In Portland we're also in the process of replacing another bridge which as a single sidewalk less than 2ft wide directly adjacent to traffic, no barriers. It's dangerous and awkward to try and move past another person on foot on it, and near-suicidal to try and cycle across. So I will be happy to have 4ft for biking and walking, really.
They make a bridge without cars and they only give the pedestrians 4 ft for 2 ways? That's preposterous. What's wrong is that it isn't wide enough. Maybe I can get an upvote by someone from Europe where they have bridges that are wide and pleasant to walk across.
For what it's worth I live in Europe (though I am from the states originally), and I don't see what's the matter here really. Space looks to be reoughly evenly distributed between cyclists and walkers. Of course, most of the bridge is used by rail, but I imagine that was a design constraint.
I'd love it if the bridge were wider, of course, but even so this seems a lot better than the usual treatment cyclists and walkers get.
