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

Don't know why, but received this SCF just today. The 5-section head was installed late summer 2005. U Heights was being converted to a two-lane dual left configuration to help exiting Gutterson area traffic. The well-meaning intent was to help this left turning traffic by giving it a left turn signal. The downside is that this plan would have crippled capacity at this already difficult intersection. Yes, there is an inefficiency when the east crosswalk is activated, but not the west, from the point of view of left turning traffic. Turning on the left arrow during this time has two drawbacks. One, it holds up the oncoming UVM bus, which is the only vehicular conflict. If the bus is occupied by 12 passengers, then by numbers alone it equals say about 8 cars so we should get it on its way ASAP. Do not want to delay it with an arrow. Two, the arrow could only come up intermittently, not with the bus, nor with the west crosswalk. The gain from an arrow thus dwindles. The big political message we get about this intersection is to make it safe for pedestrians. While pedestrians shouldn't be crossing on solid don't walk, or starting their crossing on flashing don't walk, they do, which is a frustrating and difficult problem. During a left arrow, the west crosswalk would of course show solid don't walk. Ask the question, does an arrow help or not help pedestrian safety, when there are masses of people crossing both with and against the signal indications? An arrow would increase left turn vehicle efficiency by 8 seconds, sporadically, but at the cost of increased risk. Unless pedestrian volumes went way down, say due to a major bypass, it would not be prudent to add an arrow. Department of Public Works has resolved this request. Thanks for helping to keep Burlington a great place to live and work.