Comments on: Why the Olympics are good for infrastructure http://blogs.reuters.com/felix-salmon/2009/10/01/why-the-olympics-are-good-for-infrastructure/ A slice of lime in the soda Wed, 22 May 2013 18:16:36 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.4.2 By: Hermenauta http://blogs.reuters.com/felix-salmon/2009/10/01/why-the-olympics-are-good-for-infrastructure/comment-page-1/#comment-7556 Hermenauta Mon, 05 Oct 2009 13:00:14 +0000 http://blogs.reuters.com/felix-salmon/2009/10/01/why-the-olympics-are-good-for-infrastructure/#comment-7556 Felix, I´m also optimist about the impact of the Games on Rio infrastructure. But actually the subway network isn´t going to improve very much due to the Olympiads. Most of the improvements are incremental, and were already planned anyway _ of course the "deadline effect" you mentioned can be useful. Authorities have mentioned the "hope" that the subway system can be extended to Barra da Tijuca (the neighborhood where a lot of action will happen)on time for the Olympiads, but I think this very unlikely. Barra is separated from the most populated areas of Rio (South Zone and North Zone) by two very big mountainous structures ("maciço da Tijuca" and "maciço da Pedra Branca"), and digging tunnels under it would be extremely expensive. Giving the fact that Rio´s subway construction started by 1970 and we still have little 42 kilometers in extension, one can´t really expect such quick increase of the network. Felix,

I´m also optimist about the impact of the Games on Rio infrastructure. But actually the subway network isn´t going to improve very much due to the Olympiads. Most of the improvements are incremental, and were already planned anyway _ of course the “deadline effect” you mentioned can be useful.

Authorities have mentioned the “hope” that the subway system can be extended to Barra da Tijuca (the neighborhood where a lot of action will happen)on time for the Olympiads, but I think this very unlikely. Barra is separated from the most populated areas of Rio (South Zone and North Zone) by two very big mountainous structures (“maciço da Tijuca” and “maciço da Pedra Branca”), and digging tunnels under it would be extremely expensive. Giving the fact that Rio´s subway construction started by 1970 and we still have little 42 kilometers in extension, one can´t really expect such quick increase of the network.

]]> By: Larry http://blogs.reuters.com/felix-salmon/2009/10/01/why-the-olympics-are-good-for-infrastructure/comment-page-1/#comment-7487 Larry Fri, 02 Oct 2009 23:34:40 +0000 http://blogs.reuters.com/felix-salmon/2009/10/01/why-the-olympics-are-good-for-infrastructure/#comment-7487 It did work for Beijing, which had only two subway lines for the longest time. That always struck me as something absolutely nuts, or something straight out of the National City Lines playbook. It did work for Beijing, which had only two subway lines for the longest time. That always struck me as something absolutely nuts, or something straight out of the National City Lines playbook.

]]> By: Joao http://blogs.reuters.com/felix-salmon/2009/10/01/why-the-olympics-are-good-for-infrastructure/comment-page-1/#comment-7471 Joao Fri, 02 Oct 2009 18:42:08 +0000 http://blogs.reuters.com/felix-salmon/2009/10/01/why-the-olympics-are-good-for-infrastructure/#comment-7471 Mark my words: Rio will not have a decent subway system by 2016. Mark my words: Rio will not have a decent subway system by 2016.

]]> By: Chris http://blogs.reuters.com/felix-salmon/2009/10/01/why-the-olympics-are-good-for-infrastructure/comment-page-1/#comment-7460 Chris Fri, 02 Oct 2009 13:15:59 +0000 http://blogs.reuters.com/felix-salmon/2009/10/01/why-the-olympics-are-good-for-infrastructure/#comment-7460 This kind of gets to the point of why cities want to host these events in the first place. They are really the only way cities can justify the expense of massive infrastructure investments. Cities are even inventing events so that they can build infrastructure. The somewhat recent Forum of Cultures in Barcelona, for example. This "event" allowed Barcelona to complete infrastructure plans created for when they hosted the Olympics. This kind of gets to the point of why cities want to host these events in the first place. They are really the only way cities can justify the expense of massive infrastructure investments. Cities are even inventing events so that they can build infrastructure. The somewhat recent Forum of Cultures in Barcelona, for example. This “event” allowed Barcelona to complete infrastructure plans created for when they hosted the Olympics.

]]> By: Matt Stiles http://blogs.reuters.com/felix-salmon/2009/10/01/why-the-olympics-are-good-for-infrastructure/comment-page-1/#comment-7440 Matt Stiles Thu, 01 Oct 2009 22:59:07 +0000 http://blogs.reuters.com/felix-salmon/2009/10/01/why-the-olympics-are-good-for-infrastructure/#comment-7440 Hmm, so essentially your argument is that because once the Olympics have been granted there is no going back, the political process cannot interfere as much in the decision making. Or in other words, residents lose control of their own purse strings and the drunken cowboy spending on infrastructure eventually proves to be in their best interest. Sounds like a ringing endorsement for authoritarianism, Felix. I'm from Vancouver, so I know a thing about this. Our province was probably in the best fiscal shape of the entire country for a while (Alberta too dependent on oil). But massive government spending has now left us with huge deficits. A good 40% of the city was against their tax dollars being used without their consent. And they were walked over. Did we need a rebuild of the Sea to Sky? Yes, absolutely. Did we need a subway line to the airport? Yes. But I hardly think it was necessary to throw in a curling rink and a bobsled track to get those done. Not to mention the absurd speculation that has pushed up the cost of living and distorted our local economy. Montreal hosted the games in '76. The debt was just recently paid off. I wonder what the interest on that debt could have bought Montreal in terms of infrastructure. Hmm? Hmm, so essentially your argument is that because once the Olympics have been granted there is no going back, the political process cannot interfere as much in the decision making. Or in other words, residents lose control of their own purse strings and the drunken cowboy spending on infrastructure eventually proves to be in their best interest.

Sounds like a ringing endorsement for authoritarianism, Felix.

I’m from Vancouver, so I know a thing about this. Our province was probably in the best fiscal shape of the entire country for a while (Alberta too dependent on oil). But massive government spending has now left us with huge deficits. A good 40% of the city was against their tax dollars being used without their consent. And they were walked over.

Did we need a rebuild of the Sea to Sky? Yes, absolutely. Did we need a subway line to the airport? Yes. But I hardly think it was necessary to throw in a curling rink and a bobsled track to get those done. Not to mention the absurd speculation that has pushed up the cost of living and distorted our local economy.

Montreal hosted the games in ’76. The debt was just recently paid off. I wonder what the interest on that debt could have bought Montreal in terms of infrastructure. Hmm?

]]> By: VennData http://blogs.reuters.com/felix-salmon/2009/10/01/why-the-olympics-are-good-for-infrastructure/comment-page-1/#comment-7439 VennData Thu, 01 Oct 2009 22:55:48 +0000 http://blogs.reuters.com/felix-salmon/2009/10/01/why-the-olympics-are-good-for-infrastructure/#comment-7439 Are you alleging that the 2012 games will bring more orthodontists to London somehow? Are you alleging that the 2012 games will bring more orthodontists to London somehow?

]]>