These bridges appear nice, but in their current state they wouldn't be used in the Netherlands, because they do not seem to support bicycles.
The at-grade crossing there is closed for up to 40 minutes per hour, because the railway carries both freight (to/ from a major port) and passenger trains. If you're in a vehicle too bad, "Long Queue. Turn Engines Off" as the signs say but if you're on foot the bridge means you don't need to care too much about that.
You might be wondering: Why isn't there a road bridge? It's an industrial estate, so any road bridge needs to carry large goods vehicles, articulated trucks and so on, which means a fairly large concrete structure with up and down ramps occupying a large footprint and there's nowhere to put that. It's also next to a tidal river, dig down and it'll flood, further into the city they just tunnelled the entire railway under the park, but that is not cheap.
Though doubt making it less steep and longer would really be an issue.
>The next phase of the project will include a ramped version of the bridge to support those with impaired mobility.
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.
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.
Often they are hundreds of years old, so any new construction needs to allow the public to cross over them. When I was growing up, one of my neighbours did a lot of research into footpaths in the area, and uncovered a lot of forgotten footpaths. Some of them even went through people's back gardens, and as they were legal rights of way, they had no choice but to open them up (apparently there's a way to move them now for cases like this now).
These bridges are needed because a legally mandated footpath crosses a railway line. That's why so they're lightweight - because they're often very rarely used - they're there mainly for legal compliance.
You can't cycle on these kinds of footpath - both legally but also literally because they're usually just mud and across agricultural fields and you would have to cross stiles. You couldn't cycle to them even if you wanted to.
So no there is no cyclebridge, because nobody would be trying to cycle over them.
First you berate someone for talking about bicycles because "footbridge" is in the name, then you ask how people would get to "this bridge", which makes no sense because there was no specific bridge in the first place, then when asked what bridge you are talking about you jump to "cultural context".
The context is that nobody would want to bicycle over these bridges in general because where these bridges are generally used it is not legally or physically possible to get to them on bicycle.
The point therefore is your question doesn't make any sense if you know the context.
Look at the other comments saying the same thing as me if you want another perspective to help you understand if you're struggling.
I don’t know if you’re a non-native speaker? ‘This bridge’ means ‘this bridge design’.