Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I'm sure to be criticized for this comment, but I'm surprised Chicago is getting flack about public transport when people are arguing in support of Minneapolis, which, while it has a nice light-rail system and some pretty buses, has no public transportation similar to the magnitude of Chicago's o_O Considering Atlanta hosted the games, I would suppose Chicago's transport system would be alright...? I'm also not sure Mpls would host a winter Olympics because of the lack of mountains or elevated terrain.
If Chicago didn't have a public transit system deemed ready for the Olympics--there's no way Seattle is going to be ready anytime soon. Portland isn't a viable contender for more than a few reasons--Minneapolis is probably a far longshot.
I don't think they totally go off of what's ready now. I think they go off of also probably budget and the likelihood of securing that budget. Again, the other cities have a lot more open land that they can use to easily expand their system. Here in Chicago, if you want to expand it within the city (outside of some of the already existing tracks used for commuter rails), then you have to purchase tons of land and force people out of their homes. You have to tear down all the structures there, rezone it, etc...or build underground which costs even more.
The problem is that the current system on every single line except one goes through the Loop, which is the CBD. It can get pretty packed as is during morning and evening commutes on some of the major lines since a few hundred thousand people work in the Loop every weekday, not to mention thousands of business visitors, tourists, and college students who go to school in the Loop. When the Cubs play, I actually plan my commute with regard to that because the trains get even more packed. That's only say 30,000 extra people per day. I can only imagine if hundreds of thousands or even millions of people were in town apart from everyone working.
The other cities have way more work to do, but here in Chicago, they need to do work to by pass the bottle neck of the Loop. A line along or near the lake would ease part of that burden really and also a line that connects some of the western neighbourhoods that aren't already connected via train. Thing is, they can do it at least for part of the city and I really wish they would do this. Unfortunately, I don't think the RTA actually owns this line. It's someone else
Why three letters to San Francisco, San Jose and Sacramento? I say hold it in the Bay Area and spread the events out from Sacto to SF, including Oakland, Berkeley, Stanford and San Jose. You could even use the events to spur a new stadium or two in Oakland, for the A's and/or Raiders.
I thought the same thing. This also works with other pairs of cities like Austin and San Antonio (this will not win) or with Washington and Baltimore, which I think would be an excellent choice. They are like 35 miles apart or so which seems like it would be easy to share the Olympics.
I'm sure to be criticized for this comment, but I'm surprised Chicago is getting flack about public transport when people are arguing in support of Minneapolis, which, while it has a nice light-rail system and some pretty buses, has no public transportation similar to the magnitude of Chicago's o_O Considering Atlanta hosted the games, I would suppose Chicago's transport system would be alright...? I'm also not sure Mpls would host a winter Olympics because of the lack of mountains or elevated terrain.
Yeah, there isn't a high enough mountain within several states of Minneapolis that could host an Olympic downhill.
This shows just how far Pittsburgh has come in the last 17 years. The USOC sent the city a letter of interest this year, but in 1996 it was by far the largest metropolitan area in the United States to be left out of the Olympic Torch Relay. It was the only metropolitan area with a 1990 Census population of 2,000,000+ to be excluded, and one of only two with populations of 1,000,000+ to be excluded (Virginia Beach/Norfolk). In fact, most of Pennsylvania was bypassed. Erie and Philadelphia were the only cities in Pennsylvania to even see it.
I'd love to see the Summer Olympics in Pittsburgh, but I think it'd be even better suited for the Winter Olympics.
It would have to be a city/metro with enough venues already in existence, because cities who invest in new structures to host the games usually go deeply into debt when doing so (see Montreal). I'd say New York, Los Angeles, and possibly Chicago as the only real candidates, with the SF Bay Area and DC/Baltimore as viable options if the respective cities can work together to host.
The Mayor of Indianapolis gave the ol' "thanks but no thanks" in response to the letter about the Olympics. Count us out.
Probably smart. The only thing worse than losing would be winning because the Olympic committee is gonna want the winner to spend a bazillion dollars on upgrades and infrastructure.
I forgot to vote for Detroit! I think the Olympics is just what that city needs to gain some prominence.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
