142 Street Pedestrian/Cyclist Bridge - Confirmation of Vision & Principles/Concept Ideas
Consultation has concluded
Thank you for participating in the online engagement for 142 Street Pedestrian/Cyclist Bridge. The Forum and Ideas tools are now closed.
The feedback from the online engagement, including emails and phone calls from community members received by the Project Manager, will be used alongside technical requirements and City plans and policies to confirm the Vision and Principles, narrow down the Concept Ideas and develop concept options.
If you have any questions, please email: 142StreetBridge@edmonton.ca
Thank you for participating in the online engagement for 142 Street Pedestrian/Cyclist Bridge. The Forum and Ideas tools are now closed.
The feedback from the online engagement, including emails and phone calls from community members received by the Project Manager, will be used alongside technical requirements and City plans and policies to confirm the Vision and Principles, narrow down the Concept Ideas and develop concept options.
If you have any questions, please email: 142StreetBridge@edmonton.ca
-
Concept Idea 1
about 3 years agoCLOSED: This brainstormer has concluded.We would like to hear from you about the concept ideas for the bridge, including active transportation connections, open space amenities and landscaping.
Considerations:
- Most direct access to possible active transportation connections to the west
- Longest bridge length (cost)
- Possible overlap with Terwillegar Drive Expansion
- Furthest from homes on the north side but close proximity to backyards on south side
Questions:
- What do you like about Concept Idea 1?
- Is there anything missing?
- What improvements would you make?
- What amenities would you like to see near the bridge crossing and along the active transportation connections?
How to participate: Share your ideas and read what others have suggested. Show your support by ‘liking’ the ideas that inspire you the most.
John_Fabout 3 years agoOff-leash Dog park
There's about 4½ acres of city land between 142 Street and Whitemud Drive/Terwillegar Interchange. There's already a fence in place up against the berm and there are plenty of trees. If a new fence and gate was installed against the Whitemud Bend, it would be great for dogs to run free. There's already a garbage-can at the cul-de-sac, so city sanitation services are already operational in that location. It's a no-brainer.
5 comments45germsabout 3 years agoMakes the most sense of the 3 options
This option is the most direct alignment on the North side of the Whitemud. The biggest challenge of this Project is where/how to connect it to trails or streets in Brookview. once upon a time 142street was the main entrance to Riverbend (Brookside) so it can manage the bike traffic that the bridge would facilitate.
0 comment0Cjopangabout 3 years agoConcept 1 preferred to keep traffic a bit farther away from homes on 142 street but seems the most expensive option . Option 2 is 2nd choice
As a long term resident of Brookside , almost 50 years, I have seen a multitude of changes over the years. I would catch tadpoles where the Whitemud is now!! I am concerned about safety, trash, noise and late night crime. Crime at the end of our street has been quite an issue with cars loitering, drug deals, and break ins. I am in full support of this pedestrian bridge and am not sure of the perfect solution for everyone. Either option still means more traffic coming down 142st and into Brookview however, more eyes on the street may mean more safety. It also may mean more loitering in the trees in the park, more dogs off leash ( it is NOT an off leash area nor do I support one), and more risk for people using the park as it a well known coyote traffic area. I would love more signage regarding off leash bylaw, coyote warnings and more of a locked secure trash bin. I am opposed to a bike lane going down 142 street as many residents do park on the street as the alleys can be hard to access in the winter due to disrepair and the heavy garbage trucks that use them. If this is a multiuse pathway year round will we get regular roadway snow removal??? If people want access to the U of A and junior high school... will the bus route be reinstated for those that choose not to commute via walking or biking?? I understand with all projects there is an ART installation component ... will the residents be consulted?? I think everyone should have access to all of our beautiful parks and trails and I hope the city takes into account everyone's safety , residents and pathway users.
0 comment0Babelloydabout 3 years agoLonger and costlier
This option is a longer span than necessary, making the cost higher than necessary.
1 comment1Shelly Stevensabout 3 years agoPrefer plan 2 over this one.
Concept plan 1 might be preferred by Brookside residents with the placement of the bridge away from their homes, but the disadvantage is the bridge would then align with backyards in Bulyea Heights and also make the route unnecessarily longer for Bulyea Heights residents. Also opposed to the addition of the shared path along Bulyea Heights perimeter fence line (north of 40 Ave). The mature trees along the fence line currently reduce traffic noise from two major roadways. Bulyea Heights has an abundance of BCAL and City walkways that can connect with the pedestrian bridge, so this perimeter pathway is not needed. Plan 2 reduces cost and with a further cost reduction by removing the perimeter pathway, cost savings can be redirected to amenities. See my other comments under plan 2.
2 comments7 -
Concept Idea 2
about 3 years agoCLOSED: This brainstormer has concluded.We would like to hear from you about the concept ideas for the bridge, including active transportation connections, open space amenities and landscaping.
Considerations:
- Direct connection to 53 Ave Shared-Use Path
- Possible utility conflicts
- Close proximity to homes on north side and backyards on south side
- Close proximity to existing Homeowners Association walkway and shared-use path on south side
Questions:
- What do you like about Concept Idea 2?
- Is there anything missing?
- What improvements would you make?
- What amenities would you like to see near the bridge crossing and along the active transportation connections?
How to participate: Share your ideas and read what others have suggested. Show your support by ‘liking’ the ideas that inspire you the most.
PeteyPeteabout 3 years agoReduce costs by ensuring pedestrian/cyclist bridge placement is complimentary to Whitemud Drive / Terwillegar Drive Interchange.
If overhead signage is required on Whitemud Drive (for lane guidance) use the bridge span for this purpose. Save costs by using Single electrical connection for both bridge lighting and road signage illumination. Also, only one set of foundations and ground/utility disturbance.
0 comment1Bulyea momabout 3 years agoBest of the choices. Do not agree with adding washrooms to the plan. Signage and garbage cans only
0 comment1Cairobodyabout 3 years agoExisting shared use path to Rainbow Valley Bridge should be upgraded
The path is used by kids cycling to Avalon and Harry Ainley and it isn't particularly safe. In parts it is just a sidewalk and right next to the Whitemud. It should ideally be separated from the Whitemud with some sort of safety barrier in place and converted into a proper SUP width
3 comments11Hypotomooseabout 3 years agoPlan 2 is my favourite option.
As many others have commented - this strikes a good balance between the other two plans. I like that it has direct connection to the shared use path down to Snow Valley area, as well as almost direct connection to the Brookview pathways. It also seems like it could have relatively low inclines, which is good for accessibility. The decreased cost compared to plan 1, for what seems to me to be a better overall spot, is great. Amenities should include garbages/recycle areas to limit the amount of litter that may accumulate; and tree planting depending on what happens to the current trees with the planned perimeter multi use path.
0 comment2MLabout 3 years agoSafety barriers
Safety barriers need to be implemented or upgraded for proposed paths by the highway...
1 comment1 -
Concept Idea 3
about 3 years agoCLOSED: This brainstormer has concluded.We would like to hear from you about the concept ideas for the bridge, including active transportation connections, open space amenities and landscaping.
Considerations:
- Short bridge length
- Further from homes on north side, close proximity to backyards on south side
- Least direct connection
- Moving too far east may require approach ramps, impacting cost and accessibility
Questions:
- What do you like about Concept Idea 3?
- Is there anything missing?
- What improvements would you make?
- What amenities would you like to see near the bridge crossing and along the active transportation connections?
How to participate: Share your ideas and read what others have suggested. Show your support by ‘liking’ the ideas that inspire you the most.
Shelly Stevensabout 3 years agoReduces route efficiency on both sides of pedestrian bridge.
Although the bridge is shorter, this plan will require steep ramps on the northside (possibly requiring dismounting from bike’s). Its also too close to some backyards on the Bulyea Heights side and will require an additional perimeter pathway along the Bulyea Heights fence line where tress should be planted instead to reduce road nose. Opposed to the addition of the shared path along Bulyea Heights perimeter fence line (north of 40 Ave). We need more trees along Terwillegar and Whitemud to reduce traffic noise, which will be increasing with the Terwillegar roadway expansion. See my other comments under plan 2.
0 comment8StephenRabout 3 years agoLeast direct route
Makes walking/cycling less efficient. Also, elevation change may be burdensome for kids or older people.
0 comment0Brookview Homeownerabout 3 years agoLike this the least; too much of a detour and not worth the extra cost.
0 comment0Cairobodyabout 3 years agoIf this option is chosen, then the path between the bridge and the Terwillegar SUP should be a paved SUP as well
0 comment1AF_Brooksideabout 3 years agoDon't like the extra length this route adds to north/south connection. Access ramps impact to naturalized areas would be a shame.
0 comment3
Tell us how we did!
Provide your feedback on digital public engagement activities.
Who's listening
Life Cycle
-
Vision & Principles / Issues & Opportunities
142 Street Pedestrian/Cyclist Bridge - Confirmation of Vision & Principles/Concept Ideas has finished this stage -
Confirmation of Vision & Principles / Concept Ideas
142 Street Pedestrian/Cyclist Bridge - Confirmation of Vision & Principles/Concept Ideas is currently at this stage -
Draft Concept(s)
this is an upcoming stage for 142 Street Pedestrian/Cyclist Bridge - Confirmation of Vision & Principles/Concept Ideas -
Preliminary Design
this is an upcoming stage for 142 Street Pedestrian/Cyclist Bridge - Confirmation of Vision & Principles/Concept Ideas -
Detailed Design / Pre-Construction
this is an upcoming stage for 142 Street Pedestrian/Cyclist Bridge - Confirmation of Vision & Principles/Concept Ideas
Role of the Public
REFINE
This means the City involves the public to adapt and adjust approaches to policies, programs, projects, or services.
ROLE OF THE PUBLIC
Stay Informed
Are you interested in receiving project news and updates?