Are The Olympics Worth It?

Long after the Olympics are over, Vancouver will be paying for it. There was an article published earlier this week in the Vancouver Journal about the financial impact of the games on the city, and the outlook is not good. The costs of the games have far outpaced predictions, with security costs alone almost hitting $1 billion, up from an estimated $165 million. The article goes on to report that the taxpayers of the city have already had to bail out the Olympic Village development, another expense that will be almost $1 billion. Also, citizens of the city and throughout British Columbia will face provincial government budget cuts for programs like education and health care due to the costs of hosting the Olympics.

Despite all these negatives, many in Vancouver and throughout the world see a benefit in hosting the Olympics. The mayor of Vancouver, according to the article, has defended his choice to pursue the games. Also, in the United States we had none other than President Barack Obama coming to Chicago's aid in their pursuit of the Olympic Games. Obviously the publicity that can be had by hosting the Olympics is immeasurable. For several weeks Vancouver has been seen on the television screens of billions of people worldwide and it is impossible to quantify that kind of exposure.

So the question I have to ask myself is, "do I believe that hosting the Olympics are worth it?" I would have to say yes and no. For Vancouver it seems it may not have been a great investment, but the Beijing Olympics were a valuable tool for presenting a picture of a free and united China to the rest of the world. Additionally, the Olympics of Rio de Janeiro could be a stepping stone to more global recognition for Brazil, as they are looking to transition from a regional power to a world power. So even though hosting the Olympic Games means taking on huge debt, many cities across the world still compete vehemently for the chance to do so. If that many people want it that bad, there has to be some real benefit. Right?

Photo Source: Tourism Vancouver, John Sinal via about.com

Chinese Rail: A Reality! (Week 6)

The China Daily, an English-language Chinese newspaper, reported on February 6th that a new high-speed rail line went into operation Saturday, connecting the two cities of Zhengzhou and Xi'an. The travel time between these two provincial capitals has now been cut from over six hours to less than two hours, traveling at approximately 155 miles per hour. This railway cost $5.17 billion to build and is part of a national plan for more than 74,000 miles of track to be laid by 2020. Let that sink in for a second: 74,000 miles. That is enough track to cross the United States at its widest point 25 times! Better yet, that is enough track to go around the entire world three times!

This should be alarming to anyone who is concerned about the economic standing of the United States in the twenty first century. I blogged last week about how in the U.S. we simply don't get it when it comes to high-speed rail. Well guess what? China gets it!

In my U.S. Foreign Policy class we have talked about the United States' position as the only global hegemon since the fall of the Berlin Wall and the very real threat that China poses to that status. In other words, we may be the top dog, but probably not for long! In addition to China, India and Japan have become centers for innovation while we're still stuck in a rut. In The World is Flat, by Thomas Friedman, young Indians talk about how they used to have to come to the U.S. to receive quality higher education, but that is not so much the case anymore. It is now the case that college graduates in the U.S. are not competing regionally or nationally for jobs, but globally. Now, to top it all off, China is seriously ahead of the game on us when it comes to transportation.

Looking back, many observers agree that the Federal Highway Act of 1956 was pivotal in making the U.S. the global power it is today. However, it wasn't an easy decision at the time. It required a HUGE investment of $25 billion. That is close to $200 billion in 2010 dollars, but the investment paid off by allowing goods to be shipped and people to be moved much more efficiently. Now, we have an opportunity to revolutionize our transportation system once more. Instead of shipping goods cross-country at 60 mph, we could do it at 150 mph; using much less energy in the process! If you ask me, this is one issue where we need to look to China for the answer.

Photo Source: China Daily/Xinhua

Ohio Rail: A Reality? (Week 5)

Last week the Obama Administration announced that a plan to link Cincinnati, Columbus, and Cleveland (the 3C corridor) with passenger rail will receive $400 million in federal funding. This huge step for the project that has been deemed the "Ohio Hub" may help get the project completed by 2012. I'm ecstatic to hear this news, as I have taken independent research hours where I researched the feasibility and consequences of this project. I'd like to use this week's post to lay out what I deem to be the pros and cons of the Ohio Hub.

Personally, I think an Ohio rail network is a great idea; as it will help encourage smart growth and higher densities. The inter-connectivity of the state will help individual cities get their plans for light rail off the ground, which will ease congestion and help cluster development around stops. The whole thing is great for the environment and national security as it (in conjunction with a larger national focus on rail) will help decrease our dependence on oil.

Unfortunately, not everyone exhibits the same enthusiasm for passenger rail as I do. In the state of Ohio we spend hundreds of millions on highway maintenance annually, yet a vocal opposition has formed against the $17 million annual running cost of the passenger rail system. How does this even make sense? Our auto-centric culture has come to view highway expenditures as "investment," but at the same time they view transit expenditures as "subsidies." For the auto industry to complain about the cost of this project to government is really the pot calling the kettle black. In fact, funding for this project and other rail projects would be easy to obtain if we made a small change to the Ohio Constitution. Currently, it is written into the state constitution that the $.28 per gallon gasoline tax MUST be used to fund highways. If this was expanded to include all forms of transportation it would allow for more innovation and a wider array of transportation options.

I am not, however, completely satisfied with the project as it is currently being carried out. My biggest complaint is that the passenger rail will have a maximum speed of 79 mph, with an average speed of about 39 mph. Ideally, this system could be upgraded in the future to a truly high speed rail system. A system with a maximum speed around 120 mph would offer travel times that would be more attractive to commuters and tourists. A second complaint of mine is that as in the past, southeastern Ohio is completely left out of the transportation picture. The Appalachian region of Ohio has always suffered from poor accessibility and only recently has received a modest amount of highway upgrades. An Ohio passenger rail network that included service from Cincinnati to Pittsburgh or from Columbus to Charleston, West Virginia by way of Athens would benefit this portion of the state dramatically. Of course I'm biased, as I obviously have ties to this region. Let me know what you think!

Photo Sources
Top: Columbus Dispatch
Bottom: High speed train; Paris, France; Wikimedia Commons