I feel like a lot of people are commenting without much context. These bridges are for legal footpaths. They’re usually in the countryside. The paths aren’t maintained they’re just a legal right of way through the countryside and they have a legal obligation to put a bridge so as to not obstruct it for people on foot. It’s not like a trail as in the US. The paths aren’t even remotely wheelchair accessible for miles either way they’re usually mud. You would have to climb over stys to get to the bridge. The bridge would be the least of your problems.

And the point of this is to be able to close high-risk at-grade crossings of the line, especially those with relatively poor sight lines or where the necessity to maintain sufficient sight lines is an impediment to increasing the line speed.

It wouldn't matter. In (most of?) the US, anything you so must meet all the latest code, so if you aren't rich you line in a tent (I'm exaggerating slightly, but you are forbidden from a building a 1970s car, house, etc)

The US ADA requires reasonable accomidation, which is wishy washy, but lots of new construction nature paths in hilly terrain just have steps, because there's no room for a ramp and an elevator would be unreasonable.

Even new construction train stations don't always get an elevator to go over or under the line to the other platform... although they do get a long ramp and a ramp on the platform to load if the car floors are above the platform.

If these crossings are really in the middle of nowhere along muddy footpaths, I think you could get away with no ramp in the US, too.

For example is the Appalachian Trail ADA compliant?

If the government built a train station on the middle of the trail, then they would literally be required to build ADA-compliant ramps down to the mud.

> If the government built a train station on the middle of the trail

I don't understand why people are so deeply muddled about this.

There is no train station.

It's for bridges over the railway in the middle of nowhere, far from train stations, along country footpaths.

You cannot traverse the footpaths on a wheelchair, so you cannot even get to the bridge in the first place.

Looks like they are aiming to remedy that:

>The next phase of the project will include a ramped version of the bridge to support those with impaired mobility.

I understand your feelings but engineering is an iterative process, what they created here was a prototype with 3 goals: - Lower cost - Quicker install time - Aesthetics

Now the team can go back with the lessons they learned and modify the design.

One thing I noticed upon a second reading is how much they were emphasizing the remote monitoring capabilities. >is that the bridge will feature built-in monitoring to monitor usage and maintenance needs.

The cynic in me reads this as yet another step in cutting staff for inspection but it may possible that they are planning on deploying this style bridge to more rural locations where there may be unofficial crossings of hiking trails.

> - Lower cost - Quicker install time - Aesthetics

The disability issue is orthogonal. You either develop with it in mind or just ignore it and hope it will go away at a later stage. This is wrong!

That is a much better argument.

The previous comment was about not handling bicycles in the Netherlands. For the Netherlands it's important that it handles bicycles properly, by being able to cycle. Pushing a bike or getting off isn't an acceptable solution (for NL).

Though doubt making it less steep and longer would really be an issue.

That seems quite reasonable for the NL. At least for myself, here in the States, I'd be happy to push my bike for a few feet rather than have to go miles out of my way or ride on a super busy street to cross a railroad. Of course, if we still had railroads in the US. But crossing busy roads is an issue here.