Footbridge meeting announcement

I’m glad that I was ultimately able to attend the meeting on the 6th July because, without having done so, I would not have understood the many constraints within which Town Council and the designers must operate if we are to get a bridge at all. It has somewhat changed my views, particularly with regard to costs and what was leading the design. I’m particularly grateful to Jack Konynenberg and Mark Lovell for patiently explaining the many constraints and the reasons why the design had evolved to what is now proposed.

I don’t think these factors have been very well disseminated by the Town Council outside of the public meetings. Because of their timing these are hard, if not impossible, for many people to attend. It was noticeable, for example, how few working families with young children were represented in the audience – an important group of potential new bridge users and significant consumers of “bridge width” and beneficiaries of “level access”.

Answering my own questions from before this enlightenment then:

1. Practical details:

a) Width – whilst at 3.2 m the North end of the bridge perhaps approaches the minimum required width (perhaps the height of the set-back in the parapets can be reduced to 1.2m?) at only 2.5 m the South end of the bridge is still far too narrow. The recommendations of the Department for Transport for Local Cycle Infrastructure Design already highlighted by Andrew Nicolson (http://www.dft.gov.uk/pgr/roads/tpm/ltnotes/ltn208.pdf section 8.5) are clear.
b) Level Access – I’m pleased that this appears to have been resolved since the design exhibited in the Library although the seemingly pointless constraint on bridge clearance imposed by the Environment Agency (given the location of the existing Town Bridge) leads to a rather ugly series of ramps on the Library side.
c) Joined up Cycle Network – still poorly joined up with, I suspect, the width and geometry of the approaches on the Library side not meeting the DfT recommendations mentioned in a) above.
d) Future use – this will not be low volume. As someone mentioned at the meeting: hundreds of new residents in Kingston Mills. Also sustainable transport policies to triple the existing number cyclists.

2. Design, aesthetic and cost (if I noted down what Mark Lovell said correctly):

a) Utilitarian design – very approximately £300k to build, £300k to maintain over its lifetime but would not get planning permission.
b) Other options – extremely limited by all the design constraints. Proposed design £850k to build “low” to maintain (but no actual figure given)
c) Worth it – yes in my view given the 92% who want a bridge and 95% who say they would use it.

It appears that the many constraints have lead to limited options and a design which is highly contentious because of the height of the bridge support(s). However I don’t believe that all of the constraints are entirely immoveable and some could be moved given the 92% support of the community. For example:

A. Getting agreement for the Southern landfall to be closer still to the Library, reducing the span and the height of the supports.
B. Using a little of the car park for level/cycle access and/or bridge supports.

Losing a few parking spaces would not be a bad thing in a sustainable future and some of the market could be moved. Behind the bus shelter would be just one example with the taxi rank moved/suspended if necessary. It might lead to a less contentious design and a compromise that satisfies a greater number of people.

–
Simon Hetzel