Just wondered, has there ever been any consideration given to installing
more covers over walkways through busy pedestrian routes in London? The
City becomes a nightmare at rush hour when it starts raining, you can't
walk for people with ridiculously oversized comedy umbrellas.

I guess it's far down the list of priorities but with Ken trying to
encourage more people to walk...

Dan

"Dan Gravell" wrote in message
...
Just wondered, has there ever been any consideration given to installing
more covers over walkways through busy pedestrian routes in London? The
City becomes a nightmare at rush hour when it starts raining, you can't
walk for people with ridiculously oversized comedy umbrellas.

I guess it's far down the list of priorities but with Ken trying to
encourage more people to walk...

Dan

Nice when raining - but wouldn't it look horrible ?

umpston wrote:
"Dan Gravell" wrote in message
...

Just wondered, has there ever been any consideration given to installing
more covers over walkways through busy pedestrian routes in London? The
City becomes a nightmare at rush hour when it starts raining, you can't
walk for people with ridiculously oversized comedy umbrellas.

I guess it's far down the list of priorities but with Ken trying to
encourage more people to walk...

Dan


Nice when raining - but wouldn't it look horrible ?

If they were left for twenty years without being updated like most of
the capital's transport resource, probably!

In the short term I'm sure something attractive could be designed. The
City currently mixes the old with the new fairly well architecturally.

In article , Dan Gravell
wrote:
Just wondered, has there ever been any consideration given to installing
more covers over walkways through busy pedestrian routes in London? The
City becomes a nightmare at rush hour when it starts raining, you can't
walk for people with ridiculously oversized comedy umbrellas.

I guess it's far down the list of priorities but with Ken trying to
encourage more people to walk...

Dan

I think it's a reasonable suggestion.

Michael Bell.

--

"Dan Gravell" wrote in message
...
Just wondered, has there ever been any consideration given to installing
more covers over walkways through busy pedestrian routes in London? The
City becomes a nightmare at rush hour when it starts raining, you can't
walk for people with ridiculously oversized comedy umbrellas.

And, if you happen to be taller, smaller individuals nearly taking your eyes
out with them!

"Dan Gravell" wrote in message
...
Just wondered, has there ever been any consideration given to installing
more covers over walkways through busy pedestrian routes in London? The
City becomes a nightmare at rush hour when it starts raining, you can't
walk for people with ridiculously oversized comedy umbrellas.

The trouble with covered walkways is:

a) It needs more upkeep than pavements (no natural cleaning by the rain,
pools of water on the roof can be a breeding ground for insects, if a clear
domed roof is fitted it needs cleaning to remain clear)

b) It can attract the less desirable elements who would be not be there if
it wasn't covered and dry

c) It needs more lighting than does traditional pedestrian routes, open to
the elements

d) It encourages people to loiter in the area, causing congestion

These were the main arguments against providing a covered routeway between
the two Thameslink stations at Kings Cross during the building works for the
new station box.

"Dan Gravell" wrote in message
...
Just wondered, has there ever been any consideration given to
installing
more covers over walkways through busy pedestrian routes in London?
The
City becomes a nightmare at rush hour when it starts raining, you
can't
walk for people with ridiculously oversized comedy umbrellas.

The last landmark I can think of along those lines was when they took
them off the pavements of Regents St in the 1920s. The heritage
people still seem to be outraged about that.

Jeremy Parker

In article , Jeremy Parker
wrote:

"Dan Gravell" wrote in message
...
Just wondered, has there ever been any consideration given to
installing
more covers over walkways through busy pedestrian routes in London?
The
City becomes a nightmare at rush hour when it starts raining, you
can't
walk for people with ridiculously oversized comedy umbrellas.

The last landmark I can think of along those lines was when they took
them off the pavements of Regents St in the 1920s. The heritage
people still seem to be outraged about that.

Jeremy Parker

"Arcades" are a much-respected architectural feature, which do much the same.
Much more common, ironically, in sunny Italy than in rainy Britain.

Michael Bell

--

"Robin Mayes" wrote in message
...

"Dan Gravell" wrote in message
...
Just wondered, has there ever been any consideration given to installing
more covers over walkways through busy pedestrian routes in London? The
City becomes a nightmare at rush hour when it starts raining, you can't
walk for people with ridiculously oversized comedy umbrellas.

The trouble with covered walkways is:

a) It needs more upkeep than pavements (no natural cleaning by the rain,
pools of water on the roof can be a breeding ground for insects, if a
clear
domed roof is fitted it needs cleaning to remain clear)

b) It can attract the less desirable elements who would be not be there if
it wasn't covered and dry

c) It needs more lighting than does traditional pedestrian routes, open to
the elements

d) It encourages people to loiter in the area, causing congestion

These were the main arguments against providing a covered routeway between
the two Thameslink stations at Kings Cross during the building works for
the
new station box.

The last statement is not correct. The problems were mainly:

- security (the CCTV cameras on Pancras Road would be useless, as they would
be above the walkway);
- risk of vandalism to the lighting (which would need to be below the level
of the canopy);
- the need to provide foundations, which in itself would reduce the
available walkway width required;
- costs for erection, maintenance and removal.