Examination of Witnesses (Questions 199-219)
MR JIM
SLOMAN
26 OCTOBER 2005
Q199 Chairman: Good morning to the Committee
and the public. Can I say hello? I do not know whether Mr Sloman
can hear me after all of this, but our first witness is Mr Jim
Sloman. Can I greet him first? I hope, Mr Sloman, we are not going
to have to use semaphore. Can you hear me?
Mr Sloman: I can hear you.
Q200 Chairman: Wonderful.
Mr Sloman: There is a little delay.
Q201 Chairman: I shall try and be as
clear as possible.
Mr Sloman: Thank you.
Q202 Chairman: Can we begin by thanking
you for being prepared to talk to us. We really value your experience,
and I think what we are hoping is that you will be able to tell
us not just all the things that you did right, which we know about,
but some of the things that you feel you could have done a bit
better. This is a golden chance for Australia to get her own back
and give us some advice!
Mr Sloman: Thank you.
Q203 Chairman: Can I ask you to kick
off? How important was the transport system to the success of
the Olympics?
Mr Sloman: The transport system
was absolutely crucial to the success of the Olympics. Firstly,
you have to get the athletes to the event or you do not have an
event, and you have got to get them there on time or the television
sponsors, the people who provide the money to the Games for the
television rights, will not pay you: so it is crucial that you
get the athletes to the event. It is crucial you get the media
to the event, the broadcasters to the event, and at the end of
the day you must get the spectators to the event on time as well.
They are paying a lot of money for a unique experience, and this
is the first Olympic Games in London for 60 odd years, and they
will want to enjoy it and they will want to remember that experience
forever because they probably will not get it again in their lifetime,
so transport is a must have, it must work well, it is crucial
to the success of the Games.
Q204 Chairman: What was the key factor,
in your view, in relation to the transport system?
Mr Sloman: The key factor is planning
and then delivering the infrastructure and the support that is
needed to produce a transport system that works for all the different
constituents. That is not simple. London, in my view, is very
lucky in terms of the infrastructure it already has in place,
and it has a committed upgrading and extension of the system being
done over the next seven years which will, in my view, also give
you a platform that I do not think many Olympic Games have ever
had. The second part, though, is providing a transport system
for what is called the Olympic Family, which is the athletes,
the 10,000 odd athletes, the 20,000 accredited press, the VIPs,
the broadcasters, the sponsors and all those other people that
are such big contributors to the success of the Games. You have
got to get that right. That involves cars, it involved coaches
and buses and therefore it involves a lot of drivers. Those drivers
have to be recruited and trained and they have to know where they
are going, which was a big issue for us in the early days, and
it takes an enormous amount of planning, procurement, training,
etcetera, to make it all happen.
Q205 Chairman: How important was the
restriction on delivery times in Sydney?
Mr Sloman: I am not quite sure
what you mean. Delivery times in . . . .
Q206 Chairman: Deliveries of freight,
we were told, in the central business district were restricted
from one a.m. until ten a.m.?
Mr Sloman: Yes, that was correct,
because you could not clog the streets up, particularly in the
central business district, with people making delivering in the
middle of the day. Not only did we have the Olympics at the 40
odd venues that you need to put on the sporting events and to
support the games, we also had Olympic live-sites so that people
who could not get tickets could watch the Games on big screens.
We had those in the city, we had them on the harbour, we had them,
I think, in about seven different places throughout Sydney. Therefore,
we freed the streets up as best we could for spectators and people
who wanted to enjoy the absolute experience. I think one of the
great differences between Sydney and Athens, for example, was
that while the sport was fantastic at both events, Sydney created
an atmosphere and a party, if you like, that went with the Games,
and therefore all the people who could not get tickets or could
not afford tickets could experience the Olympics in their city,
and that was fantastic, and to do that you had to restrict movements
of traffic into the city at those crucial times. Also, delivery
times at Olympic Park itself, where we had the bulk of our Games,
were restricted in that we only delivered, we only restocked and
we only got rid of rubbish between midnight and six in the morning
for the same sorts of reasons: you cannot mix it all that with
spectators coming and going, or athletes coming and going, or
the media coming and going.
Chairman: My colleagues will want to
question you. We are beginning with Mrs Ellman.
Q207 Mrs Ellman: Mr Sloman, how much
new infrastructure was built for the Games?
Mr Sloman: I am sorry; I did not
quite get that.
Q208 Mrs Ellman: How much new infrastructure
was built for the Games?
Mr Sloman: Our Olympic Park was
probably a little bit more advanced than yours was at the time
we won the Games, because we built an aquatic centre and an athletic
centre, which became the warm-up track to the main stadium, during
the bid process to show the IOC how committed we were to the Games.
In an Olympic Park sense we are not that much different. We had
a lot to do over seven years; you have got a lot to do over seven
years. In terms of transport infrastructure, we built a new rail-link
into Olympic Park, and that was one of the real risks for our
Games because we only had one rail-link, you have got nine and
you have about to have ten into your Olympic Park, and if we had
lost our railway line we were in deep trouble because about 80%
of our spectators went on rail. We extended our airport, as Beijing
is doing at the moment. You are in a great position of having
Terminal Five at Heathrow finished in the next couple of years,
which will give you enormous . . . . You have got great capacity
anyway to deal with it, but you have got even more capacity to
deal with it now. We supplemented our road system, we put in what
is called the Eastern Distributor connecting the airport to the
city, and I think that was bringing forward an infrastructure
that probably would not have been built for another five years
had the Games not been coming to Sydney. We put in a bid of a
temporary infrastructure, as you will, because of the unique requirements
of an Olympic Games. You will never have the same sort of volume
and complexity of Olympic Park ever again. You will only have
it once. Therefore it makes a lot of sense to build temporary
stuff like car-parking, bus stations, those sorts of things, because
you will not need them again. We did all those sorts of pieces
of infrastructure.
Q209 Mrs Ellman: Did you have any major
cost over-runs?
Mr Sloman: There is no doubt that
our budget was inadequate at the time of the bid because not enough
work had been done. I think people have learnt from Sydney and
they have learnt from Athens, and I think, and I have been quoted
on this before, the planning that London has done, particularly
in a transport sense but also in a venue and infrastructure sense
generally, is incredibly advanced. Your transport planning today
is better than ours was three to four years out from the Games
itself. That gave a great base to be able to cost the cost of
that infrastructure and the services that are involved, and I
think your budget is possibly the best Olympic budget I have ever
seen at this stage.
Chairman: Please; I know you are a long
way away but do not push it. We are frightened of that kind of
statement!
Q210 Mrs Ellman: Have the games led to
long-term regeneration? Has there been long-term regeneration
in the area?
Mr Sloman: Again, similar circumstances
for our Olympic Park. It was a very old part of Sydney—it
used to be abattoirs, in fact, where the cattle and the sheep
were brought into the city and slaughtered and then distributed
to butchers shops, etcetera—obviously times have changed—and
there was a lot of industrial industry, etcetera, out there, so
you had a very similar circumstance to what is at Stratford today
in that you have got a whole area that needed regeneration, and
it was a great opportunity to do that. What Sydney has got out
of that is wonderful parklands on either side of a great sporting
park that the public can enjoy. It has also got a major residential
development that occurred, including what was the Olympic Village,
and that has all gone ahead wonderfully well. We have created
a whole new suburb of Sydney and we created a sporting infrastructure
and recreational infrastructure that I do not think would have
happened without this sort of catalyst.
Q211 Mr Clelland: Mr Sloman, you mentioned
earlier the lessons that can be learned from Sydney and from Athens.
Have you any specific lessons for us in terms of transport provision?
Were any mistakes made and how can we avoid them?
Mr Sloman: In terms of transport,
I think, looking back on it, we were lucky in terms of our railways.
We had a number of issues with rail in the years leading up to
the Games with derailments, and there was certainly a lot of media
speculation that the Olympics would be a disaster because our
transport system would fail. I would have preferred a lot better
back up to the rail system than we had, and, of course, the weather
went well for us. If I could recommend anything it is get the
weather right.
Mr Clelland: That is a bit more difficult
for us than it is for you, I think.
Q212 Mr Scott: Mr Sloman, how was the
security handled for the Sydney Olympics?
Mr Sloman: Probably not that much
different to the way it will be handled in London. Our Olympics
were before 9/11, exactly a year before 9/11, so we did not have
the added pressure of that occurring, and we certainly did not
have the pressure of the unfortunate things that happened in London
a few months ago, but we did have the background of 1972 in Munich
and the IOC, particularly, have been very, very conscious of the
security issues for ever. We had a huge security blanket, if you
like, across the Games, we had a lot of security checking of people
coming to the Games, and there were several people of significance,
some whom got publicity, who were not allowed into Australia for
the Games. We also did a lot of security checking. Clearly the
Olympic Village, where the incident had occurred in Munich, is
of particular focus and we also checked everyone going in and
out of every venue, so it was fairly unobtrusive—people
were used to it—vehicles were checked going in and out of
secure areas, and it was handled, I think, very subtlety and very
well. I think from what I have seen of London, and I lived there
for four years some time ago and have been there quite a bit recently,
the unobtrusive nature of security in the UK is a big advantage
for you in that sense.
Q213 Mr Leech: Paul Willoughby of the
Sydney Roads and Transport Authority said that one of the major
problems that he had to overcome was persuading people to get
out of their cars. "Australians are wedded to their cars",
I think is the way he puts it. How did you go about persuading
people to get out of their cars and onto public transport, and
as a result of the Games has there been any permanent change in
people's attitudes towards using public transport?
Mr Sloman: To answer the last
bit first, yes, there has been a dramatic change in people using
public transport to go to events. Before the Olympic Park at Homebush
was built where major events were generally held it was not well
serviced by public transport, so, yes, there was a tendency .
. . . I think it was an 80:20 split, private cars or private transport
verses public transport, before we won the games. When we went
out to Homebush and the infrastructure was in place the switch
went the other way, from 80% private to 80% public. Part of that
was done by not allowing people to take private transport close
enough to the events to be able to access them easily, and, second,
it was by providing a public transport service that was far better
than had ever been provided before, and we tested that. The stadium
opened for business 18 months before our Games, so we had a number
of events out there, and by combining event tickets with transport
tickets we were able to convince people as well to do it because
their hand would have gone in their pocket as well. There were
a number of initiatives that were taken to force people and to
encourage people to use public transport rather than try and drive
out to those events, but the structures that were put in place
for the test events over that 18 months period prior to the Games—Olympic
transport routes were put in place and bus services as well as
rail services were put in place—were used and were well-tested
by people. They were confident about the ability of the transport
system to deliver it, and since the Games people have continued
to use that sort of approach to go to major events here. The Rugby
World Cup obviously followed on not that long after our Games,
and it was exactly the same scenario with exactly the same sort
of success to the major events that were held in Sydney.
Q214 Mr Leech: Has the long-term increase
in public transport been specifically on railways or railways
and buses? Is it a combination of everything or is it just specifically
to one element of public transport?
Mr Sloman: It has been for both,
but it has only been for a bit, so I would not say it has encouraged
people overall to use public transport as a general method of
transport. Our public transport in Sydney, I have to say, does
not match yours in any way. That is probably quite obvious in
that you have four times the population and half the space, so
you have got a lot more people to deal with in terms of getting
from one place to another, and private transport in London does
not work as well as it does here generally, but in terms of getting
people to events, particularly where you have got a stadium, like
our main stadium, with 118,000 seats for the Games—it is
now 83,000 seats—getting those sorts of people in and out
in a short period of time requires that sort of public transport
support.
Q215 Mr Clelland: Could I ask about the
provision of information to the users of public transport during
the Games? Was information available in foreign languages?
Mr Sloman: From memory it was
only available in English and French, which are the two languages
you are required to provide for the IOC. What we did have, though,
was a very big language services division of the Organising Committee
which provided information particularly to the constituent groups,
and it provided people at venues, it provided people in the villages,
it provided people in the hotels that had a variety of language
capability. We also had a service where people could ring in and
get information in a variety of languages. So they had that issue.
It was covered that way. We also are a very cosmopolitan city.
We are a city basically of immigrants and we have a huge European
background and we now have a huge Asian background as well, so
we have a wide variety of people. I do not think we have people
speaking 300 languages, or 200 languages, as you have in London,
so we do not have the capability that you have even got in that
area here, but we provided a service that was more than adequate
in meeting the requirements of people that needed that sort of
help.
Q216 Mr Clelland: What about information
for people who might have visual problems and people who are disabled
in terms of transport and information? What was done there?
Mr Sloman: We did a huge job,
I think, in terms of providing assistance to people with disabilities.
We provided special parking, special access, at all the venues
for people who needed to be delivered there in a private sense
rather than in a public sense. All our buses here were disabled
friendly so that people in wheelchairs, whatever, could access
them easily. Similarly, it was very well communicated in terms
of what railway stations, etcetera, could be accessed by people
with disabilities. We provided a special service in Olympic Park
for people to get onto what was called a loop road and be provided
with access through the rear entrance of the stadiums, the venues,
if you like. People buying tickets had a special service as well
in that they were able to get one-on-one assistance when they
were seeking to buy tickets so that they knew where they could
sit with that sort of capability within the venues.
Q217 Mr Goodwill: Mr Sloman, we have
talked a lot about moving people around during the Olympics but
prior to the Olympics we are going to have to move a lot of concrete
and steel around the place. Did you experience any particular
problems during the construction phase that we could learn from?
Mr Sloman: I think the lesson
to be learned is that if there are other developments going on
in the same area, such as your Olympic Park, that the whole construction
effort ought to be coordinated so that logistically people are
moving equipment, resources, whether it is concrete, or reinforcing
steel, or structural steel, etcetera, in a very controlled and
programmed manner so that you do not get the sorts of potential
problems you may get in disrupting local people in their day-to-day
whatever they are doing. We were luckier, I think, in terms of
our Olympic Park in that it did not have as many people living
in the area around it that you have got at Stratford. I think
that it is a big issue in London, and I think it is an issue that
is being addressed and will be addressed and it will require a
lot of coordination between a lot of people.
Q218 Mr Goodwill: We were told last week
that the expectation was that a number of people who lived near
the Olympic site would take the opportunity to go away on holiday
and that would reduce the pressure on public transport and on
the infrastructure as a whole. I suppose this does happen to an
extent when Wimbledon is on, but I was rather dubious to hear
that. What is your experience? Did people hang around to attend
the Games or did they take the opportunity leave the area?
Mr Sloman: A lot of people did
leave Sydney. I think the area itself—I do not think we
have any records to tell us whether in the Olympic Park area people
. . . . I mean, in Sydney itself, a lot of people did leave Sydney.
I think when they saw the opening . . . . I remember talking to
some friends of mine who were in Europe at the time of the Opening
Ceremony and they could not get on a plane quick enough to get
back because they suddenly realised what they were missing. We
had our Olympics during our school holidays, during a period of
time when normally, because people take holidays, the transport
load is diminished in the city and generally that was the case:
by an understanding that public transport was the only way to
go to get to the event and by people being on holidays, people
took holidays. There was a very big campaign here dealing with
business. You talked a little bit about it earlier in terms of
changing the logistic agreements of business. Businesses were
encouraged to send people on holidays, to stagger the hours of
work, to do all sorts of things to make sure that we did not overload
the system, if you like, during the time of the games, and I think
that is a crucial part of it. Londoners, as I understand it, in
that period, because it is school holidays, it is your normal
summer holidays, the road use diminishes by 15 to 20%, of that
order, again, yes, if I was making a judgment, there will be more
people staying in London because of the Games so it might not
necessarily be 15 to 20%, but it will be enough to make it a lot
easier for you to handle the sort of requirements that are needed
to make the transport system work particularly for the athletes
and the media and the Olympic Family in general.
Q219 Graham Stringer: Following that
point up, Mr Sloman, do you have figures for bed occupancy in
hotels for 1999 compared to 2000?
Mr Sloman: Sorry?
|
