CityCyclingEdinburgh Forum » Infrastructure

Replacement of the Salvesen Steps (River Almond)

(20 posts)

No tags yet.


  1. chdot
    Admin

    These are the ones over the rocky outcrop between Cramond and Cramond Brig.

    For years it's been said that bypassing these would be 'too expensive' and 'environmentally damaging'.

    There has been recent work done investigating the feasibility and cost.

    "

    1.3 A like-for-like replacement of Salvesen Steps is not recommended. The Council, Sustrans and local community are supporting a Disability Discrimination Act (DDA) compliant walkway to traverse around the rock outcrop at river level and thereby open the path to a much larger user group.

    1.4 Such a walkway would also enable cyclists to connect Cramond Foreshore and the City Promenade with the National Cycle Network Route One, running to all points west and north of the city. The project is therefore actively supported by Parks & Greenspace and Transportation.

    Report

    Now -

    Thursday 17 April – 7.30 – Cramond Kirk Hall

    "

    You will all be aware of our push to get the steps replaced and we know that this is very much supported by our members. We have kept in contact with the appropriate officials and have now received the first briefing as to what is proposed. This is rather exciting and there are four options put forward – one of which is unlikely, one an interesting idea and two that we suspect are more likely to be ‘runners’.

    "

    http://www.facebook.com/pages/Friends-of-the-River-Almond-Walkway/339305972814515

    Posted 10 years ago #
  2. chdot
    Admin

    Also

    "

    River Almond Walkway, Upstream Extension, Craigiehall – Kirkliston. Duncan
    Monteith, Parks and Greenspace

    "

    Access Forum agenda

    Posted 10 years ago #
  3. gembo
    Member

    They managed this with WoL path at the visitor centre where a jetty was constructed above the river. I think this is another example of a good bit of infrastructure at a time where the council and indeed other bodies such as Heriot watt are finally instigating cycle friendly initiatives that have been years in the gestation. So whilst we should continue the pressure I think we should give the praise dial a wee half click whilst turning the moaning dial down half a click.?

    Posted 10 years ago #
  4. kaputnik
    Moderator

    Only yesterday I was thinking how wonderful a River Almond walk/cycleway would be.

    Although it was actually the Gogar Burn which stimulated this thinking.

    Posted 10 years ago #
  5. DaveC
    Member

    Yes I echo Kappers thought on this, I carry my bike up and down those steps a few times a year, and wondered last week if it would be possible to have a floating walk/cycleway put in. The path is rough in places but I'd prefer (personally) it not being tarmaced as its not a commute route. Some packed surface allowing drainage without erosion would be nice. I notice that there have been some drainage channels cut into the path on the up stream side of the steps recenly.

    Posted 10 years ago #
  6. kaputnik
    Moderator

    as its not a commute route

    Depends where you're commuting to/from really!

    Posted 10 years ago #
  7. acsimpson
    Member

    If the route was extended to Kirkliston it could certainly become a commute route. Although a 3m wide shared path might be too much to hope for.

    I wonder what the 4 options are that FoRAW allude to.

    Posted 10 years ago #
  8. cb
    Member

    "I wonder what the 4 options are that FoRAW allude to"

    It's not hugely clear what they are, but from the report that chdot linked to:

    "In December 2010 a feasibility report [...] proposed three options for traversing the outcrop"

    Then:

    "Further design work is now required to explore the other two options; a series of bridge structures piled into the river bed and an embankment running the length
    of the outcrop."

    And in terms of the width question:

    "The light weight suspended structure was costed at £630,000 when subsequently scaled up to satisfy the width requirements of Sustrans"

    So - what are Sustrans width requirements for a path such as this?

    I'm sure I once remember seeing a proposed sketch of a covered walkway at river level, but this must be 20 years ago. Might try and look it up.

    It used to be possible (just) to walk around the base of the cliffs. I have done it a couple of times.

    Posted 10 years ago #
  9. neddie
    Member

    Reminder:

    There is a meeting, open to all, of Cramond/Barnton Community Council to discuss plans which have been drawn up to replace the Salvesen steps. There will be a speaker from the consultants.

    Thursday 17 April, 7.30pm, Cramond Kirk Hall,

    Posted 10 years ago #
  10. chdot
    Admin

    Extra reminder - tomorrow.

    Posted 10 years ago #
  11. chdot
    Admin

    Tonight.

    Anyone going?

    Posted 10 years ago #
  12. acsimpson
    Member

    Last minute decision but I'm here and will update later.

    Posted 10 years ago #
  13. chdot
    Admin

    Great.

    Thanks!

    Posted 10 years ago #
  14. acsimpson
    Member

    A short update on what was a very thorough presentation on Thursday night from the associate director of bridges at CH2M Hill (Halcrow's new name). I can't remember his name and hope I've got his job title correct.

    For those who don't already know this is quite a tricky site to work with and has a lot of different parties with an interest in it. The brief from the council is for a 2m wide path with a 1.4m parapet. Which as I'm sure most are aware is wide enough to allow pootling rather than being a full width shared use path, the 1.4m parapet height is a cycling requirement though so good to see it included.
    The solution will be designed to cope with a 1 in 200 year flood.
    Ideally a light weight solution is required for construction in a very constrained site.
    the finished appearance is currently heading towards wooden decking and railings with a steel substructure, similar to the WOL visitor centre.

    There were 4 options presented although option D has already been ruled out.

    Option A) Build a ramp over the rocky outcrop. This was originally considered to be 1 in 20 but is now designed as 1 in 12 due to space constraints. It is the lowest risk option as no river work is required. It would take 6 months to a year with the path likely to be shut for 6 months of that. the ramp on the north side would be about 180m wrong in an S shape and the steps could remain. The south ramp would be 150m long and the steps would be removed. The total cost would be c.£1.1million.

    Option B) A cantilevered structure round the base of the rick. This option would have viewpoints and so easier passing than the ramp. A large chunk of the budget is for rock stabilisation contingency so even though the structure is less than half the length of option A the price remains at c.£900k. Half the length.

    Option C) Is to infill the space and esentially use the river bed as support. This would require 300+ tonnes of material which would all need to be prewashed in the work compound to ensure SEPA approval. It uses 15% of width. It is the cheapest option at c.£500k. Although SEPA are currently unconvinced and would only approve if it was shown to be the best option regardless of cost. There is a risk of spending lots on modelling but results being unacceptable to SEPA and others.

    Option D) Is 2 footbridges going into and out of Dalmeny. This has already been ruled out due to problems on the Dalmeny bank such as substantial tree clearance requirements and unsuitable paths. The cost would have been c.£1.6million

    Other notes:
    There is going to be a drop in session at Cramond Kirk in a couple of weeks time (currently scheduled for 5.30-7.30 on the 29th but this may be extended).
    I think it was a member of the angling club who alluded to a "plan to reduce flow via a pipeline" but didn't provide details and the presenter was unaware of the plan.
    There is a plan for a weir and mill to be removed although this is a separate project and appears to be fisheries related. A few details can be found on google, eg http://www.fishforth.co.uk/rfft/files/2012/04/riveralmond5yearmanagementplanv1_6.pdf
    A PDF of the presentation will be made available, I have requested a copy of this.

    Posted 10 years ago #
  15. chdot
    Admin

    Thanks

    No mention of chain ferry?

    Posted 10 years ago #
  16. acsimpson
    Member

    "No mention of chain ferry?"

    Not as a replacement for the steps. Is this not talked about as a replacement for the passenger ferry at the bottom of the river?

    There was a lot of discussion regarding what constitutes flood proof. For the structure to be considered not at risk it needs to be 600mm above the water line of a forecast 1 in 200 year flood. Otherwise it needs to be able to survive the impact of the water and debris which is washed down in such an event. I suspect a chain ferry would fall foul of this.

    Posted 10 years ago #
  17. chdot
    Admin

    "Is this not talked about as a replacement for the passenger ferry at the bottom of the river?"

    Yes, but I thought it might get a mention.

    I presume flood wouldn't (shouldn't) be a problem as chains on bottom and ferry on top(?)

    Though presume potential (constant?) problem for stuff to get washed down and rest on chains.

    Posted 10 years ago #
  18. gembo
    Member

    The WoL path at the visitor centre on the A70 round to the A71 at hutchie vale pitch/flood plain has several of the options.

    A structure built out above the river, a ramp which is gradual but maybe only 20m long then a shorter steeper ramp up to a bridge which has gravel path on the other side.

    Most if not all of this was built to avoid big detour and keep everything off road. Icing on cake of this route was making two sets of traffic lights either end of saughton park pedestrian AND bike crossing.

    Good to get the gen from the almond. The spot in question more gorge like than the slate ford riverbed

    Posted 10 years ago #
  19. chdot
    Admin

    "

    There is a distinct danger that funding for replacing the Salvesen Steps will not get through the Council’s budgeting process. Given the Steps parlous state, this could lead to the closure of the Walkway as a continuous entity before too long. We continue to lobby and we attach our recent paper setting out our case. It would be most useful if as many of you as possible could independently put pressure on our Councillors and any other influential bodies.

    "

    http://www.friendsoftheriveralmondwalkway.org.uk/articles_302825.html

    Posted 9 years ago #
  20. HankChief
    Member

    Signs up on the Cramond side saying that the steps are currently closed.

    The notice went something along the lines of...

    Some serious defects have been spotted and they are awaiting a proper inspection.

    Can't find anything on t'interweb about it though.

    Posted 8 years ago #

RSS feed for this topic

Reply

You must log in to post.


Video embedded using Easy Video Embed plugin