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.
BevLinabout 3 years agoBridge as far west as possible anchored by as-nearly-as-possible identical shared use paths at berm level in Brookview and Brookside
At this point in the Engagement process and within the options currently suggested, we believe Concept 1is clearly the best choice. It is based on the understanding that the Future Terwillegar Shared Use Path in Brookview (as illustrated on the map posted for this Concept) will be replicated (a mirror-image) in Brookside with each identical pathway providing access to the ends of the Bridge. This choice intends that the pathways go around -not through - the two neighborhoods and would be built at ‘berm level’ to minimize impact on residents. This choice meets the current Vision Statement: “enhances the surrounding neighborhood and increases opportunities for recreation, exercising and commuting” while best ensuring that the anticipated high use volume on the Bridge causes minimal negative impact and the least disruption and disadvantage in the two neighborhoods adjacent to it.
0 comment2BurrowvilleWhomiteabout 3 years agoEcho HOA walkway comments as poor access for bikes however street access to trailhead is convenient.
HOA walkway should only be for walking and should have signage to reflect this.
0 comment1Residentsabout 3 years agoBridge is not needed at all but this is Worst of the 3 options.
This option would be very disruptive to homes at the south end of 142 street. Brooksiders would not want to lose the very popular toboggan hill there. Bridge Would also bring more traffic, vandalism and crime to neighbourhoods on both sides.
5 comments0johameabout 3 years agoI am vehemently opposed to the walk way behind the residence on the south side of the freeway. they can escape to north side freeway
1 comment4Jack1908about 3 years agoI live in Ravine Pointe and the proposed possible pathway in concept 1 on the southside of Whitemud would bring more noise and crime.
I don,t like the idea of a possible pathway behind the residences on the southside of whitemud.
4 comments2 -
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.
Majabout 3 years agoThis option makes the most sense
Room for amenities at the top and good alignment. Would get more use.
0 comment0BV walkerabout 3 years agoIt would be great if there were more bathroom facilities along bike routes. Perhaps one south of Bulyea adjacent Brookview Park.
1 comment0Cairobodyabout 3 years agoI like the idea of upgrading the active transportation connections on the west side of Brookside
The neighbourhood is losing its bus service, except at the overpass. Alot of people walk to those bus connections on the goat paths along or beside the berms on the south and north sides of 53 Avenue. In some places, they are very unlevel and not particularly accessible. Moderate improvements to these corridors, even just by leveling/gravelling/low level lighting, would be a big improvement and tie into the recent 53 Avenue improvements.
0 comment2xxxabout 3 years agoDon't confuse people with alternative paths north through park
Accessing the alleys and even the Whitemud Berm is fairly easy, for both local people and visitors but these routes really don't go anywhere so there is no point in developing special paths across the park to access them going north. It is more important to make connections to the larger network and eliminate barriers like ramps and detours (and missing bridges).
1 comment1Kevin Kabout 3 years agoSupport concept but homeowners walkway is misrepresented - doesn't meet multiuse trail requirements - not designed for both bikes and ped's
Homeowners walkway should be removed from the design. Walkway is only 1.5 m wide (shared use path must be a min of 3 m). The path is represented as a straight path in the drawings which is not correct. This path has a number of curves and sight lines are poor. Based on this, the probability of bikes/pedestrians colliding is high. This route also does not provide meaningful access / clear link to multi-use trails / desired destinations which is a project goal. Connectivity on the new shared path along whitmud drive is perfect! Allow's access to all communities in this quadrant (path will run to 23 Ave) on a proper multi-use trail.
2 comments2 -
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.
exploreroftrailsabout 3 years agoLike this plan the least as it does not meet "accessibility for all" principal. Landing on north approached by incline and south not paved
0 comment5Babelloydabout 3 years agoNeedless detours
This option involves detours that are unnecessary and that cause unnecessary confusion.
0 comment1ryguyabout 3 years agoI don't prefer concept three since it doesn't line up with existed paths well
0 comment4CAFPabout 3 years agoConcept 3 doesn’t connect well with existing structures, will have great inclines which are harder for biking in winter, is more costly
2 comments8Sherriabout 3 years agoBridge must connect to wide Multi Use paths not regular sidewalks and streets.
This option meets up with the exiting path on the north side of Whitemud and connects to other multi use path ways. With the multi use path a multi issue path around Terwillegar Drive there is no need to open the sound barrier along the Whitemud. Plus the there is already an existing multi use path near the top of the bank behind Brass III that people currently use and are familiar with that connects to other multi use paths.
0 comment0
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?