Figure 45 East road - An indicative typical section illustrating the road widths and the potential to accommodate on-street bus stops. Generally there should be no guardrailing within the design of th

Wonderful I agree

Where is the cycling provision on this very wide road? There should be cycleways protected by trees and verges on both sides of the road, separate from motor traffic and separate from footways. There's no reason to force people who are walking across the road to wait in a central refuge. Make the road smaller by getting rid of the central median and put those trees on the sides of the road. Crossing the road should happen in a single stage. I have attached a conceptual drawing to show what a better East Road could look like.

2.7.2
Second point. As this document has been written so that members of the public can have their say on the
council's vision for this area, use of planning jargon is unhelpful.
3.2.3 The area should be primarily for pedestrians and those on bikes. We need far fewer cars.
3.2.7 I would argue for future proofing not just in terms of building use, but in transport terms too. We must
be aiming for far fewer cars and delivery lorries and therefore lower pollution levels.
4.2.4 Again, let's not think car here. Walking and cycling must come first.
Fig. 33 It's not entirely clear to me if the yellow shading is an indication that you wish to see junction
improvement here. (This is a problem with several plans. The key doesn't always match the drawing.)
Fitzroy Lane needs a pavement.
Enhanced public space. There is potential for conflict in a shared space environment as this would turn out to
be. Fig 34 strongly suggests there would be.
4.2.18 I object to on-street servicing. It causes conflict with pedestrians and bike users.
4.2.30 Suggest sites for cycle parking. Although if Grafton East went underground, could the overground part
become a cycle park?
Fig 35 I am uneasy about suggesting no. 17 Fitzroy Street could turn into an hotel. I envisage conflict with
pedestrians and bikes because of the servicing needed and the guests arriving.
4.3.9 I am uneasy about more central hotels. What about some affordable flats instead?
4.4.14 Let us hold to this. When you say exceptional, let us mean exceptional, not a 5 storey building that
could be anywhere in the country. Maybe they could echo no 17?
4.4.24. I strongly object to the space being used by pedestrians, bikes with taxis and servicing vehicles. This
is not a recipe for a pleasant, attractive boulevard, but a stressful, noisy, mall. There would also be damage
to any surfacing used.
Yes to 24/7 use by bikes.
4.4.26 Reduce carriageway for motor traffic and add a cycle route for the whole length.
Improve Norfolk St end with a clearer cycling and walking routes to follow.
This plan must integrate with the Eastern Gate SPD. It must be a goal that it does, not a vague desire. There
is no point in having a piecemeal approach to the area.
Fig 42. Shows limited space for pedestrians, trees removed, bike racks gone, seating gone. It looks a lot like
shared space and I strongly object to that.
4.4.28. Jargon. (See first point.) Contraflow bike lane, yes. Servicing too? No, no, no.
4.5.3 Either this is to be a 'c' road, or it is a pedestrianised shopping centre. It can't be both.
Fig 45 No guard rail at all, thank you. Crossings can be effectively designed for busy roads without them.
Fig 47. A bus lane shared with bikes? No. Not on East Road, thanks.

This is a primary traffic route. Move the buses to Emanual Road.

Where are the protected cycle lanes? East Road is a major desire line for many people who end up wiggling through winding streets as it's so horrible. East​ ​Road​ ​here​ ​is​ ​one​ ​of​ ​the​ ​widest​ ​roads​ ​in​ ​the​ ​entire​ ​city​ ​and your​ ​proposal​ ​does​ ​not​ ​have​ ​protected​ ​cycleways!​ ​There​ ​is​ ​no​ ​cycling​ ​provision shown​ ​on​ ​this​ ​cross-section​ ​at​ ​all.​ ​This​ ​is​ ​unacceptable.​ ​Also,​ ​the​ ​centre​ ​median serves​ ​no​ ​purpose​ ​except​ ​to​ ​annoy​ ​people​ ​walking​ ​across​ ​the​ ​street​ ​by​ ​forcing​ ​them to​ ​wait​ ​in​ ​a​ ​penned​ ​in​ ​area.​ ​The​ ​proposal​ ​for​ ​East​ ​Road​ ​should​ ​eliminate​ ​the​ ​central median,​ ​greatly​ ​shrink​ ​the​ ​carriageway,​ ​use​ ​that​ ​regained​ ​space​ ​for​ ​properly designed​ ​protected​ ​&​ ​segregated​ ​cycleways​ ​with​ ​trees​ ​and​ ​verges​ ​protecting​ ​people from​ ​motor​ ​vehicles.​ ​Crossings​ ​of​ ​East​ ​Road​ ​should​ ​be​ ​made​ ​in​ ​a​ ​single​ ​stage:​ ​no islands​ ​and​ ​no​ ​guardrail.

Bus passengers should be given top-quality accessibility. Having an urban motorway through this area is unpleasant for pedestrians and the amount of space given to car driving here is unnecessarily high. There is plenty of space for other users.

Guard-railing is 40 years out of date and should be avoided.

There should be a proper segregated cycle route on each side, plus trees. There is plenty of space - this is a very wide road:
https://www.google.co.uk/maps/@52.2064596,0.1356992,3a,75y,46.06h,71.65t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sCHRMUuqPpbgJcMsfUgl1-Q!2e0!7i13312!8i6656

East Road here is one of the widest roads in the entire city yet your proposal lacks protected cycleways. There is no cycling provision shown on this cross-section at all. This is unacceptable. Also, the centre median serves no purpose except to annoy people walking across the street by forcing them to wait in a penned in area. The proposal for East Road should eliminate the central median, greatly shrink the carriageway, use that regained space for properly designed protected and segregated cycleways with trees and verges protecting people from motor vehicles. Crossings of East Road should be made in a single stage: no islands nor guardrail.