New interchange not solution |

New interchange not solution

On Jan. 18, The Union carried an article regarding a new offramp lane for the Brunswick interchange, citing congestion on the freeway as the reason for development. In addition, there have been a number of articles regarding the proposed changes to the Idaho-Maryland interchange, again citing traffic flow and freeway access issues.

This suggests that we already have two interchanges that are in need of attention, and yet it seems that the focus is on the development of yet another interchange at Dorsey Drive, for the sum of $12.7 million.

New interchanges do not always solve the problems of existing interchanges, and also shift congestion and traffic flow problems to local roads that suddenly have to cope with traffic entering and exiting the freeway.

I believe that it would be better to spend this money on solving the problems of the existing interchanges, rather than tackling the issues with piecemeal changes. For instance, instead of just widening the ramp at Brunswick, why not take a look at the whole interchange and the interaction of the interchange with the multiple sets of traffic-light-controlled junctions in close proximity?

Phil Massam

Grass Valley

Support Local Journalism

Support Local Journalism

Readers around Grass Valley and Nevada County make The Union’s work possible. Your financial contribution supports our efforts to deliver quality, locally relevant journalism.

Now more than ever, your support is critical to help us keep our community informed about the evolving coronavirus pandemic and the impact it is having locally. Every contribution, however large or small, will make a difference.

Your donation will help us continue to cover COVID-19 and our other vital local news.


Start a dialogue, stay on topic and be civil.
If you don't follow the rules, your comment may be deleted.

User Legend: iconModerator iconTrusted User


See more