OLYMPIC GAMES 2004, TRAFFIC MANAGEMENT AND SAFETY
As members of a Multidisciplinary Task-Force on Traffic Safety for the Republic of Greece we have undertaken a well focused research in preparation for our second visit to Athens for a collaborative study of Traffic Safety, under the auspices of the Greek Ministries of Transportation and Public Order. Briefly stated, our work will include:
Two days of Seminars on Traffic Safety, to include interactive discussions with local experts and Government officials, and a comprehensive review of multifaceted problems of vehicular crashes
Evaluation of the road network regarding geometry, quality of construction and other features
Passenger safety devices (seat belts, helmets) and Child-Safety programs
Driving under the influence (DUI)
Law enforcement and traffic control
Training of motorcyclists
Training and retraining of Highway Patrol Officers
Driver education, licensing and re-licensing of drivers (for autos, commercial vehicles and motorcycles)
Emergency Trauma Care of victims
Ambulance Services and other pertinent aspects of Traffic Safety
Following our second
visit a comprehensive Report will be prepared for the Government, with
recommendations for immediate action and a subsequent five year follow up
program, regarding periodic consultations , technology transfer and other
matters.
Recently, our research has been expanded to include an area of extraordinary
significance:
Traffic Management and Safety during the Olympic Games of 2004, which have been on the news, due to a late start of preparations for this unique and demanding event, within a country of only 10 million, but with people, known for ingenuity, frenetic energy and enthusiasm, especially for a well defined project, that has caught their fancy and has boosted their pride as a nation. The Olympics of 2004 have now galvanized the Greek Officials and the people as well. An overview of our research findings, concerning the issue of Traffic Management and Safety, for the Games of 2004, is as follows:
1. Extensive planning has already been accomplished
regarding the indispensable construction of a new Road Network around Athens, of
Public Transportation Systems, and the connection of various Competition Sites
and other facilities. These plans
have been included into a Report of the Transport Section of OEOA 2004, which
was submitted by Development and Engineering Consultants (DENCO), together with
Trends Planning Consultants, under the supervision of Professor John
Frantzeskakis and with additional input from officials of four relevant
Government Ministries. These plans
will be finalized and will be developed into a Strategic Transportation Plan
after the Olympic Games in Sidney, where most of Greek Olympic officials learned
a great deal from the Australians.
2. However, another crucial issue has been lacking from the huge planning effort
for 2004. This concerns Traffic Management and Safety, inherent to moving of 6-7
million fans, and 200,000 credentialed people (Athletes, Officials, members of
Media, donors, and volunteers) to and from areas of competition, and other areas
of the Attica basin and beyond.
Furthermore, the mingling of the multitude of fans, with
millions of jubilant, pushy, and enthusiastic natives (intoxicated with national
pride), whose aggressive driving will get worse during the Games, might produce
unwelcome accidents on asphalt of the newly constructed roads, especially in the
evening and the wee hours of the night. Moreover,
such a worrisome Traffic Safety
scenario, is quite conceivable, because of another reason.
The 2004 Olympics will be for many Greeks a life time event, with large
numbers of people from the Islands and other provinces descending on Athens,
bringing with them automobiles and motorcycles, and the unfamiliarity of roads
and city driving habits, which taken together, will make an explosive mix for
Traffic Safety, within Athens proper and its environs.
3. Due to these key
considerations we believe, that the existing problem of Traffic
Management and Safety in
Greece, with periodic exacerbations during holidays, and unacceptable numbers of
fatalities and injuries, should be urgently entered into the Strategic Transport
Plan of 2004, for needed improvements. Thus, the study framework which has been proposed by our
Traffic Safety Task-Force, which is ready to visit Greece, could include our
recommendations for Traffic Management and Safety needs for 2004.
With that goal in mind we have reviewed all data available to us,
concerning Traffic Management aspects of 1984 Olympics in Los Angeles and the
1996 Games in Atlanta, which are presented here in a succinct and practical
form.
The Summer Olympics provided Los Angeles transportation
planners with an enormous task: to manage the circulation of 1.2 million
visitors, 6 million spectators, and 25,000 Athletes, Media and Olympic Family,
within a local transportation system which had already reached functional
capacity in most areas. The
Transportation Management Program of the California Department of Transportation
(CALTRANS) had a dual focus: to facilitate circulation at all 24 competition
venues and to maintain the regional transportation system at an acceptable level
of performance during the Olympics. In
other words, the goal was to get everyone to and from Olympics events, while at
the same time permitting normal daily travel to proceed with as little extra
congestion as possible. In
addition, for specific circulation plans concerning
each competition venue site and a more intensive use of traditional
traffic management techniques (e.g. signal synchronization, Ramp metering),
several imaginative strategies were devised as follows:
Establishment of an interagency Coordination Center
A public relations program aimed at informing commuters, businesses and visitors about travel conditions during the Olympics
A joint Highway Patrol/Caltrans program to reduce truck traffic during peak hours
A massive system
surveillance and monitoring program and a stepped-up public information
program
Thus, the primary objective
of Caltrans was that of system balancing: matching system supply (capacity) and
demand, while achieving a good level of system performance and can be described
in terms of two goals: a) minimize traffic congestion and delay and b) maximize
system person throughput. A summary of the Caltrans objectives are shown in
Table I.
TABLE I
CALTRANS
TRANSPORT MANAGEMENT PROGRAM OBJECTIVES
Minimize
Traffic Congestion and Delay
a.
Reduce Venue-Related Traffic Congestion
b.
Reduce Congestion related to non-recurrent Traffic events
c.
Minimize impact of venue-related freeway closures
d.
Reduce peak period (recurrent, work-trip related) traffic congestion
Maximize System
Person Throughput
a.
Increase efficiency of traffic flow
b.
Balance daily traffic volumes
c.
Maximize roadway capacity
d.
Increase vehicle occupancy
e.
Promote transit use
Strategies of the Transportation Management Program
Several strategies emerged some of
them venue-site specific or non-venue situations and others were of general
application. Most strategies were joint efforts between Caltrans and other
agencies
a) Traffic Management at Venue Site: Olympic events took place at 24
different venues in the Los Angeles area. A
total of 18 Traffic Management plans were developed for the 24 venues based on
requirements of each venue and on local conditions. The
plans included preferred spectator routes, one-way streets, bus priority streets
and ramps, parking provisions, traffic officer placement, signal timing and
other traffic management techniques, as necessary for each site.
b) Venue Site information:
A strong public information program was used before and during the Olympics to
inform the public on how best to access event sites. The key to this program was a number of maps and guidelines
produced by Caltrans in cooperation with the Los Angeles Department of
Transportation (LADOT) and the Los Angeles Olympic Committee (LAOOC).
This information was distributed to the public, mailed to ticket holders and was later published in the local newspapers. The packet provided specific instructions about auto access, parking, transit services and sources of travel information. Moreover, special signs, Olympics Venue Guide signs, were used to mark spectator routes, guiding the spectators from the freeway to the designated parking areas. Press Conferences twice daily, gave route and daily traffic information. Schedules of events and locations were also provided on daily basis. Furthermore, an extensive marketing campaign was employed to encourage transit use to the major event sites. The total of these efforts had as its purpose to inform the public so that the traffic management plans could be implemented successfully.
c) Management of freeway
closure: Freeways were actually
closed on six separate occasions (during weekends) for cycling and marathon
practices and events. Also,
diversion plans, signed detours and announcements
in the media and press, were used to manage these freeway closures.
d) Public Information for
Commuters, Businesses and Shippers: A specific concern was the integration
of the Olympic Traffic with the regular commuter traffic, because under normal
conditions freeways regularly experience several hours of congestion during peak
periods. Thus, when managing
spectator traffic, planners wanted to mitigate congestion caused by commuter
traffic. An intensive public
information campaign was launched to promote shifts in mode choice, work hours
and workdays. Caltrans devised a
set of maps describing system wide freeway traffic conditions called "The
Olympic Traffic Picture." Maps
were produced for 8 AM, 11 AM, 3 PM, and 6 PM indicating areas where congestion
was expected to occur. The maps,
traffic management plans and other information was used by Commuter Computer
(the local ridesharing agency), to produce a packet of Olympic commuter traffic
information, which was distributed to businesses in the area, to local agencies
and Media. The packet contained
site-specific information on anticipated congestion, possible work-hour
alternatives and suggested routes of commercial traffic.
Employers were asked to shift work hours, shift to a four day week, to
give extra days off and observe "Admission day August 6" in order to
reduce commute traffic on these days. Businesses
were asked to change operating hours and adjust delivery schedules.
A great deal of publicity on traffic problems was provided by the press.
The Caltrans District Operations Center (TOC) provided traffic
information during the Olympics, with twice daily press-conferences and with
traffic reports every 15 minutes throughout the day. Several Radio Stations
increased the frequency of traffic reporting all day.
This provided to commuters and other travelers accurate and timely
traffic information. Traffic
telephone hotlines were available to the public.
e) System Traffic Management: Many traffic management techniques were
employed to increase the carrying capacity of the road system.
First, ramp metering was intensified on those freeways leading to
and through the main competition venue sites. Second,
all non-emergency construction work was halted and peak-hour only shoulder
traffic lanes were made available all day.
The purpose was not only to make all roadway capacity available, but also
to avoid delay caused by gawking. A
third effort, was the truck diversion program called "Operation
breezeway," a marketing campaign aimed at the trucking industry with the
purpose to divert truck traffic from highly congested areas during peak hours.
Truckers were asked to avoid peak-hour travel on freeways and to shift
deliveries to non-peak periods. A
fourth part of the program was to use changeable message signs (CMS) to inform
motorists of problem locations, congestion and alternate travel routes.
f) Field Surveillance:
Field surveillance during the Olympics increased the ability of Caltrans to
monitor the system and respond to non-recurrent events.
The Traffic Operations Center (TOC) was the focus of traffic
surveillance. Electronic censors
embedded in the freeway system roadway are connected to a computer in the TOC.
Information on Traffic flow is constantly transmitted to the TOC enabling
constant monitoring of about 200 miles of the freeway system. When electronic
surveillance was lacking, field observers with radios were stationed at
strategic points. Additional
monitoring was provided by close-circuit TV at key positions and helicopters as
well as Caltrans and Highway Patrol teams were employed.
Taken together these
mechanisms provided timely information, which enabled rapid detection,
verification and response to traffic problems.
Another part of the surveillance was the Traffic Coordination Center (TCC)
developed specifically for the Olympics as the mechanism for interagency
communication and coordination. The
TCC operated 24 hours per day and was manned by representatives of several
transportation and law enforcement agencies.
Traffic information was transmitted from the TOC to the TCC and
information from Highway Patrol, Los Angeles Police, Los Angeles Department of
Transportation, and Los Angeles Olympic Committee was also available.
Close-circuit TV monitored the main competition venues and part of the
freeway system. The TCC coordinated decision making and responded quickly to
emergencies.
g) Major Incident Traffic Management Team (MITMT):
This is a Caltrans operational unit organized to respond to major
incidents, such as any unpredictable condition which reduces the capacity of the
freeway system. Rehearsals of response to major incidents
prior to the Olympics were contacted in order to be well prepared for
handling major incidents.
CONCLUSIONS:
Caltrans in conjunction with several local transportation agencies and the Los
Angeles Olympics Organizing Committee, invested two years in the development of
an effective traffic management plan for the 1984 summer Olympics.
From a Traffic management perspective the Summer Olympics were an
unqualified success. With few
exceptions, major traffic problems failed to materialize, and, for the first
time in recent history of the Olympics, not one group of spectators got stranded
and missed an event. The 1984
Olympics provided an excellent opportunity to test the effectiveness of
transportation system management under extreme conditions.
--Regarding System
Performance, consistent traffic volume
reductions were seen in the vicinity of the Los Angeles Coliseum.
In other areas traffic volumes were lower than normal the first week and
increased gradually to normal the second week.
Peak-hour truck traffic was lower during the Olympics, due to track
scheduling in response to the operation Breezeway program. Traffic incident
patterns during Olympics were mixed. Fewer
accidents occurred within the Central Los Angeles area, but more major incidents
occurred. The high level of surveillance and response capability
minimized the impact of these incidents.
--Regarding Travel
Behavior, the most frequent change was
absence from the regular place of work due to vacation, use of the modified
workweek, rescheduled holidays, temporary transfers to offices closer to home
and firm closures. The commuter
work trip was shorter by 14 per cent due to a shift of commute time away from
peak congestion and a shift of travel route.
A survey showed the importance of employer policies in affecting commuter
behavior especially when they provided more flexibility in work scheduling
during the Olympics.
--A Simulation Study, provided
the means of evaluating the various strategies, by using traffic simulation
models. The simulations showed that the scheduling of major Olympic
events to avoid peak commute periods had the single greatest impact on traffic
flow. The heavy use of Olympic
Transit Service was the second most important factor, because the transit
service greatly reduced the number of vehicle trips within the area.
The impact of spectator related strategies was particularly strong
because Olympics traffic made up such a large proportion of traffic in the study
area. Reduction in work and
non-work trips also contributed greatly to traffic conditions. Shift in work
schedules and truck traffic reduction had a favorable but more limited effect.
--Traffic management
strategies, such as one-way streets,
ramp metering, and ramp closures had mixed effects due to interdependence of the
freeway and arterial systems. Measures, which benefit one system tend to
negatively impact the other, as the total traffic that must be accommodated is
the same. An exception is signal
optimization, which augments the capacity of the entire system.
--Regarding Patterns of
Travel Behavior During the Olympics,
during the first week, traffic volumes were much below normal levels and
gradually increased to reach pre-Olympic patterns. The proportion of workers who drove alone gradually increased
during the two week Olympic period. However,
there was apparent reduction in discretionary (non-Olympic related) travel,
which occurred during the Olympics. Anecdotal evidence showed that activities such as shopping
and doctor and dentist visits were avoided by many Los Angeles residents and
business travel, such as sales calls and interoffice meetings was also reduced.
Travel adjustments were made where it was necessary--where traffic
conditions were expected to be the worst. The
adjustments were made possible by the intensive Olympics public information
program which gave travelers the data needed for travel choices.
Travel behavior changes during the Olympics were temporary.
--As related to the
Institutional Environment of the Olympics, in which the Olympics Transportation Management Plan was developed and
implemented was extraordinary. The
Gravity of the Problem was likened to WWII.
What might have been unthinkable under normal conditions was feasible
during the Olympics. The Traffic
Management Program was formulated over almost two years by the Los Angeles
Olympic Transportation Advisory Group, an interagency group for the Olympics.
Local leaders actively participated and took responsibility in mobilizing
resources necessary for program implementation.
The atmosphere of cooperation and leadership made possible policies that
were otherwise unacceptable. Thus
truckers gave up overtime pay, legal holidays were shifted, on-street parking
prohibited and freeway ramps and arterial lanes were reserved for buses.
Because of the temporary nature of the problem controversial strategies
could be implemented.
--Supply-side strategies
employed during the Olympics were less effective than Demand-Side strategies,
which proved quite effective. For instance, greater proportion of workers were absent from
work than changed their work schedule and thus work absences had greater impact.
Demand-oriented strategies reduce peak-period trips, and any reduction in trips
on a congested network will have strong positive effect.
There is no question that the technical tools exist for augmenting the
throughput of the transportation system. The
individual elements of the Olympics transportation System were not unique or
innovative. What was unique was their implementation.
Thus the critical issue for policy development is implementing
feasibility.
--The 1984 Olympics
experience proved that transportation
system management is a must. The tools for managing traffic exist and their
effectiveness has been shown. The 1984 Olympics Transportation Program succeeded
because of sufficient incentives for changes in travel behavior to occur.
These incentives were short term: A FEAR OF SEVERE TRAFFIC PROBLEMS, AND A
DESIRE TO MAKE THE OLYMPICS WORK.
THE 1996 ATLANTA OLYMPICS
The mission of the Atlanta City
Olympic Game's (ACOG) Transportation Department, was to boost the transportation
system in Atlanta in order to meet Games-time requirements safely, efficiently
and conveniently. The metropolitan Atlanta-area population was 3.4 million and 2
million people were expected to arrive for the Games. Daily, during the Games,
100,000 working Atlantans, 200,000 Olympic Family members, and more than two
million spectators required transportation in and around the Olympic Ring, an
imaginary circle in the central business district of Atlanta with a 1.5
miles(2.4 km) radius. The Organizing Committee was responsible for a specified
level of transportation for all constituents comprising the Olympic Family:
Athletes, and team Officials; IOC, NOC, and IF representatives;
competition Officials; media; organizing committee staff; sponsors; and special
guests. Due to the enormous amount of Olympic activity
concentrated within the Olympic Ring
and because of the magnitude of event-specific additions to the roadways,
ACOG decided to assume the great challenge of providing a transit system for the
huge number of Olympic spectators, which would in addition meet the needs of
Atlanta residents and workers needing access to the Olympic ring.
ORGANIZATION:
During the years of planning activity, a regional circulation-transportation
plan was developed and the ACOG Transportation Department was divided into
several operating systems to effectively fulfill its mission.
These sections were: Olympic Family Transportation, Spectator
Transportation, Regional Traffic management, and Games-time operations, which
also included venue transportation, airport operations, and resources.
EARLY PLANNING: Planners
concluded that the Atlanta transportation infrastructure was inadequate for the
Olympic games and that its adaptation to support the Olympic Family also
required the transporting of all the spectators throughout the region and the
adding to or expediting adaptations already in progress or planned by local,
State or Federal Government agencies. Thus,
ACOG established a Support and Planning Advisory Group and procured a Contractor
to develop the Transportation Plan. The
Olympic Transportation Support Group (OTSG) formed in February 1992, included
community, local, state and national transportation agency representatives and
advised ACOG on developing and implementing the 1996 Games transportation plan.
OTSG met on regular basis to discuss issues and report on progress.
Some of the entities in OTSG were: Georgia Department of Transportation,
Metropolitan Atlanta Rapid Transit Authority (MARTA), Hattsfield Atlanta
International Airport, Georgia Institute of Technology, Atlanta Police
department, Georgia State Patrol, the City of Atlanta Public Works and Planning
department, Atlanta Regional Commission (ARC) and others.
The OTSG developed
teams to research and plan for five areas:
An Olympic Ring Traffic management Plan, which described the need for traffic circulation plans in the downtown area of Atlanta.
An outlying venue circulation plan, which focused on traffic circulation plans for outlying venues.
A Spectator transportation system transit plan, aimed at maximizing use of rail transportation and encouraging walking within the Olympic Ring.
Transportation demand and incident management Program for the Atlanta region.
Data/model management and refinement, which focused on the implications made by transportation related data.
These five teams
comprised of OTSG Transportation staff, ARC staff, and subcontractors and
representatives from OTSG member agencies provided recommendations and
assistance in the planning process.
OLYMPIC FAMILY TRANSPORTATION SYSTEM: Planning for the Olympic family Transportation began with the following standards to move 150,000 Olympic Family members each day:
Each Olympic family member will be provided arrival and departure services.
Most services to venues for athletes, officials, and the media would start two hours before the event while service for staff and volunteers will start three hours prior to he event. Sponsors will have special service available, with equipment assigned on a pre-scheduled basis.
Immediate clearance from a venue after an event would be provided for Olympic Officials and guests, and within one hour or less for all other members of the Olympic Family.
Replacement vehicles would always be available in the event of a mechanical failure or other service difficulty.
All vehicles utilized
for transporting members of the Olympic family would operate at or below
their regular seating capacity.
Furthermore, it was determined that routing plans for Olympic Family vehicles would be designed to minimize travel times by using the one-way pair systems in downtown Atlanta and the High Occupancy Vehicle (HOV) lane system. Routes were chosen to avoid streets used for spectator transportation or pedestrians. Entrances, bus boarding areas, and parking areas were provided at each venue site for members of the Olympic Family. Transportation systems that met IOC standards were established for the Olympic Family, including: 16,500 athletes and team officials; the IOC, NOCs, IFs and their guests; 2,200 competition officials; 15,000 members of the print and broadcast media; and 53,540 staff members. As part of the Olympic accreditation each person was assigned to one of five categories (T1-T5) which entitled him/her with certain level of transportation service. Transportation service included private cars and vans, motor pool service, and bus service. Moreover Olympic Family members were provided with a MARTA pass for use on OSTS, including the supplemental bus system, MARTA rail and MARTA regular bus system.
TRANSPORTATION OPERATING COMPONENTS: The Transportation department operated four different programs to satisfy the needs of the Olympic family: The Bus System, the assigned vehicle and motor pool program, which provided complimentary vehicles with drivers; a program of parking permits; and special guest services, which offered non-complimentary transportation services. Olympic Family members quite often did have special transportation needs besides traveling to and from venue and accommodation sites. Such requests were met through the special services division.
CONSTITUENTS: The Olympic Family transportation system provided each group with service commensurate to level of accreditation and determined transportation needs. These services were in accordance with the standards of IOC and ACOG. All athlete's and team official's buses within the Athlete transportation system, traveling to and from Villages, training and competition sites and opening and closing ceremonies, operated according to IOC security guidelines and were staffed with security personnel. About 2,200 Competition officials including judges, desk officials, starters, referees, and umpires were provided with transportation on the competition official's transportation system, which began when the official's Village opened. Olympic family members residing at the Olympic Village-IOC, NOC, and IF members and guests, were transported with dedicated cars, and resources, access to motor pool vehicles and a motorcoach and shuttle bus service.
About 15,000 members of the media used the media transportation system during the Games which was complimentary except parking and included: arrival and departure services, shuttle service, a pass with free unlimited travel on MARTA (the mass transit system in Atlanta), bus service between Olympic Stadium and the media Transportation Mall for opening and closing ceremonies. The three categories of sponsors-The Olympic Programme (TOP), Centennial Olympic Games Partners (COP) and sponsor level sponsors-were given support for their self-operated transportation systems.
OLYMPIC SPECTATOR TRANSPORTATION SYSTEM (OSTS): The decision to provide Games-time spectator transportation to most venues was unprecedented and its aim was to facilitate easy access to all venues for all Games participants and spectators. Additionally, for their convenience, ACOG established another unprecedented concept by including the expense of transportation in the price of the ticket. A contract was established with MARTA, Atlanta's integrated bus and rail system, with about 750 buses, 200 rail cars, and 36 rail stations. This agreement which detailed Olympic recognition and funding, made MARTA a full partner in planning and operating the OSTS.
OLYMPIC TRANSPORTATION ACCESSIBILITY: Transportation provided by OTS met the requirements for disabled people (The Americans with disabilities Act). MARTA rail stations were equipped with elevators and all buses had wheelchair lifts. At certain venues additional service, the OTS Van Service was provided because people with disabilities would have difficulty getting from the transport drop zone, to the venue entrance. A fleet of 35 ramp-equipped vans, each capable of accommodating three wheelchairs and seating three companions were available for the 17-day games and a short pre-Game training and Olympic family arrival period.
SPECTATOR PARKING: About 80,000 parking spaces in 43 Atlanta parking lots were reserved by ACOG for spectator parking. Parking facilities were clustered as much as possible for efficiency of operations. The park-and-ride lots were of three types: Suburban parking lots were established outside of the perimeter highway, with spectators having to board shuttle buses for transport to competition venues or to a MARTA rail station. Other parking lots were established near MARTA rail stations and were termed rail overflow lots and spectators walked or were shuttled to the venue sites. Parking lots located near non-Olympic Ring venues were called outlying venue lots and spectators were shuttled to venue sites. Spectators paid a small fee and the lots were paved or graveled, lighted and staffed with law enforcement personnel or ACOG Security officers.
REGIONAL TRAFFIC MANAGEMENT SYSTEM: Traffic management plans were developed for the Olympic Ring, and all outlying competition venues. The Atlanta Traffic Management Plan was released to the public in December 1995 and included areas within the Olympic Ring. The plan was a collaborative effort chaired by the Atlanta Police Department (APD), ACOG, Georgia State Police (GSP) MARTA and the Atlanta Public Works and Fire Departments. These agencies implemented more than 250 Traffic restrictions, which included dedicated lanes for OTS; part time and full time street, lane and interstate ramp closures; and limited access around Olympic venues. The majority of restrictions were effected on July 19, 1996, but access to the Olympic Village was restricted on June 15, 1996. Early in 1996, the APD and ACOG used media releases, Neighborhood Unit Planning meetings and briefings with the community and businesses to inform them about access to restricted areas. One of the biggest challenges was to optimize the roadway capacities in the Atlanta region and ensure that Olympic Family systems, spectator system and general public, could move through the area. ACOG developed a Transportation Demand Management Project (TDM), a Goods Movement Plan, Public Campaign and a Traffic Management Planning Program.
TRANSPORTATION DEMAND MANAGEMENT: This project was enormously successful and achieved a 20-25 per cent reduction in normal traffic in Atlanta during the Games. The message was for people to avoid driving to work during the peak hours, of 7.30-930 a.m. and 4.30-6.30 p.m. Business cooperation was overwhelming and work related traffic was reduced by 50 per cent during the Games. Information about how to develop a Transportation Plan was send to Atlanta-area employers. Strategies included: encouraging employees to take vacations and participate in the Olympic experience; to work from home or other remote locations; to carpool or vanpool using high occupancy vehicles (HOV) and avoid peak travel periods.
GOODS MOVEMENT PLAN: This plan advised the business community about most effective ways to ship and receive goods during the Games, facilitated access for clients and suppliers to ship and receive goods and maintain operations during the Games, in order to sustain Hotels, restaurants and local businesses within the Olympic Ring. Most deliveries could be made only during early morning, and required coordination and flexibility from shippers and receivers. Stockpiling paper products before the games and accepting deliveries between midnight and 6:00 a.m. were implemented in the central business district in Atlanta.
PUBLIC CAMPAIGN: The Transportation Department created this program to explain to the public the Olympic Spectator Transportation System (OSTS) and to prepare the residents for the Games by suggesting use of HOV lanes, carpooling, and mass transit before the Games began. It emphasized that OTS would ensure the transportation of spectators to and from competition venues as smoothly as possible. Publications distributed to spectators and other groups included a 32 page phone Book insert: the Guide to the 1996 Olympic Games. Other publications were employee handbooks and route manuals, a Special services packet for charter bus operators and taxi and limousine drivers and transportation guides for Athletes, media and competition officials and an OTS van service brochure, which detailed service to spectators with physical disabilities and an TDM poster, brochure and information packet for employers. The print and broadcast media communicated the following messages to spectators and the general public: a) The expanded bus and rail system coupled with the park-and-ride shuttle system will be the most efficient way for spectators and the general public to travel during the 1996 Olympic games; b) The Olympic Ring and outlying venue traffic circulation plans will provide safe and efficient traffic flow for the public, spectators and the Olympic family; and c) The plan for goods movement will provide access for local businesses to maintain operations during the Games. These messages were communicated by newspapers, TV and radio stations. Games-time media relations were coordinated by the liaison between, Transportation and Communications Departments and by the Atlanta Olympic News Agency, operated by ACOG Communications.
THE SIGN PROGRAM: A special Committee determined the appropriate types and quantities of signage needed to support the OTS. Its mission was to design, locate and install a seamless system of pedestrian and vehicular signs to direct spectators and Olympic family members to competition and non-competition venues. A design was selected and used by each agency to produce signs for its jurisdiction. Consistency of design enabled all travelers to identify Olympic Travel directions easily among the other signs. Signs were placed at venues to guide Olympic Family bus and motor pool drivers to their destination. These signs had a design and color coding that was exclusive to the constituency. For instance: all signs for the Athlete transportation system were colored Georgia green. Each color was used in the Transportation guides and in signs placed in windows of Olympic Games buses. All ACOG facilities received signage to direct vehicular and pedestrian traffic. About 6,000 signs were made for OSTS and 3,000 for the Olympic Family Transportation system.
GAMES-TIME OPERATIONS: Numerous resources contributed to effective management of Games-time transportation needs. Games-time staff included 15,500 paid employees, volunteers and contractors (6,000 of them volunteers). As the staff recruitment progressed, ACOG contracted with a temporary staffing company to recruit, process and pay about 9,000 of these employees more than 2,000 of which were bus drivers. Volunteers were about 40 per cent of the total labor force, in support Transportation operations. Most of the transportation specialists and fleet drivers were recruited between January 1 and July 1996. Transportation specialists were in charge of permits and access control, bus boarding and volunteer coordination. Fleet drivers provided Games-time transportation for Olympic family members in sedans and minivans. About 80 per cent Transportation staff received ACOG accreditation, while the others worked in areas where accreditation budges were not necessary and were given generic tags. The tags only allowed them access to necessary facilities. Bus drivers were trained by a company experienced with both School and Transit bus drivers. All bus drivers had to complete 40 hours of training-20 in the classroom and 20 in the vehicle. Maps and routes were developed and disseminated to all drivers as part of their training. Fleet drivers also had training to become familiar with the vehicles and routes for which they were responsible.
COMMAND CENTERS: Control of Transportation Operations was under three Command Centers: the ACOG Operations Center, and Transportation Operations 1 and 2. All three operations centers were linked by the Atlanta Transportation Management Systems (ATMS) and telecommunications, enabling the Transportation representatives in these centers to view the same roads, intersections and venues simultaneously, and to make decisions based on direct impression of a situation.
VENUE TRANSPORTATION MANAGEMENT: All Atlanta competition and non-competition venues needed intensive individual planning. A group was assembled in 1994 to develop a venue Transportation Management Structure. Regional Venue Transportation Managers (RVTM) and VTM's coordinated transportation at the venue level regarding the Olympic Family bus system, Fleet Operations, parking, OSTS and traffic management. They coordinated pedestrian flow planning, on-site and nearby venue-based vehicle parking, OSTS access and flow, Olympic Family drop-off and pick-up procedures, Olympic Family Transportation System operations, charter bus operations, security interface, and access control. Each venue required a carefully crafted plan to facilitate each of these activities, without impinging on general venue operations. Plans had to consider other functional areas, such as waste removal and broadcast production. Transportation staff for Olympic Family transportation system, bus and motor pool parking and the OSTS, were given venue-specific training and were managed during Games-time by the VTM.
AIRPORT OPERATIONS: Transportation's Airport Operations provided an arrival and departure bus system and baggage operations for the Olympic family. Upon arrival buses transported Olympic family members to ACOG sanctioned accommodations, including the Olympic Village. Challenges faced in the arrival and baggage operation systems, due largely to unscheduled arrivals from various places, were overcome after two days of operation. Departure shuttles ran from ACOG-sanctioned accommodations to the Airport approximately every three hours starting at 3:00 a.m. and more frequently during peak departure days. These services were available from July 1 through the Games period. Dedicated cars and drivers, as part of Guest Services, also provided arrival and departure services to and from the airport.
RESOURCES: The Resources division of Transportation supported the identification, requisition, acquisition, distribution, arrangement, and recovery of all vehicles, furniture, fixtures, and equipment needed to support ACOG Transportation systems. Traffic control services, tents, trailers, support equipment and many other assets were under the group's control. To coordinate and keep track of needs Resources created and maintained databases on resources/catalog items and venue-by- venue addresses, layouts and building requirements for 150 locations. It was responsible for providing all equipment to entire transportation venues and immediately following the Games all resources from these locations were recovered within a few days, creating a significant challenge, to ensure that they were not lost or stolen. Extensive recovery planning was necessary to reduce the number of items stolen from venues and parking lots after the Games. The resources group identified the needs at all locations, and then contracted and coordinated the installation of tents, trailers, portable toilets, storage facilities, support lighting and trash containers. Resources identified the requirements for traffic control devices and during Game-time supported the Logistics Department, by providing the daily re-supply of Transportation-specific property: flags, vests, flashlights, flares, food, and beverages. After the Games resources was responsible for recovery of ACOG assets and their return to sponsors or ACOG warehouses.
FLEET OPERATIONS: The Fleet Operations division managed all light vehicles such as automobiles, light trucks, motorcycles, sport utility vehicles and vans. Responsibilities involved vehicle delivery, inventory, distribution, and return; and driver recruitment, training and supervision. Reception, maintenance and return of sponsor-provided vehicles were handled by Fleet Operations which also developed and managed the motor pools and motor pool facilities. During Game-time, five Olympic sponsors enabled Fleet Operations to acquire fuel and provide maintenance for 1,185 assigned-driver vehicles, and 1,230 Olympic Family motor pool vehicles, and 1,835 ACOG staff vehicles. General Motors, BMV and Nissan provided these cars for a set number of car months. Texaco USA provided both fuel and general maintenance for Fleet Operations, at specific Texaco gasoline stations, near competition venues and issued credit cards for the loaned vehicles. By Games-time, Fleet Operations had a staff of 4,600, most of them volunteers who served as motor pool drivers, assigned drivers and coordination staff. Assigned drivers transported certain Olympic Family members and special guests, corporate sponsors and technical delegates.
TRANSIT BUSES: Five operating facilities were established to maintain and dispatch buses as supplemental buses in the OSTS and an additional three garages were established for the Olympic family transportation system. Regular daily maintenance was performed in each of the terminals, including refueling, washing, and checking fluids and tire pressures. Texaco provided diesel fuel for buses.
TECHNOLOGY:
The Transportation technology
systems group did the planning, distribution, control and recovery of all types
of technology used by Transportation staff.
From 1994 to June 1996 the group determined technology needs which
included: cellular phones, computer work stations, copy machines, Fax machines,
pagers, radios, stationary phones, television and videocassette recorders.
Prior to Games-time the Department performed a systems acceptance test,
of the Motorola six-site simulcast radio system.
This test necessitated early distribution and trial of equipment and
enabled the Transportation Department to maintain the schedule for the
Games-time distribution of 4,300 radios to 237 separate locations, and about
2,600 vehicles.
Pagers and cellular phones were also distributed. Technology was provided to support the Olympic family transportation system, and OSTS, 31 competition venues, 47 non-competition venues (including the Olympic Village, accommodations and training venues), 14 bus terminals, and holding lots, 14 motor pools, 54 park-and-ride lots, 110 venue-associated parking lots and 11 separate Transportation operations and management centers. By July 19, all Transportation technology systems were distributed and functional, except for telephones at eight park-and-ride operation centers. Cellular phones were used instead. When the operations of the OTS and the Paraolympic Games concluded, technology equipment was returned.
SUMMARY AND RECOMMENDATIONS: For the first time in the history of Olympic Games the organizing committee in Atlanta assumed the responsibility for the transportation of spectators during the Game-time. Thus the comprehensive transportation system for the needs of the Olympic family, Spectators and the general public constituted an essential function which was supported by dedicating appropriate resources. Due to the nature of transportation, Games-time necessities cannot be precisely assessed, until late in the unfolding of the entire project and the human resources required might not be available until Games-time, which can create a lot of challenges to organizers.
According to the Official Report of the Centennial Olympic Games (Planning and Organizing Section) future Organizing Committees might consider the following:
Develop a succinct
Mission Statement establishing general service levels, early in the process.
Create realistic expectations with detailed and frequent communication to
all constituency groups.
The extended operational
period must be taken into account in the financial and logistical planning,
including food services, land management, staffing, accreditation,
technology requirements, and general planning.
Include transportation planning and management in venue selection and contract negotiation. While the clustering of venues facilitates pedestrian movement from one venue to the next, it may produce severe transportation congestion. Moreover, few large parking lots are better than many small lots, because it conserves resources such as buses, staff and equipment.
Identify all resource
requirements early and develop a software tracking system for resources
(automobiles, buses, radios and pagers) so that people using them can be
held accountable for damage or loss.
Consider the acquisition
of land early. Any of the early
acquisitions that are not necessary can be disposed quite easily or
converted into a revenue-generating asset.
Should use a temporary
staffing agency to employ large numbers of drivers for such a huge event and
accomplish hiring early enough to proceed with adequate training.
Develop a comprehensive transportation program for Athletes who will visit competition venues as spectators.
Locate the Media
transportation hub immediately adjacent to the MPC.
Future groups
responsible for developing routes should conduct extensive communication
with the law enforcement agencies that provide access control.
Coordinated and
committed standards of service by law enforcement, should be provided by
local agencies with legal jurisdiction.
Develop realistic time
requirements for the recovery of assets and provide enough resources and
controls to secure success.
EPILOGUE: The Transportation management activities during the 1984 and 1996 Olympics were both well organized and successful. There can be no direct comparison with the Transportation Management and Safety requirements of the 2004 Olympics. We believe however, that perusal of this special Review by Transportation and other Officials of the Olympic Committee in Athens might be of some value for planning purposes and for obtaining a panoramic view of the organizational challenges ahead.
WE ARE OPTIMISTIC THAT THE "ATHENS 2004" OLYMPIC COMMITTEE WILL SUCCEED WITH THE PREPARATIONS.
We have brought into a sharp focus a crucial issue, which should be included right from the start, into the planning equation of 2004. And that is Traffic Management and Safety, within and outside the area of Olympic Games activity. Due to the enormity of the expected crowd, ( 6-7 million spectators and 200,000 others, to include Olympic Family, Officials, Media, and sponsors), and the waves of natives from the Islands and other provinces, plus the diaspora Hellenes from five continents, the issue of Traffic Safety, acquires paramount significance for the Organizing Committee and for two key Ministries: Public Order and Transportation.
Mingling of this huge heterogeneous group of people within the Attica basin and beyond, will make for an explosive mix on the nation's road network. The aggressive driving, tailgating, speeding, inappropriate passing and driving under the influence, will all augment the probability of crashes with fatalities and injuries. It will be a worst nightmare scenario for the Organizers, to have, during the time period of the Games, even a few victims of car crushes, involving some of the Athletes and Spectators, under the glare of Media of the entire planet. Such a painful event should be avoided at all costs and the best time to act is now.
We believe, that our Traffic Safety Task-Force, can make a contribution to Olympic Committee Planners, at this early stage of preparations, which provides enough time for achieving substantial improvements in several crucial areas: Aggressive driving, Driving under the influence (DUI), Driver Education, Driver Licensing and Re-licensing, Training and Retraining of members of Highway Patrol, the implementation of new Legislation for protecting Pedestrians and Handicapped people, needed improvements at Intersections, Enforcement of Seat-Belt and Child Safety laws, training of Motorcyclists, Enforcement of the Helmet Ordinance and improvements of the Road Network.
A three member advanced
party of our Task-Force of Traffic Safety Experts visited Greece from June 4 to
11, 2001, for an intensive preliminary study of Traffic Safety on the Nation's
Roadways and is now preparing a preliminary Report about the findings of that
visit, which will be submitted to the Greek Ministries of Transportation, of
Public Order and of Hygiene and welfare. The work is also extremely relevant to
Traffic Management and Safety during the Athens 2004 Olympics.
1-13-2002
SOURCES:
Olympiad XXII Los
Angeles 1984. After Action Report, California Highway Patrol (CHP) 1985.
The Official Report of
the Centennial Olympic Games, Vol I: Planning and Organizing. Atlanta
Committee for the Olympic Games, 1997. Peachtree Publishers, Atlanta GA.
Evaluation of 1984 Los
Angeles Summer Olympics Traffic Management. Institute of Transportation
Studies, UC, Irvine, Genevieve Giuliano Principal Investigator.
Final Report for the California Department of Transportation 1987.
Geokas, M. C. and
Papanicolaou S.: Bloodshed on Greek Asphalt: Why "the Things Bite
Back." The National Herald (NY), May 27-28, 2000.
Geokas, M. C.,
Papanicolaou S., Chuck Kidder and W. P. (Bill) Carlson: Olympic Games 2004
and Traffic Safety in Greece. The National Herald (NY), October 28-29, 2000.
Deadly Streets: The When
and Why of Attica's accidents. Kathimerini
(English Edition) October 27, 2000.
Bougatsou, Aristea:
Traffic S.O.S. for 2004. Kathimerini
May 28 (Sunday) 2000.
Crumbacher, J.: Finally,
Athens "Is on Track" for 2004.
San Francisco Chronicle December 21, 2000.
Geokas, M. C.: Greece
Will Deliver. The Washington
Post, December 2, 2000.
An Expression of Gratitude:
We wish to express our sincere thanks and gratitude to the Amateur Athletic
Foundation at Los Angeles, for providing us with invaluable background materials
for this Review (Ref. 2 and 3) pertaining to the 1984 and 1996 Olympics; the
California Department of Transportation as the sponsor of the Evaluation of the
1984 Olympics; the Atlanta Committee For the Olympic Games (ACOG) for sponsoring
and the Peachtree Publishers for presenting the superb Official Report of the
Centennial Olympic Games, Atlanta 1996; the
CHP State of California for generously providing us with the After Action Report
of the XXII Olympiad, Los Angeles 1984; and to the Minister of Transportation of
the Republic of Greece for inviting an advanced party of our Multidisciplinary
Task-Force, for a Study of Traffic-Safety in Greece, including the famous Attika
Basin, which will be especially significant as the epicenter of the Athens 2004
Olympic Games.
*/(Em) Professor of Medicine
and Biological Chemistry, UC, Davis School of Medicine;
Science Advisor to Commissioner of Highway Patrol (CHP), State of
California and President Traffic Safety Task-Force for Greece.
**/Economist, Executive
Boeing Corporation, Seattle WA, Task-Force Program Manager.
***/ (Ret) Captain
California Highway Patrol, Task-Force Vice-Chairman.
****/ (Ret) Deputy
Commissioner, California Highway Patrol, former Director Highway Patrol Academy,
Task-Force, Chairman.
E-mail: geokas@ix.netcom.com
WEB: WWW.DEMOKRITOS.ORG
FAX: 925\946-1987