ART for RTN’s sake

What to name the various parts of Auckland’s rapidly evolving transit scene has been a recent topic of discussion.

First was Jon Bridges’ riff on the soon-to-open City Rail Link: “our new beautiful subterranean train set deserves so much better” than the letters C, R, and L, he wrote, provoking a public outpouring of acronyms and nicknames.

Then, from Justin Hu at 1News, came a more serious look behind the scenes of Auckland Transport’s ill-fated struggles to name the new Metro rail lines.

I say ill-fated, because the result of all this work is truly terrible, unmemorable and clunky to the point of risible: E-W, O-W, and S-C. The kind of outcome only a committee could arrive at, and surely in need of quietly moving on from.

The name of the game: strategic alignment

What connects these difficult discussions – and why they haven’t led to clear and enduring naming ideas – is that they’re both disconnected from any higher strategy behind Auckland’s growing transit system. Which is understandable in the first instance (CRL popular names) and unforgivable in the second (AT’s line naming).

In executing public policy, misalignment with higher strategy is often the ultimate cause of suboptimal outcomes.

Allow me to explain.

Since its amalgamation as a Super City in 2010, Auckland has been on a very successful – indeed impressive – programme of reinventing its public transit. That this has worked as well as it has, is due to a somewhat surprising alignment between the new Council, its transport subordinate Auckland Transport, and central government (including MoT, NZTA and KiwiRail).

This hasn’t always been the case, and still isn’t in important ways – see for example the RoNS, the Harbour Crossing, and other misalignments.

Indeed, the policy misalignment between central government and the new Super City was initially so wide that in 2015, then-Mayor Len Brown and Transport Minister Simon Bridges launched a whole joint programme called the Auckland Transport Alignment Project [ATAP], to find where they could agree.

From the very first ATAP report in 2016, there’s been really good output on what was called the Strategic Public Transport Network, the highest tier of public transit (see below).

As you can see – and this is particularly relevant to our current naming issue – this strategic network has been seen from the get-go as comprising multiple modes. Three in fact: Rail, Bus, Ferry.

And it may include even more in the future, such as Light Rail.

So what’s in a name?

This top tier of the PT system is the equivalent of where the motorway system sits compared to the rest of the road and street networks (which in ATAP is called The Strategic Road Network.)

The Strategic Public Transport Network sits above the important remaining bus and ferry systems. It is designed to be distinct in quality, and an interconnected whole. The map is the key: it shows the ambition to cover the whole wider city with at least one line of that top-tier system.

In cities across the world, the common descriptor for this type of top-tier urban PT network is RTN, or Rapid Transit Network. The next layer down is called the FTN, or Frequent Transit Network.

In anticipation of the CRL opening, Auckland Transport has now released a new map:

Auckland Transport’s RTN map 2026 – Apr-26

This is great: we can see the continued execution of the future system we saw in the 2016 ATAP map a decade ago.  The new map is clearly trying to show show us one network made up of various modes, but doesn’t fully commit to that kaupapa.

Instead, it’s stuck in a mode-focused separation, complete with the very clunky and uninspiring title, “Trains and Rapid Buses”. So prosaic. Not selling. No rizz.

Ideally, all the lines on this map would have names from a consistent system. Instead, we have buses using a three-digit, two-letters-plus-one-number system, e.g. NX1, NX2 etc; and rail lines with hyphenated letter pairs, E-W, O-W, S-C.

The one ferry, not even shown on the map, is just called Devonport.

Now, of course everyone knows when they are on a train, a bus or a ferry. But a consistent naming approach for the lines tells you the level of service you can expect on these special RTN services.

These names could be anything – colours, letters, numbers, birds, Te Reo, English, whatever – but they should be consistent across all its constituent modes.

If it is considered super-important to still remind people of the particular mode of each part of this network, then there is the Sydney model: T1, B1, L1, F1, M1, etc.

This map shows the origin of the strategic misalignment in Auckland Transport’s naming process, as described in the 1News story. The scope of the question was clearly limited to: “What do we call these new rail lines?”, when it should have been: “How should we name all the lines of the RTN?” [something I learnt while at NZTA – control the scope: control the outcome].

This is important: a consistent naming system underlines the coherence of the whole network, aligning the growing system with its strategic intent.

Additionally – and this is perhaps the source of Jon Bridges’ plaint – the network itself also needs an expansive, clear and enhancing name.

A map of the RTN – as distinguished from the FTN – is, or should be, designed to inform and inspire potential travellers so they can see it as the citywide system it is, a coherent and connected whole. It should instantly sell the whole project to everyone who might use it.

This is the strategy all over the world: almost every city has one of these maps (a paper version is a favourite souvenir for travellers), and a catchy name – often an acronym – for its top-tier system.

And, as we have championed many times before on Greater Auckland, there is a splendid name which has been lying around unused for decades. Elegant, concise, catchy:

Auckland Rapid Transit or ART

This was the name for the combined rail-and-bus rapid transit plan proposed by the great former Auckland Mayor Dove-Myer Robertson in the 1960s. The great missed opportunity of Auckland’s urban past. Check out the BART/ Washington Metro-like train design:

Last week I posted the same point on Linkedin, and it proved popular with all sorts, from here and elsewhere and both sides of the aisle. ART is a broad church!

And guess what, Auckland Transport already even has an Auckland Rapid Transit Pathway. That’s right – they’re already on a pathway to ART.

Scoop! The OG report:

Share this