01-16-2017, 12:32 AM
Because requiring pedestrians to cross a road twice is time consuming and a strong disincentive to either following the rules, or being a pedestrian. It's also limiting, as pointed out, if there are developments built on the other side, then they won't have sidewalk access. The redundancy argument follows for many roads with sidewalks on both side, it isn't a valid argument there either. You must think about this as a daily user, if every day, you had to wait an extra two minutes just to cross a road one way, and then back, just to get to your destination. To me, this is what is meant by "dignity" in transportation.
Frankly, I think *not* having a sidewalk invites people to walk on the tracks. I don't see how having a sidewalk would do that. As for crossing the road, it is in fact entirely legal to cross a road not at a crosswalk. But regardless, I don't think it would encourage road crossing either, if I'm *already* on the East side, there's no reason not to cross at the intersection, the issue occurs when I'm on the west side.
Frankly, I think *not* having a sidewalk invites people to walk on the tracks. I don't see how having a sidewalk would do that. As for crossing the road, it is in fact entirely legal to cross a road not at a crosswalk. But regardless, I don't think it would encourage road crossing either, if I'm *already* on the East side, there's no reason not to cross at the intersection, the issue occurs when I'm on the west side.