The best thing I could see about a 2024 olympics for DC/Baltimore would be maybe 7 day a week train service between the two cities. As much as a separated blue line would help the city (and moving more people to RFK)they'd have to start digging the new tunnel under the potomac today wouldn't they?

by drumz on Aug 6, 2012 9:30 am • link • report

The Ethicist may be right in the end, but the logic he offers is pretty flawed.

"I roll through a red light if and only if no pedestrian is in the crosswalk and no car is in the intersection — that is, if it will not endanger myself or anybody else. To put it another way, I treat red lights and stop signs as if they were yield signs."

I could say that about myself as a driver, and would expect to be roundly criticized, and not just on GGW.

by ah on Aug 6, 2012 9:46 am • link • report

"To put it another way, I treat red lights and stop signs as if they were yield signs. A fundamental concern of ethics is the effect of our actions on others. My actions harm no one."

This is untrue. While there is, perhaps, little danger of the bike itself injuring someone, erratic behavior on the part of cyclists can cause vehicles to have to swerve, thus endangering the driver, pedestrians, and other cars/cyclists on the road.

I am pro-cycling, but it is wrong to think that just because the vehicle itself cannot cause as much direct damage as a car, that they should be entitled to break the law.

by Tex on Aug 6, 2012 9:55 am • link • report

If all we got transit-wise out of hosting the Olympics was 7-day MARC service, I'd say that would be a huge waste. I'd want to see some seriously high-speed service from a completely renovated Union Station directly to BWI's terminal and on through a new Baltimore tunnel. That would make it worth it.

It would be hard, however, to use the Olympics to build a separated Blue Line. It's not like any events would be held downtown. It just wouldn't really be addressing an Olympics-related transportation need.

Either way, it's not going to happen. This article doesn't really reflect a new effort, just some day dreaming from those who already failed.

by TM on Aug 6, 2012 9:56 am • link • report

And to the NYT piece, I tell people when they give me the shocked look after I tell them I ride my bicycle on the mean streets of Arlington county that I ride in a way that ensures my safety at any given moment. Then again I do this while driving and walking as well.

The author is careful to point out that if he is pulled over or cited for any of the laws he breaks he expects to be punished. Compared to the speed camera debate over here where there seems to be a sentiment that people should be allowed to ignore speed limits and not be punished if caught and since cameras increase the likelihood of being caught then there shouldn't be cameras. QED.

In short, yes there is a difference between the ethics and the law that doesn't invalidate either.

by drumz on Aug 6, 2012 9:56 am • link • report

Zigzags in Virginia seem to be slowing drivers down at a WO&D trail crossing.

While watching the bike races in London, I was reminded that the UK has zigzaged side-lines just before (and after?) every stop on the road. It seems a very efficient visual reminder for drivers that they need to stop.

View Larger Map

by Jasper on Aug 6, 2012 10:06 am • link • report

Off-topic, but it seems like Metro has had a significantly higher number of total disasters recently (Friday PM commute, today's AM commute, to name a few). Any data yet on whether this is quantitatively true?

by Corey on Aug 6, 2012 10:16 am • link • report

Has the Olympics ever been shown to be an economic boon to the local economies? I think China was the only one in recent years to have broken even? And that was mostly due to the central planning nature of the state economy there?

If anything, an Olympics bid (and award) forces civic leaders to confront serious issues and decisions, not the least of which is transportation. It also requires long-term vision. If the trend in recent games continues, the emphasis will be on new construction, with minor consideration for rehabilitation and retrofits. Fast-tracking of facility construction is not Washington's forte, and neither is vision. Will the new facilities end up in Montgomery, Arlington, Fairfax, Baltimore County, and so on?

How much of the Olympic infrastructure will remain in place to be used after the games? How many new stadia, arenas, fora, etc, are being built for the event, and how many can be used with reasonable expectation?

I'm not saying it can't be done. I have no doubt it would be a transformative event. I do have doubts our regional leaders can come to any consensus on it.

A winter games bid in this region is a non-starter.

by Jack Love on Aug 6, 2012 10:29 am • link • report

It's not like any events would be held downtown.

Several premiere events would be held or going through the heart of the city.

by selxic on Aug 6, 2012 10:31 am • link • report

A cornerstone of bids by the US and US cities for the Olympics and World Cup has been existing venues, Jack Love. Of course that has hurt bids because fewer people can get their pockets greased with nice contracts.

by selxic on Aug 6, 2012 10:35 am • link • report

Puhleeease.

The Olympics here would be a disaster, as it is for every city who hosts.

And it would only cost 2 billion? How can someone say that without simultaneously laughing. The London Games cost 14.5 billion. On what planet will the olympics only cost 2 billion in 2024?

They cost 2 billion in Atlanta in 1996. Whomever is pushing this idea needs to be publically flogged for even saying it.

And no modern olympics has ever broken even.

by anon on Aug 6, 2012 10:36 am • link • report

@Selxic

OK, so maybe not "no" events could be held downtown, but beyond the Verizon Center, which would presumably host the basketball tournament, where else could events be held? You could run the road race and marathon through the streets, but there's no way we could host as many events downtown as London currently is.

by TM on Aug 6, 2012 10:46 am • link • report

I think China was the only one in recent years to have broken even?

Not close. China spent something like $40B on the games.

LA (1984) turned a decent profit. Atlanta (1996) broke even.

by ah on Aug 6, 2012 10:52 am • link • report

@ah
The Ethicist may be right in the end, but the logic he offers is pretty flawed.

"I roll through a red light if and only if no pedestrian is in the crosswalk and no car is in the intersection — that is, if it will not endanger myself or anybody else. To put it another way, I treat red lights and stop signs as if they were yield signs."

I could say that about myself as a driver, and would expect to be roundly criticized, and not just on GGW.

A person on a bicycle or on foot is much more able than a car driver to correctly assess when it is safe to cross because:
- their field of vision/visibility is much better
- their vehicle/self is much smaller
- their ability to change speed/direction in a short span is much greater

by MLD on Aug 6, 2012 10:58 am • link • report

@TM - exactly. If the emphasis is on existing facilities, that means the games are spread far and wide across the region. Which results in a much larger footprint, and increases transportation problems.

If we're building new, that's additional billions, plus the concerns we're building white elephants.

Beyond prestige, I don't know why anyone would want to host the games. Security requires an army of thousands, and has removed all of the spur-of-the-moment wonder of the event. Locals will never rub elbows with Usain Bolt or Misty May-Trainer. Tickets are consumed en masse by corporate sponsors, who don't even have the decency to use them. Residents are warned not to even try to approach the city centres. And never mind the billions it costs.

It's all pie in the sky anyway.

by Jack Love on Aug 6, 2012 11:03 am • link • report

The original 2012 plan envisioned a (new)stadium for ceremonies and track and field, with a swimming/diving venue at the RFK site. College Park serving as Olympic village. Nats Park could be used for some field sport. Also downtown you most likely will have beach volleyball venues, triathlon, bike race, marathon, and tennis and wasn't there a velodrome being built around here? Convention Center would be the media center. In other words, a lot of events would be downtown.

As for making money. At least the American's have a decent tract record in making money.

SLC $40M Profit
Atl $10M Profit
LA $250M Profit

2024 games have a very strong chance for a North American host city, with US having the inside edge (since Vancouver was the most recent and 22 years since it hosted any Olympics). USOC is not even going to bid 2020 or 2022 Winter, saving themselves for 2024. Right now DC isn't even on the map. Current cities getting ready are LA, Chicago, Philly, NY, San Francisco and Tulsa (yup you read that right). My bet right now is that either San Francisco and Chicago are the likely candidates. DC best chance was 2012 and it was a rather strong bid, but USOC where still steaming over their bribery hearings to even give DC a shot and went with NY instead.

by RJ on Aug 6, 2012 11:20 am • link • report

Sorry, MLD, that's a difference of degree not kind. Even in a car, approaching a red light with some caution allows me to determine whether there are pedestrians or other vehicles to which I must yield, and there are still ample instances where I could proceed through without endangering others (or myself).

But I don't do that, because the law says I must stop until the light turns green.

by ah on Aug 6, 2012 11:20 am • link • report

Jack Love,

Having memories of life in LA84 and SLC02, I can say that having the Olympics in your town is one of the greatest gifts you can ever get. Trust me, every one nay-says, but once week 2 roles around, nay-sayers are gone and the city becomes a gigantic party.

by RJ on Aug 6, 2012 11:24 am • link • report

Why couldn't we do a Northeast Corridor Olympics?

Between DC, Philly, Baltimore, NJ, and NY, we have plenty of suitable venues for just about everything. (Truth be told, NY/NJ do hold the bulk of these). This could also establish the political willpower to fast-track Amtrak's planned upgrades to the NEC, which are a good idea, Olympics or not.

Hell. I'd implore the IOC to begin encouraging this kind of bid, and to specifically ban the construction of 'temporary' solely for the games.

Just don't rebuild RFK. We don't need another gigantic "multipurpose" stadium that will never be used.

by andrew on Aug 6, 2012 12:11 pm • link • report

*temporary venues

by andrew on Aug 6, 2012 12:16 pm • link • report

The 2012 proposal, which will surely be the basis for a 2024 proposal, was very DC/MD centric. MD east of I-95, too: there were no venues proposed for Montgomery County and only one in Frederick. There were only four minor venues in VA: water polo in Arlington, equestrian endurance at Great Meadow, canoeing at Beaverdam and basketball preliminaries at GMU. Lots of stuff downtown in DC and Baltimore, several venues in PG and Charles, College Park, UMBC and Johns Hopkins, sailing at the Naval Academy.

Dedicated Olympic lanes were promised on I-95, I 395 and I-66 in VA, the entire Beltway, I-97 and US-50, the Baltimore beltway between I-70 and I-97, and I-95 and the BW Parkway between Washington and Baltimore. That would be a major impact to the normal functioning of the region.

HSR along the NEC was promised. If DC2024 is successful, that might happen. If there'd be any MARC improvements, they'd be on the Camden Line since most of the Baltimore venues are closer to Camden station than Penn Station (and College Park is on the Camden Line, too). But just because the infrastructure is built doesn't mean MARC has to operate it seven days a week once the Olympics are over!

The Olympic Complex where RFK is now would be served by Blue, Orange and Silver. Doubt if we'd get a Separated Blue out of it. DC2012 was working with the old Convention Center. The new one is bigger and could probably support more events. Howard and GW were also roped in. All three locations are currently well served by Metrorail. In DC, the Tennis Center is probably the hardest venue to get to. Dedicated Olympic lanes along 16th St.?

by jim on Aug 6, 2012 12:27 pm • link • report

@ah

And you just described the justification for allowing cars to make a right turn on red. We allow cars to drive right through the path of pedestrians based on the fact that we "trust" drivers to make a correct assessment of risk. Jaywalking, biking through red, etc. can pass the same test. It's another example of the double standard towards cars. Strict observance of red lights is eased in cases where it helps drivers avoid a few seconds delay (the ostensible purpose of allowing right of red was gas efficiency, but the gains are minuscule for the average driver).

Fatalities increased somewhat as a result of right on red, but since driving is the "normal" mode of transportation in the US, the government was willing to make a cost-benefit analysis in favor of drivers. Pedestrians and bikers don't get that sort of deference.

by TM on Aug 6, 2012 12:32 pm • link • report

The IOC wants a geographically compact Olympics and they want to hear how the cool stuff you are building for them will transform your city. DC (but not "DC/Baltimore") might be able to swing the first but the second is unlikely.

My impression is that there would have to be a substantial network of dedicated Olympics lanes and a broader network of roads with temporary traffic restrictions. You can thank Atlanta's sprawlympics for that.

by alexandrian on Aug 6, 2012 12:43 pm • link • report

andrew,

I doubt regional games sell very well with USOC and IOC. The Olympic branding is very city specific and I assume the IOC would like the games to be as logistically consolidated as possible. Usually the Olympics venue footprint is around 50 miles, DC and Baltimore would really be the only two cities that could fall within this footprint. Even if DC/Balt won 2012, I am sure the Olympics would identify Washington as the host city. The only way regional bids would win if it is financially it is the only way the Olympics can be held in general and if it is marketable (ability to establish an identity). I think the Winter Games have the best chance at a regional bid since the venues have very strict site requirements and their growth is severely limiting the number of cites that could possibly hold them.

by RJ on Aug 6, 2012 12:46 pm • link • report

I think these ethical questions are an interesting academic exercise. What's really fascinating is that "cyclist scofflaws" are a never-ending source of column inches, whereas the universality of "driver scofflaws" doesn't even raise an eyebrow. Is it "ethical" for cyclists to adhere to the Idaho Stop without a specific exemption carved out in law? A good argument can be made that the answer is "no".

Do pedestrians have a moral responsibility to wait for a signal even if they're crossing a two-lane street at 5am, and there's not a car in sight? Or to not enter the intersection if the "red hand" has started flashing? Possibly. (Of course, no one cares, and they're going to continue to do so anyway.)

Funny there aren't scads of hand-wringing articles agonizing over whether drivers should stop for pedestrians in a crosswalk, or use their turn signal, or drive the speed limit.

I would think that would be a much more interesting field of inquiry. Does make you wonder why it is we focus on what we focus on, though.

by oboe on Aug 6, 2012 1:14 pm • link • report

Also, I don't think "Because it's the law!" is a valid response to an *ethical* argument. "The Law" doesn't not equal "Ethics."

by oboe on Aug 6, 2012 1:16 pm • link • report

Someone remind me where the venues for Olympic soccer are this year.

by selxic on Aug 6, 2012 1:22 pm • link • report

On Twitter, GGW's David Alpert is pillorying the Examiner's Kytja Weir for being one of the only journalists to try to hold WMATA to account for its colossal failures to uphold the public's trust:

It just seems to me that a) you're unnecessarily nitpicking tiny things at WMATA (that trip didn't sound outrageous to me) and... the Examiner is NOT scrutinizing any other transportation budgets in the same way

Also, private companies waste $ all the time, but they are able to hide it better. That shouldn't be rewarded by lack of attn in news

Of course, the Examiner actually does regularly scrutinize all sorts of spending - justified and unjustified - by numerous local and county governments across the region. And has recently done yeoman's work reporting on MWAA's questionable ethics and gross misspending.

Given Metro's overall lack of transparency, scrutinizing its budget and publicly-visible performance is really the only accountability method we have to keep an eye on Metro's performance. Sure, it would be great to have the same insight into private companies. But it seems silly to suggest that because we don't, we should give Metro a pass on whether a $5,000/person trip to Japan to look at railcar designs is a useful or "outrageous" or in-between way to use fares and taxpayer dollars.

by Arl Fan on Aug 6, 2012 1:40 pm • link • report

What's really fascinating is that "cyclist scofflaws" are a never-ending source of column inches, whereas the universality of "driver scofflaws" doesn't even raise an eyebrow.

What's even more fascinating is that you are criticizing the lack of "driver scofflaw" column inches on a blog somewhat dedicated to providing inches of material on...driver scofflaws and any other anti-car screed it can muster.

by HogWash on Aug 6, 2012 1:59 pm • link • report

selxic has a good point. One of the Olympic Football venues is all the way out in Glasgow -- over 400 miles away from London.

By comparison, NYC is only 225 miles from DC.

by andrew on Aug 6, 2012 2:04 pm • link • report

And where else in the popular media pray tell could we find inches of material of driver scofflaws, especially on a website that is general news?

by drumz on Aug 6, 2012 2:05 pm • link • report

Likewise, I'm sure I'm not the only one who enjoyed going to RFK for the 1996 Atlanta Summer Olympics, andrew.

by selxic on Aug 6, 2012 2:15 pm • link • report

The Ethicist may be right in the end, but the logic he offers is pretty flawed.

"I roll through a red light if and only if no pedestrian is in the crosswalk and no car is in the intersection — that is, if it will not endanger myself or anybody else. To put it another way, I treat red lights and stop signs as if they were yield signs."

I could say that about myself as a driver, and would expect to be roundly criticized, and not just on GGW.

------

Hm, perhaps that's an indication that the criticism is flawed? I'm a ped/cyclist without a car and I don't have a problem with the "slow roll" that most drivers already take through stop signs. Personally my biggest pet peeve is when drivers simply do not take heed of a ped or cyclist in the intersection. As I see it, a driver does not have to stop if no one else is there, but should stop or at least take extreme caution when others are there. Peds and cyclists ought to also take caution, but not as much as drivers.

by Scoot on Aug 6, 2012 2:16 pm • link • report

Olympic football events are often held in other cities in the host country. You have to have 4 or 5 large stadiums to host them so you have to spread it out. All of the other events (except for sailing, which has to be in the ocean) are within 30 miles of central London.

by MLD on Aug 6, 2012 2:17 pm • link • report

I am pro-cycling, but it is wrong to think that just because the vehicle itself cannot cause as much direct damage as a car, that they should be entitled to break the law.

I agree that no one is entitled to break the law. That's why the law should be changed. For one thing, Idaho Stops should be legalized in DC.

by Falls Church on Aug 6, 2012 2:55 pm • link • report

Olympic football events are often held in other cities in the host country.

That is correct. As some will remember, Washington DC jointly hosted the 1996 Olympic football tournament with Birmingham (AL), Orlando and Athens (GA).

In 1996, the sailing events were held in Savannah GA, about 250 miles from Atlanta.

I think Los Angeles 1984 might win the award for the Olympic tournament held farthest away from the host city -- Boston and Annapolis both hosted football games, one at Harvard and another at Navy Memorial. That would be like Cairo, Egypt hosting an Olympic football game for the London Olympics.

by Scoot on Aug 6, 2012 2:57 pm • link • report

What's even more fascinating is that you are criticizing the lack of "driver scofflaw" column inches on a blog somewhat dedicated to providing inches of material on...driver scofflaws and any other anti-car screed it can muster.

You have an odd opinion of what is and isn't fascinating. The reason I think the laser-like focus on scofflaw cycling is interesting is that cyclists make up a very small percentage of vehicles on the road, and even smaller percentage of accidents, and the popular media is rife with hand-wringing articles of the 'Oh, What Is To Be Done?' variety.

On the other hand, you've got GGW. And maybe a half-dozen other advocacy blogs.

Maybe you could tease out why exactly why you think your point is interesting in greater detail and fill us in.

by oboe on Aug 6, 2012 3:38 pm • link • report

You could do an olympics in DC without having to build very many things, off the top of my head you would need an olympic village, a track stadium, some swimming facilites, and a whitewater course. Between Catholic, AU, GWU, Georgetown and UMD (Cole Fieldhouse and Comcast Center) you have many potenial indoor sports facilites besides the Verizon center. You could put a bunch of things like boxing, fencing, weightlifting, etc at the convention center with temporary seating. The last 3 or 4 olympics have all had one convention center type facilty that hosts multiple events. Build a temporary beach vollyball facility on the mall perhaps, convert the Gtown or Howard football stadium into an archery facilty and you pretty much are good.

Not that I think it would be the best use of money, and whatever your budget was you would exceed it, but I think you could do it relatively cheap for an olympics. Traffic wouldn't be too bad becuase the same thing that happened in London( which is reported as being empty) woudl happen here, the normal tourist woudl stay away and lots of locals would go out of town.

by nathaniel on Aug 6, 2012 3:53 pm • link • report

to finish my thought, you could do soccer at Maryland, Navy, UVA, Baltimore and maybe some sites in Pennsylvania (PSU or Philadelphia?)

by nathaniel on Aug 6, 2012 3:56 pm • link • report

There are a huge number of different sporting events held at the Olympics, many of which get minimal, if any, coverage on US TV (NBC). I suspect many of the existing facilities in the DC area would be regarded as inadequate or totally unsuitable. The London Olympic Park, where many of major facilities including the Olympic Village are located, is 2.4 sq kilometers in size. Where would DC find a space, say 2 sq km, that has good Metro access and could be dedicated to the Olympics for the years of construction and then re-purposed with some of the temporary sport arenas torn down afterwards?

On the transit front, by 2024: the Silver Line would be finished (Metro access to Dulles - check); Purple Line should be completed (access to UMD for any events held there - check); MARC could be running 7 days a week to Baltimore and connecting to the Baltimore Red Line for hotel space in Baltimore and any events that may end up there; and much of the planned DC and No VA streetcar systems could be in place.

The actual construction time for the proposed Blue Line re-route via M street might be 6-7 years, but we have not even begun on the long process of building a consensus that a Blue line re-route is the next logical step for the system core, let alone starting on the initial engineering studies. Not going to happen by 2024.

If boating and sailing events are held in Annapolis and equestrian events at Great Meadow in VA, what exactly are the rail transit options to those 2 places? :-/.

The number of political players for a DC regional bid could also hinder the USC getting behind a DC bid. Would have to have confidence that DC, MD, VA, the US executive branch appointees and Congress will all get onboard in support - and stay there. Chicago and San Francisco has the advantage of 1 state government and 1 primary city government.

by AlanF on Aug 6, 2012 5:18 pm • link • report

An Olympic bid? Here?

Yeah, right.

I would LOVE to see the Olympics come here, but let's be realistic.

We're talking about a region where you can't build a mole hill without dealing with NIMBY's, preservationists, various groups of "neighborhood activists" and the ever-present "concerned citizens groups".

What with the road opponents, environmentalists, just plain antis, and the precious height limits, forget it!

by ceefer66 on Aug 6, 2012 5:38 pm • link • report

Where would DC find a space, say 2 sq km, that has good Metro access and could be dedicated to the Olympics for the years of construction and then re-purposed with some of the temporary sport arenas torn down afterwards?

RFK Stadium etc. would be rebuilt as the Olympic Stadium, and then the new home of the Redskins. I have great confidence that most facilities already exist or could be modified modestly.

We even have a whitewater course that exists, with heated water! http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dickerson_Whitewater_Course

by ah on Aug 6, 2012 6:11 pm • link • report

@alan
I know exactly how many events are in the Olympics and most of them just require an indoor arena that seats 6000 plus. The uk doesn't really do indoor sports so they had to build some in the 2 km Olympic park. Dc would not have to do that as by my calculations dc has 3 indoor arena that seat 14000 plus plus 6 or 7 others that seat 5000 or more that could be expanded depending on configuration. But if you want a large space for events, you could build all sorts of tempArary stuff on the Mall.

by Nathaniel on Aug 6, 2012 7:09 pm • link • report

@ceefer66, DC and the surrounding urban core is in the middle of a respectable sized building boom with multiple construction cranes dotting the city skyline. DC has seen a substantial amount of new construction in recent decades. The DC region even managed to build a 103 mile heavy rail Metro system in a 30 year period in the post-1960 era. No other US city can make that claim.

Yes, sure there are NIMBYs, preservationists, ANCs, and anti-development types in DC. So? That is not stopping a lot of new construction and development in the city and around it. You make it sound like nothing can get built here. Helps to keep some perspective.

As for the Olympics, no I would not expect the DC region to make a serious effort at hosting the 2024 games. For the best, really.

by AlanF on Aug 6, 2012 7:48 pm • link • report

As a reminder to those who were not here, ignored the first line of the post, or did not read the comments, there was a bid for 2012. The venues were outlined and renderings were even created. I don't understand why it is believe a bid could not be done. It already was and I'm sure any potential future bid would be very similar. Of course I don't expect DC to be a serious contender (DC wasn't even a USOC finalist), but a bid is not far fetched.

by selxic on Aug 7, 2012 1:11 am • link • report

"Wins for economy, baseball team : Both the Nats and the region's economy are doing well right now, with the economy bolstered by steady government spending and an educated workforce."

GGW: covering not just first world problems. First city problems.

by Ironchef on Aug 8, 2012 2:25 pm • link • report

@ah, if you said that you ran red lights as a driver "if it will not endanger myself or anybody else." I would have no problem with that, since the "if" means that you would never run red lights.

@Tex, I think you missed the point. He doesn't bahave erratically and he doesn't require drivers to swerve.

by David C on Aug 10, 2012 12:51 pm • link • report

The Olympics is a bad investment for the same reason the baseball stadium was. The IOC knows that hosting the Olympics brings prestige and civic pride, and that cities are willing to pay a premium for that. And so they price the Olympics accordingly - so that you can't make a profit. Cities that do make a profit find a revenue stream that the IOC did not count on, but you can't count on that. And when you add the price of all the failed bids it, the Olympics have never produced a winner. So (the cost of the bid) * (the risk of not winning) + (the cost of hosting) is always greater than the financial gain. Always.

I personally don't think DC needs to buy prestige or civic pride. I'd rather have lower taxes or better services.

by David C on Aug 10, 2012 12:53 pm • link • report

David C,

I think in general you are correct, but the one piece that can work in a city's favor is if that prestige and civic pride is channeled towards useful public works projects.

For example, Vancouver got a new subway line out of their hosting - the possibility of the games helped build political support for the project. Salt Lake City likely would not have their light rail system if not for hosting the Olympics.

I think there can be benefits to the host city if they leverage that civic pride and prestige successfully to support or accelerate improvements to the general city infrastructure that might have otherwise been left on the shelf - but that is a big 'if,' admittedly.

by Alex B. on Aug 10, 2012 1:14 pm • link • report

Alex B, I guess you have to figure out what the gap is between cities that do have the Olympics and those that don't. Denver has light rail and it did it without the Olympics, but I suspect you're right that SLC would not have built light rail as early as they did without the Olympics. So to some extent it may give policy makers leverage to push a mildly popular, but necessary, idea over the hump to development. But....there has got to be a better way.

by David C on Aug 10, 2012 2:12 pm • link • report