Marlborough Walking and Cycling Strategy road network (and that includes having the right of way over side streets), which is the biggest challenge in the design of the network. Sports cycling is not addressed by this approach. Making local road networks attractive to cyclists including commuters will mainly require a reduction in traffic volumes on some corridors, and to a lesser extent a reduction in speed. The required measures can be a politically sensitive topic as there is often much public opposition to the introduction of measures that decrease the amount of traffic using a road. Any cycle network, regardless of whether it is based on major roads or local roads, is still likely to involve major road crossings at certain points. This can present space restraints and may have associated safety problems if the crossings are priority controlled, where gaps in the major traffic flow may be sufficient for crossing motor vehicles but unsafe for crossing cyclists. An alternative option is to signalise cycle crossings but this can cause significant efficiency problems due to delays by drivers in the major flow, and hence may be difficult to implement. An extensive backstreets network of cycle routes was once established in Christchurch in the 1980s and 90s. It was signposted, but otherwise poorly executed, as many of the routes were indirect, and major roads that had to be crossed became an increasing obstacle without any special crossing facilities, but rising traffic volumes on the main road network. Consequently, this approach was abandoned in the late 1990s, but this doesn’t mean that the approach is invalid. What it means is that for the backstreets approach to work, traffic volumes and speeds on those streets need to be addressed, and crossing main roads needs to be supported. D.3. European approach – off-road paths Many continental European countries provide comprehensive cycle networks consisting of off-road paths, with many signalised intersections or priority crossings where the paths cross roads. Surprisingly, these networks have significantly improved perceived safety compared to on-road cycle networks due to the separation of cyclists and motor vehicles, but the actual safety is actually decreased (due to higher crash rates at intersections and driveways). Because of the perceived gain in safety, this network approach is the most successful in terms of attracting new cyclists. The paths also provide a much more attractive environment for cyclists which can further increase cycling numbers. Not surprisingly, New Zealand visitors to countries such as Denmark, Holland and Germany often return to New Zealand wishing to implement similar cycle networks here. However, it must be noted that creating an off-road path network requires a significant amount of berm area – generally more than what is available in NZ. Kerb realignment would often be necessary, narrowing roads that are to be retrofitted. This would be a very expensive process and would take a long time to achieve. And it does not overcome the problem that cyclists face at driveway crossings. A significant problem with pathway networks in NZ is that the give way rules are defined for traffic moving on the carriageway, thus giving turning traffic the right of way over cyclists on a parallel path. The situation is different in most European countries, where right of way is defined for the whole road corridor (i.e. between the legal boundaries). The NZ legislative context would significantly decrease the Level of Service (LOS) provided to cyclists, and would thus make the pathways unattractive to a large proportion of cyclists. Another drawback to the path network approach is the requirement of signalised intersections at the points where the paths cross significant roads. Introducing new intersections would significantly decrease the efficiency of motor traffic on the affected roads and, unfortunately, would thus face high levels of political opposition as New Zealanders are generally unwilling to approve roading projects that decrease efficiency. xii