For the inhabitants and commuters of a host city to the Olympic Games and Paralympic Games, one thing is sure: the Games have always been a synonym of major works and disruptions to the routine. As the surge of construction sites for infrastructure development in cities prior to hosting the Games have been a constant presence. Over the last few decades we have seen many cities build all sorts of arenas, stadiums, aquatic centres, as well as all other different types of buildings and for different uses: hotels, stations, airports,… If in one hand in some specific cases we may notice in the past, examples of doubtful legacy use or needs for large stadiums and arenas, on the other hand we have to recognise the positive impact of transport infrastructure and mobility services created and improved for these mega events.
Amongst the IOC’s Agenda 2020 introduced in 2014 the concern over excessive expenditure in the construction of new permanent facilities was raised. Praised as a crucial and determining principal for a economically sustainable Olympics, this item was important to allow cities and regions bid to host the Games avoiding huge and unforeseen investments in permanent infrastructures, as previously stated, in some cases with doubtful legacy. Cities were then invited to apply to host the Games based on their long term development plans without the burden of over investments. In other words, cities had to prove that whichever investment done towards legacy would meet their commitments regardless of hosting the event.
If this measure was welcome to guarantee the strengthening (and survival) of the Olympic Movement, it did not compromise the long-lasting benefits of hosting and the legacy it leaves for the city. Barcelona’s ambitious plans for inner city regeneration was a starting point and successful example. This vision brought the world’s attention to the city, re-inserting it on the map. Improvements to the city centre, coastline and port gave the city new life. Accessible public transports, airport, new metro lines and other urban amenities were a welcoming not only to residents but international tourists. The former and historical mayor of Barcelona, Pascal Maragall, couldn’t have been more assertive in his statemen: “it is not what the city can do for the Games, but what the Games can do for the city”.
Rio de Janeiro and London were two subsequent cases of the application of this principle. Whilst the latter leveraged on the Games to regenerate it’s east, with the creation of the Queen Elizabeth’s Park – including all urban services and housing, the former was acclaimed for its success in reconnecting distance parts of the city with a mass transit network, halving average travel times for commuters and providing a reliable, safe and comfortable transportation offer. From all public spending to host the Olympics, three quarters of it was invested in public transportation. Differently, London reviewed its bid plan and simply reached the conclusion the Cross Rail was not necessary for the Games although being of great importance to the Greater London and region. An investment which did not see day light until a decade after the Olympics was held in 2012. Better that way, some residents would say. As it was less disturbing amongst several other worksites...
Paris 2024: a well-managed opportunity
Ten years after the implementation of the Agenda 2020, Paris delivered the last Olympic Games. Being the world's most visited city what did the City of Paris have to gain from hosting the Games? Not much, one would think. But the Parisian metropole learnt how to benefit from it. One of the greatest capital investments was the Athletes’ Village. This was a clear example of the Olympics pig-backing on the region’s plan for providing affordable housing and redevelopment of a brown and industrial field. The second opportunity seized was the fact that Paris is delivering a double-figure billion Euro mass transportation improvements and extension of metro and regional express lines. In this case it was the City profiting from the Olympics, as stations such as Saint Denis Pleyel and metro line 14 were delivered in time for the Olympics. Providing a transport hub in the north part of the city, connecting the new neighbourhood (the Athlete’s Village) and the Stade de France to a new and driverless trainline, to a 20 minute-ride south to the Orly airport. Egis was commissioned by Ile de France Mobilité to oversee design and delivery of the Saint Denis Pleyel station as well as the implementation of the services on line 14, and the new lines 17 and 18.
This however did not respond to the Games mobility requirements alone. Games’ operations demanded several thousands of extra passengers-rides a day, connecting spectators and media professionals to venues (permanent and temporary) and existing stations, with shuttle services, as well as the media professionals to and from their village to their workplaces – venues, media, press and broadcast centres. This was achieved via a temporary mobility transit system which counted on over a thousand supplementary buses being deployed on the streets of the metropole. In order to accommodate this demand and to manage this operation, temporary bus terminals and depots were created. One of them being Aulnay-sous-Bois, not far from its main client, the media, close to the Bourget. A complete logistic depot and maintenance centre was temporary set up to accommodate nearly 900 buses. This has permitted Games operations to rely on mobility experts to simulate travels and assess impacts on traffic and network. Egis was brought on to perform such studies, assessments and manage that the temporary bus centre in Aulnay-sous-Bois to function smoothly over Games-time.
