142 Street Pedestrian/Cyclist Bridge - Draft Concept(s)
Thank you for participating in the online engagement for the 142 Street Pedestrian/Cyclist Bridge. The 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 considered alongside technical requirements, funding availability and City plans and policies to decide on a preferred bridge concept, open space enhancements and active transportation concept.
If you have any questions, please email: 142StreetBridge@edmonton.ca
Thank you for participating in the online engagement for the 142 Street Pedestrian/Cyclist Bridge. The 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 considered alongside technical requirements, funding availability and City plans and policies to decide on a preferred bridge concept, open space enhancements and active transportation concept.
If you have any questions, please email: 142StreetBridge@edmonton.ca
-
Bridge Concept Option 1: Truss
about 3 years agoCLOSED: This ideas has concluded.How to participate: Share your ideas and read what others have suggested. Show your support by ‘liking’ the ideas that inspire you the most.
Questions:
- What do you like about Bridge Concept Option 1?
- What could be improved about Bridge Concept Option 1?
Structure
- Two separate trusses with a pier
- Structure extends above the deck
Aesthetics
- Structure height tapers down towards neighbourhood
- Variable height when viewed from Whitemud Drive
User Experience
- Feeling of separation from traffic
- Clear view from bridge deck
BV walkerabout 3 years agoNot my favorite. Reminiscent of some of the old rust colored bridges over the river. Industrial looking.
0 comment2VanessaAabout 3 years agoSimpler Design with Cost Savings invested into other Local Improvement Projects
I would rather see a simpler design, with the cost-savings invested into other recreational opportunities in the area (for example: the 53rd Ave/ North Whitemud Creek Ravine Trails). As a future user of the bridge, and a daily commuter under the proposed bridge, the most important design features to me are related to safety for both users (pedestrians and vehicles) i.e., appropriate railings, appropriate (textured) deck surface for bikes, rollerblades and pedestrian foot traffic, appropriate width of bridge and slopes. I would love a project that would have a short construction phase (i.e. using prefabricated materials). The aesthetics of the bridge come last to me.
0 comment5Residentsabout 3 years agoThis is unattractive, too prominent for houses on each end of bridge. design should blend into neighbourhood. Will look dated in a few years
0 comment1mlanukeabout 3 years agoBeautiful Design
I like either option 1 or option 4, but am unable to tell how high the railing on any of the designs go for safety of users. Would like to see a profile showing the guardrails as well as the design.
0 comment0Shelly Stevensabout 3 years agoWhat is it like to cross over this truss bridge?
This bridge reminds me of the pedestrian bridge over Quesnell Ravine (Quesnell to Laurier Heights). The Quesnell bridge is my least favourite bridge in Edmonton, simply because when I'm crossing it, and another person starts crossing the bridge, I can feel the footsteps (bridge movements) of the other person on the bridge. The vibrations of the bridge are unsettling, especially when crossing over the Whitemud Freeway as a pedestrian. Maybe this design is better and more solid? Maybe its time to replace the Quesnell Pedestrian bridge? For that reason, my preference goes to the concrete bridges presented in options 2 or 3. They are similar to the Terwillegar concrete bridge, which feels solid when crossing it and serves it purpose well by providing a safe, stable route over Terwillegar Drive.
0 comment0 -
Bridge Concept Option 2: Two-Span Girder
about 3 years agoCLOSED: This ideas has concluded.How to participate: Share your ideas and read what others have suggested. Show your support by ‘liking’ the ideas that inspire you the most.
Questions:
- What do you like about Bridge Concept Option 2?
- What could be improved about Bridge Concept Option 2?
Structure
- Two girder spans with a pier
- Deck within girder depth
Aesthetics
- Low structure height when viewed from neighbourhood and Whitemud Drive
User Experience
- Separation from traffic while still being open to views
- Potential to curve bridge alignment
Clydeabout 3 years agoAnything with walls is a potential for painted graffiti. Not sure I understand this design from the drawings.
3 comments3pater5about 3 years agoOkay with design 2 or 3 (Girder). Would like more information about the cost difference between single span girder and twp span girder.
0 comment1Janaabout 3 years agoI support Option 2 or Option 3 as both are low structure height when viewed from the neighborhood
Keep the bridge as unobtrusive as possible to the Brookside neighborhood
0 comment3Localresabout 3 years agoLooks nice, would be nice to know cost or have been able to give a ranking 1-4. Low maintenance is important.
0 comment1BV walkerabout 3 years agoIn spite of rating low on the imagination scale, I like the low structure height and the option for a curve. No straight lines in nature.
0 comment0 -
Bridge Concept Option 3: Single-Span Girder
about 3 years agoCLOSED: This ideas has concluded.How to participate: Share your ideas and read what others have suggested. Show your support by ‘liking’ the ideas that inspire you the most.
Questions:
- What do you like about Bridge Concept Option 3?
- What could be improved about Bridge Concept Option 3?
Structure
- Two deep girders spans below the deck
- No supporting pier
Aesthetics
- Low structure height when viewed from neighbourhood and Whitemud Drive
User Experience
- Railings above the supporting structure
- Clear views from bridge deck
WMacKayabout 3 years agoSimple, ticks all the boxes
Allows road and bridge users clean sightlines. I do like that the support pier is outside the road lanes. Would like to know cost/construction timelines for this option compared to #1.
0 comment1Localresabout 3 years agoNice option, simple design. Low lines. 2&3 are top choices. Cost effective and low maintenance should be top priorities for this project.
0 comment1ILoveEdmontonabout 3 years agoThis is my preferred design of the 4 options.
Keep the bridge simple, functional, SAFE (we need a cage), and allow it to blend in with the surrounding concrete freeway below and not stand out on either end where housing exists.
0 comment0BurrowvilleWhomiteabout 3 years agoWider view please (with elevations of bridge to North and South nodes)
Can't comment on the construction of the bridge if you don't provide details of how (and what elevation) the bridge is meeting on both sides of its entry. This is a MAJOR consideration and hasn't been shared to this point.
0 comment1ahorbayabout 3 years agoLeast invasive alternative for traffic flow on the Terwillegar exit as well as Whitemud traffic.
I would also add that the building costs estimates of all alternatives should be disclosed. Regardless of looks, the reality is that the city does not have an unlimited pool of funds to draw on. Yes it is tax money supporting this, but at what point do we stop silly spending? (Any silver balls planned for this project....?) Easy to spend money when it is not yours....
4 comments4 -
Bridge Concept Option 4: Tied Arch
about 3 years agoCLOSED: This ideas has concluded.How to participate: Share your ideas and read what others have suggested. Show your support by ‘liking’ the ideas that inspire you the most.
Questions:
- What do you like about Bridge Concept Option 4?
- What could be improved about Bridge Concept Option 4?
Structure
- Thin deck hung from steel arch with one pier
Aesthetics
- Sculptural form with a "gateway" feel
- Structure height is prominent from neighbourhood and Whitemud Drive
- Different height arches
User Experience
- Users travel through the arches
- Clear views from the deck
walkergvabout 3 years agoSeems like too much.
This feels over built. The other designs seem more appropriate as they are all simpler and less obtrusive.
0 comment55germsabout 3 years agoNice, a very elegant and open design! it wouldn't dominate sightlines like the girder options. I'm not sure how practical.....
0 comment1BurrowvilleWhomiteabout 3 years agoWider view please (with elevations of bridge to North and South nodes)
Can't comment on the construction of the bridge if you don't provide details of how (and what elevation) the bridge is meeting on both sides of its entry. This is a MAJOR consideration and hasn't been shared to this point.
0 comment1Long term Brooksiderabout 3 years agoAny bridge is better than no bridge. This has been promised for 3 decades!
0 comment1WMacKayabout 3 years agoBridge aesthetic out of context for the area
0 comment4
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 - Draft Concept(s) has finished this stage -
Confirmation of Vision & Principles / Concept Ideas
142 Street Pedestrian/Cyclist Bridge - Draft Concept(s) has finished this stage -
Draft Concept(s)
142 Street Pedestrian/Cyclist Bridge - Draft Concept(s) is currently at this stage -
Preliminary Design
this is an upcoming stage for 142 Street Pedestrian/Cyclist Bridge - Draft Concept(s) -
Detailed Design / Pre-Construction
this is an upcoming stage for 142 Street Pedestrian/Cyclist Bridge - Draft Concept(s)
Role of the Public
ADVISE
This means the City asks the public to share feedback and perspectives that are considered for policies, programs, projects, or services.
ROLE OF THE PUBLIC
Stay Informed
Are you interested in receiving project news and updates?