Convention benefit 'negligible,' study says

The Democratic National Convention produced a ''negligible" benefit of $14.8 million to Boston because traffic jams that would have drained the economy did not materialize, a study released yesterday said.

The amount is far less than the $154 million the Menino administration hoped the convention would bring in. But many people thought the city would lose money during the four-day event at the end of July after the Secret Service ordered the closure of highways leading into the city and near the FleetCenter for security reasons.

One of the biggest naysayers was the author of the study released yesterday, the Beacon Hill Institute of Suffolk University, which previously had been critical of political conventions as economic boons for the cities hosting them. The Institute had forecast that hosting the Democratic convention would end up costing the city's economy $8.2 million because massive traffic jams would result in a loss of productivity from stalled workers.

At a news conference, Mayor Thomas Menino came out swinging at the Institute and disputed its analysis. ''They predicted that we were going to lose money. In every report they put out they said we were going to lose money to this convention and now all of a sudden it's 15, 15 to 25 million dollars that we're going to have an increase in. Wow, that's a big difference for the city," Menino said. ''The Beacon Hill Institute doesn't know how to take their analysis and say, 'we made a mistake.' ''

David G. Tuerck, the Institute's executive director, said, if Menino ''wants to take credit for a generating a positive impact by scaring away tourists and commuters, then he's welcome to it."

The Institute, a public policy think tank that promotes free-market economics, estimated the convention generated $156.7 million of direct and indirect spending in the city, slightly more than Menino had first estimated. But those benefits were offset by nearly $142 million of lost business. That included $8.5 million less spending from absent commuters, $22.8 million from tourists who stayed away, and $110.6 million from the Sail Boston tall ships parade and a gymnastics tournament that changed their Boston plans because of the convention.

The study also said that delegates, press, and others who attended the convention spent $8.7 million less than previously believed, based on a survey of delegates conducted by the Boston Globe. The Globe survey found most attendees had less than $500 of out-of-pocket expenses.

Menino, meanwhile, said the Institute continued to inflate the loss of tourist spending from the cancellation of Sail Boston 2004. The Institute pegged the loss at $95.6 million. The city said the loss is actually $9 million.

Menino said the regatta would have only brought 10 ships to Boston for a short three-day stay, citing numbers from a January 2002 letter about the event addressed to him from Dusty S. Rhodes, chief executive officer of Conventures Inc., the event-planning company that helped organize the regatta. But in an interview yesterday, Rhodes insisted the event had grown and, had it been able to be held in Boston, would have drawn 18 to 19 ships over five days in mid-July. The Institute used Rhodes' estimate of the regatta size.

Menino also said the Institute underestimated the total scope of benefits. The city said it expects to issue its own updated analysis of the convention's economic impact next month.

During the convention, the roads in and around Boston were eerily empty amid warnings from government officials to stay away from the city. The number of commuters fell by about one-third, according to the state's Executive Office of Transportation. So instead of being stuck in epic traffic snarls, those workers used their time more productively by, for example, telecommuting from home.

''We find the damage was substantially less than would have occurred if the scare tactics had not worked," Tuerck said. ''The traffic tieups would have resulted in a loss in earnings or production that would have been a bigger impact than the amount of spending we did lose."

With the overall Boston economy at around $270 billion a year, the $14.8 million barely registers. But some convention boosters who've been involved in the back-and-forth over its economic pluses and minuses welcomed the Institute's most recent findings.

''It's at least comforting to know that even the sharpest critics say it a benefit in the short term," said Patrick B. Moscaritolo, president of the Greater Boston Convention & Visitors Bureau

Moscaritolo, like Menino, also said the positive image Boston generated by successfully handling such a large-scale event will yield significant though intangible benefits down the road in the form of additional tourism.

Andrew Caffrey can be reached at caffrey@globe.com.