I've tought about something. Pedestrian safety did pay a

>>17825820
>interupting the car traffic above or below them.
Traffic would still need to be interrupted in 95%+ of the time ie: crossroads

>>17825830
Yes, I know that, but I meant not interrupted by pedestrians. And of course it wouldn't be something implemented on comunal roads or small streets, but for bigger, populated streets it might be a convenient option for both walkers and drivers.

>underground passages instead of crosswalks
Who's gonna build them, kiddo, you?

>>17825885
People pay taxes for road maintenance, you know?

>>17825820
yeah, no. i dont want to be forced into a small underground tunnel where negros can jump me. thanks anyways, m8.

>>17825902
>the government spending money in a legitimate manner

kek

File: infrassdirir.jpg (57KB, 480x587px) Image search: [Google]

57KB, 480x587px

>>17825902
>government
>in charge of infrastructure

I would rather not have under funded pedestrian bridges/underground passages all over the place.

>>17825820
you do realise how much groundwork you'd have to do to build dozens of subways/underpasses in every city? The city would be brought to a standstill and utilities would have to be rerouted, resulting in loss of power/gas/running water for tens of thousands of people at a time.

Bridges are just as retarded. You'd have to make them very steep to allow larger vehicles to pass under but you'd also need to make them not that steep so disabled/elderly people can use them. It's not feasible at all. They'd also use almost all of the pavement space