Spectacular new cycling and walking bridge across River Trent in Nottingham planned

(Interested as I spent part of my youth in Nottinghamshire and have crossed Trent / Lady Bay bridges countless times.  Long time now...)

One cheer for this - it's not nothing, and routes to / from green space / "quiet routes" between places are obviously needed.  We're still heading in the wrong direction in general (see transport budgets etc.)  We should pay attention to links between smaller places too (like this example).  Otherwise everyone just gets in the car (and mostly they still do - where it's easy to drive, Brits drive).

HOWEVER all the buzzwords about "sustainability, lowering carbon emissions" etc. bug me.  (Almost bad estate agent technique - say the exact opposite of the truth).  I reckon this will have minimal effect on current journeys.  I'd imagine you can demonstrate this simply through a back-of-envelope capacity calculation (even with very optimisic assumptions and allowing for cycling and walking being higher capacity modes).  Does it even really address the immediate locality's projected future demand for active travel if the area is being redeveloped?

That's leaving aside that to make a difference in the immediate future this has to tempt people to change mode.  It's about half a kilometer from the current "desire line" e.g. Trent Bridge and 200m from Lady Bay...

As you and others have noted it's a not-super-convenient shared-use feature   There are several flaws which have been identified in this thread.  I'd say it's basically "for walking" * and walkers have to put up with cyclists (probably very few, who knows though) and vice-versa.  It's tempting to see "providing for cycling" in these as "if we fix it so people don't complain about accessibility we can shut up the cycling lobby too!"

If we walked the walk rather than just talking big about active travel, sustainability, lowering carbon emissions etc. I'd expect to see something like removing motor traffic (but with bus exemption?) from Lady Bay Bridge.

* Note - this can work - in NL they often - but not always - seem to build longer bridges only marked up for cycling (e.g. without a separate pedestrian area).  However (a) "cycle infra" generally means "wide" - to accommodate side-by-side cycling in both directions and (b) cycling tends to predominate and (c) it's always legal to walk on the cycle path.

Thanks for the reply. I enjoyed the report on the Dutch bridge.

I note that it is in some ways similar - the deck is 4.5m wide compared to 3.9m for the new one in Lady Bay giving 3.5m effective due to the railings.

The Dutch also has a honking great bridge-supporting 0.8-1m wide structural pole that the whole structure dangles off coming straight through the middle of the cycle track !

For me, I think if convenient this should create new links locally - I have covered Lady Bay bride. Trent Bridge is not that brilliant either.

This will be Nottingam City's third walking / cycling only crossing - I agree with the poster that another one on the Beeston side would be helpful.

On the journeys, I would perhaps think more about journeys and routes that DON'T happen, and now can.

I'm reminded of that church in Altrincham where the Vicar said his driving congregants might not come anymore - but the cycle-ped crossing bridges a 20k a day A-Road that slices his parish in half with no current crossings within 500m. Now the 40% of disabled people and 25% of non-disabled people who do not actually have driving licences can get to his church far more easily.

What's mindblowing about NL is that the first example I found - the Willem Letschertsbrug is only 200m at its farthest from the main road bridge (Bergsebrug) which itself has a proper Dutch cycle path on either side (at least in 2023 per Google maps).  Not only that there is another bridge about half a kilometer to the West, and that in turn ALSO has a cyclepath (bi-directional in this case, usual Dutch quality and width).  This is between two rather small places - the biggest of them about 2/3 the size of West Bridgford - which is smaller than Nottingham!  (To be fair, the river may be a bit smaller than the Trent...)

What's the useable width on the proposed bridge?  Sorry, see you'd noted that.  The Dutch example above has 4.5m between the railings (vertical) which from screenshots looks luxurious.  Though it narrows as you say (this looks more like "style" at work...) this is just at one point and as it's in the middle this is where you'll be slowest also.  Still looks wide enough for side-by-side cycling on either side of it.  No issues with tight turns on entry / exit, odd kinks in paths and it looks fine for accessibility / no hazards you can fall down!

EDIT - misplaced that, this should be in reply to your reply...

Perhaps the other example is more comparable - the Nescio bridge in Amsterdam (designed by a London-based consultancy!)?  Connects som areas which are currently being developed.  This one appears to be higher and wider though.

This also have a pedestrian staircase (but have a walkway marked - colour only though not level change).  However that's separated from the cycleway and has a 180 degree turn at the top so e.g. out-of-control pedestrians or errant cyclists are not likely to fall down it!

Not sure the exact dimensions but here it says 5.5m (but that might be the widest dimension of the deck, not the usable width?)  Given that it's got a pedestrian area I suspect that may be about right (the railings lean in slightly but are at the edge).

Uses more land for the ramps (due to extra height) but that avoids a sharp turn at the end of the bridge.

Of course the next bridge downstream carries a major high-volume/speed road (so no cycle lanes - indeed no cycling) but the one after that (Amsterdamsebrug)?  Yep - cycle paths either side.

All good and lovely but that'll be 5 crossings in Nottingham. What is really needed is a bridge across the Trent between Clifton and Sawley - I'd imagine that it'd have more use with universities either side. 

Unfortunately they're still seeking permission for gravel extraction for an area south of the river - opposite Attenborough Nature Reserve.

Funding is a combination of 

1 - Pre-approved active travel funding (before the time when it was cut off at the ankles by the Govt) for a bridge in aiui that general area (3 possible sites were identified).
2 - Encouraged, as you say, by the landowner one side.

The Council took advantage, and we have this project.

mcmahonsport wrote:

This bridge is not needed.

Which means you need to look at who in the council is connected to the architects and/or to the final appointed bridge builders... Follow the money, as they say.

Where is the cycle lane on Lady Bay Bridge? I see a grotty looking, narrow, footway with no indication that it is shared use on the bridge itself or its approaches.

https://maps.app.goo.gl/fTXdPWmAxkzM4XiJ6

I seem to remember Nottinghamshire Police as one of the forces that loves fining cyclists for the serious crime of riding where they technically shouldn't.

Designed perhaps by architects who haven't cycled since they were children?

Also - just looking at visualisations - baking in conflict as usual because it's shared space and it looks barely even wide enough for a proper cycle path. Of course in the UK because"no one cycles" and there may not be a ton of pedestrians (because "everyone drives" and some drive distances not much longer than this bridge) by self-fulfilling prophecy it will probably not seem too inadequate...

Also, while bridges to connect to eg. recreational areas are good, what we desperately need in the UK are not "spectacular" bits of infra in somewhat isolated grandeur. We need thousands of boring, cheap-but-just-expensive- enough bits of cycle infra that don't just connect point A and point B but form routes - indeed networks of routes. And by "routes" we're not talking Sustrans-NCN-style ("possibly passable, on MTB in a dry summer") or "quiet streets" (eg. round the houses, where "it was easiest to send cyclists"). The routes need to go where people go - eg. generally where the cars go now.