This is one of the downsides of exclusive pedestrian phases. Also, if you just miss a movement, any movement, regardless of how it is set up, you have missed it until the next time around in the cycle. A default walk works best when the signals are coordinated and run a fixed cycle length. Riverside Avenue signals run free - cycles can be long or short depending on traffic. We could run the north crosswalk with Riverside Avenue, but it would still require pressing a button. If you press the button while Riverside Avenue signals are green and side-street traffic is waiting, you would miss the opportunity until the next cycle. Almost where we are now. With side-street traffic there will always be periods where the north crosswalk stays on don't walk while Riverside Avenue signals are green, even when the button is pressed. Despite these limitations there is a slight gain in efficiency. People wanting to cross and getting a walk signal are guaranteed to make it across without Riverside changing and Prospect/Intervale going green. It will be nominally more responsive and intuitive. It requires separating out the field wiring and making a minor cabinet reconfiguration. A bit more work than just entering some timing values. This is an improvement request and will be reclassified as such.

This issue was recategorized from Traffic Signal Problems to Transportation and Parking Improvement Request.

Thank you for the detailed explanation. Since this crosswalk is on a heavily used multi-use path that sees a significant amount of downhill bike traffic, this creates a special safety challenge for people on bikes. You're currently given the choice between proceeding at speed along the crosswalk on the green light (against the "don't walk" signal), or stopping on the green and waiting a full cycle to get the walk signal. With no default walk signal given, there is never an opportunity to cross without stopping, which creates a question as to who legally has the right of way, which has resulted in numerous crashes at this specific location.
This might be a prime location for a bike specific signal that would sync with the primary traffic signal, so it is green when the light is green, red when it is red, etc.

If you are riding a bicycle westbound you would be considered a vehicle and can go concurrent, at least on the road, with the green vehicle signals. If you want to dismount for the benefit of a pedestrian movement you have that option too. If you are riding contrary to the dominant flow, meaning eastbound on the north side of the intersection, you will always have to use extreme care, because you are coming from an unexpected direction. You could never be given a safe green light eastbound without all other directions stopping, which is how the north crosswalk operates now. For this reason it is probably better to leave this as-is.

That makes no sense. There are plenty of intersections in the City where a green light and a pedestrian walk signal are concurrent in the same direction, and turning traffic needs to yield to pedestrians. In this case, turning traffic should (could) yield to bicycles and there could be additional signage indicating the need to do so (even though it is common sense & legal). I disagree that "it is probably better to leave this as-is" when this is a known issue where many people have been hit before.

If, as posted, "this is a known issue where many people have been hit before," at an already fully protected crosswalk, it makes no sense to increase possible conflicts by allowing simultaneous, concurrent operation with Riverside. It is certainly not desirable to add more signs and signals with additional possible and unexpected conflicts. The only conflict with the north crosswalk as it operates now is a westbound right turn, but only after stopping. Since concurrent operation does not get completely around the missed cycle problem, which was part of the original request, and since concurrent operation introduces additional possible conflicts, and because an allegation of safety is brought up, even though we have a fully protected crosswalk, it appears leaving the operation as-is would be the best option. The Department of Public Works has resolved this request. Thanks for helping to keep Burlington a great place to live and work.

Question: is this technically defined as a crosswalk or an off street bike path / shared multi use path? From a legal/liability perspective does a person on a bike need to dismount to have the right of way?

First question, not sure if there is an appreciable difference between the two at the subject intersection. Been a while, but the Burlington bike path where it intersects neighborhood roads in the north end had stop signs for the path. Stop signs were meant for bicycles. There may have been signs on the roads warning of the path crossing, and perhaps others advising to yield to pedestrians. If not for bicycles it seems reasonable that no stop signs would be there. Why stop signs? Between two relatively high-speed modes of transportation, bicycles and cars, intersecting at 90 degrees, one of three choices has to be made. Stop one, the other, or both. A choice was made that appears to be prudent and proper. Not advocating for or against it. What if there were stop signs only for the cars? Then you have to provide good lines of sight so stopped cars can see far enough and clear enough to safely proceed without fear of hitting or being hit. It is the fact that bicycles can go pretty fast, and therefore, from a driver's point of view, can appear to come out of nowhere, that mixing these two modes has to be done with extreme care. Second question, riding on Riverside Avenue it is possible to roll through, with the flow of traffic, without stopping, on the green light. The path to the north is controlled by pedestrian signals. To activate the pedestrian signals it is necessary to press the button, dismounted or not. In looking through the Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices (MUTCD), it does not appear to be the general duty of bicyclists to obey pedestrian signals. Bicycles are seen as vehicles and are presumed to be controlled by the applicable vehicle signals. But they are also presumed to be riding in the road, not on a separate path. There is a sign, R9-5 in section 9 of the MUTCD, saying, "Bicycles use ped signal." Other signs advise, "Bicycles push button for green light." So having to stop to get the right of way, while not necessarily ideal, is not unheard of. It would seem there are two choices. Ride on Riverside Avenue and follow the vehicle signals, or ride on the path and follow the pedestrian signals. If there is any doubt, installation of R9-5 signs might make this clear and unambiguous.

Ok, I get all that, and thank you for the discussion. But, given that in reality most people traveling on a bike either up or down the hill on the MUP are going to look at the green light for a parallel stretch of road and assume it is ok to cross the intersection, regardless of what the pedestrian signal says, how do we make it safe for them to do so?

It is completely impractical and unrealistic to expect someone on a bike to stop, press the beg button and wait a full cycle when the Riverside light is already green. Regardless of what MUTCD says is the right thing to do, sometimes reality is a bit more complicated. If you could plan for the actual behavior of people on foot, on bikes and in cars at this intersection in current conditions, what would you change to eliminate the current confict?

If people are running the don't walk signal, and assuming it is safe to do so, it is on them. If this situation is completely impractical and unrealistic then so be it. Better impractical (slightly inconvenient?) than unsafe. Follow the signal and rules or don't complain about the consequences. As an ex-urban bicyclist myself I have been there, done that, and taken similar chances in worse conditions than Burlington at my own risk. The scenario is an interesting design and logic challenge, and kind of fun to look at. Conflicting rules, geometries, and varying expectations from different people do not make a great environment for a perfect, fits-all solution, yet it is amazing what we can accomplish with what we have to work with. At the end of it all, in shades of gray, you have to feel confident about what you design and build. As stated above, I do not see a safe way that bikes can roll through eastbound non-stop without other directions stopping. When you mention other intersections where pedestrians can cross parallel with traffic in both directions, yes, because they are pedestrians - walking relatively slow, easily seen, and being expected in that environment. A moving bicycle is a vehicle, not a pedestrian, and can come up faster than an ordinary driver would expect. I cannot condone something I sincerely believe will *increase* the likelihood of collisions. Kind of funny (strange) that the more we try to regulate things "properly" to cover all scenarios the more difficult we find it is to do so. Maybe we should go in the other direction - less is more. I frequently tell people I don't have an answer right now and can't guarantee one in the future. Sometimes things percolate in the background and something later comes to light as a possible solution. As long we keep a sincere desire to solve real problems, it is all good.