4 ms·

That sounds like exceptionally poor planning. Just to confirm, the new airport served pretty much only international flights? It should have been the nexus for

That sounds like exceptionally poor planning. Just to confirm, the new airport served pretty much only international flights? It should have been the nexus for domestic travel to connect to the big hop to Europe, meaning it should have had a ton of domestic routes as well feeding it.

TRDRVR 3y ago
It's the main counterexample to 'The Olympics are good because they force the development of infrastructure that otherwise wouldn't get built' argument. Many of the weird choices about that airport was made so it would be open and useful for the 1976 Olympics. The location was closer to Montreal (but father from Ottawa) in part to make the international arrival experience better for the fans (not for the long-term users of the airport). The plan was 'International flights in time for the Olympics and Domestic flights a couple of years later' as a way to 'show off to the world.' All this rushing and purpose-building led to suboptimal decision making that ultimately made it a completely wasted investment. A similar story can be told about Olympic stadium in Montreal.
- thaumasiotes 3y ago
  I thought the main counterexample to that argument was the fact that it has never worked anywhere. From what I've heard, the Olympics have failed to benefit every city that's hosted them except LA, and the reason they were good for LA was specifically that no new infrastructure was built to accommodate them.
  - rqtwteye 3y ago
    I think Munich did well in 1972. They got a lot of public transport and most of the sports facilities are used a lot.
    - Andrex 3y ago
      Shame about the security, though.
  - mdtusz 3y ago
    Many will disagree with me, but the Vancouver Olympics prompted construction of some things that I would consider vital to the Sea to Sky region - the highway upgrade being the biggest.
  - mdtusz 3y ago
    Many will disagree with me, but the Vancouver Olympics prompted construction of some things that I would consider vital to the Sea to Sky region - the highway upgrade being the biggest.
  - Mvandenbergh 3y ago
    London as well, or at least broke even. (Although of course this is complicated to assess and contested). Same reason, all infrastructure was either already there or usable after (the Olympic stadium was sold to a football team). Generally the larger a city is, the better able it is to host an event like this for obvious reasons.
- sofixa 3y ago
  > It's the main counterexample to 'The Olympics are good because they force the development of infrastructure that otherwise wouldn't get built' argument. > Many of the weird choices about that airport was made so it would be open and useful for the 1976 Olympics. The location was closer to Montreal (but father from Ottawa) in part to make the international arrival experience better for the fans (not for the long-term users of the airport). The plan was 'International flights in time for the Olympics and Domestic flights a couple of years later' as a way to 'show off to the world.' That's just poor and short sighted planning, nothing specific for the Olympics. Paris for instance isn't making any such short term infrastructure decisions, only rushing to finish some stuff before the Olympics (e.g. line 14 to Orly, while failing others like line 15 South which was supposed to be ready but won't).
  - bluGill 3y ago
    It is a common enough thing with the olympics to consider it specific to the olympics even though it hapbens elsewhere.
londons_explore 3y ago
"exceptionally poor planning" is common in big projects like this. As soon as the design/planning teams gets big enough that there are many people who barely know eachother, they start competing to the detriment of the whole... Nobody wants their part late/over budget, so they do things to screw other parts of the project just so their part isn't late or over budget.
- bombcar 3y ago
  You also have large groups of various entities brawling over it, and you end up with compromises - where compromise means nobody is happy about anything.
sofixa 3y ago
> Just to confirm, the new airport served pretty much only international flights Yes, they decided they'll try to do it like Paris with CDG and Orly, but fundamentally misunderstood the differences the traffic - Orly mostly serves tourist destinations or places where lots of people living and working in France have origins in such as Portugal and the Maghreb from where there will be limited amounts of changes to international flights; and Air France is abandoning Orly and focusing entirely on CDG because even the small opportunity misses aren't worth the extra costs. And both are well connected to the city they're serving, including to each other with the RER B (okay it takes 1h30m, but at least it's a mostly direct connection). And CDG even has high speed rail to other cities. Montreal isn't even close in terms of traffic patterns... and even if it was, the connectivity to Montreal (and ideally Ottawa) really wasn't there.
reaperducer 3y ago
Just to confirm, the new airport served pretty much only international flights? It was a pretty common urban planning concept for a large city to have one airport devoted mostly or entirely to domestic flights, and one mostly or entirely for international flights. New York domestic: EWR New York international: JFK New York freight: LGA Chicago domestic: MDW Chicago international: ORD Houston domestic: HOU Houston international: IAH Dallas domestic: LUV Dallas international: DFW Paris international: CGD Paris international: ORY Washington domestic: DCA Washington international: IAD Notice how some airports (IAD, IAH) specifically have "International Airport" in their codes. It worked fine for a very long time until the airlines optimized into the hub-and-spoke system we have today, where connecting flights has become normalized. Because people think now it's normal to have connecting flights all the time, the domestic airports have added international flights, and vice-versa. What was once orderly and predictable has become very messy, and had a number of other side-effects.
- sumtechguy 3y ago
  I too thought 'international' in the name meant something. Until I worked with a guy who was into gliders. They named the large empty grass field that you had to drive for an hour to get to an 'international' airport. It was basically just enough to get a very small airplane aloft with a glider attached. They thought it was funny they pulled it off.
  - reaperducer 3y ago
    "International" in the name of an airport signifies that it is certified to receive international flights. I'm pointing out the use of "International" in airport codes, not names.
    - sumtechguy 3y ago
      you would think that.... This 'runway'/grass field was named an international. They thought it was funny to do. The naming group did not really seem to care all they cared about was the letter code was unique.

TRDRVR 3y ago

It's the main counterexample to 'The Olympics are good because they force the development of infrastructure that otherwise wouldn't get built' argument. Many of the weird choices about that airport was made so it would be open and useful for the 1976 Olympics. The location was closer to Montreal (but father from Ottawa) in part to make the international arrival experience better for the fans (not for the long-term users of the airport). The plan was 'International flights in time for the Olympics and Domestic flights a couple of years later' as a way to 'show off to the world.' All this rushing and purpose-building led to suboptimal decision making that ultimately made it a completely wasted investment. A similar story can be told about Olympic stadium in Montreal.

thaumasiotes 3y ago
I thought the main counterexample to that argument was the fact that it has never worked anywhere. From what I've heard, the Olympics have failed to benefit every city that's hosted them except LA, and the reason they were good for LA was specifically that no new infrastructure was built to accommodate them.
- rqtwteye 3y ago
  I think Munich did well in 1972. They got a lot of public transport and most of the sports facilities are used a lot.
  - Andrex 3y ago
    Shame about the security, though.
- mdtusz 3y ago
  Many will disagree with me, but the Vancouver Olympics prompted construction of some things that I would consider vital to the Sea to Sky region - the highway upgrade being the biggest.
- mdtusz 3y ago
  Many will disagree with me, but the Vancouver Olympics prompted construction of some things that I would consider vital to the Sea to Sky region - the highway upgrade being the biggest.
- Mvandenbergh 3y ago
  London as well, or at least broke even. (Although of course this is complicated to assess and contested). Same reason, all infrastructure was either already there or usable after (the Olympic stadium was sold to a football team). Generally the larger a city is, the better able it is to host an event like this for obvious reasons.
sofixa 3y ago
> It's the main counterexample to 'The Olympics are good because they force the development of infrastructure that otherwise wouldn't get built' argument. > Many of the weird choices about that airport was made so it would be open and useful for the 1976 Olympics. The location was closer to Montreal (but father from Ottawa) in part to make the international arrival experience better for the fans (not for the long-term users of the airport). The plan was 'International flights in time for the Olympics and Domestic flights a couple of years later' as a way to 'show off to the world.' That's just poor and short sighted planning, nothing specific for the Olympics. Paris for instance isn't making any such short term infrastructure decisions, only rushing to finish some stuff before the Olympics (e.g. line 14 to Orly, while failing others like line 15 South which was supposed to be ready but won't).
- bluGill 3y ago
  It is a common enough thing with the olympics to consider it specific to the olympics even though it hapbens elsewhere.

londons_explore 3y ago

"exceptionally poor planning" is common in big projects like this. As soon as the design/planning teams gets big enough that there are many people who barely know eachother, they start competing to the detriment of the whole... Nobody wants their part late/over budget, so they do things to screw other parts of the project just so their part isn't late or over budget.

bombcar 3y ago
You also have large groups of various entities brawling over it, and you end up with compromises - where compromise means nobody is happy about anything.

sofixa 3y ago

> Just to confirm, the new airport served pretty much only international flights Yes, they decided they'll try to do it like Paris with CDG and Orly, but fundamentally misunderstood the differences the traffic - Orly mostly serves tourist destinations or places where lots of people living and working in France have origins in such as Portugal and the Maghreb from where there will be limited amounts of changes to international flights; and Air France is abandoning Orly and focusing entirely on CDG because even the small opportunity misses aren't worth the extra costs. And both are well connected to the city they're serving, including to each other with the RER B (okay it takes 1h30m, but at least it's a mostly direct connection). And CDG even has high speed rail to other cities. Montreal isn't even close in terms of traffic patterns... and even if it was, the connectivity to Montreal (and ideally Ottawa) really wasn't there.

reaperducer 3y ago

Just to confirm, the new airport served pretty much only international flights? It was a pretty common urban planning concept for a large city to have one airport devoted mostly or entirely to domestic flights, and one mostly or entirely for international flights. New York domestic: EWR New York international: JFK New York freight: LGA Chicago domestic: MDW Chicago international: ORD Houston domestic: HOU Houston international: IAH Dallas domestic: LUV Dallas international: DFW Paris international: CGD Paris international: ORY Washington domestic: DCA Washington international: IAD Notice how some airports (IAD, IAH) specifically have "International Airport" in their codes. It worked fine for a very long time until the airlines optimized into the hub-and-spoke system we have today, where connecting flights has become normalized. Because people think now it's normal to have connecting flights all the time, the domestic airports have added international flights, and vice-versa. What was once orderly and predictable has become very messy, and had a number of other side-effects.

sumtechguy 3y ago
I too thought 'international' in the name meant something. Until I worked with a guy who was into gliders. They named the large empty grass field that you had to drive for an hour to get to an 'international' airport. It was basically just enough to get a very small airplane aloft with a glider attached. They thought it was funny they pulled it off.
- reaperducer 3y ago
  "International" in the name of an airport signifies that it is certified to receive international flights. I'm pointing out the use of "International" in airport codes, not names.
  - sumtechguy 3y ago
    you would think that.... This 'runway'/grass field was named an international. They thought it was funny to do. The naming group did not really seem to care all they cared about was the letter code was unique.