Protesters have prevented work on the bus gate scheme for a third consecutive night.
Protesters have delayed the start of work to install a bus gate that would restrict traffic from using a city centre bridge.
Cambridgeshire County Council said work was meant to begin on Mill Road, Cambridge, on 11 November, but contractors had been left unable to begin.
The council said Automatic Number Plate Recognition (ANPR) cameras had been vandalised and that any criminal damage would not be tolerated.
"Everyone has the right to a peaceful protest, however the safety of our workforce and welfare of other road users is paramount," it said.
Cambridgeshire County Council said any interference with equipment at the site could be referred to the police
A BBC reporter at the scene on Wednesday evening said about 60 protesters were there and had prevented any work from taking place for a third consecutive night.
He described the protest as peaceful, but said contractors had removed bollards from the road and left the scene at about 19:15 GMT.
The council said any interference with equipment could be referred to the police.
"We would urge those wishing to protest to do so peacefully and not to interfere with the works as this may present a risk to the workforce and other road users," it said.
The council initially said work to introduce the bus gate would last until 25 November with overnight closures between 19:00 and 06:00 GMT.
The decision to introduce the scheme was agreed at a special highways and transport committee meeting in October.
Most vehicles, including private cars, would be banned from the bridge.
A local campaign group had previously challenged the authority when it wanted to introduce the restrictions and argued that fines would using the bridge would create traffic elsewhere.
In August the council dropped a legal battle with local campaign group, Friends of Mill Road Bridge.
Previously, Pamela Wesson, chair of Friends of Mill Road Bridge, said on Facebook the battle felt like "a David-vs-Goliath struggle".
She said the group's legal challenge included the allegation that the council had "made a mistake of fact in relation to how the decision affected individuals with disabilities".
Comments