West Edmonton Mall to appeal responsibility to replace 170th Street footbridge
It's a fairly major roadway to cross. It's not the safest way to cross if you're by foot
A pedestrian footbridge over 170thStreet that connected west end residents to the West Edmonton Mall has been demolished, and the likelihood of its replacement seems uncertain.
The footbridge, part of the property of West Edmonton Mall, was demolished a few weeks ago after the mall concluded they wouldn't refurbish it.
However, the city granted a developmentpermit to the mall with a condition that they replace it, an order that a city councillor saysthe mall is expected to appeal.
Coun. Andrew Knack, who represents the area, said that he has been hearing concerns from seniors and people with mobility challenges.
"[They]are now finding it really tough to get across the street to the mall," Knack said, "because, really, the next available opportunity for those is to go to 87th Avenue and have to walk across six lanes of roadway on 170th Street.
"It's a fairly major roadway to cross. It's not the safest way to cross if you're by foot."
The mall will appeal the condition to replace the footbridge in September. Knackhopes any appeal would be rejected and that West Edmonton Mall will follow through with rebuilding.
"I know the city is still engaging and connecting with the mall over the next month-and-a-half before this appeal and there could be an opportunity that, before the appeal board in September, they could come to a resolution," he said.
The footbridge is located right next to an assisted living facility. Knack said he is worriedthose residents may be forced into an unsafe situation to get to the mall while a footbridge doesn't exist.
Many of the people who once used the bridge who spoke to CBC News on Thursday saidthe lack of bridge was more of a matter of inconvenience.
WEMGM says condition inconsistent with city discussions
Danielle Woo, WEM'sgeneral manager, said in a statement that the rebuild condition was inconsistent with the mall's discussions with the city over the past several weeks and that the department was unaware of their discussions.
She added"those discussions includedwho is responsible for the pedestrian overpass and whether a pedestrian overpass is still required given usage frequency, safety, visual clutter and new factors that were not contemplated when the bridge was originally built."
A potential elevatedLRT footbridge is also a factor in WEM'sargument to not replace the footbridge.
WEMrepresentatives will present their arguments to an appeal board in September.