The state DOT plans to widen this section of Whalley, making it two lanes in each direction. Watch for an upcoming meeting convened by state Rep. Pat Dillon and state Sen. Toni Harp, at which DOT will explain its plans and hear from citizens.

why are there two traffic lights if there is only one lane?

I have no idea why there are two lights -- that's a good question. Maybe just in case one goes out, the other will still work, so there won't be more chaos than there already is up there.

in Massachusetts, where I'm from, usually it's one light per lane. but i've notived this tendency all over CT. i wonder who makes those traffic lights? anyone politically connected? why charge for one when you can charge for two!?

i appreciate the desire for one lane but the traffic would be backed up on the NW and N sides of the intersection at rush hour even if it doesn't make sense at other points of the day.

besides, there are two lights up at the E Ramsdell intersection, which leads drivers to create two lanes (because there are two lanes with two lights.)

i would rather see markers for two lanes than squeeze everyone into one. but there's probab;y not enough legal room to do so, hence your situation.

Its a single lane from the MinuteManPress store all the way to the area of "Tour Avenue" near the Subway/Dunkin Donuts/Fountain Street. Thus its the law and should be treated as a single lane until it has been changed. End of story.

Fine. But "thus" usually follows the presentation of actual evidence. Yet you merely restate an opinion. What is the evidence upon which you rely that "its [sic] the law."

I maintain that the sign is clear enough, but the two lights send a mixed signal. I wonder if "the law" has anything to state about the placement of traffic lights, too?

The two lights - which can be seen all over CT regardless of dual or single lanes - are for breakdowns. If one light blows out, theres another there to help. This common-sense-rule doesnt change just because a road may appear to be big enough for two cars side-by-side. If theres no makrings on the road indicating two lanes, its a single lane. Again, common sense and law.

Until they have successfully completed the design, it remains a single lane by law regardless of what the-general-public wants it to be, thinks it should be, or tries to make it. Follow the law and there should be no problem. If you get hit because someone else cant follow the law then the legalities are in your favor and have nothing to worry about.

The reason we have such traffic issues in CT is because people cant follow the rules of the road and make it all about themselves. THIS is why accidents happen in many many cases.

Until they have successfully completed the design, it remains a single lane by law regardless of what the-general-public wants it to be, thinks it should be, or tries to make it.

E, point me to an actual legal explanation for your notion that the two lights "are for breakdowns" (i.e., in a legal book that can be referenced) and I will (personally) be satisfied and illuminated.

I understand and am completely sympathetic with the notion that the law should trump personal opinion / "what the-general-public wants [the law] to be." But I have to tell you, that is a lack of clarity can ALSO be a liability for the state. Granted, here we have a merge sign, but this is not so in all such locations, e.g., further down Fountain St. toward Westville village).

Just point me to the place in the traffic code and I'll be thrilled. Because, in other places--much better attuned to traffic safety, etc., and more sensible places than CT--the counterintuitive "two lights = one lane" arrangement that you describe would not pass muster.

Regardless of the light-explanation, the explanation is in the road itself. If you do not see a white dotted or undotted line in the road then it is a single lane! Period! Law! They would not put lines in the road in some sections and not others just to p!ss us off and confuse us. They put white lines in the road when it is 2 lanes! Go back to drivers ed!

There are two lights for redundancy. Its a safety issue and in this case does not denote multiple lanes. Additionally, the lane is not legally wide enough for two lanes of traffic (approx 10-12ft per lane), nor does it have striping to suggest 2 lanes. look at the picture...

Thank you for the comment - finally! Someone else gets it.

The city should use road paint to delineate a shoulder and a driving lane.

The city needs to take steps to change the driving culture in New Haven. Everyone seems to be a fireman rushing to a fire or an obstetrician going to deliver a baby!

State DOT reconstructed the roadway to allow for two lanes of traffic in each direction.