A £9 million cycling bridge has been branded 'not a necessity' by cyclists

If they'd like to spend the money putting a pretty (or ugly) bridge over the Ribble a few miles to the east of Preston I'd be very grateful and say nice things about them on the internet

Me too. It'd mean I don't have to go into Brig or Penwortham or down poxy Gib Lane to get out to Longridge or Ribchester 😁

It is a lovely bridge, though a bit of  a sharpturn at one end with awful sight lines, and very little warning to pedestrians that there may be cyclists using it.

Looks great light up at night.

It is good for NCN 4, which links up to NCN 5 at the Kennet, but is a bit out of the way for getting from Reading to Caversham with narrow approaches on the Reading side.

And there's the problem. If its a bit out of the way for getting from Reading to Caversham then its in the wrong place as it was made to link Reading and Caversham.

Its a nice looking bridge. It makes good sense for pedestrians getting into town but really doesn't seem to add anything for cyclists A decent bike lane on of the existing bridges would have been far more useful.

Disagree slightly.  It makes a big difference to anyone coming from the station direction and going to Caversham or vice versa, albeit with the compromised sight lines noted by ktache, and the narrow passage to Vastern Road .  It lacks enough coherent feeder routes especially from under the railway on the Vastern Road side.

Its a much safer way to cross the the Thames in Reading than any of the alternatives.

I'd disagree its out of the way for getting to Caversham as its slap bang between the 2 road bridges that go there, but the onward routes do need thinking about.  I was dubious about the mixed use - as was the local Cycling UK chapter - but on balance its wide enough for bikes and people to share.

Was it the best use of the money - probably not, but its an improvement over what came before.   

Sometimes perfect is the enemy of good enough.

Secret_squirrel wrote:

Sometimes perfect is the enemy of good enough.

Well, sure, but there's a hell of a lot of Reading that's nowhere near the Thames. What did that get? What could the substantial amount of money put into one bridge have done for cycling all over Reading? 

I totally agree, but bear in mind if the DfT turn up with money for a bridge then a segregated lane out to Shinfield (to pick a random example) is already off the table.   Can't remember if it happened in the Reading case - have a suspicion it did -but you get my point.

I was involved in the campaign to get the bridge segergrated. Overall it's a good bridge rather than the awful Reading Bridge or George Street Bridges.

The Reading side isn't great you're put onto a very narrow path which over the summer is highly congested. 

I think there are or were plans for the route to continue through the now defaunt SSE building onto Vastern Road. 

But of course I they spend x-million on a "cycle bridge" then they can forever after give cyclists the brush off, they should be happy and shut up, they've had their Christmas present. Next step is to say there's no point spending more [motorists'] money on cyclists because, see, they're never happy.

You've missed out the step where they ban cyclists from using it as they've had some reports of peds being almost hit by speeding cyclists.

nah theyll put up one of those cyclist dismount signs on it because the barriers wont be tall enough on the sides for people on bikes, to stop you falling over the side and its a safety hazard

Reminds me of the Cheese-grater bridge behind Bristol Temple Meads station where they had the bare metal floor which became a slippery hazard in the wet. They first put up warning signs (for peds and cyclists) and eventually got the walkway treated with something more suitable for an actual walkway. Incredibly the designers won awards for it which is impressive considering they forgot that it rains in Britain.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-bristol-32402603

hawkinspeter wrote:

Reminds me of the Cheese-grater bridge behind Bristol Temple Meads station where they had the bare metal floor which became a slippery hazard in the wet. They first put up warning signs (for peds and cyclists) and eventually got the walkway treated with something more suitable for an actual walkway. Incredibly the designers won awards for it which is impressive considering they forgot that it rains in Britain.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-bristol-32402603

And Perot's Bridge in Bristol, which is on a council defined strategic cycle route; they didn't specify or design it for cyclists, so they banned cycling.  I took them to the ombudsman and won.  Then there was Valentines Bridge, designed with parapets too low, a surface not suitable for cycling, and initially it had "cyclists dismount" signs, then they put in barriers to force cyclists and pedstrians together in a narrow gap; it got an award from Sustrans.  Then followed the cheesegrater, that was three out of three bridges in central Bristol which completely failed to be suitable for the traffic using them, and they didn't learn the lessons from the first or the second.  They appear to have got it right for the fourth though.

No it isn't funny.   It is easier, much easier, to deliver cycling facilities when there is no disruption to car users associated with it, and when the money is coming from the DfT.  It is cynical in the extreme.   We see it in Oxfordshire too -  we have had a good improvement to some towpath in Oxford, which is of course easier than giving road space to bikes.  We have a new bridge planned in Oxford, where not needed.    And a cycling scheme in Witney which doesn't improve any of the junctions but does promise some excellent white lines.

There is supposedly going to be an enforcement team set up in the DfT to ensure that cycling money is spent properly.  I won't hold my breath.