Cycle campaigning

It is a hot topic in Reading, the council want to build a bridge over the river Thames, which will take at current levels 3 or 4 times as many cyclists as the council estimate and which won't have any capacity for future expansion. The local cycle campaign are mounting a strong campaign to get it segregated and wider before it gets planning approval.

The nearest road bridge has been subject to a vigorous campaign by the police to prosecute cyclists riding on the pavement because it is the second most complained about anti social activity according the the Neighbourhood Action Group survey, yet this pavement is nearly twice as wide as the planned bridge.

http://www.getreading.co.uk/news/local-news/drivers-cyclists-nabbed-police-swoop-6126678
http://www.readingchronicle.co.uk/news/roundup/articles/2013/10/05/93771-poles-apart-on-new-design-for-bridge/
http://www.getreading.co.uk/news/local-news/new-cycle-bridge-design-hopelessly-6137080#comments

Constrained bridges are, of course, not good news. Without seeing drawings, and not knowing cycle and pedestrian flows, I'd say 3.5m isn't an ideal width for sharing across a bridge. Is that the width at the pole?

Since widths on that bridge range from 3.5m to 6.75m, I assume you're not saying that the footways on the old bridge are 13.5m wide? How wide are they?

The question about 'segregation' here is quite a different one to on-carriageway segregation, as you're only talking about segregation from pedestrians, not motor traffic. 350 cyclists in the peak hour is quite a lot, so I'd say the bridge should be wider--but I assume it's already designed and engineered?

Delays in bridge building can be very costly.