035, similar to other queries.

• Only 3% of respondents suggested that spending for transportation should decrease. Almost 80% of respondents indicated they would be supportive or at least consider a small increase in taxes to fund transportation needs.

ONBOARD TRANSIT SURVEY

Over 250 transit users completed the onboard bus survey. The survey had over 20 questions so responses to selected questions are shown here. The entire set of survey questions and responses can be found on the project website. Selected responses include:

18

Who Rides Transit?

Many (68%) users have household incomes of less than 15,000 annually, while only 8 percent make over $50,000.

GVT provides essential mobility options in the community. Users primarily ride because they do not have access to a vehicle or a license (61 percent). Most riders (48 percent) don’t have access to a vehicle in working condition.

GVT is used often by those who rely on it. Most riders use the system six days per week (42 percent) or five days per week (26 percent).

GVT supports access to and participation in the local economy. Riders take the bus to work (36 percent), personal business (16 percent) and shopping/errands (11 percent).

MUNICIPALITIES DINNER

Only a handful of questions were asked during this meeting with participating elected officials and public administrators. Here are some noteworthy responses from that group for comparison to responses from the public:

• Over 75% of participants at the Municipalities Dinner rated today’s traffic congestion as not a problem or a minor problem; but 75% also said congestion will be a major problem in 2035.

• All of the respondents indicated that spending on transportation was either about right or should be increased. None of the elected officials or public administrators at the Municipalities Dinner suggested that spending for transportation should decrease.

Assuming that roadway maintenance is our top fundamental priority, what is the next highest priority?

At the Municipalities Dinner in March, elected officials and administrators from around the region indicated a desire to focus on bicycle, pedestrian, and transit modes. This is not a moratorium on roadway construction, but rather a Roadway System recognition that historic transportation investments have Bicycle/Ped Expansion 28% been focused on the automobile and other modes should 28% get a chance to catch up.

Rail Transit Bus Transit 12% 32%

19

CONNECTIONS WORKSHOPS

The Connections Workshops were designed to allow residents of the region to prioritize multi-modal transportation improvements based on real-world budgets. As such, numerous alternative transportation solutions were suggested by the participants. In addition, some interesting trends emerged.

Transit Improvements – Most of those participating in the workshops favored greater investment in transit services.

20

Bicycle/Pedestrian Improvements - Every table of workshop participants wanted greater investment in non-motorized modes.

21

Roadway Capacity – Because most participants favored increased investments in alternative modes, only one group of participants favored raising the historical investment in roadway capacity.

22

Roadway Maintenance – Most participants seemed to think that expenditures on maintenance are about right.

23

Bicycle/Pedestrian, Transit, Roadway Capacity, and Roadway Maintenance – This chart shows the distribution of investment decisions made by participants in the Connections Workshops.

24

Key Messages

The following key messages were developed based on the entire body of evidence from the public outreach efforts in Phase I and from the planning factors from the Safe, Accountable, Flexible, Efficient Transportation Equity Act: A Legacy for Users (SAFETEA-LU). The Key Messages are important because they establish the direction for the remaining work efforts to develop the Regional Transportation Plan. For example, the evaluation criteria used to measure and compare the benefits of alternative transportation solutions will be based on the Key Messages.

• Maximize Efficiency – The transportation system should perform very well in terms of mobility and accessibility while also minimizing the use of resources such as time and money. Transportation investments should balance overall effectiveness with costs – in other words, the improvements with the best cost/benefit ratios should be pursued.

• Maintenance and Safety of the Existing System – The existing roadway system is the highest transportation priority and should be maintained as a significant investment in the economic viability and quality of life of County residents. Maintenance improvements inherently provide safety benefits, another high priority of County residents.

• Environment – While the environment is important, the Regional Transportation Plan should strike a balance between roadway needs, costs, and impacts on the built and natural environments. The Plan should reflect that many transportation improvements have a positive impact on some environmental factors such as air and water quality.

• Economic Vitality – The transportation system should be planned, maintained, and constructed in a manner that supports access to jobs for workers; access to shopping and services; and the safe and efficient movements of goods to, from, and within the region. It should support retail, medical, education, technology, oil/gas extraction, recreation, and other important economic sectors.

• Funding – Transportation revenues are shrinking in relation to needs. Roadway maintenance typically consumes a major portion of our transportation funds and needs to be further increased to keep up. New growth should pay for itself and not be funded through taxes. Additional local funding options should be considered.

• Gas Prices and Energy Costs – Fuel costs are expected to increase in the future and will have a significant effect on land use, transportation, quality of life, and other factors.

• Community Character – The Regional Transportation Plan should maintain the character of the existing communities and rural areas by enhancing walk, bike, and horse modes and applying context sensitive solutions for roadway capacity. New developments should accommodate bicycle, walking, and transit needs as appropriate. The Plan should support the land use plans and special features of the local comprehensive plans.

25

• Modal Balance – In order to provide choice and transportation mobility for youth, seniors, persons with disabilities, and others, future investments in the transportation system should accommodate alternative modes although the automobile and streets/highways will continue to be the primary mode of transportation for the foreseeable future.

• Regional Connections – People throughout the region will need to be connected to the urban areas and recreational opportunities. The rural communities are growing quickly and will face unique transportation problems, such as a rural road transportation system with maintenance and improvement needs that strain the local community’s ability to fund them. Connections between communities will benefit from multi-modal investments that provide more opportunities for bicycle and transit use and increase the roadway safety and capacity as necessary.

• Travel Time Efficiency and New Road Construction – Congestion in the County is acceptable at this time, but will get worse especially with growth and vehicle miles of travel outpacing roadway construction. Travel time is important, but should be balanced with other considerations such as maintenance and safety.

• Aging of the Population – People in the Mesa County region are growing older, with the fastest growing segment over age 65. This will increase the number of people with special transportation needs.

• Downtown Areas – The downtown areas of local communities are important activity centers that should receive investment to maintain a strong and vibrant core. Walkability, parking, housing, and bicycle and transit accessibility issues should be considered.

26

What’s Next in Phase II

In Phase II, we will apply the information from Phase I to explore the region’s transportation needs and our ability to fund them. Look for a Transportation Choices booklet and a Funding Choices booklet in Phase II that will provide information for residents of the region to assist with decisions on future transportation choices.

27 Connecting Our Communities 2035 Regional Transportation Plan

Online Resident Transportation Survey – Final Results

June 24, 2010

1 Years of Residence 2. H ow many years have you LIVED HERE? 25%

23% 22% 20% 21%

18% es ss 15% Respon 13%

Percent 10%

5%

3%

0% Less than 1 year 1 ‐ 5 years 6 ‐ 10 years 11 ‐ 20 years 21 ‐ 35 years More than 35 years Years of Residence

2 Modes of Travel 3. Which MODES OF TRANSPORTATION do you or other members of your household normally use to get to/from work, school or other frequently traveled destinations? 600

500 494

400 Responses

300 of

Number 200

165

100 96 64 24 6 44 16 0 Car –drive Carpool or Taxi Bicycle Walk Motorcycle Public Other alone vanpool Transportation (bus) Modes of Travel

3 Traffic Safety 4. How would you rate TRAFFIC SAFETY in the Mesa County region?

Don' t know / No response Excellent 1% 4%

Poor 11%

Good 44% Average 40%

4 Bicycle Safety 5. How would you rate the following areas for BICYCLE SAFETY in the Mesa County region?

From your neighborhood to local shopping 2.1

To the parks and op en sp aces in y our 262.6 neighborhood

To the schools in your neighborhood 2.4

On paved recreational trails 4.3

On roadways with bike lanes or wide 3.2 shoulders

On roadways without bike lanes 1.5

12345 (Not Safe) (Very Safe)

5 Streets Condition and Maintenance 6. How would you rate the CONDITION AND MAINTENANCE OF STREETS in the Mesa Countyyg region?

On rural roads around Mesa County 2.7

On major streets in Mesa County 3.2

On I‐70 3.6

In your neighborhood 3.0

1 2 3 4 5 (Poor) (Excellent)

6 Pedestrian Safety 7. How would you rate the following areas for PEDESTRIAN SAFETY and other factors that ppgromote walking?

The walk‐able character of your city/town 3.0

The walk‐able character of your neighborhood 3.3

Along paved off‐street trails and paths in Mesa 3.9 County

Along major streets in Mesa County 2.8

Near schools 3.1

In your neighborhood 3.2

1 2 3 4 5 (Poor) (Excellent)

7 Issues in Mesa County 8. How do you rate the following issues in the Mesa County region? 100%

90%

80%

70%

60%

Could be a Problem in the future 50% Major Problem 40% Minor Problem Not a Problem 30%

20%

10%

0%

8 Transit Objectives 10. Please rate the importance of the following PUBLIC TRANSPORTATION (TRANSIT) OBJECTIVES:

Provide transportation for visitors to Mesa 3.0 County

Serve students and others too young to drive 3.7

Serve commute trips between home and work 3.5

Provide transportation for seniors 4.2

Provide transportation for disabled persons 4.2

Provide transportation for low income persons 3.7

Provide transportation for persons who do not 404.0 drive

Provide transportation for ALL residents in Mesa 3.4 County

12345 (Not Important) (Very Important)

9 Likeliness to Use the Bus 11. How likely would you be to USE THE BUS more often if:

Better connections were made with other modes of travel 2.9

More buses (higher frequencies) were offered on each route 3.1

You lost your job or a significant portion of your household income 3.1

The image of the bus system was improved 2.5

Traffic congestion increased substantially 2.8

Gas prices stay above $4.00 per gallon 3.1 Gas prices stay above $3.00 per gallon 2.4

Gas prices stay above $2.00 per gallon 1.8

TlTravel Time and/or Direc tness were iidmproved on each rou te 323.2 More bus stops were offered closer to the places you work and shop 2.7 More bus stops were offered closer to your home 2.8

Sunday service was available 2.1

The buses ran on holidays 2.0

Later service in the evenings was offered 2.6

More routes covering more of the region were offered 2.8

1 2 3 4 5 (Very Unlikely) (Very Likely)

10 Ride the Bus 12. Have you ever ridden public bus transportation in the Mesa County region?

Yes 33%

No 67%

11 Bus Riding Frequency 13. How often do you RIDE THE BUS locally? 90%

86% 80%

70%

60% s ee

50% Respons

40% ercent PP 30%

20%

10% 9% 3% 2% 1% 0% Every weekday that it Several times a week A few times a week A few times a month Very rarely runs Bus Riding Frequency

12 Impression of the Bus System 14. What is your IMPRESSION OF THE BUS SYSTEM?

Personal safety at the bus stops 303.0

Personal safety on the bus 3.4

Coverage of the bus routes –Do they go where you 2.3 need them to go?

On‐time reliability of the bus 3.0

Frequency of the buses 2.2

Condition of bus shelters 3.1

Location of bus stops 3.0

1 2 3 4 5 (Poor) (Excellent)

13 Bus System Trips 15. How well does the BUS SYSTEM SERVE the following trips?

Between your work place and home 2.1

To/from shopping 3.0

On major streets that run east/west in Mesa 3.2 County

On major streets that run north/south in Mesa 3.0 County

Within Mesa County 2.7

12345 (Poor) (Excellent)

14 Examples of Traffic Congestion 16. Please indicate whether you would consider the following situations to be examples of TRAFFIC CONGESTION. 100% 97% 90% 93% 89% 88% 80%

70%

60% 63%

50% Responses

nt 40%

Perce 40%

30%

20%

10% 4% 0% Driving in traffic Driving in traffic 5 Driving in traffic Driving in traffic Being stopped by Being stopped by Cannot safely turn at posted speed mph slower than 10 mph slower that is barely more than 2 red more than half of onto a major limit the posted speed than the posted moving or light cycles at the the traffic lights street from a side limit speed limit stopped same traffic light you encounter road

Note:% Respondents who answered "Yes"

15 Traffic Congestion 17, 18. Overall, how do you think current level of TRAFFIC CONGESTION is and how will it be IN THE YEAR 2035 in Mesa County? 100% 1% 16% 90% 14%

80%

70%

60% Not Sure 68% A Major Problem 50% 71% A Minor PPblroblem Not a Problem 40%

30%

20%

10% 17% 12%

0% 1% Existing 2035

Traffic Congestion in Mesa County

16 Time of Day Congestion 19. For each of the following times, please rate TRAFFIC FLOW in Mesa County as heavily congested, somewhat congested, or not congested. 100%

90%

80%

70%

60% Heavily Congested Somewhat Congested 50% Not Congested

40%

30%

20%

10%

0% From 7:00 to From 3:00 to In the middle of On weekends In summer On roads running On roads running 9009:00 in t he 6006:00 in t he the day east‐west north‐south morning afternoon

17 Roadway System Rating 20. Overall, how would you rate the ROADWAY SYSTEM in the Mesa County region? 60%

50% 49%

40% 39%

30% Responses

ent cc Per 20%

10%

8% 2% 2% 0% Poor Average Good Excellent No Opinion

Roadway System Rating

18 Level of Support 22. Please indicate y ou r LEVEL OF SUPPORT for the following statements.

Streets should be improved to accommodate all modes of travel –auto, truck, bus, pedestrian, 4.0 and bicycle.

Driveway access should be consolidated in commercial corridors to increase traffic flow and 3.9 traffic safety.

Sidewalks and trails should be provided in all new developments to increase connectivity for 4.2 pedestrians and bicyclists in neighborhoods.

12345 (No Support) (Strongly Support)

19 Amount of Tax Funding Spent 23. In your opinion does it appear that the amount of TRANSPORTATION SPENDING in the Mesa Countyyg region: 35%

33% 30%

25% 25%

23% 20% Responses

15% 16% Percent

10%

5%

3% 0% Is about right Should be increased Should be increased Should be decreased and Not sure / No response moderately significantly spent on other problems and priorities Amount of Tax Funding Spent

20 Willingness for Improvements 24. How willing are you to have your TAX DOLLARS used to support the following improvements? Improving transportation for seniors and persons with disabilities 3.5 Adding more bus routes to serve more of the community 3.1

Adding bus service on Sundays 2.4

Adding bus service in the evenings 2.7

Adding on‐street bike lanes 3.3

Adding trails for walking and bicycling 3.6 Adding pedestrian facilities such as sidewalks, crosswalks, etc. 3.5 Improving the timing of traffic signals 3.4

Reducing delays caused by trains 2.1

Reducing traffic congestion in the future 3.5

Reducing traffic congestion today 2.9

Improving rural roads around Mesa County area 2.8

Improving major streets in the Mesa County area 3.5

12345 (Not Willing) (Very Willing)

21 Support for Small Tax Increase 25. How supportive would you be of paying a SMALL INCREASE IN TAXES to increase funding for transportation in the Mesa County region?

30%

28% 28%

25%

23% ss

20% Response

15% Percent

12% 10%

9%

5%

0% Not supportive Would consider it Somewhat supportive Very supportive Don’t know / Need more information Support for Small Tax Increase

22 Transportation Goals 26. How important are the following goals for leading the county in the right direction on transportation?

Maximize Efficiency 5.0

Provide safe and secure transportation 3.8

Maintain our existing transportation system 2.8

Protect the environment 2.5

Support economic vitality 2.3

Minimize Cost 2.1

Minimize travel time 1.4

Offer transportation choices 1.0

12345 More Important

Note: Chart based on composite scores from online resident survey and priority packet postcard responses

23 Best Information Modes for 2035RTP 27. Which of the following are the best ways to keep you informed about this process? 350

300 300

250 nses oo 226 Resp

200 of

171 150 Number 144 149

100 106

50 67

13 0 Newspaper Radio TV news Newsletters Website Public Email notices Other Meetings / Workshops

24 Household Size 30. How many people live in your household? 50%

45% 44% 40%

35% sponses

ee 30% R

25% 26% Percent

20%

15%

13% 10% 8% 8% 5%

0% 0% 012345+

Number of Registered Vehicles

25 Employees per Household 32. How many people in your household work full-time? 60%

50%

48%

40%

ses 40% nn Respo

30% Percent

20%

10% 8%

3% 1% 0% 0% 012345 Number of Full‐Time Workers

26 Household Auto Ownership 33. How many registered motor vehicles (cars, trucks, motorcycles) do you have in your household?

50%

45% 44% 40%

35% nses

30% Respo

25% 26% Percent

20%

15%

13% 10% 8% 8% 5%

0% 0% 012345+

Number of Registered Vehicles

27 Household Income 34. What is the total income of all the persons in your household? Less than $25,000 4%

$25,001 ‐ $49,999 20% More than $75,000 46%

$50,000 ‐ $74,999 30%

28 Connecting Our Communities 2035 Regional Transportation Plan

Telephone Town Hall – Polling Results

August 27, 2010

1 Traffic / Road Conditions 1. Are you concerned about traffic and/or road conditions in Mesa County today or in the future?

No Opinion 1% No 13%

Yes 86%

111 Responses

2 Transportation Needs 2. Which of the following transportation needs is most important? 40% 139 Responses 35% 34%

30%

25% 24% 23% 20%

Percent 19% 15%

10%

5%

0% Maintenance Constructing or Bicycle & Pedestrian Transit Operations Widening Roads Facilities

3 Household Expenditure for Transportation 3. What percentage of household expenditures do you think you pay for transportation?

35% 33% 147 Responses 30% The average household in 25% the US pays about 14% of 20% 20% 19% every dollar Percent 18% earned for 15% transportation purposes. 10% 10% Source: Bureau of Labor Statistics, 5% 2009

0% 5% 10% 15% 20% 25% or more

4 Transportation Funding 4. What are you most likely to support?

Accept a lower level of quality for maintenance 2%

Support an increase in federal and state gas taxes 14% Minimize constructing new facilities Generate additional 27% transportation funds locally 23% Reduce other government expenditures to generate additional transportation funding 35%

168 Responses

5 Support for Small Tax Increase 5. How supportive would you be of paying a small increase to fund transportation? 35%

30% 30% 126 Responses 25% 25%

20% 20% Percent

15% 14%

10% 10%

5%

0% Not supportive Would consider it Somewhat Very Supportive Don’t know supportive

6 Household Costs for Transportation 6. How much more would you be willing to pay per household for the transportation system and services? 60%

50% 48% 124 Responses 40% 37%

Percent 30%

20%

10% 12%

2% 2% 0% none $5 per month $10 per month $20 per month $25 per month or more

7 Facts and Figures • Date of Call = August 7, 2010 from 9 to 10 am • Number of Participants = 5,745 • Peak Participants at one time = 448 • Average time participating = 9 minutes Number of Calls Status of Calls Percent (Households) Live Answer 10,502 28%

Answering Machine 11,878 32%

Busy 9,982 27% No Answer 1,604 4% Operator Intercept* 2,528 7% No Ring 872 2% Total 37,366 *Note: Operator Intercept includes lines with an automated call blocker/screener.

8 Connecting Our Communities 2035 Regional Transportation Plan

Online Survey #2 Results – November 23, 2010

Brought to you by the Grand Valley Regional Transportation Committee

1 Traffic/Road Conditions

Are you concerned about traffic and/or road conditions in Mesa County today or in the future?

No 17%

Yes 83%

18 responses

2 Transportation Needs

Which of the following transportation needs is most important? 45%

40% 39% 35% 33% 30%

25%

20% Percent 15%

10% 11% 11% 5% 6% 0% Constructing or Maintenance Bicycle Facilities Transit Operations Pedestrian 18 Widening Roads Facilities responses Transportation Needs

3 Household Expenditure - Transportation What percentage of household expenditures do you think you pay for transportation? 35%

33% 30%

28% 25%

20% 22%

15% Percent

10% 11%

5% 6%

0% 18 5% 10% 15% 20% 25% or more responses Percent of Household Income

4 Likely Support

What are you most likely to support? Accept a lower level of quality for maintenance (fill fewer potholes and reduce snow removal) 6% Minimize constructing new facilities 11% Generate additional transportation funds locally 28%

Support an increase in federal and state gas taxes Reduce other 28% government expenditures to generate additional transportation funding 28%

18 responses

5 Support for Small Tax Increase How supportive would you be of paying a small increase to fund transportation? 45%

40% 39% 35%

30%

25% 28%

20% 22% Percent 15%

10% 11% 5%

0% 18 Not supportive Would consider it Somewhat supportive Very Supportive responses Support for Small Tax Increase

6 Amount Willing to Spend

How much more would you be willing to pay per household for the transportation system and services? 50%

45% 44% 40%

35%

30%

25%

Percent 20% 22%

15% 17% 17% 10%

5%

0% 18 none $5 per month $10 per month $20 per month responses Amount per Household willing to spend

7 Mesa County 2035 Regional Transportation Plan Questionnaire Results from Public Officials Workshop August 23, 2010

3. Where should we be on the range of maintenance choices? 4. Where should we be on the range of roadway capacity choices? 2. What lessons have we learned from 1. What regional partnerships have worked No. Affiliation experiences where cooperation has not well and why? worked? 1 = $135 2 = $155 3 = $180 4 = $215 5 = $250 2 = $100 3 = $180 4 = $400 5 = $600 Comments 1 = $35 million Comments million million million million million million million million million

GVT; River Front Trails from Palisade to 521 Stormwater Commission ‐ no reliable 1 Trustee, Palisade Fruita; Clifton funding

Lack of cooperation usually results in less For Collbran, our relationship with Mesa efficiency and more cost associated with the Presently, there is not enough County has been exemplary and resulted in Need to increase funding just to keep 2 Collbran delivery of public services. Town of Palisade x x money to go around and achieve many problems solved and solutions up with past benchmarks. and Clifton Sanitation will result in immense all the wish list projects. implemented. saving to the public.

Bus service ‐ Fruita, Grand Junction, Mesa Roads: cooperation works better than 3 Fruita, City Council County. Road repair/expansion ‐ Fruita ‐ confrontation/territorialism. Bus: x x Mesa County management of priorities, shared goals.

CDOT; City of Grand Junction; good Cooperation always works. It is non‐ As growth occurs, investment must As growth continues, capacity 4 Mesa County x x collaborative efforts. cooperation that doesn't work. increase. investment must increase.

Regional transit ‐ joint need. River Front Trail 5 Trustee, Palisade ‐ Palisade‐Fruita. Many entities involved ‐ will serve all when completed.

I would think that the project(s) would fail or 6 Collbran Mayor River Front Trail x x none affordable.

City/County = 29 Road ‐ Riverside Parkway; Grand Junction City Better communication; willingness to 7 Hwy. 6 & 50 = 170 Business Loop; GVT = Council compromise. City/County

Municipal road projects; Meth Task Force; Common outcome not the same. Goals were 8 City of Fruita Little League, MC, Family Health West; River not clearly defined. Money issues ‐ who pays Front for what? Territorial.

This school district has found essential partnerships with cities, other school Situations that do not work are usually Mesa County Valley School districts, law enforcement entities have been 9 because of turf issues ‐ when entities have District 51 Board used as school resource officers. We work not come with an open mind. closely with the county in child and adolescent services.

GVT/5‐2‐1/PDRR/River Front Commission; County Sales Tax Sharing Basis (County with If not Fee or Tax Based, income is not 10 Palisade Mayor Towns/City); County Road and Bridge (fund?) reliable as general fund revenue is not x Try to maintain. x (cost sharing); Palisade and Clifton always guranateed. Sanitation.

P:\MesaCountyRCTP_MEG1001\PublicOfficialsWorkshop\QuestionnaireResponses_PubOffWorkshop_23Aug10.xlsx ‐ Sheet1 Mesa County 2035 Regional Transportation Plan Questionnaire Results from Public Officials Workshop August 23, 2010

5. Where should we be on the range of transit choices? 6. Where should we be on the range of bicycle/pedestrian choices? 7. How should we allocate our anticipated revenues?

No. 3 = $160 4 = $225 3 = $10 4 = $25 5 = $40 Maintenance (roads / Bicycle / Pedestrian / New Roads / 1 = $0 2 = $80 million Comments 1 = $0 million 2 = $8 million Comments Transit Total Comments million million million million million trails / snow) Trails Widenings

1

Continued expansion will Maintain present services until help to reduce demands on 2 x ridership necessitates additional x 50 7 15 28 100 other modes, although services. minimally.

3 x x 40 2 15 43 100

Need evening and weekend 4 x x service.

5 42 8 20 30 100

6 x x 40 4 20 36 100

7

8

9

10 x x 40203010100

P:\MesaCountyRCTP_MEG1001\PublicOfficialsWorkshop\QuestionnaireResponses_PubOffWorkshop_23Aug10.xlsx ‐ Sheet1 Mesa County 2035 Regional Transportation Plan Questionnaire Results from Public Officials Workshop August 23, 2010

8. How much more would you be willing to support per household for transportation system and services? 9. What is the general range of acceptability/feasibility for transportation maintenance fees? 10. What is the general range of acceptability/feasibility for a dedicated sales tax or RTA?

No. 1 = I could 4 = This is a 1 = I could 4 = This is a 1 = I could 3 = $10 per 4 = $15 per 5 = $25+ per 2 = May be 3 = Worth 5 = Don't even 2 = May be 3 = Worth 5 = Don't even 1 = none 2 = $5 per month Comments support this tough one, but Comments support this tough one, but Comments support this month month month feasible considering consider it feasible considering consider it option maybe option maybe option

1

Should go to maintenance, which would This may actually be feasible since most 2 x free up other funds for new facilities and x people use the road system and realize the xIn Mesa County ‐ I doubt it. x enhancements to other modes. need for maintenance.

Government is not an effective vehicle for 3 x x x improving transportation system.

4 x x x x

5

6 x x x

7

8

9

10 x x x

P:\MesaCountyRCTP_MEG1001\PublicOfficialsWorkshop\QuestionnaireResponses_PubOffWorkshop_23Aug10.xlsx ‐ Sheet1 Mesa County 2035 Regional Transportation Plan Questionnaire Results from Public Officials Workshop August 23, 2010

14. If we have no ability to rais 11. What is the general range of acceptability/feasibility for transportation impact fees? 12. What is the general range of acceptability/feasibility for special improvement districts? 13. What is the general range of acceptability/feasibility for a wheel tax?

No. 4 = This is a 1 = I could 4 = This is a 1 = I could 4 = This is a 1 = I could 2 = May be 3 = Worth 5 = Don't even 2 = May be 3 = Worth 5 = Don't even 2 = May be 3 = Worth 5 = Don't even 2 = May be tough one, but Comments support this tough one, but Comments support this tough one, but Comments support this feasible considering consider it feasible considering consider it feasible considering consider it feasible maybe option maybe option maybe option

1

In use for new development. Presently, is Works well in small geographical areas. May Should be considered, but I doubt there is 2 x x restrictive and adds to cost of new housing. have applicability to regional issues. much support for any additional tax.

3 x x x

4 x x

5

6 x x x

7

8 x

9 x x

10 x x x x

P:\MesaCountyRCTP_MEG1001\PublicOfficialsWorkshop\QuestionnaireResponses_PubOffWorkshop_23Aug10.xlsx ‐ Sheet1 Mesa County 2035 Regional Transportation Plan Questionnaire Results from Public Officials Workshop August 23, 2010

e more transportation revenues locally, what should we do? Accept a lower level of quality for 15. If we have no ability to raise more transportation revenues locally, what should we do? Reduce other government expenditures to 16. If we have no ability to raise more transportation revenues locally, what should we do? Support an increase in federal and state gas 17. If we have no ability to raise more transportatio maintenance of roads and trails? generate more revenues for transportation? taxes? roadway widenings th

No. 4 = This is a 1 = I could 4 = This is a 1 = I could 4 = This is a 1 = I could 3 = Worth 5 = Don't even 2 = May be 3 = Worth 5 = Don't even 2 = May be 3 = Worth 5 = Don't even 2 = May be 3 = Worth tough one, but Comments support this tough one, but Comments support this tough one, but Comments support this considering consider it feasible considering consider it feasible considering consider it feasible considering maybe option maybe option maybe option

1

This is not presently acceptable, but is a fair The time may come when we have to 2 x x All the cards should be on the table. x way to distribute costs to those who sue the x further categorize maintenance needs. system the most.

Prefer to substitute local gas tax to keep 3 x x x funds in local community.

4 xx x x

5

6 x x x

7

8

9

10 x x x

P:\MesaCountyRCTP_MEG1001\PublicOfficialsWorkshop\QuestionnaireResponses_PubOffWorkshop_23Aug10.xlsx ‐ Sheet1 Mesa County 2035 Regional Transportation Plan Questionnaire Results from Public Officials Workshop August 23, 2010

n revenues locally, what should we do? Limit construction of new roads and hereby accepting a higher level of congestion? 18. Should we wait for the federal or state 19. Should we take matters into our own hands 20. Which, if any, funding options would be most No. governments to make up the difference we need and fund our transportation future ourselves like palatable for generating new sources of revenue 21. General Comments 4 = This is a 5 = Don't even to retain a quality transportation system? many regions across the state and nation? for transportation? tough one, but Comments consider it maybe

1

In our current bankrupt state and nation, the Improvement districts, reallocation of present 2 responsibility will fall locally if things are to get We must make plans for it. revenues, develop a Pot Commission and distribute done. fees from licensing to transportation.

Yes, keep local communities keep control for their Local gas tax cutting other government 3 xNo own transportation system. bureaucracy.

4 No, but urge them forward. Yes, within limits. See above 3 thru 19.

5

6 x

7

8 No. Yes. Special Improvement Districts; RTA

9

10

P:\MesaCountyRCTP_MEG1001\PublicOfficialsWorkshop\QuestionnaireResponses_PubOffWorkshop_23Aug10.xlsx ‐ Sheet1 September 2010

IN THIS SUMMARY: Public Officials Workshop

Public Officials Workshop – Introduction (Page 1) On August 23, 2010, local elected officials and other representatives of local governments and agencies met to discuss Transportation Choices and Funding Choices Where Should We for our region for the next 25 years. This Public Officials Workshop was conducted as Be on the Range of Choices? part of the development of the 2035 Regional Transportation Plan for the Mesa County (Page 2) Region.

How Should We Allocate Our Transportation and Funding Choices were the topics of discussion at the workshop. In Transportation Revenues? (Page 3) other words – What do we need and want for our transportation system? and What are we willing to pay for? Workshop participants were provided with input from local Local Transportation residents collected through a diverse public outreach program conducted during Phases Funding Options (Page 4) I and II. Generally, the public’s responses indicated a desire for a future transportation system that exceeds available revenue. This leaves us with a very fundamental set of What’s Next (Page 4) decisions for the region to make regarding the most appropriate balance.

W h Transportation and funding choices for the region are summarized in two documents Jurisdictions and availablee to both the public and elected officials. The Transportation Choices booklet Agencies Represented at providesr ranges of possible future scenarios and their associated costs and other the Public Officials discriminatinge features. The Funding Choices slideshow presents information on how Workshop our transportation system is funded, funding trends for transportation, revenue available toW fund the 2035 Regional Transportation Plan, and potential local funding options. • City of Grand Junction e • Mesa County ’ • City of Fruita r • Town of Collbran e • Town of Palisade

Others • Palisade Tribune • Colorado Department of Transportation • Grand Junction Airport

www.2035RTP.com 1

Where Should We Be on the Range of Choices? As part of the workshop, participants were asked to review the range of choices for maintenance, roads, non-motorized facilities, and transit as defined in the Transportation Choices booklet (available on the website at www.2035RTP.com). The booklet identifies costs and discriminating features associated with each transportation mode/program.

M AINTENANCE (ROADS, T RAILS, S NOW, ETC.) Significant Cutbacks Continue Today’s Funding Increase Funding

Increased funding to a level where the Reduction in funding to 75 percent of existing Funding of roadway maintenance at current pavement quality index is good. This is the Description funding. Pavement quality index will likely funding levels. Pavement quality decreases scenario consistent with “Most livable drop to fair or poor condition. to fair. community west of the Rockies”. Costs $135 Million $180 Million (Baseline) $250 Million Elected Officials $193 Million

P UBLIC T RANSIT No Transit Continuation of Current Continuation of Today’s Enhanced System Funding Per Capita Service Level

Continuation of existing service Enhancement of transit to a level Increase service hours hours with possible consistent with peer cities that have consistent with population redeployment of existing a population similar to the Mesa growth. Increased service hours No fixed bus routes or service. (Note: this is a County 2035 population Description could include increased paratransit service reduction in service as existing projections. This would include frequency, extended service transit service hours must now frequent service coverage in town hours, new routes and/or accommodate a significant and regional bus connections to redeployment of existing routes. growth in population.) DeBeque and Gateway. Costs $0 $ 80 Million (Baseline) $ 160 Million $ 225 Million Elected Officials $147 Million

N ON-MOTORIZED (BICYCLE, P EDESTRIAN, T RAILS) No Additional Funding Continue Today’s Funding Increase Funding

Completion of a Mesa County Non- No additional funding of non-motorized Funding of up to $10 million or Motorized Vision Plan of new trails including Description facilities other than bike lanes as part of approximately 10 to 15 miles of new shared north/south and east/west connectors, trails roadway projects. bicycle and pedestrian trails. along canals and supplemental trail connections. Costs No Funding for new trails projects. $10 Million (Baseline) $40+ Million Elected Officials $18 Million

R OADWAY C APACITY (NEW R OADS / W IDENINGS) Significant Cutbacks Continue Today’s Funding Increase Funding

The existing system will be maintained and Continue to implement roadway Increased funding to mitigate future traffic projects “in the pipeline” with dedicated improvements at current funding levels, impacts back to good congestion levels. (See Description funding will proceed, but limited new which won’t keep us ahead of the the Example Future Uncongested Network on widened roads after that. congestion curve. the next page.) Costs $35 Million $180 Million (Baseline) $600 Million Elected Officials $288 Million

www.2035RTP.com 2 Summary of Transportation Choices – Where Should We Be?

The responses from the elected officials participating in the Public Officials Workshop indicated a desire for increased investments for all modes/programs relative to estimated available funds. This is similar to public responses voiced through other venues that suggest we may be falling behind on investment in the transportation system.

Estimated Public Officials’ Percent Mode/Program 2010 to 2035 Responses Increase Over Funding (millions) ( 2010 – 2035, millions) Baseline Maintenance (Roads / Trails / Snow) $180 $193 7% Non-Motorized (Bicycle / Pedestrian / Trails) $10 $18 80% Public Transit $80 $147 84% Roadway Capacity (New Roads / Widenings) $180 $288 60% Total $450 $646 44%

How Should We Allocate Our Transportation Revenues? When asked how anticipated future funding for the regional transportation should be allocated, the participating elected officials responded with a relatively significant increase in non-motorized investments and small increases in maintenance and transit. These were increased at the expense of roadway investments, which were reduced.

However, when asked where we should be as a region on the range of transportation choices, a different picture emerged. Although the participating elected officials desired increase investments for all modes/programs relative to available funding, the amount of change in each program significantly changed the implied investments as a percent of total.

$700

$600 ) $500 45% millions

$400 years, 32% (25

40%

$300 23%

Revenues 20%

18% $200 7% 3% 2%

Transportation $100 41% 30%

$0 Historic Allocation Public Officials' Allocation Public Officials' Response to "Where Should We Be?"

Maintenance Non‐Motorized Transit Roadway Capacity

www.2035RTP.com 3

Local Transportation Funding Options Transportation funding is decreasing over time due to several factors – inflationary costs of construction materials and other items; lack of inflation-protected gas and diesel taxes; motor fuels tax rates that were set almost 2 decades ago; increasing fuel efficiency; and others. As a result, transportation dollars are being stretched thinner than ever, and the public and elected officials seem to be indicating a desire for increased transportation investments in order to catch up.

With that thought in mind, the elected officials were presented with a series of funding options that could be pursued to increase local funding for transportation. This exercise was simply to prioritize a list of options if local funding increases were desired in the future. A ballot vote would be required of any new taxes under State law.

Score 1 = Most Supported 5= Least Supported

Ranking Score Option Description Transportation Impact • A fee applied to new developments to pay for necessary infrastructure due to growth impacts. 1 2.4 Fees • Paid for by developers and/or new building owners/ tenants Dedicated Sales Tax / Regional • A specified amount (1/4 or 1/2 cents) applied to retail sales 2 2.7 Transportation • Often identifies specific projects for implementation Authority (RTA) • Monthly fee paid by residential and commercial property owners Transportation • Could be passed on to renters/ tenants 3 3.0 Maintenance Fees • Based on the land use and trips generated • Can be applied to roads, bikeways, sidewalks, snow/ice, signs/markings, etc. • Local vehicle registration fee Wheel Tax/ • Can be applied as a property tax based on the vehicle’s value or through a vehicle registration 4 3.2 Local Vehicle fee Registration Fee • Can include factors such as weight and vehicle type (including hybrid and electric vehicles) and even vehicle miles of travel

If, as a region, we have no desire or ability to raise more transportation revenues locally, what should we do? This question was asked of the elected officials in order to prioritize actions that may be necessary due to decreasing revenues.

Ranking Score Option

1 2.4 Support an increase in federal and state gas taxes.

2 2.7 Limit construction of new roads and roadway widenings thereby accepting a higher level of congestion.

3 3.0 Reduce other government expenditures to generate more revenues for transportation.

4 3.2 Accept a lower level of quality for maintenance of roads and trails.

What’s Next

As we enter Phase III of the Regional Transportation Plan’s development, Baseline and Vision Plans will be prepared in response to the input from elected officials and the public through venues such as the Public Officials Workshop and many others. Project alternatives will be evaluated and prioritized for system maintenance, non-motorized facilities, public transit, and roadway capacity to complete the picture for the Baseline and Vision Plans.

www.2035RTP.com 4

Grand Valley MPO Environmental Charrette August 30th, 2010

Attendees: Todd Hollenbeck, GVMPO Michelle Scheuerman, CDOT DTD Ken Simms, GVMPO Aaron Willis, CDOT DTD Bill Haas, FHWA Jeff Sudmeier, CDOT DTD Aaron Bustow, FHWA Marissa Robinson, CDOT DTD Theresa Amoroso, CDPHE Cathy Cole, CDOT DTD Alison Michael, FWS Irene Merrifield, CDOT DTD Jim Schrack, GEO Mark Rogers, CDOT R5 Carrie Sheata, USACE Tammie Smith, CDOT R5 Jim Komatinsky, DOW

1. What changes to resource management/regulations have occurred in the last few years? Are any additional changes anticipated that should be considered? • Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) brought up new plants and the preservation of critical/rare habitats for endangered wildlife. • Q: What is the boundary for GVMPO? A: For planning purposes, the boundary is Mesa County. • United States Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) was asked about mitigation banks. The Spring Creek bank is currently open. There is also a Mesa County bank, but it only sells to Mesa County itself. • Division of Wildlife (DOW) talked about the Gunnison Sage Grouse. • DOW also addressed oil and gas impacts. Oil and gas has a significant impact to roads and dust. Sometimes new roads must be created to get to well sites, which increases the road traffic to sites. State and local service roads may be affected, as well as evaporative ponds and reserve pits. Changes in migration patterns occur due to oil and gas development, especially with elk, deer and antelope populations.

2. What are the agency priorities in the MPO areas? • FWS talked about energy, specifically the programmatic consultation efforts with energy on plants and fugitive dust. The goal is to minimize impacts to plants from oil and gas permitting. There is a need for local coordination. • The Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) spoke about transportation related ozone air quality and regional haze issues. • USACE brought up water preservation and the need for early coordination and site visits when issuing permits. USACE was asked how it has been working with CDOT. It was reported that the working relationship is good. • DOW mentioned culverts. They stressed the importance of making sure that culvert design is compatible with fisheries.

1

• Coordination with DOW on wildlife fencing. Need to be aware of migration routes and where animals cross over major highways. A high priority is to include migration routes in design. Escape ramps for animals have proven very effective. • Attendees were not aware of any specific concerns with State HW 65 at this time.

3. What areas for joint planning or collaboration for joint benefit exist (areas where resource mitigation can/should be focused)? • The Governor’s Energy Office (GEO) discussed Colorado Connected Communities, which is currently working to connect via internet a variety of downtown buildings to monitor energy uses. • GEO also talked about compressed natural gas (CNG) filling stations. Rifle has a CNG filling station and surrounding businesses have committed to convert to using CNG. Grand Junction has a slow-fill CNG station for busses. • FWS said that the Grand Junction Office has a programmatic consultation plan/effort in place for energy and that this is an opportunity to collaborate. • DOW commented on the fencing of highways and wants to make sure that fencing does not isolate animal populations on migratory routes. There also needs to be cooperation with fisheries on stream crossing wetland impacts. New opportunities to partner should be included in the long-range plan. • CDOT informed that more research is being done in the Division of Transportation Development (DTD) on planning grant opportunities. CDOT DTD plans to share this research with its planning partners. • Grand Valley Metropolitan Planning Organization (GVMPO) expressed that air quality and becoming nonattainment for ozone is their number one concern. This is FHWA’s biggest concern as well. FHWA said they will help out as best they can and provide technical assistance. FHWA said EPA is willing to provide assistance as well. • Colorado Department of Health and Environment (CDPHE) said they would report back on the discussion regarding air quality and concern about ozone nonattainment. CDPHE will look into areas for further joint collaboration. • FHWA reported that the new ozone standard designation has been pushed back to October. The new ozone standard will be somewhere in the range of 60 to 70ppb. New SIPs will need to be developed and adopted in 2012. The Front Range has already started with the process.

Other Comments?

• Coal mines in Mesa County were brought up. It was agreed that no action on this is needed at this time, but coal mines should be kept on the radar just in case. • CDPHE, in a follow up e-mail to the charrette, stated the following of special note to the Grand Valley MPO:

2

APCD priorities include ensuring compliance with tighter emission controls for natural gas- fired reciprocating internal combustion engines Statewide, and we are working with EPA and the WRAP to inventory mobile source activity related to oil and gas development in the Piceance Basin. It is hoped that this work will be completed by year end, with a report out in early 2011.

The Air Division is collaborating with CDOT and other agencies on voluntary projects-- including (1) installation of pollution-reduction equipment on off-road vehicles and construction equipment and (2) an idling reduction pilot project--Engines Off, Colorado!

Continued dialogue via the Transportation Environmental Resource Council and its Sustainability subcommittee offer opportunities for such joint planning and collaboration.

3

2035 REGIONAL TRANSPORTATION PLAN OPEN HOUSE COMMENT FORM ANSWERS

Thank you for participating in this Open House for the 2035 Regional Transportation Plan. We appreciate learning your priorities. Please provvide your thoughts on the following:

1. Non-Motorized (e.g., Bicycle, Pedestrian) Transportation Plan

Need to prioritize more north/south and east/west bikeways. Seventh Street, for example, should get a bike lane. Grand Avenue should get a bike lane.

2. Transit Plan

No Comment

3. Roadway Plan

No new road needed at Orchard and 1st. Don’t pave through the park.

4. Maintenance

Trash cans on street corners so bikers won’t have to ride over broken glass all the time.

5. Funding

Make pedestrians and bikes the priority.

6. Other Comments

No Comment

Comment Form Answers Page 1

2035 REGIONAL TRANSPORTATION PLAN OPEN HOUSE COMMENT FORM ANSWERS

Thank you for participating in this Open House for the 2035 Regional Transportation Plan. We appreciate learning your priorities. Please provvide your thoughts on the following:

1. Non-Motorized (e.g., Bicycle, Pedestrian) Transportation Plan

Overall looks very good. Please make 1st and Grand and First Street as bike friendly as possiblle. Seventh Street could use bike lanes. Elm could be an improved bike route. Off street greenways such as Leech Creek would be wonderful additions. Trails along canal seem like it would be easy.

2. Transit Plan

Comment

3. Roadway Plan

Comment

4. Maintenance

Comment

5. Funding

Comment

6. Other Comments

Comment

Comment Form Answers Page 2

2035 REGIONAL TRANSPORTATION PLAN OPEN HOUSE COMMENT FORM ANSWERS

Thank you for participating in this Open House for the 2035 Regional Transportation Plan. We appreciate learning your priorities. Please provvide your thoughts on the following:

1. Non-Motorized (e.g., Bicycle, Pedestrian) Transportation Plan

There are a significant number of bicyclists on 7th Street – on the sidewalks! An obvious conflict with pedestrians already exists and should be addressed and rectified when formulating the transportation plan.

2. Transit Plan

Late schedule, to meet late arrival airline flights at the airport, needs to be implemennted for the bus service.

3. Roadway Plan

Clearly delineated bicycle lanes and signage for safety and to strongly integrate into motorists consciousness.

4. Maintenance

Need dedicated street sweeping and maintenance equipment for bicycle, corridor maintenance, and an aggressive and consistent schedule for debris, etc.

5. Funding

No Comment

6. Other Comments

All residential developments, which will occur in the next 25 years, must have bicycle use, accommodations, and infrastructure as part of any approved plan.

Comment Form Answers Page 3

2035 REGIONAL TRANSPORTATION PLAN OPEN HOUSE COMMENT FORM ANSWERS

Thank you for participating in this Open House for the 2035 Regional Transportation Plan. We appreciate learning your priorities. Please provvide your thoughts on the following:

1. Non-Motorized (e.g., Bicycle, Pedestrian) Transportation Plan

Barring any mass effort of educating the drivers on the roadd to coexist with cyclists, the Visional Plan should be implemented. It is not safe to ride on the roads here and that needs to be addressed while off- road trails are built up.

2. Transit Plan

Baseline with slight increase. Vision should only be pursued on Transit if there is a large out of the box approach to linking the valley. Big money on transit should equal big spending.

3. Roadway Plan

Low base plan is the max on this – pressure will then ensure alternative modes including carpooling, biking, transit, and just plain reduction in amounts of necessary car trips.

4. Maintenance

No Comment

5. Funding

No Comment

6. Other Comments

No Comment

Comment Form Answers Page 4

2035 REGIONAL TRANSPORTATION PLAN OPEN HOUSE COMMENT FORM ANSWERS

Thank you for participating in this Open House for the 2035 Regional Transportation Plan. We appreciate learning your priorities. Please provvide your thoughts on the following:

1. Non-Motorized (e.g., Bicycle, Pedestrian) Transportation Plan

Go with Vision Plan, Riverfront Trail Fruita to Palisade essenntial. 7th Street needs to be priority bike path – I walk that often and pedestrian/bike traffic on sidewalk is not compatible. Need good bike conductivity – priorities should be this.

2. Transit Plan

Working well now for low income folks. Need to have more frequent routes to increase ridership. Would like more frequent times to airport and later in evening.

3. Roadway Plan

No Comment

4. Maintenance

Need more dedicated street sweeping on bike lanes – especially in County.

5. Funding

Work on passing primary seatbelt law to open up more federal money.

6. Other Comments

Enforce no bikes/skateboards on Main Street. Need Complete Streets included everywhere!

Comment Form Answers Page 5

2035 REGIONAL TRANSPORTATION PLAN OPEN HOUSE COMMENT FORM ANSWERS

Thank you for participating in this Open House for the 2035 Regional Transportation Plan. We appreciate learning your priorities. Please provvide your thoughts on the following:

1. Non-Motorized (e.g., Bicycle, Pedestrian) Transportation Plan

Create bike commuter corridor from Fruita, near Coop on old River Road. ROW to 20 Rd. County has the ROW. This is in the Fruita Parks, Open Space and Trails Plaan.

2. Transit Plan

No Comment

3. Roadway Plan

Continue bike commuter route from Fruita with bike lanes on existing River Road from 20 Rd. to 24 Rd.

4. Maintenance

No Comment

5. Funding

No Comment

6. Other Comments

No Comment

Comment Form Answers Page 6

2035 REGIONAL TRANSPORTATION PLAN OPEN HOUSE COMMENT FORM ANSWERS

Thank you for participating in this Open House for the 2035 Regional Transportation Plan. We appreciate learning your priorities. Please provvide your thoughts on the following:

1. Non-Motorized (e.g., Bicycle, Pedestrian) Transportation Plan

Do it please. I bike a lot around town and if I was able to have better routes, it would be great.

2. Transit Plan

Feasible.

3. Roadway Plan

Go for it!

4. Maintenance

Is a must!

5. Funding

Fin it – tax, tax, tax!

6. Other Comments

Living la vida loca.

Comment Form Answers Page 7

2035 REGIONAL TRANSPORTATION PLAN OPEN HOUSE COMMENT FORM ANSWERS

Thank you for participating in this Open House for the 2035 Regional Transportation Plan. We appreciate learning your priorities. Please provvide your thoughts on the following:

1. Non-Motorized (e.g., Bicycle, Pedestrian) Transportation Plan

I like this idea. Please put a bike lane on Orchard and I love the riverfront trail.

2. Transit Plan

This needs better marketing – especially with students. Also, keep it going later in the evening.

3. Roadway Plan

No Comment

4. Maintenance

We need to keep up with maintenance for these plans so that people will utilize them.

5. Funding

No Comment

6. Other Comments

I love riding my bike around town, so I think this is great!

Comment Form Answers Page 8

2035 REGIONAL TRANSPORTATION PLAN OPEN HOUSE COMMENT FORM ANSWERS

Thank you for participating in this Open House for the 2035 Regional Transportation Plan. We appreciate learning your priorities. Please provvide your thoughts on the following:

1. Non-Motorized (e.g., Bicycle, Pedestrian) Transportation Plan

I feel this is a high priority, if not the highest, as I feel reducing carbon emissions is very important.

2. Transit Plan

This is the second highest priority for me as this helps reduce carbon emissions though less so than non- motorized transit.

3. Roadway Plan

I understand the importance of roadways for commerce, but I try to personally stay off them via bike.

4. Maintenance

No Comment

5. Funding

No Comment

6. Other Comments

No Comment

Comment Form Answers Page 9

2035 REGIONAL TRANSPORTATION PLAN OPEN HOUSE COMMENT FORM ANSWERS

Thank you for participating in this Open House for the 2035 Regional Transportation Plan. We appreciate learning your priorities. Please provvide your thoughts on the following:

1. Non-Motorized (e.g., Bicycle, Pedestrian) Transportation Plan

Well supported ideas, all/most aspects reviewed. Even though we may not get enough money, working on it piece by piece will get us somewhere, but not all the way. Make sure community knows about these new routes.

2. Transit Plan

The need for later bus service is very important. The frequency is less important than later hours. I would personally use the bus in the evening. Looking to the future is important and you have clearly done so.

3. Roadway Plan

No Comment

4. Maintenance

As you have pointed out, maintenance is almost as important as, or more important than growth.

5. Funding

Calculating funds needed with the changes of the economy are important. I’m glad you considered these things.

6. Other Comments

It is great to know how well planned and thought out these proposals for transportation are!

Comment Form Answers Page 10

2035 REGIONAL TRANSPORTATION PLAN OPEN HOUSE COMMENT FORM ANSWERS

Thank you for participating in this Open House for the 2035 Regional Transportation Plan. We appreciate learning your priorities. Please provvide your thoughts on the following:

1. Non-Motorized (e.g., Bicycle, Pedestrian) Transportation Plan

It’s very nice to hear all of the ideas about non-motorized plan, but action is needed. When are the changes going to progress into actual project?

2. Transit Plan

Transit is nice, but there is a need for a welcoming part of transit especially on campus. In comparison to the suburbs of Littleton where I’m from, it is minimal.

3. Roadway Plan

Roadway Plan looks promising, but it’s definitely a concern wwith the college and growing businesses that the roadways won’t be able to keep up.

4. Maintenance

Maintenance needed – the construction is promising but it seems never ending.

5. Funding

I feel as if there is not enough funding for transit and non-motorized.

6. Other Comments

No Comment

Comment Form Answers Page 11

2035 REGIONAL TRANSPORTATION PLAN OPEN HOUSE COMMENT FORM ANSWERS

Thank you for participating in this Open House for the 2035 Regional Transportation Plan. We appreciate learning your priorities. Please provvide your thoughts on the following:

1. Non-Motorized (e.g., Bicycle, Pedestrian) Transportation Plan

I think we need better non-motorized roads going down to the mall area cause I wouldn’t mind riding my bike, but just entering on the freeway and no bike path makes me drive my car.

2. Transit Plan

People need more education.

3. Roadway Plan

The new advances is what needs to happen for change.

4. Maintenance

Is going to be very expensive, but needs to happen.

5. Funding

I think the funding for the future is more important than people think.

6. Other Comments

No Comment

Comment Form Answers Page 12

2035 REGIONAL TRANSPORTATION PLAN OPEN HOUSE COMMENT FORM ANSWERS

Thank you for participating in this Open House for the 2035 Regional Transportation Plan. We appreciate learning your priorities. Please provvide your thoughts on the following:

1. Non-Motorized (e.g., Bicycle, Pedestrian) Transportation Plan

This sounds like the “ideal” plan to have, but it might be too unrealistic. We should strive for it though.

2. Transit Plan

These plans seem the most reasonable long term. Good buus systems relieve congestion and are also a better value than just cars.

3. Roadway Plan

It’s what many people want, but it’s a tricky slope. Too much focus here would take away from what makes the valley safe.

4. Maintenance

The hard question. It costs a lot more than people think andd the constant construction is annoying! But it seems to be doing well. Can we possibly get more of this for the rural roads?

5. Funding

Always needs more money, but what to tax? Bikes, gas, ciggarettes?

6. Other Comments

Strive for non-motorized, but most likely it’ll need the help of transit.

Comment Form Answers Page 13

2035 REGIONAL TRANSPORTATION PLAN OPEN HOUSE COMMENT FORM ANSWERS

Thank you for participating in this Open House for the 2035 Regional Transportation Plan. We appreciate learning your priorities. Please provvide your thoughts on the following:

1. Non-Motorized (e.g., Bicycle, Pedestrian) Transportation Plan

Crosswalks on Orchard. Money would be better spent around town instead of river trail.

2. Transit Plan

Needs later hours to be appealing.

3. Roadway Plan

Need to consider Hover car congestion.

4. Maintenance

Keep up maintenance funding.

5. Funding

No Comment

6. Other Comments

No Comment

Comment Form Answers Page 14

2035 REGIONAL TRANSPORTATION PLAN OPEN HOUSE COMMENT FORM ANSWERS

Thank you for participating in this Open House for the 2035 Regional Transportation Plan. We appreciate learning your priorities. Please provvide your thoughts on the following:

1. Non-Motorized (e.g., Bicycle, Pedestrian) Transportation Plan

Please complete the river corridor for both recreation and commuting. Designated bike paths on Orchard. River access for kayaker and rafters.

2. Transit Plan

Greater availability and more frequent times. Education program for now to use the system for first time users.

3. Roadway Plan

Keep more bikes on the road so we need less maintained roadways. If Boulder can do it, so can we. Go Grand Junction!

4. Maintenance

Bike lanes do not take as much maintenance.

5. Funding

Higher gas taxes. Much higher gas taxes.

6. Other Comments

Thanks for gathering public information.

Comment Form Answers Page 15

2035 REGIONAL TRANSPORTATION PLAN OPEN HOUSE COMMENT FORM ANSWERS

Thank you for participating in this Open House for the 2035 Regional Transportation Plan. We appreciate learning your priorities. Please provvide your thoughts on the following:

1. Non-Motorized (e.g., Bicycle, Pedestrian) Transportation Plan

I would love to see more bicycle lanes, especially on major rroads such aas Orchard. With the population increasing and gas prices going up, making the city more biking-savy would be a great plan for the progressiveness of the city.

2. Transit Plan

A longer running and more regularly running bus system would be very nice to have, especially with the growing that is taking place in Grand Junction.

3. Roadway Plan

No Comment

4. Maintenance

No Comment

5. Funding

No Comment

6. Other Comments

No Comment

Comment Form Answers Page 16

2035 REGIONAL TRANSPORTATION PLAN OPEN HOUSE COMMENT FORM ANSWERS

Thank you for participating in this Open House for the 2035 Regional Transportation Plan. We appreciate learning your priorities. Please provvide your thoughts on the following:

1. Non-Motorized (e.g., Bicycle, Pedestrian) Transportation Plan

No Comment

2. Transit Plan

I would love to see buses coming at a more frequent and reliable time. I think so many people are not using the transit system because they don’t see it as a reliable source of transportation. Clearer signs for the bus stops would help, as well as a posted schedule for the daily times that are expected for each bus to come.

3. Roadway Plan

No Comment

4. Maintenance

No Comment

5. Funding

No Comment

6. Other Comments

No Comment

Comment Form Answers Page 17

2035 REGIONAL TRANSPORTATION PLAN OPEN HOUSE COMMENT FORM ANSWERS

Thank you for participating in this Open House for the 2035 Regional Transportation Plan. We appreciate learning your priorities. Please provvide your thoughts on the following:

1. Non-Motorized (e.g., Bicycle, Pedestrian) Transportation Plan

We really need safe crosswalks, especially around campus. We have the ones on 12th Street that have the lights that stop cars and allow people to pass. We especially need one crossing Orchard better 12th and 7th Streets. There is a bike route that connects to Cannell, but there is no crosswalk and it’s a very busy and dangerous area to cross. I cross this street everyday coming to and from school, home, and work, and many other students use this as a busy crossing point. I would Love to see a crosswalk with a light at this area to make non-motorized transportation so much safer for this community!

2. Transit Plan

Comment

3. Roadway Plan

Comment

4. Maintenance

Comment

5. Funding

Comment

6. Other Comments

Comment

Comment Form Answers Page 18

2035 REGIONAL TRANSPORTATION PLAN OPEN HOUSE COMMENT FORM ANSWERS

Thank you for participating in this Open House for the 2035 Regional Transportation Plan. We appreciate learning your priorities. Please provvide your thoughts on the following:

1. Non-Motorized (e.g., Bicycle, Pedestrian) Transportation Plan

What about a day free of cars? Just like cities around the world, a day just for bicycles or walk time. Educating people to take the bus. Public transportation to save energy, be green.

2. Transit Plan

Extended hours.

3. Roadway Plan

No Comment

4. Maintenance

During winter?

5. Funding

No Comment

6. Other Comments

Wonderful opportunity to be here. Think about educational massive transportation.

Comment Form Answers Page 19

2035 REGIONAL TRANSPORTATION PLAN OPEN HOUSE COMMENT FORM ANSWERS

Thank you for participating in this Open House for the 2035 Regional Transportation Plan. We appreciate learning your priorities. Please provvide your thoughts on the following:

1. Non-Motorized (e.g., Bicycle, Pedestrian) Transportation Plan

Add bike lanes to all new or resurfaced roads adding shoulders as requuired. Better signage is needed. Make bike corridors contiguous, making cross city travel easier.

2. Transit Plan

No Comment

3. Roadway Plan

No Comment

4. Maintenance

No Comment

5. Funding

Any possibility of public/business sponsoring bike paths?

6. Other Comments

No Comment

Comment Form Answers Page 20

2035 REGIONAL TRANSPORTATION PLAN OPEN HOUSE COMMENT FORM ANSWERS

Thank you for participating in this Open House for the 2035 Regional Transportation Plan. We appreciate learning your priorities. Please provvide your thoughts on the following:

1. Non-Motorized (e.g., Bicycle, Pedestrian) Transportation Plan

Funding, but if not, substantial increase, then decrease the money fromm Riverfront Trail to bicycle lanes, shoulders. I love the Riverfront Trail, but too much resources!

2. Transit Plan

Comment

3. Roadway Plan

Comment

4. Maintenance

Have to up funding for infrastructure.

5. Funding

Up funding for non-motorized and up health.

6. Other Comments

Thanks for all your work – happy to help.

Comment Form Answers Page 21

2035 REGIONAL TRANSPORTATION PLAN OPEN HOUSE COMMENT FORM ANSWERS

Thank you for participating in this Open House for the 2035 Regional Transportation Plan. We appreciate learning your priorities. Please provvide your thoughts on the following:

1. Non-Motorized (e.g., Bicycle, Pedestrian) Transportation Plan

This is a must – Grand Junction is the correct size city for bike commuting.

2. Transit Plan

This is a hard sell.

3. Roadway Plan

No Comment

4. Maintenance

Yes of course, however, maintenance cannot keep up with the drivers wants. A non-motorized (bike, etc.) plan will lead to fewer cars and then less upkeep.

5. Funding

Taxes

6. Other Comments

Include golf cart paths for senior citizens.

Comment Form Answers Page 22

2035 REGIONAL TRANSPORTATION PLAN OPEN HOUSE COMMENT FORM ANSWERS

Thank you for participating in this Open House for the 2035 Regional Transportation Plan. We appreciate learning your priorities. Please provvide your thoughts on the following:

1. Non-Motorized (e.g., Bicycle, Pedestrian) Transportation Plan

There should be more than 20-30 miles of off-street trails by 2035. Agree with the highest regional priority – Riverfront Trail.

2. Transit Plan

Extending some routes past 8 p.m. would help downtown niightlife.

3. Roadway Plan

No Comment

4. Maintenance

No Comment

5. Funding

No Comment

6. Other Comments

No Comment

Comment Form Answers Page 23

2035 REGIONAL TRANSPORTATION PLAN OPEN HOUSE COMMENT FORM ANSWERS

Thank you for participating in this Open House for the 2035 Regional Transportation Plan. We appreciate learning your priorities. Please provvide your thoughts on the following:

1. Non-Motorized (e.g., Bicycle, Pedestrian) Transportation Plan

We need to incorporate the existing canal infrastructure into the master plan by whatever means necessary. The overall cost will be much lower.

2. Transit Plan

No Comment

3. Roadway Plan

No Comment

4. Maintenance

No Comment

5. Funding

A society that turns its back on taxes is already face down in it’s grave.

6. Other Comments

No Comment

Comment Form Answers Page 24

2035 REGIONAL TRANSPORTATION PLAN OPEN HOUSE COMMENT FORM ANSWERS

Thank you for participating in this Open House for the 2035 Regional Transportation Plan. We appreciate learning your priorities. Please provvide your thoughts on the following:

1. Non-Motorized (e.g., Bicycle, Pedestrian) Transportation Plan

I want to ensure north/south and east/west bike commuter corridors are prioritized over “fun ridees.” Also excited about the 31½ overpass and 18 Rd overpass.

2. Transit Plan

No Comment

3. Roadway Plan

No Comment

4. Maintenance

No Comment

5. Funding

No Comment

6. Other Comments

No Comment

Comment Form Answers Page 25

2035 REGIONAL TRANSPORTATION PLAN OPEN HOUSE COMMENT FORM ANSWERS

Thank you for participating in this Open House for the 2035 Regional Transportation Plan. We appreciate learning your priorities. Please provvide your thoughts on the following:

1. Non-Motorized (e.g., Bicycle, Pedestrian) Transportation Plan

Very positive for attracting visitors (Riverfront Trail) as well as local recreation.

2. Transit Plan

Still very little transportation to/from higher concentration of retired people – still a “low income” orientation in specific areas except for dial-a-ride in some areas.

3. Roadway Plan

No Comment

4. Maintenance

No Comment

5. Funding

No Comment

6. Other Comments

No Comment

Comment Form Answers Page 26

2035 REGIONAL TRANSPORTATION PLAN OPEN HOUSE COMMENT FORM ANSWERS

Thank you for participating in this Open House for the 2035 Regional Transportation Plan. We appreciate learning your priorities. Please provvide your thoughts on the following:

1. Non-Motorized (e.g., Bicycle, Pedestrian) Transportation Plan

Better commuting options for cyclist especially north/south (corridor on 7th to botanical gardens). Orchard Avenue for east/west.

2. Transit Plan

No Comment

3. Roadway Plan

No Comment

4. Maintenance

No Comment

5. Funding

No Comment

6. Other Comments

No Comment

Comment Form Answers Page 1

Grand Valley Bikes P.O. Box 1123 Grand Junction, CO 81502 [email protected] www.grandvalleybikes.org

December 15, 2010

Ken Simms Mesa County Senior Transportation Planner 525 S. 6th Street Grand Junction, CO 81501

Dear Ken,

We appreciate the opportunity to submit recommendations based on the 2035 Regional Transportation Plan’s current draft. Our comments are based on feedback from Grand Valley Bike members and our bike transportation survey from 2009-2010, which features specific and general comments culled from conversations, emails, and tabling activities over the past two and half years. We enjoyed participating in your initial information gathering sessions this spring and have appreciated the dialogue and information that has been shared with our group during the planning process.

Grand Valley Bikes (GVB) is a 501c3 non-profit organization whose membership consists of citizens, cyclists and motorists working toward significantly increasing non-motorized transportation in the Grand Valley. We seek to collaboratively engage public and private stakeholders through outreach, education and fun, in order to increase bicycle accessibility and connectivity, improve cycling infrastructure, advance bicycling and traffic safety, and encourage enforcement. Bicycle and pedestrian commuting is an affordable and healthy way of traveling to schools, jobs, and stores. By improving our bicycle infrastructure across the Grand Valley, it will provide families, students, and other individuals with safe reliable ways to get to their destinations via bicycle. Please accept and fully consider these recommendations and comments when you are finalizing the motorized and non-motorized projects in the final Regional Transportation Plan.

Grand Junction needs multiple north- south corridors and arterial routes that are safe and accessible for bicycle commuters of all ages. We strongly feel that 1st Street and 7th Street need to be prioritized for improvements.

1. 1st Street – This would be the first and only continuously striped north-south corridor. The existing low volume and speed of cars combined with a relatively low price-tag makes for an irresistible bike route. Currently at #16 in The List, GVB would like 1st Street included in the top ten non-motorized improvement projects. 2. 7th Street – Survey says this is the most frequently bicycled road, yet the fourth-most- difficult place to bicycle. It would connect suburban areas, school zones, business districts,

and downtown to Riverfront Trail and is a great urban north/south corridor. Would probably require infrastructure changes and therefore include a higher price tag.

When looking at east -west corridors, Orchard Avenue is an arterial that needs improvement so students, families, and commuters can have safe bicycle transport to their destinations. When combined with E ½ Road it connects Clifton, Mesa State College, St. Mary's Hospital, and the Mesa Mall area. It was voted the 2nd most-bicycled route in the Grand Valley Bikes survey, and respondents also identified the need for continuously striped lanes for this long-distance and established bike route. Currently at #10 in The List, GVB would like to see this rise to the top five. It also must be noted that Elm Avenue, east of 12th Street, is a great east - west arterial.

Throughout the Grand Valley there are many projects that need simple and relatively inexpensive improvements to become continuous bicycling routes. We feel strongly that these projects should be prioritized over large and expensive improvements:

1. Continuous 4 ft. bike lanes on Orchard Avenue. 2. Widening Grand Avenue immediately west of 1st Street would create a safe bike lane through the five-way intersection and provide continuity from shoulders on Grand Avenue to the bike path on Broadway heading west. 3. Striping and maintaining bike lanes on Broadway/Hwy 340 where shoulder space is already provided, and adding shoulders/bike lanes where none exist now to provide continuous shoulders along its length, such as eastbound between the Ridges and Country Club Park Drive. 4. Continuous 4ft. bike lanes on Elm Avenue. 5. Connecting 10th Street bike lanes with Cannell Avenue in order to intersect with Orchard Avenue.

Our organization supports the improvements to the Riverfront Trail and believes that a continuous riverfront trail through the Grand Valley and (beyond) will address some core commuting and connecting routes in addition to providing stellar recreational opportunities. However, the Riverfront Trail is multimodal and its primary function is recreation. By establishing viable and safe alternative routes for non-motorized commuters, the Riverfront Trail can remain a safe multimodal recreational trail.

As we have highlighted those on-street trails that should be prioritized in the 2035 RTP, large numbers of our survey participants suggest that off-street “greenways” have the most favorable conditions for and are most inviting to bicyclists, and should be increased in the Grand Valley. GVB is most concerned with providing citizens an alternative to driving to their destination, and many of the off-street trail projects emphasize pleasure rides versus a non-motorized commuter route. Below are the off-street trails that provide a commuter routes and we believe should be at the top of the list.

Riverfront Trail (Palisade to Fruita) Leach Creek Crossing (24 Road) Beehive Drain 31 Road/ Lewis Wash Little Salt Wash

We also respectfully request that any and all off street trails added have safe egress and ingress routes provided for cyclists traveling in both directions. One example is the bike path on the east side of northbound Redlands Parkway. Connectivity to the bikepath and Riverfront Trail is good for northbound riders, and extremely dangerous, if not illegal, for southbound riders coming from 24 Road. Suggesting that cyclists travel a half-mile out of their way by using the Riverside Parkway cloverleaves is unrealistic and defeats the purpose.

Throughout our surveys, conversations, and GVB meetings our members have identified several other projects and problem spots that they feel should be identified and improved as soon as possible. While some of these projects are complex in scope, and may be a part of different planning processes, we think they are suitable for the 2035 RTP.

1. Intersection at 1st Street & Grand Avenue – According to our survey this is the fourth-most bicycled area and also the fourth most-difficult to bicycle through. This intersection is used by many mountain bikers and road cyclists to access the many recreational opportunities west of the Colorado River.) This intersection is part of a route that provides access to greenway trails, workplaces, businesses, and schools. This intersection must accommodate bicycles because it is used by bicyclists; historically, currently, and surely usage will increase in the future. Most cyclists are increasingly concerned for their safety each time they use this intersection.

2. Canal Trails in the Grand Valley – While these are in most of the adopted 20-year plans, and municipalities are willing to cover liability, for various reasons their widespread development and usage is stalled. Many communities such as Denver, Boulder, Fort Collins, Phoenix, and Eugene Oregon, uses portions and whole sections of canal roads for safe and reliable commuting routes. We would like to see these trails identified as a potential project in future years.

3. All routes to and from public and private schools should have safe and accessible non-motorized routes. As District 51 may have to cut bussing in future years’ budgets, it is important to give families and their children safe biking and walking access to schools.

4. Other notable projects are constructing Trails along the drainages of Adobe Creek and Big Salt Wash and the Old Spanish Trail from Riverfront Trail to Fairgrounds and Delta Confluence Park

As the Grand Valley prepares for unknown fuel costs, and cuts to county, city, and school district budgets, it is vital that we have affordable safe transportation options such as bicycling. Because the Grand Valley is already a world renowned destination for mountain biking, road biking, and hiking, we should provide all users safe access to these trails by foot or bicycle.

We know that planning transportation is a large and daunting task at times, and we appreciate all of your communication and openness to our group and our members. Please accept and fully consider our recommendations. We appreciate this opportunity to comment and appreciate Mesa County’s commitment to addressing the circumstances and values related to the non-motorized users of on- and off-street trails.

Sincerely,

Jason Wedemeyer Grand Valley Bike Board Member

Elizabeth Collins Grand Valley Bike Board Member

Jocelyn Mullen Grand Valley Bike Board Member

*******

Name: Karen Wesnitzer Email: [email protected] Sign Up: Check Here to Receive email notifications

------There is a temp left turn lane east & west bound Constitution at Marksheffel. There is not a left turn arrow; usually 1 vehicle per light can turn left. This needs to be corrected.

Submitted by 155.70.39.45

Mesa 2035 RTP Comment Form

Name: Billie Mobley Email: [email protected] Sign Up: Check Here to Receive email notifications

------Could most of the road construction and lane closures in the county and within the cities and communities be scheduled for nightime instead of daytime during heavy traffic periods?

Submitted by 98.127.155.196

Mesa 2035 RTP Comment Form

Name: Niki Yenter Email: [email protected] Sign Up: Check Here to Receive email notifications

------Please look into how to capitalize on our ag roots and use the canal banks as part of a trail system.

Submitted by 69.170.208.65

Push for better cycling in transportation plan

Please take some time to review and comment on the 2035 transportation plan at http://www.2035rtp.com/site/.

I have enjoyed cycling in the Grand Valley almost 30 years, have commuted to work and cycled in most major U.S. cities and many other countries. We taught our children to use a cycle as a vehicle. We consider teaching them to feel comfortable riding in traffic as an essential skill, just as we taught them to brush their teeth, handle firearms safely, respect the law, honor our country’s heritage, etc. This skill has made them competent, respectful drivers.

As a physician, I have covered many hospital emergency rooms and have seen the trauma of bicycle-car interactions. As a physician health plan executive, I have watched the growing health risks of inactivity (e.g. obesity, diabetes, etc.) affect our population, especially our country’s children.

I know that funds for non-motorized transportation infrastructure are often seen as less important. But when looking at the larger picture, infrastructure for walking and cycling has significant, health, economic and tourism benefits. As this information is published, more communities in the United States and other countries are now carefully investing in pedestrian and bicycling infrastructure and education. We have seen this expansion firsthand.

We must build and educate so that cycling is easy, available and safe for our population. We need to invest our limited resources in basics so that our citizens can easily ride to work or to the store and our children can safely ride to school - basic corridors that cross our community. Many may not be aware that a multi-use paths are certainly no more safe and often less safe, than correctly riding on regular streets.

I want to thank the 2035 RTP Committee for their hard work and and listening to our input. G. Manning Grand Junction

I'm a Grand Junction resident. I live at 1925 N. 6th Street. I'm writing with a few comments that I hope you'll consider as part of the transportation plan update. First, Grand Junction has a wealth of irrigation ditches currently inaccessible to pedestrians. This seems like a huge waste. The ditches could be a wonderful amenity for Grand Junction residents seeking walking, jogging, or bicycling routes around town and from town that don't parallel busy motorized routes. Ditches are amenities that other communities have utilized to improve quality of life, recreation opportunities, and to as new alternative transportation routes. Other communities have found ways to deal with the liability issues. Grand Junction should too. Second, Grand Junction needs to get serious about prioritizing cycle lanes and promoting biking connectivity throughout town. For example, we could use more east-west and north-south bike lanes. 7th street would be a perfect north-south corridor. Adding a bike lane to Orchard and slowing car speeds is another great idea. Third, bike friendly streets should have traffic lights at major intersections. For example, 3rd is now considered a north-south bike travelway, but crossing North and Grand is not easy at certain times of day. Finally, GJ should contemplate reflectors along streets to designate bike lanes. I often see drivers venturing into local bike lanes as though they really aren't aware that they are supposed to demarcate a bike-specific part of the roadway.

Thanks, Peter Hart

I wanted to take the opportunity to send my comments on the last 2035 RTP open house information provided. The opportunity to participate is appreciated.

1. On a big picture level, I want to share my concern that cycling is being pigeon-holed as a nice recreational past time to be accomodated where possible. However, I believe it is critical that there be a paradigm shift in how bicycles are viewed. Bicycling is not simply an leisure time activity to be pigeon- holed in the “recreation” category, but a viable alternative means of transportation to be developed and encouraged as one tool to reduce traffic congestion.

2. "The List" of 32 priorities does not adequately prioritize north -south or east-west corridors, or connections to exisiting bike routes which will improve the commuter -unfriendly feel of riding in the city.

3. On an individual location basis the following locations/intersections are nightmares for cyclists and need improvements: a. 1st and Grand. There are shoulders on Grand and a bike path on the north side of 340 and no safe way west bound through the intersection. b. 12th and North. There are shoulders and bike lanes on Gunnison turning north on 12th, and then you get to the intersection and 'gee sorry, you're out of luck...' c. Redlands Parkway and 340. Eastbound on 340 turning onto Redlands Parkwqay, and then crossing South Rim there are no lane markings and you're in no mans land. Stripe and sign Please !! d. Horizon Drive under I-70. Bike lane striping disappears and again, you're on your own.... e. non-continuous shoulders along 340. For example, eastbound between Ridges and Country Club Park Dr.

4. From a non-construction standpoint: a. requiring bike accomodation to be part of construction zones, b. requiring contractors to return shoulders to pre construction condition or better. For example, Ute Water is working in the shoulder on westbound 340 right now, and the shoulder is a mess. Chances are they will leave it that way, and I'll have to be in the traffic lane because the shoulder is no longer safe for me on my bike. c. egress and ingress along the Riverfront Trail near the Botanical Gardens and Bananas. People, including the railroad, drive along the bike path, crack it, and then cyclists are out of luck when it falls apart and there's no $ to maintain it.

Thanks,

Jocelyn Mullen 2027 Charis court Grand Junction, CO 81507

Mr. Simms: As an avid cyclist in Grand Junction who rides both for pleasure and as a means of transportation and is involved with various cycling groups here in the Grand Valley, I would like to submit comments on the 2035 Regional Transportation Plan. I believe that there is opportunity for much improvement for bicycling in Grand Junction. The community already has an established group of recreational road riders and mountain bikers, but often these same cyclists are hesitant to also use their bikes as a means of transportation around town because of safety concerns.

I commute from downtown out to Horizon Court, off of Horizon Drive. There is no direct, safe route for my commute, specifically no direct north-south corridor. I typically use the bike lane downtown on 10th, weave through Cannell Ave. and other side streets to reach Orchard Ave. and connect to the bike lane on 15th. This route involves one particularly bad intersection: at 10th and North. In fact, back in September, I was sideswiped by a car turning right onto North as I was trying to cross North on my bike. This intersection is unsafe for cyclists, pedestrians and even vehicles because it is off-center. I would like to suggest that a north-south bike lane be established stretching from downtown to Horizon Drive (options include extending the 10th St. bike lane, putting a bike lane on 7th St. or 12th St.).

Another area of concern for me is Horizon Drive. While there is a shoulder that is generally safe to ride in, there is at least one intersection that I feel is very unsafe: (heading out toward the airport) before the interstate overpass where vehicles get on I70-E. A cyclist must merge left, crossing the right turn lane onto the interstate, in order to go straight through the intersection. This intersection would be much safer for both cyclists and drivers if there was an established bike lane painted on the road. I hope that my comments as well as the concerns of other cyclists in our community will be taken into account in the Plan.

Thank you. Sincerely, Nina Pinette [email protected] 1009 White Avenue Grand Junction, CO 81501

Hi Ken,

As the phase II of the transportation plan gets underway, I’d like to express a few thoughts on behalf of the Town of Palisade, and one or two of my own as well. As you may be aware, I am leaving the Town of Palisade and for that reason have been somewhat scarce over the last month or so. I’ve got a lot of things that need my attention here as I close up my other projects.

As far as the Town of Palisade and our interest in maintaining a solid pedestrian/bicycle friendly town, we see the potential for some FASTER funds as an ideal way to address some of those goals. Specifically, there are areas within Town which suffer from lack of access, connectivity and even aesthetics. I know I’ve discussed at least a few of these with you, however it still may be beneficial to bullet them out.

1. The Railroad right of way cuts right through town… is there ANY way we could spearhead a movement for some rails‐with‐trails program that would make access laterally along those tracks feasible? It would be safer, more aesthetic and very heavily used. 2. Elberta is none too bike friendly and in fact, lacks even sidewalks in many areas. A connection between I‐70 and Highway 6 would be great. 3. Some bike path between Riverbend park and downtown Palisade would bring people into town, as well as get residents to the great amenity much more easily. (This will be extra important once the connected bike path goes all the way the G.J.!) 4. Some connectivity between Palisade and the designated paths in East Orchard Mesa. (I know that some if this is in the works, but it remains of great importance.) 5. Even if the riverfront trail becomes a reality, some connectivity along highway 6 into Clifton would be wonderful. Having spent 5 weeks in the summer of 2007 riding that route (and repairing flat after flat), I can certainly attest to the need for this personally!

I’ve Cc’d Scott Lewandowski on this email. He is an administrative intern and will be with the Town of Palisade as he works on his Master’s degree. I understand his thesis may focus on transportation issues and thought that his inclusion into this discussion would be valuable. What is more, he is staffing the town’s Recreation Advisory Committee and may bring some valuable insight from that group as well. Scott, Ken. Ken, Scott.

In closing Ken, I’d like to make a short observation, plea, or soap-box statement about how I view the 2035 plan. I know the comment period has passed for the first phase, but my comment s really don’t hinge only upon a particular phase.

I know that there was some discomfort and maybe even dissatisfaction with LSA during the first phase of the project. I realize that their public outreach may not have had the desired effect. To me, this came as little surprise. There can be little hope for deep public involvement in a project that appears to have forgone conclusions and no sex appeal. I realize that is putting it bluntly and harshly, but my efforts to point that out seemed to have little impact before so I feel inclined to try again.

A room full of engineers and planners can easily point out needs for roadway maintenance and expansion well into the next decade. They can educate the public as to the cost of infrastructure, transit programs and the limitations of land use and/or land rights as a way to promote other programs. None of that is leading. Where is the component of the 2035 RTP that educates people as to the benefits, (social, health, environmental, budgetary) of choosing other transportation options or of promoting and demanding mixed-use? As we played the chip game, we had four categories: maintenance, capacity, transit, bike and pedestrian. Where was education/marketing? How will a society begin to recognize what functions and what doesn’t function if they are not educated and enthusiastic about doing things differently?

I really care about the future of this valley. Despite the current economy, it’s guaranteed that it will grow dramatically. Many of the people who will come here will come with ideas and needs about how things functioned in other parts of the country where perhaps access and connectivity were more prevalent. Many will be retirees and will be looking for those quality of life elements here. Creating the collective will to promote that good will not come from surveys, it will come from selling the idea of an improved future to the residents of this valley.

I certainly am not saying I have the answer about how to do this. As I’d mentioned before, I think it will take money. However, money invested in this branding, marketing and selling of a new idea will pay dividends down the road. Nor do I believe, however, that LSA has the ability to market this type of plan. What I’m referring to goes far beyond a template, a ‘Project Logo Goes Here’ approach. It will need to be custom built, carefully crafted and professionally executed.

I know that you and the team are doing your best, and I salute that effort. I hope to have not offended in any way but couldn’t depart from my current position without at least expressing these views one last time.

Best of luck,

Nathan Boddy

Adele Nolan: How about a better taxi service and more bus availability?

Barbara Schmok Mardock: Please fix the new roads that after a few months you tear back up and then leave for years in a disjointed mess. When you make a new road make it big enough from the start, not a 3 lane road that will have to be widened in the near future.... Stop playing around with the speed limits.... 29 road should be 40 all the way from the bottom of the bridge, north across D road, and even when it turns to the east. We are not stupid and we get the speed trap, ticket idea... just stop that.

Bike lanes...make them, yes, but don't make them so far out in the lanes that I have to cross them to make a proper turn...

Demand that all corners with stop signs can be seen and have a good view. Demand homeowners cut back bushes!!

Finish widening B 1/2 road all the way. Make it safe.

Dan Chuy Emery: How about a bike share program like the one in Denver?

Cheryl Lamar: How about fixing Potholes the size of Cars.. Some good ovelay would be wonderful....

"Bike path between 20 1/2 and Redlands Middle School on Broadway - - - PLEASE"

Debbie Linville Eisemann: Lets make sure people who can't afford cars can get around. wW need to support GVT. We all benift if we help each other become independent

"More non- concrete trails; bike paths and bike lanes. The paths around the Audubon, blue heron, connected lake trails for instance are awesome yet the concrete replacements are too hard to run on, too many breaks, and unattractive. Bike pa...ths, for instance along Orchard Ave/ E1/2 are much needed. Between West Middle School and Central High School there must be over ten schools either directly on that road or proximate to it. How can we encourage kids to walk and ride their bikes to school when there is not even a safe way to do so?"

Posted by: Andrew Location: Grand Junction, CO on Mar 2, 2010 at 09:05 PM:

I think that it would be a great idea if GVT were to offer more routes and run earlier in the day and later at night and to also run more frequent instead of every hour. It's not enough. What about us people that work late? We have to walk home or find other arrangements. That's not easy to do. They need to be more convenient now not in 25 years or else they wont be here in 25 years, people will just stop using them. Lightrail through the busy areas and connecting cities would be a nice thing to offer. Regional buses for surrounding cities would be great too. Buses that cross paths with others would be great so you could get off one and immediately onto another instead of waiting another hour or having to use transfer stations which take longer to get there. If I have to go to Orchard Mesa why do I have to go downtown first? I should be able to get off at 29 & D road and within minutes not an hour a bus should come by and take me to Orchard Mesa. (More convenient more customers people)

Page 11 of 40 Page 12 of 40 Page 13 of 40