What to call the Britomart-Mt Eden rail connection?

I’ve had a bit of debate in recent times over what’s the best thing to call the rail project that I generally refer to as the “CBD Rail Tunnel“. It has had various names: the CBD Rail Loop, the CBD Rail Link (which I think is the official one), the West Britomart Extension and so forth.

I’m very much not a fan of calling it the “loop”, because that name leads to misunderstandings of the project – clearly outlined in this NZ Herald cartoon: While the cartoon certainly is very funny, and right on the button, it repeats the misunderstanding that what we’re building here is a rail loop: something that trains will go around and around on between Newmarket and Britomart: only benefiting those within that area.

This is clearly not the case – and we would be utterly stupid to run trains like that around central Auckland in the future once this tunnel is constructed. It’s far more likely that we’ll use the flexibility the tunnel provides to allow trains to come in from one side of the city and leave from the other. It will be possible to take a one-seat ride from Henderson to Ellerslie, or Manukau to Grafton and so forth. I’ve typically imagined a post-tunnel service patterns something like this: There’s no loop there at all – rather we’ve created two lines out of our current four by being able to join them together via the new tunnel. So – no more mention of the word “loop” is my suggestion.

But that still leaves us with the issue of “CBD” – and the fact that many Aucklanders seem to perceive this project as benefiting only the CBD – rather than them.  This seemed to shine through quite clearly in a survey the NZ Herald did back in September: asking people what they thought was the most important transport project in Auckland. Nearly a quarter of respondents said that rail to the airport was the most important project – higher than any other transport project – whereas ‘only’ 8.3% said the CBD rail tunnel was the most important. It seems pretty obvious to me that the CBD tunnel is more necessary- largely because rail to the airport is simply not possible without the tunnel but also because I think it’s simply a more necessary and more justifiable project. I wonder whether the perception that it simply benefits the CBD – through its name – is hurting the perception of this critical project.

Sure, central Auckland will benefit massively from the construction of the rail tunnel. This is outlined quite clearly in the business case: through enhanced accessibility but perhaps even more so through urban revitalisation and the removal of enormous pressure on city streets. But there are also significant benefits to the rest of Auckland – the 10,000 vehicles removed from accessing Auckland’s CBD between 7am and 9am in 2041 (comparing if the tunnel is built with it not being built) would not only clog up central Auckland’s streets, but also streets elsewhere throughout the region without the tunnel. Furthermore, for rail users throughout Auckland the tunnel creates significant benefits:

• Without the tunnel train frequencies on the three main lines can never get above one train every 10 minutes – unless trains start skipping Britomart.
• Without the tunnel, train frequencies on the Onehunga Line can never be better than one every 30 minutes – unless trains start skipping Britomart.
• For those on the Western Line, the tunnel will improve travel times massively. Henderson to Midtown goes from 50 minutes to 35 minutes. New Lynn to Midtown from 45 minutes down to 23. Morningside to Midtown from 28 minutes to 8 minutes. Those are some serious improvements.

So how can we sell the wider benefits of the rail tunnel better? Does it need a new name that doesn’t mention “CBD”? Is it better to refer to it as a tunnel or a ‘link’? Does any of this actually really matter? Auckland Council is already looking to rebrand the CBD as the “city centre”: reflecting its much wider use than simply for business. Should we be calling this the “Central Auckland rail connection” or something like that?

Share this