Issue acknowledged.

This was cleaned today.

Issue acknowledged.

This was cleaned today.

This signal replaces an almost normal RYG type signal. Originally it was a full RYG, stopping Pearl Street for the same crosswalk, and dwelling in east-west green otherwise. Cars exiting the courthouse driveway on the south side of this signal had no signal facing them. They would look both ways, then proceed. Cars on Pearl Street would see these cars exiting while Pearl Street was green, get offended, and honk their horns, thinking that exiting cars were running a red light. To make this signal appear less like a regular light, and more like a sporadically used signal, the bottom section was changed from a steady green to a flashing yellow. This follows what is used in Main Street in Winooski for their fire station. This solved the problem for the courthouse driveway, but had an unfortunate side effect. Flashing yellow is a very "look at me" indication. When this, or steady green, starts to be taken for granted, and blend into the background, drivers would often run the light when it changed. Same thing would happen occasionally for the RYG light on N. Champlain at the school driveway. Long periods of not changing caused it to blend into the background, with a change to red sometimes not being seen. This was all that was available when these signals were built. RRFBs and HAWKs were not invented yet. RRFBs work best at midblock crossings. HAWKs are a new idea that overcome some of the previous shortcomings. Starting dark, it blends into the background. Dwelling in this state is fine. The first thing that happens when a button is pushed is a flashing yellow. Which is how it ought to be. A high-visibility indication warning of an imminent change. Then steady yellow as with a normal signal. Then not one, but two reds. Don't know where this came from when they were figuring these things out, but it appears to be very effective. After the solid double-red, and at the end of solid walk, when pedestrians have established themselves in the crosswalk, the reds go into a wig-wag flash, indicating it is possible to proceed, but only after a full stop and if the crosswalk is clear. There is no "freebie" here. Stopping is not an option, as it is with an RRFB, if the way is clear. With turning movements possible from both directions on Pearl Street, a HAWK is much more effective at protecting the crosswalk. Much more effective than an RRFB, and much more effective than the previous signal, in which red lights were seen being run multiple times while taking counts there. Button locations would be the same whether HAWK, RRFB, or the older style signal. What does a better job here? What we have now with a mandatory stop? An RRFB where stopping is optional? Or the previous signal with frequent red light running? Signal-wise, this is probably the best treatment for this difficult location. The Department of Public Works has resolved this request. Thanks for helping to keep Burlington a great place to live and work.

Thanks for fixing this request!

Thank you for reporting this issue. The Department of Public Works will now begin its investigation into the matter.

Can be closed, this was fixed with new sidewalk installation.

This section has been repaired. The Department of Public Works has resolved this request. Thanks for helping to keep Burlington a great place to live and work.

This is a very busy part of town. In addition, many of the people who walk there, near the bus station, don't read English.

Thank you for reporting this issue. The Department of Public Works will now begin its investigation into the matter.

DPW staff will revisit conversations with the contractor about proper signage and sidewalk closure procedures.

RRFBs (rectangular rapid flashing beacons) are a "medium" traffic control device. They advise of a possible hazard, in this case a pedestrian crossing the road which might require a stop. The duty for drivers to stop is the same with or without RRFBs. When pedestrians step into a crosswalk drivers must stop and yield. Pedestrian proceeds, crosswalk clears, and another pedestrian can immediately step into the crosswalk requiring drivers to stop again. After traffic stops for people crossing, it would be nice if there were a little delay to let traffic roll a little bit before the next pedestrian "demands" a stop from traffic. This courteous give-and-take is not a legal requirement (yet) to my knowledge. There was and still may be a Vermont statute prohibiting pedestrians from stepping out in front of moving traffic at a crosswalk, that underscores basic physics and common sense. The equivalence in driver duty at a crosswalk, with or without RRFBs, probably explains why there is no setting within RRFBs to prevent an immediate reactivation of the lights. The Department of Public Works has resolved this request. Thanks for helping to keep Burlington a great place to live and work.

Thanks for fixing this request!