footbridge

Trains often need viaducts due to those restrictions but a multi span footbridge over a swamp is a viaduct as is the Disney monorail.

Hop on the T, get off at the Charles/MGH stop, and walk across the footbridge to the Esplanade.

The only access is via a narrow footbridge leading to a 486-step staircase that goes 70m underground (230ft).

The next scenerio has you and a coworker (a very large fellow) working on a footbridge above the tracks.

Succinctly, the libertarians are thinking of the switch, and Singer is thinking of the footbridge?

You are standing next to a large man on a footbridge spanning the tracks.

It was built in 2001 and won the International Footbridge Award in 2002.

There were mass protests on Western Avenue in London when the first footbridge was built over a road, forcing pedestrians off the roads.

The only way to save the five people is to push this man off the footbridge and into the path of the trolley.

That's a long way from practical for a small footbridge.

That is like telling me that I can get across the river in a nuclear submarine instead of walking over the footbridge.

Perhaps building a footbridge over the interstate a bit down the road could help, but then it adds a detour...there's a tradeoff in each of the cases.

Most people say "Yes." Then we have the footbridge dilemma: Once again, the trolley is headed for five people.

To professional engineers who have a duty towards public safety, it's not enough to build an unsafe footbridge and hang up a sign saying "cross at your own risk".

In Exeter[1], we still have roughly 70% of our Roman wall[2], and there is even a pedestrian footbridge over a road where part of the "bridge" involves walking along the top of the wall's remains.

It's a bloody terrible algorithm from the London maps I've seen - "most beautiful" takes you down Kingsway (which is utilitarian at best); "most quiet" takes you across the Millennium Bridge (extremely busy footbridge).