By contrast, Aotea Square up to K Road is only 600m, but for me at least “seems” at least as far as the walk to Britomart. The hill is steeper, the protection from the weather is not as good and the points of interest are fewer and further between. In my opinion this somewhat ‘isolates’ the K Road area into something of a precinct of its own, which in my opinion means that if we want that area to be served by a rail station it really needs to be within that specific part of the city. Much of the wider economic benefits of the tunnel would be in encouraging redevelopment and intensification of more neglected parts of the CBD, such as the area around K Road (particularly between K Road and the motorways). I think that unless that area specifically has a train station, these benefits won’t happen.

So we need a station up there I reckon. I also reckon we obviously need a midtown station as otherwise there would be giant hole in the middle of town that doesn’t have good access to rail.

While I understand that saving say $150-200 million by building one less station might seem like a good way to boost the project’s BCR, because so many of the benefits come from the boost rail will bring to areas around the stations, I actually think having fewer stations could do more harm than good.

I think we’re discussing whether a station has to be in the middle of a hub of activity, or if it is acceptable to locate it in the vicinity of activity and expect people to walk for a few hundred meters. I’ve been thinking about this and I think it depends on what the particular activity is and what is located between the station and the activity. Take a few examples:

1. If the activity is an area of evening dining and drinking, then it is preferable that a station is very close by or located within the area of activity. I think you might have a block or two scope for walking if the area walked through comprises shops or something else that attracts “buzz”. But if people have to walk through an area of light industry or warehousing then I think people will avoid using the station. I suspect much of this is determined by the evening hours that the passengers will be traveling.

2. If the activity is a sports stadium, then I think people would be quite happy to walk a few hundred meters and having them walk through an area of light industry isn’t a problem. It might actually make sense to locate the station away from the stadium… instead of trains depositing 1000 passengers at the stadium gates all at once, varying walking speeds for smooth out the arrivals at the stadium.

3. If the activity is offices, then they’ll likely be spread evenly around an area and the main users of the train will be commuters. Wellington’s experience is that they’ll happily walk several hundred meters from the station. They’re mostly on autopilot. I think the best way to make the experience better isn’t to make a station marginally closer, but to make sure buildings have verandas so that they don’t get soaked every time it rains. Would you rather walk 500m under a veranda or 300m without? Commuters will also be happier with faster services, suggesting they’d prefer less stops/stations.

The K Road area certainly feels quite distinct from the Midtown area, probably because Myers Park creates a separation. I’m not sure where your proposed “middle ground” station would be, near Mayoral Drive/Cook Street intersection? Apart from the city council building that’s much less of a hub than the proposed midtown station area.

At the moment, there will be people with two stations within 300m of them. People are quite prepared to walk further than that to get to a station. Having fewer stations would drastically reduce the cost and increase the probability of building the tunnel. And the sooner that happens, the better.