Darwinkgo
Active Member
Every addition like this is not a huge cost increase. But they all add up, in capital and operating costs. Can kiss the ability to have an unmanned station goodbye as well.
Toronto Eglinton Line 5 Crosstown West Extension | ?m | ?s | Metrolinx
- Thread starter W. K. Lis
- Start date
AlvinofDiaspar
Moderator
If they truly wanted to control cost, they should have gone elevated - that way, all they need are short pedestrian bridges - that's what other cities does. But nope, instead we have to go underground where there is no real reason to - and end up with a higher cost end product that is, kept as is, less convenient for end-users.
AoD
Last edited:
Steve X
Senior Member
Only in North America. Highway take too much space and requires high maintenance. What I mean is “avenues” with 6 traffic lanes and 60km/h oppose to 4 lanes and 40/50 km/h.
dullturtle06
Active Member
Well in most places around the world. Their highways are usually elevated and tunneled with 2 lanes in each direction, keeping the footprint small. In ontario for some reason we have a requirement to build highways with 100 meter rows, or not build anything at all. In my opinion instead of widening the 401 forever, we should build a limited network of 4 lane highways in Toronto for quick movement. Then make all the road and street safe for everyone and slow cars down on those and increase density around them.
W. K. Lis
Superstar
superelevation
Active Member
How about those driving giant suvs which can easily kill and maim have a modicum of responsibility?
asher__jo
Active Member
Exactly. The ignorance of people driving several thousand pounds of steel death machine, blaming a pedestrian for a road network that completely ignores anyone that isn't driving alone also.
Rainforest
Senior Member
I've seen quite a few irresponsible drivers and quite a few irresponsible pedestrians. Neither group is blameless.
AlvinofDiaspar
Moderator
Wrong is wrong - but level of impact also matters.. A pedestrian being foolish most likely only kills himself; a car driver being foolish, by virtue of the inherit dangers associated with operating a vehicle - may not only kill himself, but others along with him. We have licenses for different types of vehicles for a reason.
AoD
Steve X
Senior Member
I object that statement. A driver would have to swirl to avoid a pedestrian darting out of nowhere and would cause a chain collision that might get the driver or/and others killed while pedestrian survives.
AlvinofDiaspar
Moderator
Steve X
Senior Member
A good example is that TTC artic bus smashed a pole cause some idiot decided to dart across the roadway. A million dollar bus wasted and a whole bunch of injury occurred upon riders. It would been much cheaper to just run the idiot over. An autonomous bus in the future might have done just that. Then again, who knows especially after yesterday's accident.
TTC bus crashes into hydro pole, sending 24 people to hospital
There no indication of serious injuries, Toronto police says, and the cause of the accident is still being investigated.
www.thestar.com
PL1
Active Member
I'm a runner. In the evenings, I run with strobe lights front and back I shoulder check every intersection, not because I don't have the right of way, but because most (yes, most) drivers are inattentive. On my 40 min commute, I routinely have to avoid drivers making illegal manoeuvres, usually turning right (while looking left) at a stop sign or light without actually stopping. Many, if not most, cars now have illegally tinted windows, so that you cannot see that the drivers are (illegally) using their handheld cellphones.
It's 100% incumbent on the driver to follow the rules. Even if I am following rules, I can be killed. The driver gets nothing but a $500 fine.
So please stop with the both sides stuff.
It's 100% incumbent on the driver to follow the rules. Even if I am following rules, I can be killed. The driver gets nothing but a $500 fine.
So please stop with the both sides stuff.
Rainforest
Senior Member
It is certainly true that a driver has and should have a much greater burden of responsibility, operating a potentially dangerous equipment (the car), while the pedestrian "operates" their own body that can't possibly cause a lot of harm to other people.
The legislation appropriately reflects that. A driver can be sent to jail if they caused serious harm, or get a large fine and / or driver license suspension if the harm didn't occur but was at risk of occuring. A jaywalking pedestrian only can get a small fine, and even that rarely happens.
Rainforest
Senior Member
No, will not stop with the both sides stuff.
The problem is that some walking advocates attempt to demonize the drivers, and use that to absolve the pedestrians from any responsibility for their actions. Nothing personal, I do believe that you follow the rules and in your case, irresponsible drivers are the cause of risk. That doesn't negate the fact that there are irresponsible pedestrians out there and they create risk on their own.
A couple of weeks ago, I've seen a woman crossing a busy street half-way between the traffic lights, with a stroller and probably a baby inside that stroller. How is that acceptable?