Under “moral pressure” to save lives, Edmonton council voted too quickly and without the right public consultation to build suicide barriers on the High Level Bridge, Coun. Scott McKeen says.



“I was so focused on yes or no, to build or not build, and then we went to budget, we went with the middle ground one,” McKeen said, following public criticism from cyclists who say the new barriers reduce the width of the shared-use paths on the bridge and risk safety.



“I didn’t even consider that we were going to reduce the width of the shared-use path. That didn’t come up and it didn’t come up in my mind. So that is on me. I failed in that regard.”



Coun. Ben Henderson said simply reaching out to the cycling community and other interested persons might have avoided the issue.



“It’s a really good example of why just sort of touching base with users makes sense,” Henderson said. “I think they would have caught it and I think there was an easy design solution, but it didn’t occur to the guys designing it because they didn’t have that chance to check with users.”



The designs for the barriers, presented to the city’s community services committee in August 2014, showed some dimensions for the $3-million option that was chosen. A cross-section of the barrier post said it would be 129 mm wide. The posts now installed on the bridge are more than twice that size.



Darren Markland, who measured the width of the new posts at 295 mm, wants the barriers to stay.



He was such a strong proponent for them he raised money for their installation by biking in mid-winter wearing a kilt. He feels that somewhere between the committee giving the project the OK and the finished product, something went wrong. He questioned whether the city’s transportation department signed off on that change.



“It’s a bit of a bait and switch, really. We were told one thing was going to be built and then something else happened,” he said.



A request to see the project contract, which was given to Alberco Construction, was denied by the city because it “contains privileged information related the contractor’s bid.”



“The drawings and specifications for this project were developed based on the approved option that was presented to the community services committee in August 2014,” said Mary-Ann Thurber, communications adviser for the city’s transportation infrastructure special projects office.



“Typically, minor changes do occur during the design period to ensure the end product will meet functional, budgetary and engineering requirements.”



But the discrepancy between the finished product and the design has McKeen suggesting more cautious future steps and considering other solutions, including possibly widening the existing walkways.



“If active transportation is a high value in the City of Edmonton and if we’ve only got one top-of-bank to top-of-bank bridge in the city, what would be the price of expanding the walkways? That might be something that we look at 10 or 15 years or less down the road, too,” he said.



“I’m not saying let’s do it. I’m saying maybe that’s something we could evaluate the costs and benefits of at some point.”



He said he’s skeptical a park on the top part of the bridge will get built unless the province is involved, but added any other, potentially cheaper, solutions will also need to meet more public scrutiny.



Markland said the park could act as “an overture” to shed the bad reputation the city has gained for transportation projects in the past few years, as long as it is done right.



“We either sit around … for decades or we do things impulsively and poorly,” he said, “and there seems to be no middle ground.”



