Category: Infrastructure

Olympics Games: Negative Externalities

On May 9, 2012

London 2012 banner at The Monument. (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

So far I’ve spent a great deal of effort highlighting the Olympic Games as catalyst for urban redevelopment, transportation and infrastructure investments, and so on. I would be remiss, of course, if I did not point out the negative externalities that the Games can cause. Note that a negative externality is an action of a product on consumers that imposes a negative side effect on a third-party. Such examples may include pollution, climate change, and tragedy of the commons situations.

Negative externalities, in the context of the Olympic Games, can generally impact a host city in three distinct ways: financial, structural and image (Source: Preuss). When discussing finance, I’d be remiss not to mention the 1976 Montreal Olympics, a financial boondoggle that took 30 years to pay off. Montreal is the case in point that when the Olympic profits are smaller than debts, often the host city is making up the difference, financially.

Structural externalities include hard and soft factors. The hard factors are the physical infrastructure developed for the Games, including transportation, telecommunications, tourism, and athletic stadiums. When the cost of developing this infrastructure is too high, such as in Montreal, the host city suffers. The financial liabilities that Montreal faced (and Munich to a lesser extent) was from high investments in transport and sporting infrastructure. In other cases, such as Athens, the sporting infrastructure developed for the Games was vastly underutilized due to lack of demand after the Games.

The image of a host city can also suffer as a result of the Games. While rare, Atlanta has been regarded in many ways to have negatively suffered, largely in the fact that its traffic situation was, and is, horrific. Additionally, security came to be a major issue that damaged Atlanta in the aftermath of the Games.

The above cases represent negative externalities that can happen after the Games have passed. In the case of London, however, one can argue that negative externalities from the Games have already started to appear.

One such negative externality is the scarcity of land in London, generally, and in the London Borough of Newham, specifically, where rising rents due to lack of supply and the significant infrastructure and development investments in and around Olympic Park. In this case the shared resource is land and its lack of availability is causing the Borough to consider new ways of ameliorating the problem: by exporting the poor. It has been argued by some scholars of the Olympics, that certain groups, such as the underclass, the homeless and low-cost rental groups, can be made worse off as a result of an Olympic Games. Its been contended that Olympic legacy benefits accrue to the already privileged sectors of the population’ while the disadvantaged bear a disproportionate share of the burden.

After the Games, keep a close watch on whether the sporting infrastructure is used and whether various transport infrastructure pays off. In a future post, we’ll highlight what some of those investments are.

Olympic Games: Transport Infrastructure Development

By Ryan Richter

On April 16, 2012

In Heavy Rail (metro), Infrastructure, Olympics

Source: e-architect.co.uk

The discussion of the Olympic Games as a catalyst for urban development will now examine one specific aspect of the urban environment: the transportation infrastructure necessary to sustain that environment. This post is the third of the series.

Transportation is part of the tertiary structure of development for the Olympic Games. I’d argue that transportation infrastructure is every bit as important as building the Olympic sporting facilities because if you cannot get to the facilities, there will be no Games. The International Olympic Committee (IOC) has recognized this fact and one of the chief mandates of the Olympic Charter to the Olympic Committee for Organizing the Olympic Games (OCOG) is the “provision for transport…of participants and officials and other matters which, in its opinion, concern the well-being of competitors and officials and their ability to perform the necessary functions at the Olympic Games”. The problem that the IOC is most concerned about involves the efficient and timely transportation of the athletes and officials to the Olympic venues. Prior to the bid for an Olympic Games, the host city often has long-standing plans to solve its transportation problems. The opportunity to host the Olympic Games has expedited these plans.

Many host cities see large investments in transportation. Tokyo, while not the first city to invest in its transportation infrastructure for an Olympic Games, was nonetheless known as the first city to significantly reorganize its transportation infrastructure prior to the Olympic Games for the long-term benefit of its metropolitan area. Due to its dense urban form, Tokyo had to build Olympic facilities across its wide metropolitan region, including the Olympic Village itself, which was composed of smaller satellite villages. In order to connect the Olympic Villages with the Olympic venues, spread far and wide, Tokyo realized it had to focus on transportation investments. Subsequently, $2.7 billion was spent on 22 expressway projects and 5 subway extensions for the Games.

Transport during the Olympic Games needs to link the sport venues, the Olympic Village(s), and hotels and accommodations in an efficient manner, while also considering the daily transport needs of local residents and businesses. For a candidate city to win a bid to host the Olympic Games, the candidate city must have a strategic transport plan that accommodates these concerns. In order to facilitate the process of developing a transport plan that can spur infrastructure investment, the IOC wants to know what transport infrastructure the candidate city has in place when applying to host the Olympic Games. This includes:

Existing transport infrastructure
Planned transport infrastructure
Additional transport infrastructure
Main airport capacity, distance to city center, and public transport linkage
Current transport challenges and how the candidate city intends to overcome these at Games time

By strategically thinking about how the above concerns are addressed, the host city has the opportunity to create or expedite its transport plans. And, as previous host cities have shown, the exposure to the massive numbers of visitors, as well as the logistics of the Games can justify the investment needed to improve and extend transport systems. Below, we’ll examine how London is using the 2012 Summer Olympic Games to revitalize its transport infrastructure.

London

In 2005, London won the bid to host the 2012 Summer Olympic Games. London holds the distinction of being the first city to have hosted an Olympic Games three times (1908 and 1948). The impetus for London to host the Games yet again is due to its vision of urban regeneration in the Lower Lea Valley, expanding transport infrastructure, and providing modern sport facilities.

The London Organizing Committee of the Olympic and Paralympic Games (LOCOG) is the local OCOG responsible for the planning and implementation of the Games. The Olympic Delivery Authority (ODA) is the public sector authority working with LOCOG to ensure the delivery of sport venues and infrastructure. Among the responsibilities of the ODA are:

Building the Olympic venues
Planning and delivery on both transport infrastructure and services to support the 2012 Games projects
Converting the Olympic Park for long-term use after the Games
Making sure the project sets new standards for sustainable development.

The venues of 2012 Olympic Games are to be concentrated in three zones in London: Central Zone, Olympic Park, and River Zone. The Central Zone comprises a number of venues in the City of Westminster, utilizing space in Hyde Park. The Olympic Park will be located at Stratford, in the Borough of Newham, East London. Olympic Park will contain the Olympic Stadium, Olympic Village, and a number of smaller venues. The River Zone comprises a number of venues in Greenwich and near London City Airport.

The Olympic Park site at Stratford is the crown jewel of the urban regeneration initiative. It is an area that has seen little investment for decades. The land was used as landfill after the WWII bombing of London, it has poor drainage issues, and utility and transport infrastructure had crisscrossed the site. The objective of using the Stratford site is to provide quality infrastructure: social, physical, and economic to enhance the value of the site and surrounding areas. Olympic Park, when completed, will be a 270 acre park hosting a variety of venues for the Games. It will be considered a sustainable development, in terms of its impact on climate change, waste, biodiversity, healthy living, and inclusion.

The Olympic Village (left)will be developed adjacent to the site, allowing minimal travel time for athletes to their venues. After the conclusion of the Games, the Olympic Village will be turned over to the market for additional housing (of which 30% will be affordable). The Olympic Village will house 17,320 athletes and officials, which will place 80% of the athletes within 20 minutes of their venues. Adjacent to the Olympic Park and Village is the neighborhood of Stratford. The Stratford town center is a $6 billion office and commercial development adjacent to the Stratford rail station. Among the facilities included is a hotel, restaurants, clubs, cinemas, housing, schools, and parkland.

Transport Infrastructure

London, like other host cities, would like to make travel to the 2012 Olympic Games 100% via public transport. London already has a large and comprehensive public transport system to accomplish this goal. Yet, London has other transport objectives, which involve safety, financial prudence, and regeneration themes. Some of these key transport objectives for the Games include:

Provide frequent, reliable, friendly, inclusive, accessible, environmentally friendly and simple transport for spectators and visitors from all around the UK and overseas
Leave a positive legacy and facilitate the regeneration of East London

The ODA estimates that 7.7 million tickets will be available and that peak crowds will tax the transport infrastructure with 800,000 people on the busiest day. The bulk of this traffic flow will be at Olympic Park. London also estimates that its mode share, or choice of transport, will be predominantly by rail (78% rail, 18% bus share). These estimates reinforce the decisions of ODA to focus infrastructure investments intensively on rail infrastructure. Total transport investments from the ODA are projected at £900m ($1.8 billion) although there are transport investments being made by other parties.

The location of Olympic Park at Stratford has several unique transport advantages. Olympic Park is located near two key transport stations that will be served by 12 different rail services with connections to areas throughout London, Great Britain, and even Europe. These stations are the Stratford Regional Station, Stratford International Station, and West Ham. Services that operate from these stations include the London Underground (Tube) metro system, the London Overground commuter rail system, the Docklands Light Rail (DLR) system, the Network Rail national rail system, and the High Speed 1 rail system which provides Eurostar rail service to Europe. Below is a description of a few of the major improvements.

Stratford Regional Station

Stratford Regional. Source: e-architect.co.uk

Stratford Regional Station (above) is a major transport interchange in East London. Its location lies at the south end of the Olympic Park. This station serves the two tube lines, the Jubilee and Central lines; a DLR line, a Tube line, and five Network Rail lines. Future transport investments for the Games include an additional DLR service to Stratford and Greenwich and additional platforms at the station for capacity improvements.

Infrastructure improvements to Stratford Regional Station include both capacity and service expansion to the station. Capacity improvements include additional platform construction and extensions on the Jubilee line, a new mezzanine, and improved accessibility throughout the station. Service improvements involve new platforms for the new DLR North London line, which will pass through Stratford Regional en route to Stratford International. A new ticket hall will be constructed which will link the station with the Stratford town center. Overall, the ODA budget for transport investment at Stratford Regional Station is £119m ($239 million).

Stratford International Station

An aerial view of Stratford International Station with a Channel Tunnel Rail Link train passing through in March 2009. © 2007-2012 The London Organising Committee of the Olympic Games and Paralympic Games Limited

The Stratford International Station is a legacy investment of the Games. Located in the heart of Olympic Park and 400 meters from Stratford Regional Station, it will provide easy access to the venues in Olympic Park or to Tube, DLR, and National Rail service connections. During the Olympic Games, a high-speed shuttle service, the Javelin, will operate from St. Pancras with a travel time of just seven minutes and service frequencies of ten trains per hour. Following the Games, Stratford International will become be a station for Eurostar trains from continental European route to St. Pancras. Stratford International was completed in 2006 at a cost of £210m ($422 million).

In the next post, we’ll analyze what it all means. That is, why do cities invest so heavily in infrastructure and urban development in the lead up to the Olympic Games? What is the ultimate legacy of the Games on its host cities?

The Olympic Games and Urban Development

By Ryan Richter

On April 11, 2012

In Infrastructure, Olympics, Urban Planning

London Olympic Park under construction in Oct. 2009 Source: supermoving @ Flickr

In this part of the Olympic Games series, we’ll examine the role that the Olympic Games has played as a catalyst for urban development, particularly in the form of transport infrastructure.

The evolution of the modern Olympic Games can be related in terms of size and cost. As each Olympiad passes, the cost borne by the host city and country has grown. In the 1896 Athens Games, there were 245 athletes from 14 countries that participated. The next time Athens hosted an Olympic Games, in 2004, there were 10,625 athletes from 201 countries. The cost of the 2004 Summer Olympics in Athens was approximately €9 billion euro.

The growth of the Olympics has had a profound effect on the Olympic host city. Due to the escalating costs of hosting an Olympic Games, the IOC established an Olympic Games Study Commission to “analyze the current scale and scope of the Olympic Games…to propose solutions to help manage the inherent size, complexity, and cost of staging the Olympic Games in the future”. In the last few decades, however, this complexity has grown beyond the organization and implementation of the Olympic Games. Rather, organizing an Olympic Games has increasingly been used as an opportunity for urban renewal and economic development. This includes the increased economic activity as a result of tourism, the construction of sport facilities in previously under-provided areas, and the justification for new investment in transportation infrastructure and urban design.

The popularity of the Olympic Games among the countries of the world has much to do with the television broadcast of the Games. Since the 1960 Olympics in Rome, television has had an increasingly important role in displaying the Olympics and its ideals to the world. The 2000 Sydney Games attracted over 20,000 journalists and was watched by over 3.7 billion television viewers. This coverage has led to increasing popularity and participation among the countries of the world. In 1988, 159 countries participated in Seoul’s Summer Olympics. By the time of Sydney’s Olympics in 2000, there was 200 countries participating.

Olympic Village and Vancouver. Source: City of Vancouver

As the popularity of the Olympics has grown in terms of participation and spectators, a place to house Olympic athletes and officials was needed close to the Olympic venues. This need was recognized long ago, back in 1932. The first Olympic Village was constructed for the 1932 Summer Olympics in Los Angeles. The Village was built on 250 acres and contained several hundred dwellings, a post office, amphitheater, hospital, fire station, and bank. In contrast, the Olympic Village planned for London’s 2012 Olympic Games will provide lodging for 17,000 people with shops, restaurants, a hospital, media facilities, and direct transportation to central London via train. In both cases, the Olympic Villages were constructed adjacent to much of the sporting venues, thus creating the term “Olympic City.”

Because of the requirements of hosting the Olympics and because of the increasing popularity of the Olympics from the number of athletes and events to tourism, host cities are recognizing the urban impacts that the Olympic Games can have on their environments. Cities recognize that the potential long-term benefit of hosting the Olympic Games is the opportunity it provides to influence the pattern of urban development through investment in infrastructure and environmental improvements. As a result of winning the bid to host the Olympic Games, urban development in host cities are required to perform three major functions:

Primary Structure: Sport and Leisure

Stadium
Indoor Arena
Special facilities: swimming pool, shooting range, rowing course, equestrian facilities

Secondary Structure: Housing and Recreation

Athlete and media village (Olympic Village)
Media and press center
Training facilities
Parks

Tertiary Structure: Infrastructure

Transportation

Airport
Public transport
Roads and Highways

Tourism

Hotels
Attractions

Utility

Sewers: drainage and sanitary
Telecommunications

These urban development structures may or may not conflict with the host city’s own plans for urban development, but the Olympic Games provides the vehicle for expedient development. Since the 1960’s, many of the Olympic host cities have followed this structure that guides urban development.

The primary structure involves the physical development of sport and leisure facilities that are needed to successfully host the Olympic Games. These structures can already exist in a city or be newly constructed. Venues of this type can be subdivided into stadiums, halls, multi-purpose and training facilities. The construction (or reconstruction) of stadiums has been a feature of urban development since the first Olympics in 1896.

Many large cities usually have a large stadium which is normally used for the opening and closing ceremonies, track and field, and soccer. These facilities should have a capacity of at least 80,000. The Olympic hall would is a smaller venue that hosts volleyball, basketball and gymnastics. These facilities can have a capacity of up to 25,000. Multi-purpose facilities are even smaller and are often found in convention centers. Similarly, training centers can often use multi-purpose and smaller halls for their needs.

The secondary structure of housing and recreation are necessary in the hosting of the Olympic Games. The Sydney Olympics in 2000 had 15,000 athletes and 6,000 media and press. Requirements for housing have been provided by “Olympic Villages,” with post-Olympic use generally turned over to the private sector for affordable housing. Olympic host cities generally try to use Olympic Villages as a way to regenerate an area of the city. Due to the large spaces required for Olympic venues and housing of athletes, many host cities have usually chosen sites that are underutilized and near the center of the city. Cities such as Munich, Seoul, Barcelona, Sydney, and Athens have all chosen underutilized sites near the center of the city for Olympic facilities.

The tertiary structure, however, is probably the most important as a requirement for hosting the Olympic Games. Airports and rail stations are necessary as gateways to the outside world. Roads and public transport are necessary for movement and mobility around the city. Infrastructure investment is probably the single most important cost of the Olympic Games and is vital. It is correct in stating that without a strong tertiary structure, any city bidding for the Olympic Games will fail in its bid.

In the next post, we’ll examine how Olympic host cities leverage the Olympic Games in developing the tertiary structure of transport infrastructure.

Transportation Nexus and the Olympic Games

By Ryan Richter

On April 10, 2012

In Infrastructure, Olympics, Urban Planning

The 2012 Summer Olympic Games will begin this summer in London and I thought I would share a bit of my knowledge in this arena. Not about the Olympic Games themselves, but rather, on the massive planning efforts that are involved for the host city (and country) that the Games will be played in. This post will begin a series of examining infrastructure investments in Olympic host cities.

I conducted my masters thesis on transport investments in Olympic host cities after spending the summer of 2007 in London as part of the University of Illinois at Chicago Great Cities Institute program. For those of you who are interested, you can read my thesis in its entirety here. For the rest of you, a synopsis will do.

A little background first.

The modern Olympic Games have grown in size and scale since the austere beginnings of the Olympic Movement in Athens, 1896. The increased complexity, scope, and size of the Olympic Games has profound financial implications for Olympic Games host cities that extend well beyond the provision of sport facilities, logistics planning, and organization during the Games itself. Major investments in a host city’s infrastructure, such as large-scale urban redevelopment, guest and athlete accommodation, venue construction, public transport, security, and utility infrastructure have been necessary to ensure the effective operation of the Games.

Cities have long used mega events such as the Olympic Games for promoting economic development and urban regeneration. Transport infrastructure is a major component of any city, for it facilitates the movement of people and goods. This makes transport not only a social necessity, but also an economic necessity. The hosting of the Olympic Games and other large-scale events allow a city to implement and/or expedite long-term development plans of which transport is one component.

The International Olympic Committee (IOC), the body that governs the Olympic Games, requires its candidate cities to consider what the legacy and impacts of hosting an Olympic Games might be like on the candidate cities. In the IOC Candidate Questionnaire, candidate cities must describe how the Games fit into its long-term planning strategy. Transportation has historically been a major part of the Olympic legacy and cost. In terms of transportation, the IOC wants guarantees for which infrastructure projects are planned, the size of the airport, and fleet and rolling stock information on the public transport authorities in the candidate city. Essentially, the IOC forces its candidates to understand fully the costs of entering into a contract to host the Games.

When a city is chosen to host the Olympic Games, it is the responsibility of the Organizing Committee for the Olympic Games (OCOG) to administer the Olympic Games for the host city. The OCOG is the principal agent responsible for the planning, implementation, and operation of the Olympic Games in its host city. The task of hosting the Games is immense and includes, among other things, choosing and/or creating the competition sites, lodging athletes and officials, organize medical services, and solving transportation issues. The London Organizing Committee for the Olympic Games, which is the local OCOG for the 2012 Summer Olympics, is a private sector company that works in tandem with the public sector Olympic Delivery Authority to fund the London Olympic Games.

In the next post, we’ll examine the Olympic Games as a catalyst for urban development.

Infrastructure #fail

By Ryan Richter

On April 4, 2012

In Infrastructure, The Suburban Experiment

Flooded I-10/I-610 interchange and surrounding area of northwest New Orleans and Metairie, Louisiana (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

Building off of my previous post on suburban poverty, I briefly touched on the aspect of infrastructure. I mentioned that municipalities and transit agencies (really all government agencies) will be hard pressed to keep up their existing infrastructure, let alone create new infrastructure in a financially sustainable way. Much has been written on this topic, and I don’t have much new to add. Yet, I’m astonished to learn how much this country can tolerate when it comes to poor infrastructure. In urban planning and transportation circles, it has been common to note that it would take a major accident or catastrophe to get this country to embark on a program for infrastructure renewal. And yet, we’ve had two catastrophic incidents just in less than 10 years: Hurricane Katrina and the New Orleans levee breaches in 2005 and the Minneapolis bridge collapse in 2007. Even today, with $5.00 a gallon gas a distinct possibility this year and with record transit ridership, we refuse to invest in infrastructure that will make our cities fundamentally better and more sustainable places.

So how does this sorry state of affairs affect us?

According to the Urban Land Institute’s recent report, Infrastructure 2011: A Strategic Priority, we may see the following:

Tax Increases: User fees are likely as tolls and transit fares increase to meet operating costs. Additional utility fees and traffic fines too.
Deterioration: Local governments will fund essential capital projects but may be forced to abandon others. We already are seeing this with states allowing paved roads to revert to gravel.
Deterioration will result in service interruption and will affect mobility. This is exactly what happened with the Minneapolis bridge collapse.
I-35W Mississippi River bridge in Minneapolis, Minnesota, before and after its collapse. (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

Put simply: we are unwilling or unable to fund infrastructure investment in this country and are willing to watch infrastructure fail with predictably catastrophic results. In terms of the suburban experiment, the inefficiencies of the transportation and utility infrastructure have become apparent as the life cycles on the infrastructure comes to an end. Communities and transportation agencies are discovering that they cannot afford to replace or even maintain what they have. My own employer recently raised transit fares on average by 30% to end the practice of diverting scarce capital resources to cover operating expenses.

In terms of the transport nexus between land use and transportation given the

Blight may sometimes cause communities to cons...

Now arriving in a suburb near you. (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

economic and political climate around infrastructure, I believe we need to focus any future growth in built up areas where infrastructure is already in place. Developing on greenfield sites without and transportation and/or utility infrastructure is absolutely idiotic given the realities. We need to see land use densities and mixed use types increase around transit stations to leverage the existing transportation infrastructure already in place. We also need to see infill development on brownfield sites where there is existing transportation and utility infrastructure. And, as difficult to fathom as this may be, we need to reconsider the utility of maintaining the infrastructure of much of the suburban experiment. Much of it, I suspect, is simply not sustainable.