Bill Ward Director of Permitting and Inspections assigned this issue to SCormier

An interim solution would be to take down the "No Right on Red" sign, but the correct solution is to leave the green arrow on when there is no pedestrian crossing. This change will improve traffic flow considerably on the busiest route into Burlington, by not stopping a lane of traffic that there is no reason to stop.

Created RFS#5606 and gave to Traffic for investigation

This is an extremely important pedestrian crossing. As a driver I consider the "pedestrians only" interval to be a good thing since drivers routinely violate pedestrian right of way when they have the option of turning right. At many locations pedestrians have to wait even when there is no car present so I expect the same treatment as a driver.

If the pedestrian crossing should be activated even when no one has pressed the button, then so be it, but, if that time is for pedestrians, the crossing light should go on and it doesn't. There are few pedestrians that cross at this location, and there is a button to allow them to cross safely.

It is the worst of both worlds to stop BOTH pedestrians and traffic for no reason,.

Thanks for the clarification. I'll take a look at it. I have seen large numbers of pedestrians using this crossing so it is important to get this right.

I agree that upper Main Street, in particular, is frightening for pedestrians, essentially cutting the main traffic corridor into Burlington through the center of the UVM campus. What a shame they didn't bury the road when the State had the money. I will never understand Peter Clavelle's logic in opposing that.

In the end this is about separating cars from pedestrians, allowing both to pass safely, and using the resources most efficiently and safely.

In this particular instance, the resource (time) is not being used as efficiently as it might be.

Yes, the commenter is correct. It is inefficient to stop westbound right turning (WBRT) traffic without anyone using the north crosswalk. And yes, the WBRT arrow should stay on for lack of that pedestrian button being pushed. This is a rare situation that our current signal software, as capable as it is, cannot fully handle. The structure and number of phases (movements) available prevent us from creating this correct, ideal operation. The eight phases and the flexibility built into the software lets us do almost anything you could imagine control-wise. Throughout the rest of Burlington, with two exceptions, it is more than enough to get the job done. Here, we need two more phases and one more ring (signal jargon) to accomplish this.

With the current software, we have two choices of where to put the north crosswalk phase: simultaneous with the westbound left turn, where it is now, or simultaneous with the eastbound through movement. Both choices would fully protect the crosswalk from conflicting traffic, which is the intent. The vendor of the equipment, when setting this up in 1999-2000, made the correct choice of pairing the north crosswalk with the westbound left turn, which is shorter time-wise than the EB through phase. It was and is a good design based on the constraints of the signal software.
I am aware of a signal software with the structure needed to make this correct operation possible. Unfortunately, it resides on a 90's era proprietary machine that is not compatible with the signal equipment in Burlington. I am looking for a software that has this structure and that can run on a 2070, a more capable, expensive, non-proprietary machine that *is* compatible with our equipment. The 2070 costs 3-4 times more than the controllers we currently use.
It is desireable to start thinking about an upgrade path for our signal controllers, where the operational needs warrant it. This is the type of thing a new software should be able to handle. I am still looking. Dave Garen Traffic Signal Engineer

Thank you Dave for the comprehensive description of the problem and of your dilemma in trying to resolve it. I strongly object to a system in which pedestrians at a well-used crosswalk have to push a button and wait for permission to cross while cars have regular free passage through the intersection, however that is a bit off topic and I want to honor your efforts in answering Ted's question. Thanks for your time and thanks Ted for bringing this up.

Thank you, Dave, for your highly intelligent review of the issue. Who knew the limitations of the traffic signals? agree that pedestrians should always be a considerable concern, though that corner does not have many.

How about simply taking down the "No Right On Red" sign? Or replacing it with an automated sign that lights up with the pedestrian crossing go sign, such as is on South Winooski Avenue heading south at Main Street? Either change would improve traffic flow and eliminate the silliness of stopping traffic in the right lane for no real reason. I

The other problem with the right lane of Main Street heading west near South Prospect is that drivers are unaware of the reduction of Main St. from two to one lane hence stop in the right lane with their left blinker on so as eventually to stay on Main Street, but meanwhile blocking traffic onto South Prospect St.

Has there been any progress on the traffic signal for Main Street and South Prospect Street?

Hundreds of cars are tied up daily by the unnecessary red arrow prohibiting turns, and the less-than-prominent signage pushing through traffic into the center lane.

Other than new software, removing the "no right on red" sign or putting up a lighted one are two approaches. More prominent signage to move through traffic to the one through lane would also help. This is the main thoroughfare into Burlington and ought to have some priority, it seems.

Ted Hobson

New controller is installed and running as of this morning. West bound right arrow will now come up with west bound through traffic if no demand on the north crosswalk. - this issue is closed.

Thanks for fixing this issue!

You are very welcome