Why oh Why does CT hate putting in left-turn lanes!?!

[Mergingtraffic]

http://www.ctpost.com/local/article/Traffic-disaster-zone-at-Routes-25-111-under-5397980.php

SO in 2011 a new fitness club was put in on a congested 4-lane road without turn lanes.  I have a feeling if this were TN or even NY, left-turn lanes would be automatic.

Plus if you look at the map below, which dates to before the shopping center was built, there is some space for a left-turn lane in the middle (although a short one) so why wasn't it put in?  The pavement is there.

https://www.google.com/maps/place/41+Monroe+Turnpike/@41.2893358,-73.2349948,115m/data=!3m1!1e3!4m2!3m1!1s0x89e8084be546420d:0xebb4cfb70e54d45c

Look at other widenings, US-7 north of Brookfield, past the divided portion, 4-lanes not many turn-lanes.

This happens quite frequently in this state. Why the hesitation?!

[Jardine]

As noted elsewhere here, UPS, and some other delivery firms eschew LTLs, maybe we all should ??

[Duke87]

Connecticut is notoriously unambitious and small-minded when it comes to road construction (and other things as well). There is an ingrained culture of not wanting to disturb the status quo unless absolutely necessary.

That area has also suffered from a nasty outbreak of sprawl recently. All those shopping malls on 25 and 111 around there? None of them existed 15 years ago. It's a goddamn curse.

[southshore720]

Looking at the 25/111 intersection raises my ire even more that the 25 Freeway was never completed to I-84...what a waste.  Thanks NIMBYs!   

[hotdogPi]

On Google, I see several left turn lanes on CT 25.

[Mergingtraffic]

Connecticut is notoriously unambitious and small-minded when it comes to road construction (and other things as well). There is an ingrained culture of not wanting to disturb the status quo unless absolutely necessary.

That area has also suffered from a nasty outbreak of sprawl recently. All those shopping malls on 25 and 111 around there? None of them existed 15 years ago. It's a goddamn curse.

Even though the status quo sucks.  Turn lanes are like night and day on the post road in Orange.  The 2WLTL does wonders, and it flows.

What's also odd, is that CTDOT uses design firms that work in other states that ARE ambitious.  But, when the design firms work on a CT project, they aren't. 

I also wonder if these developers pays off the STC, so that they don't get a "major traffic generator" status so they can skimp on the left-turn lanes or other improvements.

[kurumi]

Connecticut also dislikes:
* divided non-freeway routes (US 7/202 and CT 218 are the only two new ones in past 25 years)
* interchanges with more than the minimum number of ramps
* interchanges between non-freeway roads

[Alps]

Connecticut also dislikes:
* divided non-freeway routes (US 7/202 and CT 218 are the only two new ones in past 25 years)

CT 66 takes this to the absurd.

[Mergingtraffic]

Connecticut also dislikes:
* divided non-freeway routes (US 7/202 and CT 218 are the only two new ones in past 25 years)

CT 66 takes this to the absurd.

I heard (Middletown Press??) it was supposed to be divided but residents saw the plans on paper and freaked out saying it'll ruin the character and environment, so they took out the divider to make the road a smaller footprint.  Meanwhile, there's cars doing 55mph on that stretch.  There will be a nasty head-on collision there someday.  The same with US-7 south of Danbury. 
I mean, c'mon would a cement divider reaaaalllly hurt the community. 

[Duke87]

There is a major perception difference between four lanes undivided and four lanes divided. The former still looks like a surface street. The latter looks a lot like a freeway even if it isn't one. So the same people who rejected the CT 66 freeway of course don't want it to be a divided highway either, for the same reason.

This is classic Connecticut. Anywhere that's already covered in sprawl, you can't build anything because it requires using eminent domain on developed property. Anywhere that isn't already covered in sprawl, you can't build anything because the locals fear that building something will cause the sprawl to come there. And then when the sprawl comes anyway, the necessary road infrastructure to handle it isn't there and everyone sits in traffic.

[cpzilliacus]

This is classic Connecticut. Anywhere that's already covered in sprawl, you can't build anything because it requires using eminent domain on developed property. Anywhere that isn't already covered in sprawl, you can't build anything because the locals fear that building something will cause the sprawl to come there. And then when the sprawl comes anyway, the necessary road infrastructure to handle it isn't there and everyone sits in traffic.

Such behavior is not limited to Connecticut.  I see it frequently in the Maryland and Virginia suburbs of D.C., and in the District of Columbia itself. 

[froggie]

This is classic Connecticut. Anywhere that's already covered in sprawl, you can't build anything because it requires using eminent domain on developed property. Anywhere that isn't already covered in sprawl, you can't build anything because the locals fear that building something will cause the sprawl to come there. And then when the sprawl comes anyway, the necessary road infrastructure to handle it isn't there and everyone sits in traffic.

Such behavior is not limited to Connecticut.  I see it frequently all across the country.

FTFY

[Duke87]

Nonetheless, some parts of the country are better at building to allow for future growth than others. Places that expect it and welcome it rather than trying to stop it.

[Mergingtraffic]

This is classic Connecticut. Anywhere that's already covered in sprawl, you can't build anything because it requires using eminent domain on developed property. Anywhere that isn't already covered in sprawl, you can't build anything because the locals fear that building something will cause the sprawl to come there. And then when the sprawl comes anyway, the necessary road infrastructure to handle it isn't there and everyone sits in traffic.

Such behavior is not limited to Connecticut.  I see it frequently in the Maryland and Virginia suburbs of D.C., and in the District of Columbia itself. 

I'm sure all areas have it to some point....but it seems more prevalent in CT statewide.  CT rarely uses 2WLTLs, jug handles, divided non-expressway highways etc.    I-84 Exit 31 in Bristol is 4-lanes at the stoplight but only 1-lane to exit at the gore.  Other states probably would've used a 2-lane exit at the gore with 1 of them being an optional lane.  To me, that's an example of being Unambitious.   

Or, the state's answer to the cancelled I-291 beltway...a single lane ramp from I-84 EB to I-91 NB.  It couldn't even be a 2-lane ramp!?  Again, unambitious.

There isn't even a beltway in New Haven....Worcester, MA even has one.

Richmond at least has a beltway.  VA has problems but they have a better base line of infrastructure that CT never got to begin with...and it's not because it's old New England that was developed from the get go.  CT was like TX in spots, most of the land was farmland (check out Historic Aerials from the 1930s) so it's not that there wasn't space it's because they don't think "big" around here.
I could go on and on...

[Mergingtraffic]

Connecticut also dislikes:
* divided non-freeway routes (US 7/202 and CT 218 are the only two new ones in past 25 years)

CT 66 takes this to the absurd.

I heard (Middletown Press??) it was supposed to be divided but residents saw the plans on paper and freaked out saying it'll ruin the character and environment, so they took out the divider to make the road a smaller footprint.  Meanwhile, there's cars doing 55mph on that stretch.  There will be a nasty head-on collision there someday.  The same with US-7 south of Danbury. 
I mean, c'mon would a cement divider reaaaalllly hurt the community. 

And at least put in center rumble strips like they are doing with other roads as a pilot program.  I'd say US-7 in Ridgefield and CT-66 in Middlefield qualify.  Even the Super 4 CT-2 by Foxwoods.

http://www.ct.gov/dot/cwp/view.asp?A=2135&Q=543118
http://www.ct.gov/dot/cwp/view.asp?A=2135&Q=543118