In Dresden much has changed over the last 28 years. Communism collapsed¹, democracy blossomed and the city was reborn. But one thing has remained the same - a traffic light which has stayed red since 1987.

德累斯顿在过去的28年里发生了很大的变化。共产主义崩溃，民主发展都市重生。但有一件事仍然不变——交通灯自1987年就是红灯。

The traffic light stands at the intersection² of four different streets just south of the river Elbe. It instructs drivers who want to drive straight ahead to wait. Those who wish to turn right into Güntzustraße can do so at any time as long as they take due caution.

易北河河的南面的十字路口是四个街道的红绿灯。交通灯指示司机开车向前直行，随时可以右转进入Guntzustraße，只需司机们小心谨慎驾驶即可。

But anyone who waits to cross into Gerokstraße could be waiting a long time - almost three decades if they are patient enough.

但等待进入Gerokstraße的司机可能需要等待很长一段时间，如果司机们够耐心的话，都等了近三十年了。

That this traffic light has never changed to green is no accident. It has been planned so by the city administration.

这个红绿灯从未变成绿色，并没有坏，而是城管就是这样规划的。

And the total cost of maintaining this one traffic light over almost three decades runs to roughly 150,000. Every year maintenance and running costs come to 5,500.

这一个红绿灯三十年的维修总成本几乎大约需要150000。每年的维护和运营费用达到5500。

While this may seem nonsensical and a waste of money to your average motorist, the Dresden authorities can explain in exact detail why the light never changes colour.

这个红灯貌似既没有什么意义，又浪费司机的钱，德累斯顿当局会为你准确详细地解释为什么这个红灯从不改变颜色。

And their explanation might show another habitat that dies hard - a love of convoluted³, self-defeating regulation.

他们的解释可能多余——弄巧成拙的监管而已。

“The administrative⁴ regulation as set out in section 37 paragraph 2 of the of the transportation⁵ regulations alludes⁶ to the need for an exact plan for traffic light signals,” a spokesperson told The Local.

“在交通法规第37节第二段行政法规中提到要求对红绿灯信号的计划要精确，”一位发言人对本报说。

The planning of the junction⁷ is based upon directives set out by The Research Institute for Street Transportation.

路口交通灯由街道交通研究所指导规划。

“Because the green light means ‘transport is free to go’ all the other lights in conflict to this one must show red. That also includes the light on Ziegelstraße.”

“因为绿灯代表‘自由通行’，其他所有与绿灯冲突的灯的颜色必须显示红色。这其中也包括Ziegelstraße的这个红灯。”

“The red light instructs: stop at the intersection. After stopping one is also allowed to turn right if there is a sign to the right of the traffic light that shows a green arrow on a black background. “

红灯指示：停在十字路口。如果右转灯信号在黑色背景中显示绿色箭头也允许右转。

“Because on Ziegelstraße one is only allowed to turn right, in accordance with regulation 27 section 37 of the transport regulations, we can do without using the traffic signal’s green light.”

“因为在Ziegelstraße路口的这个红灯仅允许右转，按照交通法规第37节第27条的规章，我们可以不使用交通信号灯的绿灯。”

All well and good. But why not simply do away with the red light? Would a sign not do?

交通灯全部显示。但是为什么不直接取消红灯呢?有一个信号不起作用吗?

“As long as Ziegelstraße has access to the junction, we cannot get rid of the traffic lights,” said the spokesperson. “Stop signs do not correspond to traffic light systems and do not fulfill⁸ the same set of regulations.”

[cn]“只要Ziegelstraße有路口，我们就不能取消交通信号灯，”发言人说。“停车标志不符合交通灯系统，也不履行同一套交通法规。”

So, we are all clearer for that then.

所以，我们都清楚这个问题。

But the truly puzzling thing, reports Berliner Zeitung, is that included in annual maintenance costs are not only replacement⁹ red light bulbs, but amber¹⁰ and green ones too.

但据《柏林报》报道，真正令人费解的是，维护年金不仅不含更换红色灯泡的费用，也不含更换琥珀色灯泡和绿色灯泡的费用。