Transportation Planning Capacity Building Program - Peer Exchange Report - Whatcom County, Washington and Salt Lake City, Utah Peer-to-Peer Exchange Preparing for the 2010 Vancouver Winter Olympic Games Location: Salt Lake City, UT    Bellingham, WA   Date:   March 2-4, 2004    March 15-18, 2004   Exchange Host Agency:       Whatcom County Council of Governments Exchange Participants: Bellingham/Whatcom Convention & Visitors Bureau Bellingham/Whatcom Economic Development Council Cascadia Project City of Bellingham, WA City of Blaine, WA City of Park City, UT Federal Highway Administration – Washington State Division General Services Administration – Border Station Program Penna Powers Cutting & Haynes (PPCH)/ProClix Salt Lake Chamber of Commerce Transportation Security Administration Utah Department of Transportation Utah Transit Authority Wasatch Front Regional Council Washington State Department of Transportation Whatcom Council of Governments Whatcom Transportation Authority I. Summary The following report summarizes the results of a Peer Exchange held through the Transportation Planning Capacity Building (TPCB) Program, which is jointly sponsored by the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) and Federal Transit Administration (FTA). The Whatcom Council of Governments (WCOG), a metropolitan planning organization (MPO) in Northwest Washington, organized this Peer Exchange to provide an opportunity for representatives from their region to learn about the Olympic planning process and impacts that the Olympic Games may have on their region during the 2010 Vancouver Olympics. The Washington State Department of Transportation (WSDOT), Whatcom Transit Authority (WTA), WCOG MPO, Utah Department of Transportation (UDOT), Utah Transit Authority (UTA), and Wasatch Front Regional Council (WFRC) MPO were all active in planning for the Peer Exchange and the topics to be discussed. Prior to the Peer Exchange visits, invited parties participated in several teleconferences to agree on key topics to discuss and to outline an agenda. This pre-trip coordination between the Whatcom County and Salt Lake City delegations was instrumental in the success of this Peer Exchange. The Peer Exchange consisted of two separate trips: one to Salt Lake City, Utah (March 2-4) and a second to Bellingham, WA (March 15-18). Fifteen delegates from Whatcom County in Washington State traveled to Salt Lake City to meet with their Salt Lake City counterparts who were active in planning for the Salt Lake City Olympics. The topics discussed focused on planning responsibility, security, travel patterns, local and regional transportation, funding, and regional economic implications of the Olympics. The subsequent trip to Bellingham included four members from the Salt Lake City delegation who met with the Whatcom County delegation to learn about the regional geography and U.S. – Canadian relations, and participate in an Olympics Symposium for U.S. and Canadian stakeholders. Together, the two sessions of this Peer Exchange allowed Salt Lake City to share their Olympic planning lessons learned with members of the Whatcom County delegation. The information Whatcom County has received from this Peer Exchange provides them with the background needed to better understand their specific role in preparing for the 2010 Vancouver Olympics. II. Background On July 2, 2003, the International Olympic Committee (IOC) announced the selection of Vancouver and Whistler, British Columbia as host of the 2010 Winter Olympic Games. With Vancouver located only 30 miles north of the US/Canada border, it is expected that effects from the Olympics will extend across the border. Whatcom County, located in the northwest corner of Washington State, shares five border crossings with Canada and expects that its north-south transportation routes and systems will serve a significant portion of Olympics-related travel. Both Bellingham (the largest city in the county with almost 70,000 people and located 20 miles south of the border) and Seattle (1.5 hours south of Bellingham) may be used as sites of lodging or entry for the Olympics. WCOG, the regional MPO, is lead-agency for the International Mobility and Trade Corridor Project (IMTC), a US-Canadian coalition of business and government entities that was formed to jointly pursue improvements to cross-border mobility in the region. WCOG hopes to lead an effort with partner agencies to ensure that regional transportation systems in the U.S. are planned and implemented to integrate with and complement the efforts of Canada and British Columbia to provide efficient and safe travel to and from the Olympic Games. Salt Lake City, which hosted the 2002 Winter Olympics, agreed to share their experiences with the Whatcom County delegation to give them a sense of how to plan for the 2010 Games. Some of the Salt Lake City delegation participating in the Olympic Peer Exchange began work on transportation planning for the Olympic Games as early as one month after the Salt Lake City bid was won in 1995. Others joined the effort closer to the start of the Games. Transportation planning and operations were integrated with the planning of the Olympic Games by having several UDOT, UTA, and MPO staff become "executives on loan" to the Salt Lake Organizing Committee (SLOC), the entity responsible for the planning of the Olympics. This relationship not only assured that transportation issues would be recognized throughout the planning process of the Olympic Games, but also allowed UDOT to implement a cradle-to-grave approach to transportation planning for such a large-scale event. For these transportation "executives on loan," the challenge lied in making transportation a priority of SLOC and being able to prepare the state and local transportation agencies for the Olympic Games and the travel patterns it would bring. III. Perspectives and Issues In both Salt Lake City and Bellingham, the Peer Exchange included many tours for the visiting delegation in order to better understand the context in which the Olympics took place or will occur. The geographic locations of venues, including airports, border crossings, and event locations, are important when assessing transportation needs. Below are several key topic areas discussed during the Peer Exchange. Planning Responsibility for the Olympic Games Transportation Planning Communication Tools Used in Transportation Planning Travel Demand Modeling Information Dissemination and Integrating ITS The Role of Transit Other- Funding, Economic Realities, Lodging, and Security Each topics’ descriptions include (1) a background of Salt Lake City’s application during the planning and operations of the Salt Lake City Olympics and (2) actions that Whatcom County may consider when planning for the 2010 Vancouver Olympic Games (where applicable). Scale of the Olympic Games In order to consider the impact of the Olympics on a region, the scale of the event and its visitation patterns must be clearly understood. Salt Lake expected visitors to increase the population by 15% during the Olympics. Throughout SLOC’s planning and operations of the Olympic Games, they were responsible for the variety of Olympic participants. Table 1 lists these Olympic participants (from highest to lowest priority); SLOC uses this data primarily to consider the need and demand for housing and transportation to and from events. User Group Population Max. Lodging Distance (miles) Athletes/Officials 3,500 (within 30 min. of venue) Olympic Family 1,950 0 Sponsors & Guests 7,400 50 Media 10,000 45 Staff/Volunteers 26,000 120 Spectators 1,600,000 Table 1. Olympic Participants While spectators are by far the largest group, their travel patterns are most difficult to anticipate and control, and of lesser concern to SLOC. Many indicators used in transportation planning are not available during the initial planning stages, but develop as more of the overall Olympic planning is completed. Some of these indicators include: Ticketing. Ticketing data includes the number of tickets sold for each event, and where these tickets are being purchased, which helps determine travel patterns and their origin. While the Organizing Committee for the Olympic Games (OCOG) may initially attempt to provide as many tickets as possible to events to maximize return on investment, transportation capacity may require these numbers to be scaled back, as was the case in Salt Lake City. Modeling based on ticket projections helped to identify areas that would become congested, which led to smaller ticket allotments than initially projected. In the end, 40% of tickets were sold to Utah residents; 40% were sold within other parts of the United States with the majority sold in the Western US, particularly California. Approximately 20% of spectators were international. In total, ticket sales amounted to $196 million. With the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001 occurring just six months before the Salt Lake City Olympic Games, ticket sales for the Olympic Games may have been influenced by the state of the nation. Ticket projections for future Olympic Games may often be influenced by other factors that can not be predicted in the early planning phases. Lodging. In addition to knowing where and how people are traveling to the Olympics, it is equally important to know where they are staying. SLOC alone reserved approximately 21,000 hotel rooms, which did not include spectator demand. It was initially expected that hotel rooms within 2 hours of Salt Lake City would be filled. In reality, SLOC was able to house non-spectator Olympic participants within a hour of downtown and spectators found lodging within one and a half hours of downtown Salt Lake City. By being able to predict the transportation needs that accompany the above factors, Salt Lake City was able to create an effective transportation program. A detailed explanation of the transportation steps taken to reach this outcome follows. A. Planning Responsibility for the Olympic Games Salt Lake City IOC serves as an umbrella organization for the Olympic Movement, whose primary responsibility is to oversee the organization of the Olympic Games. IOC gives responsibility of planning and organizing the Olympics to the National Olympic Committee (NOC) of the host country through the Olympic Charter and to the host city itself through a Host City Contract, which detail the responsibilities of the NOC and host city respectively. After the Olympic Games are awarded to a city, the NOC forms an OCOG, which then reports directly to the IOC. SLOC was designated as the OCOG for the Salt Lake Olympics. To this end, SLOC was primarily responsible for ensuring that the Olympics were successful. While SLOC took the lead in planning for the Olympics, local, regional and state agencies also had obvious interest in the outcome. Much of the knowledge base and staff needed for SLOC to be successful in carrying out its mission stemmed from these agencies. SLOC needed to work together with its partner agencies to create strong relationships with one another and have an understanding of each agency’s responsibilities. This coordination ensures that staff and funding are used effectively and that the region ultimately benefits from hosting the Olympics. Figure 1 below describes the relationships between the Salt Lake City stakeholders active in planning for the Olympics. Figure 1. Planning Relationships Whatcom County The Vancouver Olympic Games will require more complex partnerships during planning due to Vancouver’s close proximity to the U.S/Canada border. Salt Lake City delegates suggest that Whatcom County, as well as Washington State, work closely with their colleagues in Canada in order to obtain information necessary in their own regional planning. Although Whatcom County may not be included in Vancouver’s OCOG, it is important that Whatcom County be considered during Vancouver’s planning because of their potential to play a major role in regional transportation. It is recommended that U.S. agencies coordinate among themselves and propose a working relationship with Vancouver’s OCOG as the first step in planning discussions. In addition, any information that Vancouver has regarding visitation, lodging, venue locations, and other transportation-related factors should be shared with Whatcom County in order for the U.S. to better prepare for a rush of regional travel. B. Transportation Planning Salt Lake City In 1996, the FHWA Utah Division hosted a two-day coordination meeting to provide an orientation to the Olympics and set the foundation for more formalized working relationships. Participating agencies included: Salt Lake City’s OCOG (SLOC), UDOT, WFRC, UTA, Salt Lake City, Park City, U.S. DOT (FHWA, FTA, Federal Railroad Administration, and Federal Aviation Administration), U.S. Forest Service, and the Environmental Protection Agency. These agencies worked together to communicate to Congress their funding needs to make infrastructure improvements to support the transportation demands expected by hosting the Olympic Games. This meeting provided an understanding by SLOC of the breadth of transportation issues and organizations and led to the creation of an Ad Hoc Transportation Planning Committee, with representation from SLOC, UDOT, UTA, WFRC, FHWA and local venue cities. This group developed "Utah’s Request for Transportation Projects related to the 2002 Olympic Games" which was forwarded to Utah’s Congressional Delegation for consideration as part of the FY1997 DOT Appropriations. New appropriations requests were developed yearly and included changes based on additional planning. The Ad Hoc Transportation Planning Committee provided a basis for discussion of transportation issues, since SLOC had not yet started to consider transportation’s role in the Olympics. During the early planning period, SLOC was not able to provide direction and/or information to transportation agencies eager to begin planning. Although SLOC simply did not have the information to address these concerns at the time, many transportation agencies took it upon themselves to begin work on their own. In fact, employees of the various participating agencies did much of the early transportation planning. Planning for the Olympics officially began about four years before the Olympic Games. In May 1997, SLOC hired a transportation director for the Olympics — partly a result of having the local transportation community help SLOC understand the importance of early action to ensure that projects were completed before the Olympics. As transportation planning efforts began to grow, many agencies, including UDOT, UTA, and WFRC, "loaned" staff to SLOC to provide support for transportation planning for the Olympic Games and to provide an emissary from their organization. Figure 2 describes the final organization for transportation planning within SLOC. Figure 2. Transportation Working Group Because Federal agencies, MPOs, State DOTs, transit authorities, and cities play an important role in making the Olympic Games successful, Utah’s public agencies (state departments, cities, MPOs, etc.) found it useful to coordinate their work with SLOC through a State-Sponsored office. Lane Beattie, former Utah Senate President, was appointed by the Governor to be the State Olympic Officer, responsible for coordinating Federal and state agencies’ activities with SLOC. These organizations found it beneficial to identify how they could be of use early on, while providing the framework for considering issues found under their jurisdiction. Figure 3 outlines the transportation partners that worked together in planning for the Olympics. It was important for these agencies – whether Federal, state, regional, or local – to work together in communicating their roles and responsibilities. Figure 3. Transportation Relationships Whatcom County As a neighboring region instead of a host city, Whatcom County’s transportation-planning responsibilities will be very different from what Salt Lake City has experienced. Whatcom County must focus on three different partnerships during this planning period: (1) Domestic – working with WSDOT, WTA, the Port of Bellingham, and other regional transportation system managers to ensure that they can support increased regional travel as a result of the Olympic Games, (2) International – partnering with Canada to receive data and information to assist in travel demand modeling, while working together to build a cross-border regional approach to transportation during the Olympic Games and (3) Border Security – working with Homeland Security to provide secure and efficient cross-border travel. Utah designated a state level coordinator to coordinate communication among agencies; this type of position may be useful for streamlining Washington State – British Columbia communication and coordination. C. Communication Tools Used in Transportation Planning Salt Lake City Transportation planners aimed to not only minimize traffic congestion, but to also minimize transportation newsworthiness. A communications firm was hired to help organize an "Olympic Transportation Communication Plan." This plan consisted of four main components: (1) Developing a strong and simple theme: "Know Before You Go". This catch phrase reminded people of what to do when traveling during conditions that were atypical. Transportation messages stressed to the public to reduce traffic during the Olympics included: a. "Know Before You Go" b. Adopt an alternate work schedule (i.e. shift hours, work from home) c. Use public transit (2) Establish a single organization (UDOT) as the Olympics’ transportation expert. UDOT met one-on-one with local TV, radio, and print media to reinforce that UDOT was the most responsive and reliable source for transportation information during the Olympics. UDOT provided the media with easy-to-use tools that allowed UDOT to control transportation-related information. These tools included: a. Press conferences and tours relating to transportation that provide the media with an understanding of issues. b. Special media access to transportation demand forecasts for morning and afternoon peaks. c. Transportation press kits with 40 Olympic related transportation stories. d. A section of the website designed for media only. (3) Build strong partnerships to control the message. To achieve successful communication and coordination, government agencies must work together to create a unified approach to assist the public with their transportation needs. With this in mind, Utah combined its transit information with highway information on their CommuterLink website and 511 phone line to create a single unified approach. (4) Create a strong Olympic transportation brand. The Salt Lake City delegation encourages Whatcom County to work with the Vancouver OCOG to gain permission to use the official Olympic symbols and logos for a unified transportation campaign. A consistent style (including colors, fonts and symbols) in signage and other Olympic resources will make locating and identifying transportation information easier for visitors. In addition to the "Olympic Transportation Communication Plan," other key communication tools used by Salt Lake City included: Olympic Transportation Guide A regional transportation guide booklet, "Olympic Transportation Guide," was mass-produced as the primary resource for understanding how transportation would operate during the Olympic Games. This Guide was an innovative tool that integrated information for accessing Olympic venues with other tools for avoiding Olympic-related traffic delays, including a schedule of Olympic events at each of the venues. This Guide was distributed at low cost by local supermarkets and sent to spectators with their tickets. 900,000 – 1.2 million copies were distributed. Advertising Local advertising was focused on a four-county area. TV and radio spots were used to prepare the public for what was to come, provide recommendations for how they could help and provide them resources to find more/up-to-date information. Business Partnerships Grass roots efforts were made to work with businesses to minimize traffic and problems for businesses. Ambassador visits, brochures, telephone hotlines, and community presentations were used to provide businesses with the tools that they needed to deal with transportation changes caused by the Olympics, including limits on deliveries and requests to allow flexible work schedules. Trucking Coordination UDOT worked closely with trucking companies to change their travel patterns during the Olympic Games. Recommendations on rerouting and changing travel patterns were published and distributed to keep truckers from using roads during peak-demand periods. Through these communication efforts and accurate travel demand forecasting, Salt Lake City was able to see a decline in downtown traffic by 30% to 40%, with the peak rush hour shifting by 1 to 2 hours. In addition, truck traffic on Interstate 80 decreased by 4,000 trucks and on Interstate 84 by 7,000 trucks. The alternate route, Interstate 70, recorded an increase in traffic. Whatcom County The Vancouver Olympic Games will increase travel demand in Whatcom County due to trips made completely by car, trip-segments originating at regional airports (i.e. Seattle and Bellingham), trips on other modes such as passenger rail and bus, and related spikes in commercial traffic. Many of the tools used by Salt Lake City can be implemented to address traffic on the U.S. side of the border. To adopt a more regional, cross-border approach, strong coordination with Canada will be required. This will be necessary in addressing border-crossing concerns due to increased demand. Because Interstate 5 is a major commercial trucking route, special consideration should be given to planning for and working with the trucking industry. D. Travel Demand Modeling Salt Lake City UDOT and WFRC took the initiative to begin estimating transportation demand, using the V-Trip process in early 1999. The V-Trip process, which was implemented prior to staffing the SLOC with large event planning staff, estimated the travel volumes to each venue, categorized by user group. As people with previous Olympic planning experience joined SLOC, they were able to provide anecdotal information as to what would and would not affect the models; and as more planning was completed, SLOC was able to provide background information such as event schedules and tickets sold. For example, a claim was made that 10,000 Norwegian fans would camp outside at the Soldier Hollow Nordic-events venue. SLOC members who had worked at previous Olympics were able to dispel this claim. Some pieces of information that were considered in their modeling included: Local demographics. Using local data such as age, income, location of residences, etc. helped determine a basis for travel demand models to estimate travel throughout Salt Lake City and neighboring areas during the Olympic Games. Different events attract different crowds. While some information such as the claim regarding Norwegians camping at Soldier Hollow were deemed false, different events attract different crowds. For example, Nordic events tended to attract more Northern Europeans (staying in hotels) while snowboarding attracted more local/US spectators. Time to get people into/out of an event. Each venue has its own unique layout, therefore, it is important to recognize that the time it takes to move people in and out of an event will vary. Detailed models included loading and unloading needs at each of the 21 venues. (Venues included: 5 indoor competition, 5 outdoor competition, 1 ticketed non-competition, 4 restricted non-competition, 3 practice and 2 open access non-competition venues.) The Salt Lake City International Airport was also considered as a venue for planning purposes, although it was not an event venue. In addition to the regional V-Trip model, deeper analysis was applied to Salt Lake City using another model, Logistical Infrastructure For Transportation (LIFT). LIFT broke the region into 12 zones with 400 road links and estimated travel demand on an hourly basis using assumptions provided by SLOC. LIFT did not use the regional travel demand model because the regional model was not designed to analyze large-scale events such as the Olympic Games. Models estimated up to 58,000 people in the downtown area during peak hours and a daily attendance of 78,000 people. The actual results were within 20% of their estimates. CORSIM , a comprehensive microscopic traffic simulation tool, was also used to help determine where and how to use signage/signalization to improve traffic flow. Approximately $0.5 million was spent on modeling for the Olympics. By developing the travel demand models, SLOC and transportation officials could understand where congestion was going to be an issue. In some cases SLOC reduced the number of tickets available for an event if it was believed that the road network was over capacity. In other situations, UDOT was able to add additional road capacity by adding slip ramps and restriping roads to increase capacity and improve traffic flow. Whatcom County Whatcom County is encouraged to work with Vancouver when it begins to develop its own transportation demand model. The travel patterns stemming from different events may provide insight as to how to meet specific transportation demands and what data is useful to incorporate into the model. For the 2010 Olympic Games, it is likely that medal ceremonies for U.S. and Canadian athletes will attract increased crowds. By capturing the larger U.S./Canada region in the model, travel forecasting will be able to address the needs across the region rather than just focusing on Canadian transportation activities. However, Whatcom County may want to develop their own macro demand model to compare their estimates with those developed by Vancouver and the OCOG. Regardless of whether Whatcom County proceeds with its own travel demand forecasts, they should continue to work with Canadian officials to coordinate transportation planning because of their location along the primary land-based transportation corridor to and from the Olympics. E. Information Dissemination and Integrating ITS Salt Lake City A 511 travel information phone line was launched in December 2001 prior to the Olympics and was used to provide real-time information on traffic, winter road conditions, public transit information and Olympic transportation information. A website, www.utahcommuterlink.com, was also used to provide real-time information to travelers and proved successful both during and after the Olympics. In the month before the Olympics began, the site received 74 million hits with an average visit lasting 20 minutes, surprising even the site designers. Utahans continue to rely on CommuterLink for travel information. In addition to real-time traffic advisories, the website also provided maps directing visitors how to reach a venue, and how to bypass one. Maps and directions to recommended park and ride lots were also provided through a search engine using an area’s zip code. E1. Traffic Operations Control Center As a part of infrastructure improvements leading up to the Olympics, but not planned or programmed specifically for the Olympics, UDOT built a Traffic Operations Control Center (TOC), which integrated 550 traffic signals, 160 closed caption cameras, 57 Variable Message Signs, 16 ramp meters, and 12 weather stations. The UDOT TOC is integrated with the Salt Lake City Traffic Control Center, allowing them to share information and control of signals and variable message signs. UDOT shares the TOC with the Utah Department of Public Safety (DPS) and both agencies have integrated their computer systems to ensure coordination. In addition to sharing the TOC with DPS, UDOT was able to save $7 million by sharing traffic management software and technical expertise with the Georgia DOT, which had developed its software for the 1996 Summer Games. UDOT has also coordinated with the Utah Highway Patrol to develop incident management teams to improve responses to emergencies and stranded motorists. Based on expected travel demand, the TOC was able to preset signals and other traffic control systems to address congestion concerns. During the Olympics, the TOC was primarily used for monitoring traffic and supplemental real-time control of traffic signals and variable message signs to deal with unexpected backups, which were few. To minimize problems that did occur, UDOT created on-road assistance stations along the main highways to help manage in-field emergencies and stalled vehicles. This allowed most incidents to be cleared within 15 minutes. UDOT also worked with the U.S. Department of Homeland Security to minimize constraints for the President and Vice President as they traveled through the city. F. The Role of Transit Salt Lake City Transit played a key role in transporting people through Salt Lake City during the Olympic Games. In addition to getting people to the events, area residents also continued to perform their daily activities. UTA played an important role in planning and preparing transit systems for the Olympics due to their staff expertise and existing infrastructure. During the Olympic Games itself, UTA was responsible for the downtown spectator system, while SLOC operated the mountain venue spectator system and provided transportation for the Olympic Family. During the Olympic Games, UTA took over responsibility for maintenance for the SLOC services. Park City transit increased their service to the Park City area during the Olympics. SLOC also supplemented the Park City fleet of approximately 20 buses by 65 additional F1. Services Salt Lake Spectator System UTA managed the Salt Lake Spectator System, which provided transportation in, out, and around downtown to the general public during the Olympics. UTA continued to provide its regular services to both locals and visitors. To provide additional capacity, UTA increased frequency of key bus routes and TRAX, the light rail system. It also provided additional special shuttle bus service from temporary suburban park and ride lots into downtown. UTA predicted transit demand during the Olympic Games to be 100,000 rides per day on TRAX, as compared to 30,000 rides per day during a typical workday. UTA developed training programs and management plans, provided communication systems, and developed operating and contingency plans to support transit service throughout the Olympics. Olympic Family SLOC’s primary transportation responsibility was to provide transportation for athletes, media and sponsors. SLOC served these groups independently, offering their own transportation services and separate routes. Mountain Venue Services It was recognized early-on that parking at the mountain venues would be insufficient, so satellite parking lots were developed and shuttles were used to transport spectators to the venues. Security checks were incorporated into these satellite lots. In total, the park and ride lots contained over 30,000 parking stalls, with 2,000 new permanent stalls and 10,000 temporary stalls built for the Olympics in the valley. The "Mountain Venue Express" provided service between downtown Salt Lake City and the Alpine venues for those that did not want to drive and to reduce the number of private automobiles. Shuttle pricing techniques served as an important example to the economic demand of certain services: When these routes were envisioned, it was expected that passengers would pay $20-$40 for the service. However, due to a low reservation count, prices decreased to $5 per round trip, so that the park and ride lots in Park City would not be overwhelmed. The low reservation cost, however, led to some visitors buying shuttle tickets and not using them, and was indicative that some visitors later chose to drive instead. In retrospect, having higher fares could have better assured that visitors would commit to using the express service, and would have more effectively worked to alleviate congestion on the roadways. F2. Vehicles Initially, it was determined that 1,900 buses would be needed to transport the expected demand. Multiple refinement of venue and event capacities resulted in SLOC setting a final goal of receiving 1,000 borrowed bus transit vehicles to mange the spectator movements of the Olympic Games. A total of 1,124 buses were acquired, of which 26 transit companies across the nation provided 580 transit vehicles to the borrowed bus program, with an additional 133 transit vehicles loaned by UTA -- for a total borrowed bus program equaling 713 transit vehicles. The remaining 411 of the total 1,124 buses acquired to fulfill the spectator movements were acquired via lease procurement. Of these 411 buses, 315 were long-haul, over the road coaches, rather than transit-type vehicles. Transit agencies outside of the host city often do not have available capacity of excess buses to fulfill the requirements for the Olympic Games. For this reason, future Olympic Organizing Committees may want to look beyond the public transit agencies alone to provide adequate services to transport spectators. The borrowed bus program began three years before the Olympics as contracting and interagency agreements became of high importance and needed to begin early. Contracts requested specific parts, tires, and fluids to be sent with the vehicles for maintenance. While most agencies sent high quality vehicles and the requested maintenance supplies, some vehicles required much more maintenance than expected to be made operational. Vehicles from warmer climates, not accustomed to cold climate operations, required additional maintenance and preparation time. Additional time for pre-Olympic maintenance would have been useful to properly prepare the equipment in time for the Olympics. F3. Staffing and Operations In addition to borrowed buses, agreements were made through assistance by the American Public Transit Association (APTA) and the National Amalgamated Transit Union (ATU) to have transit authorities loan 780 drivers for the transit vehicle fleet. An additional 298 drivers were also hired, and accompanied the over the road coaches. This program was found to be highly successful with qualified employees being sent to Salt Lake City who enjoyed dedicating their time to helping prepare for the Olympic Games. UTA hired additional professional bus operators and mechanics to meet the needs of the expected capacity and UTA recruited, hired, and trained approximately 150 additional drivers to serve their regular service, allowing permanent drivers to cover the spectator shuttle service. Although SLOC was responsible for the alpine spectator fleet, once the Olympics began, they struggled to adequately maintain their fleet. UTA provided the oversight and expertise needed to keep the alpine fleet running. UTA provided a total of 4 million rides during the Olympics: 1.7 million rides on Salt Lake City’s TRAX at-grade light rail lines; 1.5 million rides on UTA’s standard bus system; and 0.9 million rides on a special Olympic spectator park and ride shuttle system. UTA contributes its success at the Olympic Games to several key principles that were used: (1) Excellent Planning and Networking. UTA’s attention to detail during the planning phase allowed them to create an accurate and successful planning approach that was adhered to and included planning for contingencies. Through this process they were also able to develop institutional relationships that will continue to benefit them in the future. (2) Communication. Strong interagency communication and coordination created a trustworthy environment among stakeholders. This coordination recognized a consistent chain of command throughout the Olympic-planning process, and thus led to effective communication during games-time operations. Communication also contributed to UTA achieving excellent media relations. (3) Empowered Employees. A temporary management structure authorized employees to make decisions that traditionally required supervisory approval. This allowed faster responses to incidents and prevented many incidents. Not only were employees given more responsibility, but employees also became energetic about being an integral part of the Olympics’ success. UTA employees dedicated many long days to ensure that UTA kept up with vehicle demand and maintenance. (4) Experienced, Quality Operators. Through UTA and SLOC’s "Loaned" Operator Program, transit operators from across the county served as well-informed and friendly staff, contributing to an overall successful "Olympic experience." Staff was energetic and helpful in both operations and maintenance practices. (5) Advanced maintenance. Before the Olympics began, maintenance crews spent a considerable amount of time testing and performing maintenance on both UTA’s own fleet and buses borrowed from around the country. This work ensured that vehicles were ready to perform on the road with minimum daily maintenance. Whatcom County It may be desirable to develop a system similar to the Mountain Venue Express to connect Bellingham with Vancouver. While Salt Lake City had some problems attracting visitors to the service, if border-crossing security can be incorporated and streamlined, it may prove highly successful. Even if prices are kept low in order to attract riders, this type of service may be worthwhile if it is able to alleviate congestion at the border. The expectation one year prior to the Salt Lake City Olympic Games was that the transit industry would provide all the vehicles required; however, it was a challenge to acquire provided vehicles and logistically house, maintain, fuel, and transport them. WTA may want to consider if and where they might increase service. They may also want to make their employees and their expertise available to Vancouver once their local transportation demands are met. If WTA does decide to provide additional services for the Olympics, it is important to remember that they are a small agency with only 80 buses. WTA may only be able to free up 5-10% (4-8 buses) of its buses to provide Olympic spectator transportation while continuing to run their regular services. They may want to implement a small-scaled "borrowed bus" program, requesting vehicles from other transit agencies in Washington State (i.e. Seattle and Tacoma) as opposed to a nation-wide program. G. Other A variety of other Olympic-related topics were also introduced during the transportation discussions. G1. Funding Salt Lake City Federal funds to support transportation planning for the Olympics were provided through Federal grants and appropriated funding. One challenge in receiving funding was to ensure that funding was allocated to the right agency for the particular project. To address this, UDOT had to come to an agreement with its partners as to how to provide funds to specific projects such as UTA’s rail extension. It was decided that all transportation requests would be consolidated rather than submitted separately by different agencies advocating for their own projects. This effort would include two tasks: Prioritizing Projects. Various agencies were contacted to determine their "wish list" for projects that needed to be completed before the Olympic Games. In order to help determine funding priorities, requests were organized by project type (e.g., highway, transit, ITS, etc.) and then prioritized by need (e.g., vital, extremely important, high importance, important). Both the Transportation Improvement Program (TIP) and State Transportation Improvement Plan (STIP) were used as starting points for listing these needs, as most improvements required for the Olympics were already contained in these plans. Preparing a Joint Request. A multi-year funding plan was first presented to the Congress in 1996. These funds were requested annually with funding levels expected to change as more detailed planning was completed. Whatcom County An Olympic transportation package was submitted to the Washington State Legislature in January 2004, after Vancouver was selected as the host for the 2010 Olympic Games. The Legislature approved expediting the timelines of two projects associated with planning for the 2010 Olympic Games: Expanding the Guide Meridian (State Route 539) and lengthening the High Occupancy Vehicle Lanes on Interstate 5. In addition, supplemental funding is being sought to improve I-5 interchange access in and out of Blaine, WA, a city on the U.S./Canada border. G2. Economic Realities Salt Lake City While the Olympics are definitely a financial engine, local cities and businesses must limit their expectations. Salt Lake City found there to be limited "multi-purpose" trips, recognizing that visitors’ main focus is attending Olympic events. Regional attractions such as National Parks did not see an increase in visitation during the Olympics although the region has benefited in recent years. Restaurants in close proximity to downtown activities also did not see increases in sales during the Olympics. Overall, the Olympics can be catalysts for long-term growth and provide opportunities throughout the region. Atlanta reported $5 billion of economic growth after their Olympics; Sydney has experienced $10 billion in growth; and Salt Lake City expects $2.5 billion in growth. This boom isn’t contained to the host city itself; other communities throughout the Rockies have benefited from the Salt Lake Games. Whatcom County Although Whatcom County will not experience economic growth to the extent of a host city, other economic opportunities exist if Whatcom County is able to host training facilities for Olympic athletes. Many athletes often search for a location outside of the host city to practice and become acclimated with the area prior to the Olympic Games. The surrounding mountains and various athletic facilities in the area may be attractive to visiting athletes. Marketing will play a key role in attracting both athletes and visitors to the region. Whatcom County may be able to attract non-Olympic visitors and local residents who would have otherwise chosen to ski in the Whistler, British Columbia area. In addition, the Pacific Northwest Region can experience some of the Olympic "afterglow" by capturing the media’s attention. In Salt Lake City, over 10,000 media attend the Olympic Games and also looked for pre and post-Olympics stories. The border crossing operations will be a key influence on the media and may impact the tone of their coverage. Whatcom County should reach out to travel writers and other media to let them know about the unique aspects of the area long before the Olympics begin. Non-sponsoring media may be looking for story ideas that are not directly related to the Olympic Games. Activities that focus on building local community spirit, such as indigenous cultural events and local Olympic celebrations can also provide the Olympic experience for local residents without them having to travel north to Canada. G3. Lodging Salt Lake City SLOC was responsible for having housing available for all Olympic participants, excluding spectators and local employees/volunteers. To coordinate lodging, SLOC worked with over 200 hotels, accounting for approximately 85% of the rooms in these hotels. Average room costs were $215 per night. Some hotels decided not to provide rooms to SLOC and instead hoped to profit from higher hotel prices due to limited availability. Six years before the Olympic Games, SLOC reserved 35,000 hotel rooms within a 2-hour radius of Salt Lake City, with 17,000 rooms in Salt Lake County. As they re-estimated their needs, they released 14,000 reserved rooms, most of which were over one hour away from downtown Salt Lake City. Once SLOC had completed organizing housing for officials, they assisted creating the Visitor Information Services in conjunction with the Salt Lake Convention and Visitors Bureau, which created a central program to provide rooms for visitors. These rooms averaged $185 per night and were located within 1 to 1.5 hours of Salt Lake City. In general spectators stayed 3-5 days while other user groups spent three to four weeks in Salt Lake City. Whatcom County Lodging is one area that Whatcom County may directly benefit from, depending on the number of rooms available in Vancouver and their expected room demand. Hotels should work together with Vancouver officials to provide access to these rooms. G4. Security Salt Lake City Utah had 5,000 sworn officers supporting the Olympic Games. Using a program similar to that for borrowed buses, Salt Lake City expanded their force to 13,000 officers plus the National Guard. For visiting officers, it was important to ensure that these officers had the ability to enforce regulations outside of their jurisdiction, and instead within Utah. The Utah Olympic Public Safety Command was the entity facilitating the Federal, State and local security functions. The Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) was the lead at the Salt Lake City International Airport and all airports and cargo airports within the 500-mile region (considered feeder airports) because the Transportation Security Administration had not yet been created at that time. In many cases, the feeder airports were used to screen cargo before entering the major airports. Delta Airlines, the main carrier at Salt Lake City International Airport, created a welcome center in their hanger and allowed the FAA to set up a security-screening center there. Athletes leaving the Olympic Games were provided off-site baggage check at this location. Scenario planning was a highly effective tool used to prepare for potential incidents and address security concerns. Both communications plans and integrated communications systems were key resources in preparing for the Olympics. Whatcom County Whatcom County’s security concerns for the Vancouver Olympics will center on three areas: the Washington-BC border, marine activities, and the Bellingham International Airport. Security at those locations and attendant facilities will be heightened during Olympic events and travel periods including the Cultural Olympics and Paralympics. Border crossings are already often-congested facilities. The addition of Olympics-related travelers and goods-movement along with the potential for longer inspection times associated with heightened security could substantially complicate border congestion, airport operations, and marine terminal operations. Security agencies should coordinate Olympics-related operations with Washington State DOT, Whatcom County and border city governments. Failure to do so invites the strong possibility of a poor report card for the regional mobility during the Olympics. As with the Atlanta Summer Games, big delays for even a small number of attendees could seriously detract from the overall perceived quality of the 2010 Winter Games. Substantial cooperation and planning will be needed to avoid overwhelming the cross-border system for all modes, and to minimize the possibility of negative experiences for visitors, all while providing appropriate levels of security. Transportation needs for all modes must be considered in the security plan and vice-versa. IV. Lessons Learned The Salt Lake City delegation described several lessons learned from their planning and operations of transportation for the Olympic Games. In order to accurately predict transportation demand, the state and local transportation agencies relied on ticket numbers for each venue to gauge demand to and from the venue location. The amount of available tickets for each venue was changed several times as the planning process continued, in part due to transportation capacity issues, but also because of other planning issues. Salt Lake City delegates stated that the planning process was allowed to continue for too long. Late stage, incremental adjustments delayed settlement on a final estimate of scheduled travel demand. Salt Lake City delegates instead suggest that the planning process be completed at least four months prior to the Olympics. Five practices were determined as having played major roles in having a successful transportation plan and operations during the Olympic Games. These general practices can be applied to many large-scale events, which require similar transportation planning, and are not unique to Olympic planning alone. The techniques described throughout this report, which were used to implement many of these practices, can also be adapted to better serve the stakeholders and users for a given event. (1) Coordination and Cooperation: Just as the Olympic Games bring together nations from across the globe, the process for creating sufficient transportation plans and infrastructure requires agencies and stakeholders from across the country to coordinate their efforts to create an effective result. (2) Detailed Planning: A detailed planning process can incorporate data from forecasting transportation demands and patterns to determine venue-by-venue needs. UDOT and UTA used venue-by-venue planning as the first stage in determining an overall systems plan. Once this was complete, all parties were able to create their operational plans and fine-tune their plans prior to the arrival of the Olympic Games. SLOC, however, had difficulty incorporating spectator transportation needs into their overall approach because it was also responsible for meeting the demands of the IOC, for whom spectator transportation was not a key issue. However, if SLOC did not integrate the Public Agencies into the SLOC umbrella, SLOC would have faced more difficulty in meeting the spectator transportation needs. (3) Modeling and Testing: Modeling and validation are essential tools in predicting travel patterns throughout a region. By having a prediction of hourly traffic volume at each venue, high congestion areas could be recognized, and transportation plans could address these potential problem sites along with other planning strategies. (4) Pubic Information and Travel Demand Management: In order to accommodate local businesses that must operate as usual (e.g., hospitals, banks, etc.), transportation agencies relied on websites and printed materials to keep its citizens informed of changes affecting the transportation system. Trucks traveling through the region were also contacted and encouraged to avoid the areas during daytime. This outreach to the local public not only helped citizens plan for this high-capacity event, but also helped transportation agencies form a strong working relationship with the public while helping to alleviate unwanted traffic congestion. (5) Think Long Term: Rather than building infrastructure specifically for the Olympic Games, Salt Lake City used the Olympics as a catalyst to develop infrastructure that was recognized as a long-term need. Two examples of new infrastructure include UDOT’s TOC and UTA’s TRAX light rail lines. Utah was interested in developing its ITS capabilities and was able to build the TOC in time for the Olympic Games. UDOT first opened the TOC in 1999 and continued to add additional signal controls and traffic monitoring devices until just before the Olympics. TRAX originally opened in 1999 and added extensions in 2001 in preparation for the Olympics. While the extension to the University of Utah could not be used for the Opening and Closing Ceremonies, it not only proved crucial in minimizing congestion during the Olympics, but has also proved to be popular with the university community. As a counterpoint to the TOC and TRAX, a minimum amount of temporary park and ride lots were built. UTA worked with local schools, churches, and commercial centers to provide park and ride spaces. Where there was not enough capacity, the lots were constructed to be serviceable throughout the Olympic Games but to be quickly reincorporated into their surroundings. In many locations it is difficult to determine where lots existed. V. Recommendations Although Whatcom County is not the host of the 2010 Olympic Games, Salt Lake City delegates did determine what recommendations would still pertain to Whatcom County to plan and operate as effectively as possible during this event. These recommendations also encompass a transferability that can be used to plan for other large-scale events. (1) Expect the unexpected: The dynamic nature of planning for such a large-scale event requires all stakeholders to be flexible. Pre-planning is important to minimize incidents but also to prepare contingency plans for when things do go wrong. (2) Co-locate personnel and offices together: By having related agencies (e.g., state highway patrol, DOT Operations Center, etc.) together in the same location, information can be easily shared and communication can remain open to allow for smooth operations. (3) Integrate Security and Transportation Plans with each other: Security plans and training should be integrated into most practices. Mass transit between Bellingham and Vancouver should integrate border-crossing security. (4) Encourage transportation to be considered in all key decisions: The OCOG should include transportation at the table during all key decisionmaking periods. Venue schedules, venue capacities, and ticket sales all affect transportation operations and in order to plan properly for these impacts, transportation must be included in decisionmaking. (5) Appreciate field staff: Field staff play an important role in having a successful transportation system for such a large-scale event. For many staff, this may be the first time they are outside working with the public instead of behind a desk. This experience can create staff that are more dedicated and enthusiastic. (6) Build relationships: It will be important that Washington form good working relationships with Vancouver’s OCOG. In addition, the Olympics provide an opportunity to build long-lasting relationships that can continue even after the Olympics are over. In addition to receiving recommendations from the Salt Lake delegation, Whatcom County also received feedback from U.S. and Canadian stakeholders interested in preparing for the Olympics. During session two in Bellingham, WCOG hosted an Olympic Symposium, which shared the Peer Exchange experience with attendees. The event also allowed participants to ask questions of both the Salt Lake City and Whatcom County delegations. See Section VII for a description of the questions and answers. VI. For More Information: Key Contact(s): Melissa Miller, Whatcom Council of Governments Address: 314 E. Champion St. Bellingham, WA 98225 Phone: (360) 676-6974 Fax: (360) 738-6232 E-mail: Melissa@wcog.org VII. Attachments/Links Agenda - Salt Lake City, UT Agenda - Bellingham, WA Participants List - Peer Exchange Sessions 1 and 2 Participants List - WCOG's Olympic Symposium, Session 2 Questions and Answers from WCOG's Olympic Symposium Questions from Whatcom Delegates in Preparation for Peer Exhchange Other Agenda- Salt Lake City, UT   Tuesday Wednesday Thursday   March 2, 2004 March 3, 2004 March 4, 2004 8.00 Greetings, Overview, Itinerary - Breakfast at Marriott Transportation Demand, Planning & Forecasting (Mike Kaczorowski, Bob Parry, Greg Scott, Randy Park) Community Development, Impacts, Econ. Implications, Cultural Olympiad (Lane Beattie) 8.30 9.00 Bus Tour of Olympic Venues (Randy Park, Andrew Gemperline, Bob Parry) 9.30 10.00 Relationship w/Organizing Committee (Andrew Gemperline) 10.30 Security (Earl Morris, TSA Director at Airport) 11.00 11.30 12.00 Tour of Olympic Stadium & Museum, Box Lunch 12.30 Lunch 1.00 1.30 Lodging, MPO Perspective & Transit Tour (John Sindelar, Mick Crandall, Dave Huber and Randy Park) 2.00 Public Relations, Transportation Information (Dave Smith) 2.30 3.00 3.30 Debriefing, Transportation Plan, Funding (Randy Park, Andrew Gemperline, Bob Parry) Tour of the Traffic Operations Control Center (Dave Kinnecom) 4.00 Visioning Exercise - Whatcom County Visit (Bob Parry, Randy Park, Greg Scott) 4.30 5.00 Evening     Mormon Tabernacle Choir 8.00pm - 9.30pm (Casual dress) Participants List - Peer Exchange Sessions 1 and 2 Bruce Agnew Director Cascadia Project at Discovery Institute (206) 292-0401 ext. 113 bagnew@discovery.org Gerry Althauser Maintenance Supervisor Washington State Department of Transportation (206) 768-5876 AlthauG@wsdot.wa.gov Mark Asmundson Mayor City of Bellingham (360) 676-6979 mayorsoffice@cob.org Tom Backaly City Manager Park City, UT (435) 615-5180 tom@parkcity.org Rachael Barolsky US DOT Volpe Center (617) 494-6352 Barolsky@volpe.dot.gov Lane Beattie President and CEO Salt Lake Chamber (801) 364-3631 lbeattie@saltlakechamber.org Mike Brower Transportation Mobility Engineer US Federal Highway Administration, Washington Division (360) 753-9550 michael.brower@fhwa.dot.gov Bill Bruskick Assistant Federal Security Director - Inspections Transportation Security Administration - Salt Lake International Airport (801) 534-5011 william.bruskick@dhs.gov Maureen Camandona Community Relations and Marketing Manager Whatcom Transportation Authority (360) 527-4718 maureenc@ridewta.com Art Choat Director Aviation US Port of Bellingham (360) 676-2500 artc@portofbellingham.com Hugh Conroy Project Manager Whatcom Council of Governments (360) 676-6974 hugh@wcog.org John Cooper President Bellingham/Whatcom Convention & Visitors Bureau (360) 671-3990 john@bellingham.org Mick Crandall Deputy Chief of Capital Development Utah Transit Authority (801) 262-5626 ext. 2135 mcrandall@uta.cog.ut.us Harry Dearing Chief of Client Services Canada Border Services Agency (604) 538-3603 harry.dearing@ccra-adrc.gc.ca Peg Fearon Blaine Service Port Director US Customs & Border Protection (360) 332-6500 margaret.r.fearon@dhs.gov Andrew Gemperline Director of Legacy Parkway Project Utah Department of Transportation (801) 951-1026 ext. 308 agemperline@utah.gov Teresa Gonzales Program Manager Cascadia Project at Discovery Institute (206) 682-5340 tg@discovery.org Todd Harrison Mt. Baker Area Administrator Washington State Department of Transportation (360) 757-5990 HarrisT@wsdot.wa.gov Colin Hilton Director of Capital Management and Economic Development Park City, UT (435) 615-5176 chilton@parkcity.org Dave Huber Director of Operations Utah Transit Authority (801) 262-5626 ext. 3225 dhuber@uta.cog.ut.us Mike Kaczorowski Urban Planning Engineer Utah Department of Transportation (801) 965-4152 mkaczorowski@utah.gov David Kinnecom Traffic Management Engineer Utah Department of Transportation (801) 887-3710 dkinneco@utah.gov Tom Lentz Assistant Regional Administrator for Operations for the NW Region Washington State Department of Transportation (206) 440-4773 LentzTE@wsdot.wa.gov Wayton Lim Border Station Program Manager General Services Administration (253) 931-7633 wayton.lim@gsa.gov Dan Mathis Division Administrator US Federal Highway Administration - Washington Division (360) 753-9413 daniel.mathis@fhwa.dot.gov Jim Miller Executive Director Whatcom Council of Governments (360) 676-6974 jim@wcog.org Melissa Miller Project Coordinator Whatcom Council of Governments (360) 676-6974 Melissa@wcog.org Earl Morris Federal Security Director Transportation Security Administration - Salt Lake International Airport (801) 524-4526 earl.morris@dhs.gov Randy Park Manager, Special Projects Utah Transit Authority (801) 262-5626 ext. 2350 rpark@uta.cog.ut.us Bob Parry Olympic Consultant (801) 244-2270 bobpgolf@comcast.net Rob Pochert Executive Director Bellingham/Whatcom Economic Development Council (360) 676-4255 rob@bwedc.org Gordon Rogers Deputy Director Whatcom Council of Governments (360) 676-6974 gordon@wcog.org Rob Ryan City Council Member Bellingham City Council (360) 671-1776 ryan84485@attbi.com Dieter Schugt Mayor City of Blaine (360) 371-5560 schugtsos@nas.com Gregg Scott Transportation Planner Wasatch Front Regional Council (801) 363-4250 gscott@wfrc.org John Sindelar Olympic Consultant (801) 943-9404 johnsind@aol.com David Smith Vice President/Director of Public Relations Penna Powers Cutting & Haynes (PPCH)/ProClix (801) 487-4800 dsmith@ppbh.com Sid Stecker Transportation Planner US Federal Highway Administration - Washington Division (360) 753-9555 sidney.stecker@fhwa.dot.gov Frances Switkes Operations Research Analyst US DOT Volpe Center (617) 494-2213 switkes@volpe.dot.gov Participants List - WCOG's Olympic Symposium, Session 2   Salute First Last Title Company 1 Mr. Steve Banham Director, Public Works City of Blaine 2 Mr. John Liebert Representative City of Blaine 3 Mr. Jasper MacSlarrow Senior Legislative Assistant Congressman Rick Larsen's Office 4 Mr. Bob Ryan   Bellingham City Council 5 Mayor Dieter Schugt   Mayor, City of Blaine 6 Mr. Gary Tomsic City Manager City of Blaine 7 Mr. Gary Vlieg Traffic Operations Manager City of Surrey 8 Ms. Leslye Asher   Whatcom Council of Governments 9 Mr. Hugh Conroy Project Manager Whatcom Council of Governments 10 Mr. Jim Miller Executive Director Whatcom Council of Governments 11 Ms. Melissa Miller Project Coordinator Whatcom Council of Governments 12 Mr. Gordon Rogers Deputy/Plannin Director Whatcom Council of Governments 13 Mrs. Angela Taylor   Whatcom Council of Governments 14 Ms. Cara Buckingham   Bellis Fair 15 Mr. Brad Burdick   Mount Baker Theatre 16 Mr. Bruce Clawson Commercial Loan Officer Banner Bank 17 Mr. Larry Ehl   WA State Department of Transportation 18 Mr. Mike Gommi   Best Western Heritage Inn 19 Mr. Hal Hart Director Whatcom County Planning & Development 20 Mr. Robert Jones   U.S. Consulate 21 Mr. Jeff Kochman President The Barkley Company 22 Mr. James Kohnke Chairman, Transportation & Customs Committee Pacific Corridor Enterprise Council 23 Mr. Pete Kremen   Whatcom County Executive 24 Mr. Dan Mathis   U.S. Federal Highway Administration 25 Mr. John F. Millis Regional Director, Policy Coordination Transport Canada 26 Ms. Joy Monjure   Everson City Council 27 Mr. John F. Millis Regional Director, Policy Coordination Transport Canada 28 Mr. Tom Stacey   WA State Department of Transportation 29 Mr. Bill Taylor VP Finance & Administration Wilder Construction Company 30 Mr. Scott Wheeler   Lithtex NW Printing Solutions 31 Mr. Steve Wilkinson   Peoples Bank 32 Mr. Bruce Agnew Director Cascadia Project - Discovery Institute 33 Mr. Andy Anderson     34 Mr. John Arrigoni     35 Mayor Mark Asmundson   Mayor, City of Bellingham 36 Mr. Ben Baker Owner VCR Print 37 Ms. Diana Bakkom   WWU-Conference Services 38 Mr. Brent Baldwin   Bellingham Engineering Dept. 39 Ms. Rachael Barolsky   US DOT Volpe Center 40 Mr. Jack Bartman   David Evans & Associates 41 Ms. Louise Bjornsen   Bellingham City Council 42 Ms. Jennifer Bowman   Federal Transit Administration 43 Mr. Michael Brennan   Brennan & Company, LLC 44 Ms. Phyllis Brett   Island Transit 45 Ms. Barbara Briggs North Area Traffic Engineer WA State Department of Transportation 46 Mr. Mike Brower Transportation Mobility Engineer U.S Federal Highway Administration 47 Mr. Leslie Bryson Diector of Public Works Bellingham Parks and Recreation 48 Mr. John Busch     49 Ms. Maureen Camandona   Whatcom Transportation Authority 50 Mr. Todd Carlson   WA State Department of Transportation 51 Ms. Carolyn Casey   Port of Bellingham 52 Ms. Christine Chin President and Publisher The Bellingham Herald 53 Ms. Pam Christianson   Blaine Community Chamber of Commerce 54 Mr. Chris Comeau   Bellingham Planning Department 55 Mr. Kevin Cook Political,Economic, & Academic Officer Canadian Consulate General 56 Mr. John Cooper Executive Director Bellingham/Whatcom Convention & Visitors 57 Mr. Pat Cruickshank   B.C Ministry of Transportation 58 Mr. Antonio Cube   U.S. Senator Patty Murray's Office 59 Mr. Tim D'acci   WA State Department of Transportation 60 Mr. Allan Davidson Mgr. of Planning & Partnerships B.C Ministry of Transportation 61 Mr. David Davidson City Manager City of Sumas 62 Mr. Philip Davies Senior Regional Economist - Coordination Transport Canada 63 Ms. Kathleen Davis   Washington State Department of Transportation 64 Mr. Dolph Diemont   US Department of Transportation Region 10 65 Ms. Lorena Eng   WA State Department of Transportation 66 Ms. Peg Fearon Area Port Director U.S. Customs & Border Protection 67 Ms. Tania Fernandez De Castro WA State CTED 68 Ms. Rafeeka Gafoor Business Development Manager Economic Development Council 69 Mr. Bill Garing   David Evans and Accociates, Inc. 70 Mr. Andrew Gemperline Director Utah Department of Transportation 71 Ms. Judy Giniger   WS DOT 72 Ms. Teresa Gonzales   Cascadia Project - Discovery Institute 73 Mr. Todd Harrison Mt. Baker Area Administrator WA State Department of Transportation 74 Mr. John Hergesheimer   Port of Bellingham 75 Ms. Sally Hintz   Office of U.S. Senator Maria Cantwell 76 Mr. Dennis Holmstrom   Sumas City Council 77 Mr. Eric Irelan   Skagit Council of Governments 78 Mr. Jay Kehne   North Central Washington RC&D 79 Ms. Kristine Kertson   City of Seattle 80 Mr. Martin Kobayakawa Transportation Planner Greater Vancouver Transportation Authority 81 Mr. Jerry Landcastle   Mayor - City of Ferndale 82 Mr. Tom Lentz   WA State Department of Transportation 83 Mr. Wayton Lim Border Station Manager U.S. General Services Administration 84 Mayor Jack Louws   Mayor, City of Lynden 85 Ms. Carole MacDonald   Inn at Mt. Baker 86 Mr. Dave McCormick   WA State Department of Transportation 87 Mr. Douglas McDonald   Lummi Indian Business Council 88 Mr. Richard McKinley   Bellingham Public Works 89 Mr. Ted Mischaikov President/COO AT Investments LLC 90 Mr.   Morrison   Pacific Northwest Economic Region 91 Mr. Derek Morrison     92 Mr. Matt Morrison Executive Director Pacific Northwest Economic Region 93 Ms. Karen Morse President President - Western Washington University 94 Ms. Louise Mugar   Blaine & St. Roberts Chambers 95 Ms. Debbie Omile   St. Joseph Hospital 96 Mr. Keith Orton Chief Intl. Specialist City of Seattle 97 Mr. Randy Park Manager, Special Projects Utah Transit Authority 98 Mr. Bob Parry     99 Mr. Ken Peck Area Port Director U.S. Customs and Border Protection 100 Mr. Rob Pochert Executive Director Bellingham/Whatcom Economic Dev. Cncl. 101 Mr. Gerald Pumphrey President President - Bellingham Technical College 102 Mr. Jess Reeves Sr.   Nooksak City Council 103 Mr. Skye Richendrfer   Gateway 2010 104 Ms. Elizabeth Robbins   WA State Department of Transportation 105 Mr. Joe Rutan   Whatcom County Engineering 106 Ms. Barbara Ryan   Bellingham City Council 107 Ms. Kay Sardo   The Opportunity Council 108 Mr. Greg Scott Transportation Planner Wasatch Front Regional Council 109 Ms. Julie Shirley   Bellingham Herald 110 Mr. John Sibold Director, Aviation WSDOT 111 Ms. Terry Simmonds   WA State Department of Transportation 112 Ms. Harriet Spanel Senator, 40th District Washington State Legislature 113 Mr. Sid Stecker Transportation Planner U.S. Federal Highway Administration 114 Ms. Mimi Sukhdeo Project Manager Transport Canada 115 Ms. Shawn Thelen Business Banking Team Sales Leader Key Bank 116 Mr. Tom Till   Cascadia Project - Discovery Shuttle 117 Mr. Bill Verwolf City Administrator City of Lynden 118 Mr. Don Wick Director EDA of Skagit County 119 Mr. Larry Wickkiser   Airport Shuttle/Bellair Charters 120 Mr. Clark Williams   Bellingham Public Works Department 121 Mr. Doug Ericksen Representative, 42nd District Washington State Legislature Questions and Answers from WCOG's Olympic Symposium (1) Q: What was the private-carrier transportation provider contribution to the Salt Lake City Olympics? A: The OCOG created agreements with wholesalers to negotiate a set rate and then the wholesaler coordinated with the companies (e.g., Greyhound, Peter Pan, etc.). Although strong competition typically exists during Olympic Games, SLOC worked with sponsors of the Olympic Games to create a non-competitive market and used Federal funding to bring in private coaches to support the sponsors needs. SLOC guaranteed 30 days of contracting services for each bus at a flat rate, or the bus company could decline the invitation and instead risk getting outside business at a higher rate. Each Olympics handles this situation differently, and it is up to the Vancouver organizing committee to determine how they work with the bus companies. (2) Q: Why does the marketing focus not reach outside the center of the Olympic Game location? What communication drove people outside of Salt Lake City? A: Salt Lake City knew that transportation was not going to be the key story of the Olympic Games, and instead chose to operate at the highest-level possible in order to support this global event. UDOT and UTA focused on mobility and did not work to market movement in the area. The Utah Visitors’ Bureau did, however, create their own strategy to market the regional appeal. The typical Olympic stay during the Salt Lake City Olympic Games was 3.5 days; this turnover can lead to regional success if surrounding areas are promoted. Vancouver must participate in this effort as well if the 2010 Olympic Games want to become an international-regional success story. (3) Q: Did SLOC develop their own transportation security plan? What part of the implementation was transportation responsible for? A: UDOT created transportation security plans for law enforcement to review and use. The plans were used to train security, and full implementation required strong coordination and patience. The challenge lied in having law enforcement patrol the streets and adhere to where barriers should be placed and what road-closures should and should not exist. Three months prior to the Olympic Games, the Secret Service and key decision makers arrived to work on the plans further. This required the transportation agencies to address their changes and communicate the impacts of their security decisions on transportation. People were only searched at the venues, and not at parking lots of transit stations. The law enforcement in Utah communicated seamlessly because they are not disjointed agencies. Washington State should work toward this approach to maintain strong communication between the Transportation Operations Centers, Border Crossing stations, and other partners. (4) Q: Where does the funding originate from? A: Because host cities receive special appropriations to fund the Olympics, SLOC was active in seeing that the proper amount of funding be received. Federal agencies such as FRA, FTA, FAA, and FHWA all contributed to funding transportation improvements to support the Olympic Games. FTA funding was primarily given directly to UDOT. Because Whatcom County is not a host city, however, the region should work to receive funding for improvements that will benefit the larger area. (5) Q: What type of communication was in place? A: An 800 megahertz system was in place primarily for Public Safety and the U.S. Department of Defense. Nextel phones were used as part of the already existing system; introducing a new technology would require both time and cost-intensive training and allowing time to gain familiarity with new instruments. Samsung, a sponsor of the Olympic Games, had their radios available for communication; however, challenges existed in having UDOT use radios and variable message signs to communicate to areas outside of the center due to signal problems from the long distance. The communication system only required 3% of their contingency plans to be executed. (6) Q: What percentage of total visitors flew and drive? A: Over 1.5 million tickets were sold: 40% of tickets were bought by Utah citizens 45% of tickets were bought by U.S. citizens (45% of whom were from Western Region of U.S.) 15% of tickets were bought by International visitors Web-ticketing allowed for UDOT and UTA to estimate the number of travelers based on ticket sales. The major challenge is that it is difficult to predict how much equipment is needed. For example, Atlanta had an abundance of rental cars available and was financially hurt by the excess of cars remaining, while many airlines chose to upgrade the size of their planes instead of increase the number of flights. (7) Q: What is the city/county currently doing? A: The county has created the 2010 Committee to look at a number of issues related to the Olympic Games such as hospitality, infrastructure, displaced skiers, etc. Comment: It has been suggested that a tourism center for the U.S. be placed in Vancouver to attract regional travel following the Olympic Games. In fact, the Iditarod for 2010 has been postponed until after the Olympics to attract visitors. Comment: Cruise ships should also be recognized as a viable option for both transportation and lodging purposes. They provide one of the least environmentally-damaging forms of transportation and are in close proximity to rail lines that can transport additional visitors. 2010 OLYMPICS PEER EXCHANGE SALT LAKE CITY, UT – WHATCOM COUNTY, WA QUESTIONS FROM WHATCOM DELEGATES IN PREPARATION FOR PEER EXCHANGE Traffic 1. What steps did UDOT take to minimize construction impacts in and around the Olympic area? a. Did they allow highway construction projects to occur on routes into and out of the city? b. If no, how did they handle contract administrative items with their contractors – were the dates previously excluded or were they added by change order? 2. What steps did UDOT take to coordinate Olympic events with other special events in the same area wanting to use state or local roads? 3. Is it possible to see a sample of the UDOT communications plan, and specific event or situational examples, related to transportation? 4. How did the Olympic Organizing Committee (SLOC) track traffic coming from other areas? a. Was it a state-directed effort, a city effort, an Olympic committee effort, or a combination? 5. Were there contingency traffic control plans ready to be implemented? 6. What coordination occurred with Utah’s state police? a. Was there a formal agreement? b. How were troopers assigned? 7. What were the average ADT increases on the interstate systems leading into Salt Lake from 25, 50, and 100 miles out? 8. What were the staff levels in TMC before, during, and after? a. Were they adequate, too little, or too much? 9. What rules and regulations did you use to manage traffic? 10. Were any specific traffic control strategies used on arterials (i.e. access control, signals, etc)? 11. Were transportation systems customized for the different groups participating (i.e. spectators, athletes, media, staff, etc)? Incident Response 1. How did you develop an Incident Response Plan? a. Would it be possible to share that plan with us? 2. What were your incident response team staff levels before and after the events? a. Were they adequate? 3. Contracted Tows – what rules "of engagement" were used? 4. What planning should be considered, transportation and hospitality-related, in the case of weather emergencies? ITS 1. Did UDOT use ITS for some or all routes leading to Olympic sites? a. What ITS technologies were used (i.e. cameras, loops, etc.)? b. What ITS traveler information did the public find most useful? c. What information would have been useful that was not provided? 2. Regarding signal operations, did you find it necessary to revise signal timing for routes leading to the site? a. How far away from the sites? b. How long before the games? c. Were any timing or operational techniques (like lead or lag or unprotected lefts) found to be troublesome? 3. When should we plan to have any ITS, signal, or signage revisions in place? 4. Do you have written policies on Highway Advisory Radio (HAR) or Variable Message Sign (VMS) messages for snow and ice? 5. Did you use ITS outside the Salt Lake City area? 6. What permanent signage or regional way-finding devises were added in Salt Lake City and in neighboring cities? Signage 1. Regarding signage, there will be many out-of-state and foreign visitors. Were any sign messages found to be confusing? a. What types of messages are useful? 2. Were portable PCMS signs deployed to provide traveler information? Highway Maintenance 1. We learned that resources were called in from other parts of UDOT for the Olympics. How did you decide where to move resources from? a. Were the borrowed resources assigned to local supervision, temporary promotions? b. How large was the increase in equipment, labor, mechanics and materials? c. How did UDOT go about training and timing the new resources? d. How was the funding set up for this? Were accounts assigned? 2. How was food and lodging established for the imported help? a. Were vendors selected by bid or RFP? b. Regarding rates negotiations, were they through the normal per diem process? c. Was administrative help increased for logistics? Was this team set up in advance? 3. How was additional snow and ice control equipment accommodated? a. Was space rented for the equipment? b. What was used for clean-up and wash down facilities? c. Were facilities rented, borrowed, co-located, or partnered? d. What about loaders and graders? e. Were tanks for liquid snow and ice control available or were they rented? Does this include pumps? f. How did you handle the storage for sand and solid chemicals? g. How did vendors and local suppliers respond? 4. Was a night shift implemented for regular DOT maintenance workers during the Olympics? a. If so, was there an obvious benefit? 5. Were the UDOT maintenance organizations expected to deal with the increased demands for their services with no increases to their operating budgets? a. If there were increases to the maintenance budgets, where did the money come from? 6. Was there a plan to raise the level of service in snow and ice control activities during the Olympics? a. What steps were taken to do so? 7. Were any additional expectations placed on the UDOT maintenance staff in addition to their regular duties (i.e. litter control, restricted operational hours for lane closures, etc.)? Communication 1. Who coordinated buses, trains, and other modes, and how were they coordinated? 2. Did you have a feedback mechanism for drivers? a. What were the results? 3. What techniques were used for communication (multiple radio systems, expand single system, etc.)? a. Was there a communications plan? b. Did you use an Incident Command System? 4. Were language barriers a problem for the maintenance and operations employees who provided assistance to those traveling to the Olympics? 5. What transportation-related printed materials (regional maps, brochures, websites, etc.) were added in Salt Lake City and its environs? Aviation 1. Did airspace closures affect aviation airports in the vicinity of the Olympic events? If so, it is possible that, in the case of Vancouver, airspace closures may spill across the border and affect U.S. airports? Rest Areas 1. Did traffic overwhelm your rest areas? 2. How was overflow handed at the rest areas when parking lots were filled to capacity? 3. What actions did you take to accommodate increased use of rest areas? a. Increased staff? b. Overtime or added shifts for attendants and supervision? c. Rental portable toilets? d. Were any back up systems or services provided at your rest areas? e. Did you have added equipment needs (compactors, sweepers, small power equipment, etc.)? f. Was additional parking space rented?/ g. Were rest areas supplemented with "Sani-cans"? If so, how often did they require vendor servicing? 4. Were new utility service contracts required for the period of the events? 5. Did you have large increase in refuse, vandalism, and downtime? 6. How was security handled at the rest areas? 7. Did you make an effort to change, modernize, or upgrade rest areas prior to the Olympics? 8. How big was the budget impact at rest areas due to Olympics-related added traffic? 9. Do you have refreshment service permits at your rest areas? 10. Did you take advantage of higher rest area volumes to serve public information needs, and if so, how? 11. Is there information available that would assist us in anticipating the increased use of consumable supplies in our rest areas? Public Transportation 1. Were any additional temporary public transportation services offered to transport guests to Salt Lake City from neighboring cities (such as park and ride, rail, ferry, or a city-to-city shuttle)? a. If temporary services were offered, were they utilized, or did visitors arrive prepared to travel everywhere by car? b. Were services promoted to travelers before they arrived, and if so, how? Lodging/Hospitality 1. What was the increase in lodging/visitor demand in Salt Lake City? a. What is Salt Lake City’s lodging capacity? b. What is the capacity of the surrounding areas? 2. Did Salt Lake City and the surrounding area experience shortages (i.e. food, fuel, or lodging) during the Olympics? 3. Was there camping and/or illegal parking problems caused by people on their way to the Olympics and couldn’t find lodging or RV parking accommodations? 4. What services or programs were developed to encourage Olympic-bound visitors to explore areas just outside of Salt Lake City? 5. How far away were people willing to stay and travel back and forth to the different Olympic events? Marketing/Public Relations 1. What should be done to market Bellingham and Whatcom County in conjunction with the games? a. How do we tap into the media exposure before, during, and after the event? b. What are the best technologies to communicate and market the region? 2. Can Whatcom County play a role in any sports activities associated with the games? a. Can Mt. Baker play a role as a practice venue or as an alternative ski destination for the general public during the games? b. Will there be a demand for the Sportsplex Ice Rink? 3. How does one contact national teams regarding the use of local training venues? Funding 1. What federal, private, and other funding sources were used to implement permanent improvements or transportation additions? 2. How much funding did Salt Lake City receive in appropriations above their normal state formula? Infrastructure 1. What permanent improvements or additions were made to the transportation infrastructure in Salt Lake City and in neighboring cities? Other Official Report of the XXVII Olympiad (Sydney) www.gamesinfo.com.au/postgames/en/pg000031.htm Olympic Transportation Guide For Utah Residents, Commuters, and Businesses (Available in Hard Copy Only) 2002 Olympic Winter Games: Economic, Demographic and Fiscal Impacts (Available in Hard Copy Only) Utah Transit Authority After-Action Report, November 2002 (Available in Hard Copy Only)