A cycling group says it has "serious concerns" about proposals for a town's busy level crossing.
This comes after design plans were revealed last week by East West Rail (EWR) for London Road Crossing in Bicester.
These include proposals to close the crossing and for traffic to be diverted using existing roads and upgraded local road diversions.
EWR said this is because the minimum barrier down time at the level crossing would "likely exceed" 32 minutes per hour which would create "significant safety concerns".
An accessible replacement crossing - either a footbridge or underpass - has been proposed for cyclists, pedestrians and other users.
Bicester Bike Users' Group (BBUG) has slammed a proposed bridge.
A spokesperson for BBUG said: "The options for pedestrian and cycle access are now a priority, but we have serious concerns about what is proposed.
“A pedestrian and cycle bridge over the railway could never be made accessible."
The group says the height of a bridge could be up to three times greater than an underpass.
However, EWR said the gradients for both options "meet all relevant standards and are very similar" and that "the height of the footbridge and depth of the underpass proposals are actually much more closely comparable".
“In addition, EWR have applied the design guidance for motorways and bridges which results in a slope which is twice as steep as recommended by the national guidance for designing cycle facilities," the spokesperson for BBUG continued.
“This would make it steep, long, indirect, and exposed, posing a gruelling challenge for most users.
“Climbing it will impose a huge burden on users, particularly disabled and vulnerable users, and it will fail to connect north and south Bicester.”
BBUG said the option of an underpass is “preferable” and has previously shared dimensioned concepts for London Road.
However, the group said it still has concerns about the railway company's design and said the EWR design shared "needs much more work".
“There are shortcomings in [the underpasses] design that we pointed out earlier, but have been overlooked," said the spokesperson.
“In particular, it would be better to cross between the two carparks rather than follow the line of the London Road so as to avoid disturbing the utilities.
"The proposed route of the underpass also does not make sense as most users will be travelling along the London Road into town.
“Significantly, it does not follow the main desire line for most users and EWR proposes constructing it where there are known to be a number of buried utilities.
"A location slightly further west would be much quicker and cheaper to deliver and would not interrupt the traffic while it is being constructed.”
"We have held meetings with Bicester Bike Users’ Group and are grateful for the designs they have submitted which we continue to review as part of this consultation process.
"We are aware of all utilities in the area and have been in contact with the relevant companies.
"Our design proposals are still in their formative stages and we encourage further feedback from everyone to help develop proposals which best meet the needs of the people living in, working in and visiting Bicester.”
EWR is holding a consultation event on Thursday, November 21 from 2pm until 9pm at the John Paul II Centre in Bicester.
Conservative town councillors Donna Ford, Nick Mawer, Sam Holland and Michael Waine have collectively expressed their disappointed with the proposals for the crossing.
They said keeping the crossing open to vehicles is "essential" to keeping Bicester "open, connected and thriving".
In response to this, a spokesperson for EWR said: "We recognise that changes like these aren’t always easy for everyone.
"We’re building a railway that will transform opportunities for people in Bicester and the surrounding areas by providing faster, greener and more reliable transport options.
"But there are other impacts too – which we are trying to mitigate."
The spokesperson added: "We are looking further at the alternative routes that drivers would take and are exploring opportunities to introduce upgrades to local roads, such as improvements to junctions, to help reduce journey times.”
Comments: Our rules
We want our comments to be a lively and valuable part of our community - a place where readers can debate and engage with the most important local issues. The ability to comment on our stories is a privilege, not a right, however, and that privilege may be withdrawn if it is abused or misused.
Please report any comments that break our rules.
Read the rules here